University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE NURTURANCE AND MONITORING
DIMENSIONS OF PARENTING, ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT, AND
ACCULTURATION IN THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO
COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Alina Aymara Hernandez

___________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)

Copyright 2009 Alina Aymara Hernandez
August 2009
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to all Latin American students who wish to
achieve academically and work toward that goal no matter how long it takes them.
May you have the courage to face the challenges that come from the culture, family
and institutions, knowing in your mind and heart that you are just as worthy as any
other student to have the opportunity to learn, excel, and contribute.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who helped me throughout
my academic journey. First of all, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung,
who graciously agreed to be my advisor after my previous chair took a position out
of state. I appreciate the time and effort she gave to this project, despite the fact that
she had a very full plate. I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation
committee, Dr. Darnell Cole and Dr. Giulio Ongaro. Dr. Cole provided meaningful
feedback, which helped me think more deeply about the constructs used in the study,
generating a new enthusiasm for these topics. And, Dr. Ongaro’s kindness and
generosity with his time made it possible for me to defend this dissertation in time to
graduate in Spring. In addition, I am very grateful to Dr. Yuying Tsong for her
assistance with the statistical analyses. Her keen mind and friendliness made sorting
through the data an enjoyable process.
Apart from those mentioned above, there are two individuals without whose
support, this dissertation process would have not succeeded. Words cannot express
the heartfelt gratitude that I have for Dr. Julena Lind and Dianne Morris. Dr. Lind
helped me grow as a human being, in a true “Authoritative” style. She restored my
faith in my own abilities and offered invaluable guidance, I will treasure her caring
actions for as long as I live. I hope I can be as effective with my students as you
were with me. You’ve been a true inspiration! I am also grateful to Dianne Morris,
who took care of the administrative maze so I could have a second opportunity at
iv
completing my doctorate. Her diligent and conscientious work made all the
difference. I’ll never forget your kindness!
Of course, my family provided moral support all along. My mother, Amalia
Sanz de Hernandez and my father Miguel Hernandez gave up their own
accomplished lives in Cuba so my brothers and I could have a better future in the
United States. They believed in the American dream and urged us to work hard for
our goals, even if they didn’t know exactly how we would go about doing it. They
always believed in my abilities, and encouraged me to achieve my academic dreams.
My brothers, Miguel A. and Armando have confirmed all along that love is action,
especially this past year, when they took on much of my share of caretaking for my
mother so I could devote more time to the dissertation. I couldn’t have asked for
better brothers, or friends!
I am also very grateful to my supervisor, Tom Mauch, Dean of Counseling
and Matriculation. He allowed me some flexibility in my schedule, so I could work
on this project. I’m looking forward to being an even better counselor as a result of
this dissertation! My most sincere thanks go to my dear friends Claudia Cruz
Vazquez, Dr. Kristi Kanel, and Dr. Renee Andrade who have provided much support
and encouragement all along. And, certainly, I can’t even begin to thank the love of
my life, Ubaldo M. Rodriguez, for his patience and help this past year. His loving
support made all the difference, whether preparing great meals, helping with errands
or making me laugh, I couldn’t have asked for a better partner during this
challenging time. My cup runneth over...! Of course, acknowledgements would not
v
be complete without a special thank you to the members of the Mt. San Antonio
College faculty who collaborated in this study by allowing their students to take the
surveys and gave extra credit for their participation, most especially, George Martin.
He facilitated the process by expediting the paperwork for approval and by
communicating a genuine interest in the study to his students. Above all, it is the
students who participated to whom I am most grateful. I truly appreciate the time
and care you devoted to answering the questionnaires. To all of you, thank you! I
will never forget your contribution to this achievement!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Literature Review 14
Chapter 3. Methodology 39
Chapter 4. Results 49
Chapter 5. Discussion 55
References 70
Appendix A. Letter to Faculty 85
Appendix B. Informed Consent and Student Information 86
Appendix C. Perception of Family Socialization Style Inventory (PFSSI) 93
Appendix D. Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQ III) 99
Appendix E. Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans II 110
(ARSMA II)
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Educational Attainment by Race and Ethnicity: 2006 2
Table 3-1. Demographic Information of Participants 39
Table 3-2. Reliability Scores for the Nurturance and Monitoring Dimensions 42
of the PFSSQ

Table 3-3. Reliabilities for SDQ-III Subscales 43
Table 3-4. ARSMA-II: Cutting Scores Used in Determining Acculturation 45
Levels

Table 4-1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Pearson Project 50
Correlations for Measured Variables

Table 4-2. Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Parenting Dimensions 51
and GPA

Table 4-3. Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Parenting Dimensions and 52
Academic Self-Concept

Table 4-4. Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Academic Self-Concept 53
and Achievement (GPA)

Table 4-5. Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Acculturation, Academic 54
Self-Concept, and Achievement (GPA)
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Multidimensional and Hierarchical Model of Self-Concept (Byrne 7
and Shavelson, 1986)

Figure 2. Baumrind's Model of Parenting Styles as the Interaction of the 9
Nurturance and Control Dimensions
ix
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the relationship of Baumrind’s (1971) parenting
dimensions (Nurturance/warmth and Monitoring/control), Academic Self-concept
(ASC), and acculturation with GPA in a sample of Latino community college
students (N=148). The participants were of Mexican or Mexican American
ethnicity, 51.4% of whom were second (i.e., participants were first in the family to
be born in the United States) and 32.6% third and above generations (i.e. both
participants and their parents were born in the United States).
Results showed that the separate Parenting dimensions were not significant
predictors of GPA. However, as shown by previous research, GPA’s strongest
predictor was ASC, accounting for 10.1% of the variance in GPA. Acculturation
moderated this effect, lowering the variance percentage to 7%. At the same time,
ASC’s highest predictor (in a negative way) was Fathers’ Monitoring/control. The
fact that high monitoring in fathers predicted lower ASC, partially supports the
application of Baumrind’s (1971) parenting dimensions to Latinos of Mexican
American extraction. Although not examined through path analysis, the connections
from Monitoring to ASC, and from ASC to GPA, seem worthy of future
investigation through Structural Equation Modeling techniques. Finally, these
findings reiterate the importance of including acculturation measures in academic
achievement studies of members of the Latino community.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Social mobility involves the attainment of higher levels of occupational status
and income. It also tends to follow a postsecondary education in modern America.
In fact, a bachelor’s degree has served as a “passport to the American middle class”
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 388), because it gives individuals entry to a life of
twice as many opportunities and salaries than those with only a high school diploma.
Colleges and universities--as degree granting institutions--play a key role in
the realization of that upward social move. Degrees are granted to those students
who successfully meet academic standards, having prepared for college work, and
then followed with persistence and diligent work to produce the necessary good
grades.
Academic Achievement in Latino/a Students
Unfortunately, baccalaureate degrees have not been granted equally in
America. Members of the Latino/a, African-American, and Native-American
populations have been underrepresented in the college graduate sector of our society,
a consequence of low rates of academic preparation, enrollment, and persistence in
their postsecondary education. In several key states --California, New York,
Arizona, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois-- for the period between 1996 and
2001, Latino/a undergraduates were half as likely as their white and Asian peers on
campus to complete a bachelor’s degree. Not surprisingly, Latinos are 2½ times
more likely to be poor than whites and Asians. (Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004, Pew

2
Hispanic Center, 2008). Table 1-1 illustrates the statistical profile for different
races/ethnic groups in 2006 based on education (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008).
Table 1-1. Educational Attainment by Race and Ethnicity: 2006

< 9th Grade 9th to 12th
Grade
High School
Grade
Some College College
Graduate
Total
HI SPA NI C S 5,738,143 3,813,145 6,779,109 4,781,159 2,951,657 24,063,213
Native Born 983,024 1,470,642 3,196,529 2,878,673 1,542,190 10,071,058
Foreign Bo r n 4,755,119 2,342,503 3,582,580 1,902,486 1,409,467 13,992,155
WHITE 4,777,330 10,556,940 42,337,870 38,978,190 41,170,70 137,821,05
BLACK 1,273,319 3,149,062 7,375,194 6,157,453 3,640,639 21,595,667
ASIAN 735,434 528,794 1,536,855 1,651,499 4,381,969 8,834,551
OTHER 220,427 408,983 1,333,036 1,159,600 744,334 3,366,380
TOTAL 12,744,653 18,456,926 59,162,070 52,727,909 52,889,308 195,980,866

This dismal pattern of educational and financial underachievement of the
Latino population has alarming repercussions, considering the fact that Latinos will
account for 29% of the U.S. population --the largest ethnic group-- by 2050
(California Commission on Post-secondary Education, 2008; President’s Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 2003). Efforts to
promote and support Latino/a students academic achievement have resulted in a
large number of studies, addressing factors from many different disciplines.
Many studies have addressed factors involved in Latino/a students’ lack of
aspirations to attend and plan for a postsecondary education (Fry, 2004). Other
studies have examined the factors involved in Latino/a students low attendance and
completion of their college program, such as motivation, persistence and work habits
(Astin, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). And, more recently, longitudinal
studies have underlined the importance of the college environment itself, and its

3
impact on these students’ intellectual self-concept, such as faculty involvement
through meaningful interactions with the students in class or at student-related
functions (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cole 2007).
Many more studies have addressed cultural and economic factors as the
common culprits for Latino/a students’ low completion rates of postsecondary
degrees. Some cultural variables associated with Latinos leaving college speak to
gender differences, such as different parental expectations of young adults,
especially based on gender. That is, the different standards Latino/a parents have of
their daughters and sons after they graduate from high school. Traditionally, young
women have been encouraged to get married, according to catholic standards of
chastity. Young men have been expected to start working after high school, to instill
in them a strong work ethic and maturity. Although parents’ expectations may
change as they acculturate and adopt American values with their educational
expectations, they continue to expect both sons and daughters to live at home while
attending college (Fry, 2004). In fact, Fry (2004) found this expectation of parents to
keep their children at home while attending college as the most significant reason for
capable and talented Latino/a students opting for local community colleges or the
closest open entry universities, instead of pursuing more highly selective
universities, thus denying themselves the benefits associated with attending such
institutions.
Financial need has been another common factor for Latino/a students not
pursuing a college education or attending college on a part-time basis. Having to

4
work for their own support while attending college, and/or to contribute to their
families’ income, it usually takes young Latinos twice as long to obtain their degrees
than their white counterparts (Pew, 2004). Also related to the Latino population’s
low socioeconomic status, are those variables related to being the first in their
families to attend college, such as inadequate parental guidance, lack of assistance
with their studies, and/or limited or lack of support for extracurricular activities, such
as involvement in sports or debate teams (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000; Swail et al.
2004; California Commission on Post-secondary Education, 2008).
But of all the many factors associated with Latino/a students’ low academic
achievement at the post secondary level, the most prevalent has been lack of
academic preparation, having spent their years in high school taking courses for the
non-college bound (Pew, 2004). Therefore, efforts from colleges and universities to
promote achievement in these students have focused on remediation. Thus,
underprepared students are placed in remedial English, mathematics, and other basic
skills courses before being allowed to enroll in college courses (Swail et al., 2004).
Such remedy, however, has not been curative. When students are placed in
remedial courses instead of the anticipated college courses, they face an automatic
extension to the number of years required to complete their degree. Confronted by
such a challenge, they often question their academic ability. Unfortunately, before
the answer can reach them, 30% of Latinos abandon their college aspirations (Swail
et al., 2004).
Self-Concept and College Achievement

5
The decision to face challenges in order to pursue one’s aspirations was
defined as self-esteem

by William James (1890). He stated:
The achievement of one’s aspirations and values has an essential role
in determining whether we regard ourselves favorably or not. Our
accomplishments are measured against our own aspirations for any
given area of behavior. If achievement approaches or meets
aspirations in a valued area, then the result is high self-esteem. If
there is wide divergence, then we regard ourselves poorly. Our self-
feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be
and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed
potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator,
and the numerator our success; thus self–esteem = success
/pretensions. (James, 1980, p. 296)

Inspired by James, G. H. Mead (1934) formulated self-esteem as the mirror
of others’ esteem. Mead believed that self-esteem resulted when the individual
internalized the ideas and attitudes expressed by the key figures in her life (i.e.,
usually the parents), observing their actions and attitudes, adopting them (often
unknowingly), and expressing them as her own.

James’ and Mead’s assumptions that competence was related to self-esteem,
which in turn, reflected the parents’ image of the child’s capabilities, generated
seminal work in self-esteem and its correlates. Stanley Coopersmith (1969)
conducted an impressive study to examine the antecedents of self-esteem.
Employing subjective tests, interviews, and behavioral observations of preadolescent
boys and their mothers, his findings supported his predecessors’ in the definition of
self-esteem as “an attitude of approval or disapproval, indicating the extent to which
an individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful, and worthy. [It
is] the relatively enduring evaluative attitudes an individual holds toward himself as

6
an object...carrying affective loadings and [having] motivational consequences”
(Coopersmith, 1969, pp. 6-7).
Coopersmith’s data gave additional support to James’ and Mead’s
assumptions that individuals with higher self-esteem were more competent, happier,
and more likely to face challenges appropriately than those with lesser levels of self-
esteem. Following Coopersmith’s study, self-esteem as a concept became extensively
researched. Other constructs, such as self-concept and self-adequacy were
introduced, along with many confounding elements.
Wylie (1979) extensively reviewed the available research on self-concept,
which resulted in the establishment of standards for subsequent work in this field.
With these guidelines, Shavelson and Marsh (1986) derived validation for their
previously developed self-concept construct (Shavelson & Bolus, 1976). Byrne,
Shavelson, and Marsh (1986), in various collaborations, continued to refine their
model of self-concept, and defined it by seven critical features:
1) It is organized or structured, in that people categorize the vast
amount of information they have about themselves and relate the
categories to another. (2) It is multifaceted, and the particular facets
reflect the category system adopted by a particular individual and/or
shared by a group. (3) It is hierarchical, with perceptions of behavior
at the base moving to inferences about self in subareas (e.g.,
academic-English, history), then to inferences about self in academic
and nonacademic areas, and then to inferences about self in general.
(4) General self-concept is stable, but as one descends the hierarchy,
self-concept becomes increasingly situation specific and, as a
consequence, less stable. (5) Self-concept becomes increasingly
multifaceted as the individual develops from infancy to adulthood. (6)
It has both a descriptive and an evaluative dimension, such that
individuals may describe themselves (e.g., I am happy) and evaluate
themselves (e.g., I do well in school). And, (7) it can be differentiated

7
from other constructs, such as academic achievement. (Shavelson &
Marsh, 1986, p. 257)

Figure 1. Multidimensional and Hierarchical Model of Self-Concept (Byrne &
Shavelson, 1986)

The relationship between self-concept and academic achievement was
specifically analyzed through a series of causal modeling strategies, revealing a
causal nature of self-concept over academic achievement (Shavelson & Bolus,
1982). However, more recently, the direction of causality has been questioned, as
data have shown that academic achievement can have predominance over self-
concept as well. Known as the reciprocal effects model of self-concept, it refers to
the fact that changes in self-concept (i.e., academic self-concept) generate changes in
achievement, and vice versa (Byrne, 1996; Marsh & Yeung, 1997). Given this
reciprocal relationship between self-concept and academic achievement, it follows

8
that both concepts need to be better understood, including the variables affecting
each one.
Self-concept and Parenting Styles
Research has generated a consistent picture of the home environment
associated with high and low levels of self-esteem. A high level of personal esteem
or higher self-concept tends to originate in a home in which parents provide
acceptance, respect, and warmth, as well as clearly defined expectations and limits
(Coopersmith, 1969). This pattern of parenting was also associated with academic
competence (Baumrind, 1989; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1989).
Baumrind (1971) classified this type of parenting as Authoritative, and described it
as a combination of high level of responsiveness or nurturance with a high level of
demandingness or monitoring.
According to Baumrind (1967, 1975) parents who were capable of balancing
warmth, control, and high demands with clear communication about what they
expected of their child consistently, promoted social and academic competence in
their children. Baumrind referred to this style of parenting as authoritative. In
essence, these parents “showed acceptance and respect for the child, maintained
good lines of communication with them, set clear and firm rules and standards,
expected mature behavior from the child, and encouraged the child’s independence.
They fostered verbal interaction with their child while being mindful of their own as
well as their children’s rights” (Baumrind, 1975, p. 275).

9
Conversely, lower competence was associated with the authoritarian
(characterized by excessive control, with low responsiveness), and the permissive
(characterized by excessive nurturance with low control) styles, respectively. A
fourth style (characterized by low nurturance and low control, or inconsistent
amounts of either) was identified as Neglectful. This parenting style is associated
with the lowest levels of self-esteem and competence (Coopersmith, 1967; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983; Baumrind, 1991a, b).

Figure 2. Baumrind’s Model of Parenting Styles as the Interaction of the Nurturance
and Control Dimensions

10
Cultural aspects of parenting
However, Baumrind’s dimensions of parenting seem to apply primarily to the
Anglo American population. For example, Dornbush et al. (1987) found that the
high academic performance of students from Asian populations could not be
explained using Baumrind’s (1971) parenting framework, given the fact that they
rate their parents as authoritarian instead of the ideal authoritative style. Chao’s
(1994) study served to explain this paradox.
In her study, 50 Chinese and 50 European American mothers of preschool
children were asked to describe their parenting practices based on a series of
questions based on both Baumrind’s parenting styles, as well as on the Asian
parenting practices of “training” (p. 1114) and “governing” (p. 1118) practices based
on Confucian principles. These principles are practiced, however, not from a a cold
and uncaring context, but rather from feelings of concern and love for their offspring.
The study’s results showed that the Chinese mothers scored highly on both
Baumrind’s Authoritarian style and on the Asian parenting instrument, which served
to validate Chao’s (1994) hypothesis that Asian children perceive descriptions of
authoritarian parenting not as European Americans do (i.e., negative, restrictive), but
positive, coming from a cultural context where training and governing, are
expressions of parental caring . Therefore, using Baumrind's parenting framework
with the Asian population fails to capture essential cultural elements.
Moreover, recent international data (Ciairano, Kliewer, Bonino, and Bosma,
2008) on the cultural applications of Baumrind’s parenting styles revealed that the

11
separate components -- nurturance and control-- are perceived and expressed
differently in different cultures. Their study, conducted with students of the Dutch
and Italian cultures, in their respective geographic areas, revealed that “while the
benefits of parental support transcend culture. . .the effects of control [are] culture
specific...and usually negative" (pp. 112-114).
Data on Baumrind’s parenting styles with members of the Latino community
also have generated results different from those expected based on the literature. For
example, findings from an observational study of predominantly lower-class mothers
and their young children indicated that there were fewer permissive Mexican-
American mothers, and that authoritative and authoritarian mothers were about equal
in number (Martinez, 1988). Although the expectations were that permissive and
authoritarian styles would be the majority in this sample, (given the stereotypes), the
high frequency of the authoritative style (more typical of middle class Anglo-
Americans) was confounding (Martinez, 1988).
Studies on the parenting practices of the Latino community do not abound.
Not only that, but when Latino participants have been included in studies along with
members of other ethnicities, there has been limited information regarding the
homogeneity of their sample. Latinos in the Unites States are heterogeneous in
nature. As an ethnic group, it includes members from different countries,
socioeconomic status, and levels of acculturation. Therefore, if researchers do not
classify Latinos in their studies based on their established acculturation differences,
then the results may be obscured (Barry, 1980; Trimble, 1996)

12
Acculturation
Acculturation refers to some of the elements defining members of a group,
such as generational history, national background, and those demographic
characteristics that may be of relevance for a given study, such as poverty level,
educational attainment, and migration history. According to Trimble (1996), a
proper measure of people’s ethnicity becomes essential in order to understand
properly the psychological makeup and behavior of the members of ethnic groups.
Overview of the Study
As the efforts to increase the achievement level of underrepresented minority
students in college meet with inconsistent results, it seems relevant to study
achievement variables in these populations. This study was conducted to explore the
relationship of Academic Self-concept, Baumrind’s parenting styles, and
acculturation to the academic achievement of Latino college students.
Organization of the Study
Following this introduction of the major theoretical concepts that generated
the above research questions, Chapter 2 will provide a more thorough review of the
literature on each topic. Chapter 3 will follow, with a discussion of the methods and
procedures used to collect and analyze the data. Chapter 4 will present the results of
the data analysis. And, finally, Chapter 5 will provide a discussion of the results,
concluding remarks, and suggestions for future research.

13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter addresses the major theoretical frameworks which guided this
study of academic achievement in Latino college students. Specifically, it includes
relevant findings in the area of academic achievement, such as self-concept and
parenting styles. In addition, it will discuss the concept of acculturation, given its
role in the psychological and social development of members of any ethnic group,
and its expected relationship with each of the variables involved.
College Achievement and Latinos
A postsecondary education in modern America has been the key to financial
and social progress, and the foundation for intergenerational social mobility
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1990). Individuals with a bachelor’s degree have an
opportunity to earn as much as double what a high school graduate earns over a
lifetime; those with professional degrees even more (Pew, 2004).
However, the low number of Latinos receiving postsecondary degrees –and
reaching middle class status-- has raised much concern (President's Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 2003). According
to the Educational Policy Institute’s extensive report, Latino Youth and the Pathway
to College (2004), [Latinos’] road to success has more bumps, barriers, and detours
than for most other students” (Swail, Cabrera & Lee, 2004, p. 12). Only 23 percent
of Latinos who start at a four-year college or university and 18 percent of those who
transfer from community colleges complete a bachelor’s degree. Swail et al.’s

14
(2004) report was based on data generated by the National Educational Longitudinal
Study (NELS), which began in 1988 with 1000 eighth grade students who were
surveyed several times through 2000, eight years after the participants’ scheduled
high school graduation. Their report outlined the pathway to and through
postsecondary education for Latinos and other students, highlighting a number of
variables involved in the participants’ achievement. The authors found that students
historically underrepresented at the postsecondary level --students of color, those
from low-income backgrounds, and first-generation students—fall behind in
preparation, enrollment, and persistence in post-secondary education. In fact, of the
1000 Latinos in their sample, only 277 were considered qualified for postsecondary
education after high school; 166 were considered minimally qualified, and 557 were
considered not qualified for postsecondary education. In comparison, 474 White
students were qualified, 136 minimally qualified, and 390 not-qualified (Swail et al.,
2004).
With regard to enrollment, the above study reported that, of the original
eighth-grade cohort, only 22.1 percent of Latinos enrolled in a four year institution,
compared to 40.8 percent of their White (40.8) counterparts. Latinos enrolled at a
much higher rate, 40 percent, at the two-year schools than other groups (32.3
percent).
Their study’s ultimate findings spoke to completion of degrees. Almost two
thirds (64 percent) of Latinos who entered postsecondary education did not receive a

15
degree by 2000; only 23.2 percent received a bachelor’s degree and 12.8 percent a
certificate or associate’s degree (Swail et al., 2004).
The NELS report (1988-2000, 2003) concluded their report by saying that
although "the road to success for Latino students has more bumps, barriers, and
detours than for most other students, the road still exists...[but] it requires motivation,
a plan of action and a willingness and need to act on one's intentions, and perhaps
most importantly, a support from system of family, friends and teachers to help them
reach toward their goal" (p. 402). These researchers encapsulation of Latinos'
predicament in the post-secondary arena resonates with known theories of academic
success.
Ratcliff (1991) and Tinto (1993) have classified two basic factors involved in
students attainment of a college degree: (1) individual variables, which include
confidence in their intellectual ability, setting high educational and occupational
goals for themselves and the belief that they have the ability to meet these goals.
And, (2) interactional factors, relating to the experiences after entering college, such
as the availability of support in relationships with faculty, peers and significant
members of the college or university staff.
Boulter (2002), examined both individual and interactional factors in her
study of academic adjustment (measured by grades) in first year college students.
The individual factors were measured using a multidimensional model of self-
concept that included twelve domains, plus a global measure of self-worth.
Interactional variables assessed social support in five domains. Self-perception of

16
intellectual ability and instructors' support were the predictors. Boulter's (2002)
findings supported Ratcliff's (1991) and Tinto's (1993) data, identifying students'
self-concept in the academic ability domain as the most significant predictor of
achievement, followed by students' perception of faculty as concerned for their
success.
Although Boulter's study did not include a culturally diverse sample, Anaya
and Cole (2004) in their study of Latino/a students, and more recently, Cole's (2007)
study of African-American college students, concurred in their findings. Both
studies, Anaya et al.'s (2004) and Cole's (2007) used large samples with a
longitudinal design, investigated the importance of interactions --between students
and faculty members, as well as interactions with peers and other college staff—to
college achievement. Their results strongly supported previous findings that
faculty's interactions with students support students' achievement in college,
especially as a conduit for intellectual self-concept.
Self-concept and Achievement
Broadly defined, self-concept is a person's perceptions of him- or herself.
These perceptions tend to be the result of one's subjective experience with the
environment, which in turn, is influenced by reinforcements, evaluations by
significant others, and one's attributions for one's own behavior (Shavelson et al.,
1976).

Bandura (1977) referred to it as "self-efficacy" describing it as “the
expectations about one's self and one's efficacy in performing particular tasks,
[which] mediate behavior outcomes” (p. 194). He proposed that

individuals tend to

17
ask themselves two questions as they approach any performance challenge: “What
behavior will it require to accomplish this task?” and, “Do I have the ability to
perform those behaviors?” (p.194). The answer (which their own perceptions provide
regarding their own effectiveness) will affect whether they will even attempt the task
or, having begun, persist when difficulties arise. In fact, individuals' perceived self-
efficacy tends to influence the choice of activities and settings, and (through
expectations of eventual success) it can affect coping efforts once they are initiated.
These efforts will become stronger and more active relative to the strength of their
perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Bandura’s (1977) formulations in behavioral terms echoed what William
James (1890) had theorized much earlier. James had stated that “our self-feeling in
the world [depended] entirely on what we backed ourselves to be and do...our
achievements are measured against our aspirations for any given area of behavior. If
achievement approaches or meets aspirations in a valued area, then the result is high
self-esteem. If there is wide divergence, then we regard ourselves poorly”(p. 296).
James (1890) also postulated the concept of selves, including a social self,
which developed from society’s appraisals of him or her. Cooley (1902) expanded
that concept to what came to be known as the "looking-glass self" theory of self-
esteem. He thought “individuals learned to define themselves by their perceptions of
the way others defined them, so the self was a mirror image or a looking glass self”
(p. 152).

18
Cooley's looking-glass self was extended by Mead (1934). According to
Mead, it was through social interaction that individuals came to see themselves the
way in which others saw them. And it was through this socialization process that
people learned values about all other aspects of the world, which also applied to the
ways in which they saw themselves. Mead (1934) believed self-esteem resulted
when the individual “internalize[d] the ideas and attitudes expressed by the key
figures in his [her] life. . . observing their actions and attitudes, adopting them (often
unknowingly), and expressing them as his own. . . he values himself as they regard
and value him and demeans himself to the extent that they reject, ignore or demean
him" (in Strauss, 1964, p. 205).
This conceptualization of self-esteem following developmental learning lines
was continued by Allport (1961). He postulated that “propriate striving or a sense of
purpose, knowing where one wants to go in life was the final task in the
developmental maturation of the aspects of the self” (Allport, 1961, p.128).
Allport’s contributions on the developmental context of self-esteem served to
enhance the existing wealth of theoretical work. However, there had been no
substantial empirical studies. It was Diana Baumrind (1963), Morris Rosenberg
(1965), and Stanley Coopersmith (1969) who helped define self-esteem empirically
and set standards for the investigation of its correlates. Their work generated much
research in many disciplines. The concepts self-esteem, self-concept, self-worth, and
the like were being used interchangeably, and measured inconsistently.

19
Consequently, these methodological approaches raised concerns regarding the
reliability of results.
Ruth Wylie (1974, 1979), comprehensively reviewed the measurement of
self-esteem and its relationship to theory. Her reviews resulted in conscientious
efforts from researchers to correct and improve the measurement of self-esteem,
which was now being referred to as self-concept. Following Wylie’s
recommendations, Shavelson and colleagues (1976), proposed one of the first
models of self-concept capable of being tested empirically. Drawing from theories
by James (1892) and Cooley (1902), their model of self-concept portrays a structure
that is multidimensional in structure, and exhibiting a hierarchy based on
developmental variables (Figure 1).
The most important components of this model of self-concept is that (1) it is
learned, from one’s own experience and significant others’ attributions; (2)
multidimensional and organized, according to areas of endeavor or performance,
including a general category as well as more specific areas such as physical or
academic (with its respective subareas such as english or mathematics self-
concepts); (3) hierarchical, in that general self-concept is at the apex and descending
to academic SC, and then to subject-specific self-concepts, which can be
distinguished from grades in those academic subjects (such as English and
mathematics). Finally, the next important element of this self-concept construct is
that it is (4) dynamic, having the ability to change as a result of more recent and
convincing information (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986).

20
The multidimensional hierarchical structure of this model of self-concept has
facilitated research using more sophisticated statistical methods, such as causal
modeling. Using such techniques, Marsh (1990) explored the relationship between
self-concept and achievement. In fact, he wished to test the causal nature of self-
concept over achievement, which his results showed, with the largest and most
significant paths emerging from prior academic self-concept to subsequent school
grades.
More recently, however, Byrne (1996), and Marsh and Yeung (1997) among
others, have found support for reciprocal effects. They tested the causal ordering of
academic self-concept and academic achievement with four waves of data (last 3
years of high school and 1 year after graduation) based on standardized test scores,
school grades, and academic self-concept. Their data showed that there is consistent
support for a reciprocal effects model, whereby changes in academic self-concept
impact on achievement and vice versa. However, the strongest path continues to be
the one from academic self-concept to achievement (Marsh & Yeung (1997).
This close relationship between self-concept and achievement had been
reported earlier by Coopersmith (1969). Using as methodology subjective tests,
interviews, and behavioral observations of thousands of preadolescent boys and their
mothers, his findings showed that individuals with higher self-concept were more
competent and more likely to face challenges appropriately than those with lesser
levels of self-esteem.

21
Parenting Styles and Achievement
More importantly, Coopersmith’s results generated a consistent picture of the
home environment associated with high and low levels of self-esteem. Higher levels
of self-concept originated in a home in which parents provided acceptance, respect,
and warmth, as well as clearly defined expectations and limits. Similar findings had
been reported earlier by Baumrind’s (1963) from observational studies of parents of
preschoolers. According to Baumrind (1975) parents who were capable of
balancing warmth, control, and high demands with clear communication about what
they expected of their child consistently, promoted social and academic competence
in their children. Baumrind referred to this style of parenting as authoritative. In
essence, “these parents showed acceptance and respect for the child, maintained
good lines of communication with them, set clear and firm rules and standards,
expected mature behavior from the child, and encouraged the child’s independence.
They fostered verbal interaction with their child while being mindful of their own as
well as their children’s rights” (Baumrind, 1975, p. 275).
In contrast, lower competence was associated with specific types of
parenting. Baumrind referred to those parenting styles as authoritarian and
permissive, respectively. Authoritarian parents have been characterized as directive,
but not responsive, and having high control, but low warmth. On the other hand,
permissive parents have been described as more responsive than they are demanding,
having low control, but high warmth.

22
Still, the least competent children seemed to be those whose parents offered
neither sufficient warmth/responsiveness nor control/demandingness. Coopersmith
(1967) had referred to them as indifferent, and Maccoby and Martin (1983) described
them as Permissive Neglectful.
Using Baumrind’s (1971) and Maccoby et al.’s (1983) classifications of
parenting styles, Dornbush, Liederman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) found that in
fact, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were negatively associated with
grades. Using a large and ethnically diverse sample of high school students,
Dornbush et al. (1987) generated much support for Baumrind’s hypotheses. In fact,
these authors found that those students from “purely Authoritative parents” (i.e. high
on authoritative but low on authoritarianism and permissiveness) had the highest
mean grades, while students from inconsistent families (which combined
authoritarian and permissive styles) had the lowest grades. Overall, these styles were
found to be stable in their effects across parental education, gender, and family
structure categories (i.e. natural parents, step-parents, and single parents) (Dornbusch
et al., 1987), a fact that generated much theoretical speculation.
Baumrind’s (1989, 1991 a) rationale for the positive relationship between the
Authoritative style of parenting and children’s grades spoke to these parents’ ability
to provide emotional support, high standards, appropriate autonomy granting, and
clear, bidirectional communication, which are attributes and behaviors known to
help children and adolescents develop competence in balancing societal and
individual needs and responsibilities. Children and adolescents raised by

23
authoritative parents have been described as responsible, independent, cooperative
with adults and peers, psychosocially mature, and academically successful
(Baumrind, 1989, 1991a).
In order to test empirically Baumrind’s (1989) explanations for the
relationship between authoritative parenting and academic success, Steinberg, Elmen
and Mounts (1989) conducted a study with adolescents. Specifically, Steinberg et al.
wished to test the hypothesis that authoritative parenting led to academic success,
and not the other way around. They described authoritative parenting as combining
both parental responsiveness and parental demandingness, a high degree of warmth
and acceptance, and a high degree of democracy or psychological autonomy, and a
high degree of behavioral control. They proposed that each of these components of
authoritativeness would contribute to adolescents’ school performance because they
facilitated psychosocial maturity in the children, which led to autonomy. The more
autonomous the students, the better their performance in school, and vice versa,
students with lower grades would be less autonomous. Their results gave ample
support to their hypotheses, as authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were
negatively associated with grades in their high school students (Steinberg et al.,
1989).
This relationship between academic competence in children and adolescents
and Baumrind's authoritative parenting style has been studied across ethnic groups,
with varying results. In fact, authoritative parenting seems to be most strongly
associated with academic achievement among European-American adolescents, but

24
not effective in predicting the academic achievement of African American and
Asian- American youngsters. For example, Baumrind (1972) had reported that
authoritarian parenting, which is associated with fearful, timid behavior and
behavioral compliance among European American children, was associated with
assertiveness among African-American girls. Similarly, Dornbush et al. (1987)
found that although Asian or Asian-American students in their study had rated their
parents as authoritarian, their academic performance was superior to that of
European-Americans. This effect led them to conclude that "Asian children ['s
grades] in our public schools cannot be adequately explained in terms of the
parenting styles we have studied" (p. 1256).
One of the problems commonly encountered by researchers has been the
limited understanding of the processes through which parenting style influences
children's development, as well as the operationalization of parenting styles. Darling
and Steinberg (1993) proposed a model for studying parenting styles that would
integrate both, "the specific parenting practices and the global characteristics of the
parents. Their integrative model presented parenting style "as a context that
moderates the influence of specific parenting practices on the child" (p. 487). In
their opinion, the only way for researchers to address questions concerning the
socialization processes was by separating the parents' values, attitudes, and
socialization goals from the specific socialization behaviors or practices.
Darling et al. (1993) suggested that the distinction between the parents'
global characteristics and the ways used to exercise control over their children would

25
assist researchers explain why "specific styles of parenting [had] different effects
depending on the social milieu in which the family was embedded. . .[such as in the
case of] different ethnicities"(p. 487). For example, an examination of the parents'
goals for socialization could reveal differences between those of European
Americans from those from other cultures. On the other hand, their socialization
goals may be similar, but the methods used to help children attain these goals may
vary in the different cultures (Darling et al., 1993).
Cultural Aspects of Parenting
Many of the above principles were incorporated in Chao’s (1994) study of
Asian mothers’ parenting styles, which was designed to explore the relationship
between the authoritarian parenting style and high achievement in Asian students
(Dornbush et al., 1987). For her study, fifty Chinese and fifty European-American
mothers of preschool-aged children were administered standard measures of parental
control and authoritative-authoritarian parenting style, as well as Chinese child-
rearing items involving the concepts of training and governing concepts, which
apply to most Asians who share Confucian principles (such as respect for elders and
an emphasis on the family) (Chao, 1994).
After controlling for their education, and their scores on the standard
measures, the Chinese mothers were found to score significantly higher on the
training ideologies. This training concept has important features, beyond the
authoritarian concept, that may explain Chinese school success. According to Chao
(1994) "the term 'chiao shun' is a Chinese term that contains the idea of 'training'

26
(i.e., teaching or educating) children in the appropriate or expected behaviors. In the
family, Chinese parents pay special attention to training children to adhere to socially
desirable and culturally approved behavior. One way to measure the success of
parental intervention is the ability of children to perform well in school" (p. 1113).
However, "this training takes place in an extremely nurturing environment
for the child by [the mother] being physically available and by promptly attending to
the child's every need... and when children reach school age, the mother provides the
support and drive for them to achieve in school and to ultimately meet the societal
and familial expectations for success" (p. 1114). Similarly, Chao (1994) explains,
the concept of guan (to govern) "has a very positive connotation in China, because it
can mean 'to care for' or even 'to love' as well as 'to govern'....therefore, parental care,
concern, and involvement are synonymous with firm control and governance of the
child" (p. 1114).
Thus, Chao (1994) explained the ethnocentric and misleading nature of the
concepts often used to describe Chinese parenting (i.e., authoritarian, controlling, or
restrictive). In her opinion, when participants of Asian ethnicities respond to
questionnaires involving this topic, they obtain high scores on authoritarian and
controlling, but these constructs have entirely different implications for Asians
(Chinese specifically) than for European-Americans due to their different cultural
systems. "These [Baumrind’s parenting] concepts are embedded in a cultural
'tradition' for European Americans that Chinese do not necessarily share. Therefore,
these concepts have a different meaning for the [Asians] Chinese" (Chao, 1994, p.

27
1111). While the focus of her study was on the Chinese, she explained these For her
study, fifty Chinese and fifty European-American mothers of preschool-aged
children were administered standard measures of parental control and authoritative-
authoritarian parenting style as well as Chinese child-rearing items involving the
concepts of training and governing. After controlling for their education, and their
scores on the standard measures, the Chinese mothers were found to score
significantly higher on the training ideologies. This training concept has important
features, beyond the authoritarian concept, that may explain Chinese school success.
According to Chao (1994) "the term 'chiao shun' is a Chinese term that contains the
idea of 'training' (i.e., teaching or educating) children in the appropriate or expected
behaviors. In the family, Chinese parents pay special attention to training children to
adhere to socially desirable and culturally approved behavior. One way to measure
the success of parental intervention is the ability of children to perform well in
school" (p. 1113).
However, "this training takes place in an extremely nurturing environment
for the child by [the mother] being physically available and by promptly attending to
the child's every need... and when children reach school age, the mother provides the
support and drive for them to achieve in school and to ultimately meet the societal
and familial expectations for success" (p. 1114). Similarly, Chao (1994) explains,
the concept of guan (to govern) "has a very positive connotation in China, because it
can mean 'to care for' or even 'to love' as well as 'to govern'....therefore, parental care,

28
concern, and involvement are synonymous with firm control and governance of the
child" (p. 1114).
Chao (1994) concluded that “Asian children perceive descriptions of
authoritarian parenting not as European Americans do [i.e., negative, restrictive], but
positive, coming from the cultural context of training and caring/governing”...
therefore, “using Baumrind's parenting prototypes with the Asian population fails to
capture essential elements of their own cultural framework” (Chao, 1994, p.1118).
In order to explore further how the constructs of parental support and control
differed within cultural contexts, Ciairano, Kliewer, Bonino, and Bosma, (2008)
conducted a study of middle and late adolescents from Italy and The Netherlands.
Specifically, they investigated the relationship of culture, age, gender, and parental
support and control to adjustment, self-perceptions and expectations for future
success. They reported choosing these two cultures because “parenting norms are
quite different in these two countries, as well as different from North America,
making these countries ideal settings in which to investigate the extent to which
associations of parenting behavior and adolescent adjustment are similar to or
different from associations observed in the United States” (Ciairano et al, 2008, p.
112). The authors described Italy as relatively conservative, stemming from its
Catholic foundation, which supports traditional sex roles and discourages divorce,
and where familial relationships are close, with children typically living with their
families until early adulthood. In contrast to Italy's parental context, Ciairano et al.,
(2008) described The Netherlands as relatively liberal with respect to health, sexual

29
behavior, and morality, based on a constitution which advocates personal
responsibility, using consensus to arrive at public policy, and where children
typically leave the family well before marriage (often to attend the University), with
parent-child relationships tending not to be as close as those of Italian families, as the
family in general is less central to daily life.
Ciairano et al. (2008) posited that Italy and The Netherlands, being so
different in their governing views, offered a valuable opportunity to study parenting
changes during adolescence, a time in which youngsters strive for autonomy but are
not mature enough to make sound decisions on their own. Given that, universally,
parents struggle to calibrate support and control of emancipation in order to meet
adolescents' challenges to their authority, their exercise of higher levels of control
(especially in later adolescence) would reflect their difficulty in allowing their
offspring to individuate from the family, and thus more likely to be perceived by the
adolescent as negative.
In order to test their hypothesis, Ciairano et al. (2008) chose to use the full
range of values for parenting support and control, instead of constructing parenting
styles variables (such as Baumrind's, 1971). Their data included two sample sets,
according to each country. The Italian sample consisted of 391 secondary school
students, between the ages of 15 and19 years (M = 16.98 yrs SD = 1.35), living in
northwest Italy. The sample from The Netherlands consisted of 373 high school
students, 15 to19 years of age (M = 17.37 yrs, SD = 0.91). The participants were

30
fairly equivalent along various demographic lines, with nearly all (92.1%) of the
students belonging to two-parent homes.
The participants answered various surveys, including questions about health,
psychosocial risk behaviors, psychological functioning, self- perception and efficacy,
expectations for future success, as well as perceived level of parental support and
control. Due to the fact that the main focus of their study was not to compare Italian
and Dutch families, but rather to examine patterns of association within each
country, a series of regression analyses were run by country. Overall, the results
from both countries differed from the North American data. In that the Italian
sample control did not interact with support in predicting adjustment. Similarly, the
findings from the Dutch sample regarding positive self-perceptions indicated that
high support and high control were not associated with more positive self-
perceptions of either younger or older students. For both Italian and Dutch youth,
there were significant associations of sex and parental support with Positive self-
perceptions, with participants in the high parental support category reporting the
most positive self-perceptions.
Ciairano et al.'s (2008) study underscores Chao's (1994) findings of Asian
populations regarding the ethnocentric nature of Baumrind's (1991) parenting styles
in relationship to offspring's outcomes. Unfortunately, the data on the Latino
population in the United States on this topic are sparse. And, as mentioned earlier,
when participants of Latino extraction have been included in studies, lack of
information regarding their acculturation status limits the usefulness of those

31
findings. Latinos in America are a very heterogeneous population, with major
differences based on country of origin, language dominance, education background,
and immigration history or generation, among other variables. Without information
on these variables, ethnic samples are treated by researchers as homogeneous, and
consequently the results based on such samples may be attributed to the variables in
question when, in fact, they are the result of differences in acculturation, or a
combination of their cultural context and acculturation level (Trimble, 1992).
Studies reporting the applicability of Baumrind's (1991) parenting styles to
the Latino population in relationship to academic competence have not included
acculturation measures (such as Dornbusch et al.'s, 1987). Therefore, such findings
need to be interpreted cautiously, and tested in studies that include valid
acculturation measures.
Parenting Characteristics of Latinos
The literature on child rearing practices in families of various Latino
backgrounds is sparse, especially with regard to immigrant families as they proceed
through the acculturation process in America. Mexican American families, in
particular, have been described in terms of stereotypes, failing to differentiate
between cultural characteristics, and those behaviors and attitudes associated with
groups' origins (such as rural vs. urban), education level, immigration, and low
socioeconomic status (Sue and Sue, 1990).
Concepts such as "la familia" (i.e., the family), and "machismo" (i.e., male
dominance) have been used most frequently to describe Latino/a family systems.

32
These concepts were reported originally in pathological frameworks, and their
depiction was negative (Hammer and Turner, 1996). More recently, these concepts
have been studied from different perspectives, and have generated a more accurate
view of them. The concept of la familia, key in most households of Latino/a
background, is supposed to be a warm and nurturing institution rather than an
unstable and pathological one. The family is the most important unit in Mexican-
American life, and individuals are likely to put the needs of the family above their
own (Martinez, 1988).
A related concept, familism, or identification with the family has been
credited with the highest value for Latino parents of Mexican descent, and closely
associated with it, the normative deference and respect for the father, as head of the
family (Hamner et al., 1996). This deferential treatment of the father has been
termed machismo in the United States, also with negative connotations. As
researchers have generated more data in the past twenty years, it has been redefined
in terms of the father’s use of his authority within the family in a fair and just
manner, fostering a sense of family pride, respect, and honor. Data on Mexican-
American fathers show that they increasingly assume the role of primary
disciplinarian as children grow older, with mothers' most used discipline technique
being the threat "Wait until your father comes home from work..."(Hamner et al.,
1996, pp. 171-172).
Within this patriarchal/authoritarian context, Mexican-American families
function in a nurturing and affectionate family structure, usually child-centered when

33
children are young, and less so as children grow older (age 5 or so until puberty),
when parents begin to expect more responsible behavior from them, and are assigned
tasks or responsibilities in accordance with their age and ability. At the same time,
there is a basic acceptance of the child’s individuality and a relaxed attitude toward
achievement of developmental milestones (Kutsche, 1983).
The parental language dominance and the language dominance and
proficiency of Mexican-American children have been shown to be significant
correlates of the child’s intellectual performance. Laosa (cited in Valencia,
Henderson and Rankin, 1985) has suggested that parent-child interactions represent
the mediating variable between social-status indicators and school performance,
given that both the home and the school have their own set of specific demand
characteristics, a child’s success or failure tend to depend on the degree to which the
competencies required to negotiate the different environments overlap. Similarly,
Valencia, Henderson, and Rankin (1985) found that home environmental process
measures (parent-child interactions, language spoken, generation level, and
achievement aspirations) showed a strong association with the intellectual
development of Mexican-American children, independent of parental schooling,
language, socioeconomic status, and family constellation.
Many of the descriptors of Latino families of Mexican-American descent
seem to include the nurturing and controlling elements of Baumrind's parenting
styles. However, due to the limited number of studies in this area, parenting goals
and their related practices are not well understood. Martinez (1988) conducted one

34
of the few studies available using Baumrind's parenting styles with the Latino
population. This observational study of predominantly lower-class mothers and their
young children yielded a fewer number of permissive Mexican-American mothers,
and approximately equal numbers of authoritative and authoritarian mothers,
respectively. Given the familiar stereotype of Latino/a mothers as being less
assertive with their discipline than mothers from other cultures, these results were
shockingly unexpected (Martinez, 1988, 1993).
Acculturation
A variety of dimensions have been established to assess within group
differences among ethnic minority populations. Although the terms race, ethnicity,
and culture are often used interchangeably, they describe different aspects of group
identity. The term race defines group differences based on physical or biological
characteristics (Zuckerman, 1990) and is of limited usefulness in describing
variability among human beings (Anderson, 1971; Beutler, Brown, Crothers,
Booker, and Seabrook, 1996). Due to the negative social connotation often
associated which race, other models have been developed that are more acceptable,
such as ethnicity or culture (Atkinson, Morten, and Sue, 1998; Helms, 1995).
Ethnicity has been associated with group identity tied to biological
differences (Bernal, 1990; Nagel, 1995) and often encompasses race, but it is also
linked to cultural, historical, religious, and other group characteristics (Barresi,
1990). Phinney (1996) defined ethnic identity as “an enduring, fundamental aspect

35
of the self that includes a sense of membership in an ethnic group and the attitudes
and feelings associated with that membership” (p. 922).
Culture typically involves characteristics of a social group tied to specific
behaviors, language, customs, or values (Linton, 1968). Thus, acculturation involves
learning and endorsement of host-culture features by non-natives and their offspring.
Proficiency in the English language, social ties with European Americans and
preferences for mainstream music and media, for example, are considered evidence
of U.S. acculturation. Therefore, acculturation differences among participants in a
study need to be addressed if the results are to be meaningful and useful.
Acculturation. Some of the elements defining members of a group are
generational history, national background, and those demographic characteristics that
may be of relevance for a given study, such as poverty level, educational attainment,
and migration history. According to Trimble (1990-1991), a proper measure of
people’s ethnicity becomes essential in order to understand properly the
psychological makeup and behavior of the members of ethnic groups. The use by
researchers of ethnic glosses or overly general labels (e.g. Latinos) to refer to any
sample of individuals of Latino extraction diminishes the applicability of any of their
findings due to its moderating effects (Cuellar, 1995).
Conclusion
The marked deficit of data based on individuals of diverse ethnic and cultural
backgrounds, including Latinos, in the areas of self-concept and parenting styles is
particularly pronounced for young adults entering college (Halote & Michael, 1984;

36
Byrne, 1996). Given the long standing problem of underachievement in the Latino
population (especially of Mexican-American descent) (Swail et al., 2004), and more
importantly, the need to remediate it, it seems imperative to study achievement
variables associated with academic competence. A great body of research have
linked self-concept, parenting, and acculturation variables to academic competence.
However, data from studies addressing these variables in the Latino/a community
have not generated useful findings due to the fact that the Latino/a participants have
not been classified according to their acculturation level, thus treating them as a
homogeneous group and not as the heterogeneous population which they represent.
This lack of specificity with regard to acculturation levels in the participants
confounds results, with findings attributed to the studied variables actually reflecting
issues pertaining to acculturation, or their interactions.
Another difficulty with the available data on achievement regarding Latino/a
participants is that the many of the measures used have been problematic. For
example, there have been conflicting reports on the applicability of Baumrind’s
parenting styles to non Anglo Americans (Baumrind, 1971; Chao, 1994; Ciairano et
al., 2008), including the ethnocentric nature of the questions measuring the separate
dimensions of parenting –Nurturance (Responsiveness) and Monitoring
(Demandingness).
Purpose and goal of the Study
Thus, the main goal of this study was to investigate the role played by
acculturation, self-concept and parenting in the achievement of Latino/a college

37
students. To that effect, Grade Point Average (GPA) will be examined in
relationship to acculturation level, Academic Self-concept, and the separate
components of Baumrind's parenting styles, Nurturance and Monitoring.
Ultimately, this investigation seeks to answer the following research
questions:
1. Do the separate dimensions of Baumrind’s parenting styles --Nurturance
and Monitoring-- predict GPA in Latino community college students?
2. Do the separate dimensions of Baumrind’ parenting styles --Nurturance
and Monitoring-- predict Academic Self-concept in Latino college students?
3. Does Academic self-concept predict GPA in Latino college students?
And, finally,
4. What is the relationship between level of Acculturation and these Latino/a
college students’ perception of the way they were parented (i.e. perceptions of
Nurturance and Monitoring from their parents), Academic self-concept, and GPA?

38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study investigated the relationship among parenting styles, academic
self-concept, acculturation, and the academic achievement of Latino college
students. This chapter includes information on the research design, procedures for
data collection, participants in the study, and instruments utilized.
Participants
A total of 417 (162 males and 255 females) students from a large community
college in the greater Los Angeles county participated in the study. Participants
were recruited from a variety of college level courses, and were given class credit for
their participation. However, only the information relevant to the Latino participants
will be addressed in this study.
In order to enhance the homogeneity of this group, only participants who
described themselves as Hispanic, Mexican, or Mexican American were included in
the analysis. A sample of 148 Latinos qualified to be in the study, 102 identified
themselves as Mexican American, and 46 as Hispanic. Not included in the sample
were 5 students who identified themselves as Other Hispanic, and 1 who identified
as Puerto Rican. Sixteen percent (n = 23) of the participants identified themselves as
first generation (i.e., participants were born outside the United States), 51.4% (n =
74) as second generation (i.e., participants were first in the family to be born in the
United States, and 32.6% (n = 47) as 3
rd
generation (i.e. both participants and their
parents were born in the United States) and above (i.e., parents and all grandparents

39
were born in the United States). 56% (n=83) of the participants were bicultural, 44%
(n=65) considered themselves belonging either to the American or the Mexican
culture, respectively.
Overall, participants identified themselves as being from a lower-middle to
middle class section of their regional area. They reported their Mother’s highest level
of education as being: 32% (n=47) Less than High School, 28% (n=42) High School,
12% (n=18) Occupational Training, and 26% (n=39) a 2-4 year college education.
Fathers’ level of education was reported as being slightly higher (but not
significantly) than their Mothers’: 24% (n=36) Less than High School, 20% (n=29)
High School, 14% (n=20) Occupational Training, 32% (n=46) 2-4 year college
education, and 10% (n=15), College Graduate. Table 3-1 illustrates some of the
demographic information of the participants.

Table 3-1. Demographic Information of Participants

Female
(n = 99)
Male
(n = 48)
Age M 23.02 21.83
SD 7.39 3.20
Generational Status M 2.13 2.27
SD .69 .62

40
Students were informed that their participation was completely voluntary.
An informed consent form was included on the first page of the Student Information
Section (Appendix B). Participants were reassured that if they changed their mind
about participating while answering questions, they could withdraw their consent.
Instruments. The survey itself was divided into five sections, with their
corresponding instruments: (1) demographic and background information was
obtained through the Student Information Section (Appendix B); (2) Parenting style
information came from the answers to The Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory (PFSSI), (Appendix C); (3) Self-concept scores were obtained from the
Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQ III), (Appendix D). And, (4) the
information regarding participants’ acculturation level, was obtained from the
Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA--II), (Appendix E).
Detailed information on each of the instruments used follows.
Student Information Section. A 55-item questionnaire was designed to obtain
demographic information such as gender, age, ethnic identification, academic
history, family constellation, ethnicity, place of birth, generation status,
socioeconomic status, family income, parents’ occupations, parents’ highest level of
education, and grade point average (GPA). It contained multiple choice and
sentence completion items.
Parenting Style. The Perception of Family Socialization Style Inventory
(PFSSI), Appendix D, is a 57-item inventory adapted from Dornbusch et al.'s (1987,
1989) and Steinberg et al.'s (1992) instruments, which had been created for children.

41
The PFSSI was designed to suit the college student population. Its purpose was to
classify the respondents' family socialization styles using Baumrind's (1967)
interaction model (illustrated earlier in Figure 1) of Nurturance (warmth and support)
and Monitoring (discipline, autonomy granting). When combined, the Nurturance
and Monitoring dimensions generate the four parenting classifications: Authoritative,
Authoritarian, Permissive and Neglectful (Baumrind’s model, 1967).
The items were constructed on a 8-point Likert scale, with responses ranging
from (1) Definitely False to (8) Definitely True. Nurturance items were: 1, 7, 9, 11,
13, 15, 17, 31, 33, 35, 37*, 38, 43*, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 55. Monitoring items
were: 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,34, 36, 40*, 41*,
42*, 44*, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57. Items noted with asterisks were reversely scored.
Reliability. Steinberg et al.’s (1992) questionnaire had generated composite
scores by averaging across clustered items. However, the PFSSI, as an adapted
instrument, and needed to be examined statistically in order to determine its own
properties. Therefore, a factor analysis of the PFSSI was conducted. Of its 57 items,
only 52 were chosen for the analysis due to their expected high content validity for
the criterion variables (item # 55 was omitted due to a printing error). A factor
analysis of the 52 items yielded the Nurturance and Monitoring factors, whose
Cronbach’s Alphas are shown in Table 3.2.

42
Table 3-2. Reliability Scores for the Nurturance and Monitoring Dimensions of the
PFSSI

Cronbach’s Alpha
Parenting Dimension MOTHER FATHER
NURTURANCE .88 .89
MONITORING .76 .81

Self-concept. Self-Description Questionnaire III (SDQ-III). The SDQ-III
(Marsh, 1992d) was designed to measure multiple dimensions of self-concept in
college students and other adults (Appendix D). It comprises a multidimensional
structure that is based on the Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton (1976) theoretical model
of self-concept, measuring global perception of self (i.e. general self-concept), as
well as specifically identified self-concepts related to academic and nonacademic
areas (Figure 1).
Based on the information included in the SDQ-III's manual (Marsh, 1990),
the SDQ-III is a 136-item self-report scale that comprises 13 subscales: (a) 8
nonacademic (Physical Ability, Physical Appearance, Peer Relations --Opposite Sex
and Same Sex --, Parent Relations, Emotional Stability, Honesty/Trustworthiness,
and Spiritual Values/Religion); (b) 4 academic (Verbal, Mathematics, Problem
Solving, and General --Academic); and (c) one that measures overall global self-
concept (General-Self). The items are structured on an 8-point Likert-type scale
format, from (1) Definitely False to (8) Definitely True. Some subscales are
composed of 10 items, whereas others are composed of 12. To prevent acquiescence

43
response biases, “half of the items in each subscale [were] worded negatively”
(Marsh, 1989, p. 8).
Reporting on the basis of the full set of responses comprising the normative
sample (N=2,436), Marsh (1992d) stated internal consistency reliability coefficients
ranging from .76 (Honesty/Trustworthiness) to .95 (Spiritual Values/Religion), with
a mean alpha over the 13 subscales of .90. "Only the Honesty subscale was less than
.84" (Byrne, 1996, p. 200). Table 3-3 includes the reliability coefficients of all
subscales.

Table 3-3. Reliabilities for SDQ-III Subscales

Self-Concept Subscales Cronbach’s Alpha
Academic .87
Physical .91
Appearance .79
Opposite Sex .85
Same Sex .73
Parents .85
Honesty .76
Religion .89
Emotional .81
General .91
Mathematics .90
Verbal .83
Problem Solving .69

44
Byrne (1996) in her extensive and thorough review of available instruments
on self-concept, reported a very strong construct and concurrent validity,
respectively. The only concern stated was "the limitation of the normative sample to
Australian and Canadian participants" (Byrne, 1996, pp. 200--202). This concern has
been quieted as the SDQ-III has continuously shown its validity through numerous
studies in European countries and in the United States. However, the SDQ-III has
inherent limitations regarding missing norms for the Latino population.
Acculturation. Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II
(ARSMA-II). Like its precursor, the ARSMA (Cuéllar, Harris and Jasso, 1980), the
ARSMA-II was designed to measure cultural orientation within the Mexican and the
Anglo cultures, independently. It was revised “for the purpose of developing an
instrument that assessed acculturation processes through an orthogonal,
multidimensional approach” (Cuéllar, Arnold, and Maldonado, 1995, p. 275). The
ARSMA--II has two scales, (1) the Acculturation Scale and (2) the Marginality
Scale. For the purposes of this study, only Scale 1 was used. However, Scale 2 is
included in Appendix D. The ARSMA-II is a bilingual instrument, both English and
Spanish versions are printed on the same page. Scale 1 contains 30 items distributed
between two subscales: (1) the Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) and (2) the Mexican
Orientation Scale (MOS). The AOS is comprised of 13 items (Items 2, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, and 30). The MOS is composed of 17 items, (Items 1, 3,
5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 29, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 29). Scale 1 is illustrated on
Appendix E, Form A.

45
The sum of the AOS scale was divided by 13 to obtain a mean score for that
subscale. The sum of MOS was divided by 17 to obtain a mean score for that
subscale. The MOS mean was subtracted from the AOS mean to obtain a linear
acculturation score that would represent an individual’s score along a continuum
from very Mexican oriented to very Anglo oriented. The acculturation score was
used to obtain an acculturation level for the respondents by employing the cutting
scores suggested by Cuellar et al. (1995). Table 3-4 llustrates the cutting scores for
scoring this instrument.

Table 3-4. ARSMA-II: Cutting Scores Used in Determining Acculturation Levels

ARSMA-II
Levels
Acculturation Description Acculturation
Score*
Level I Very Mexican oriented < -1.33
Level II Mexican oriented to approximately
balanced Individual
> -1.33 and < -.07
Level III Slightly Anglo oriented/Bicultural > -.07 and < 1.19
Level IV Strongly Anglo oriented > 1.19 and < 2.45
Level V Very assimilated; Anglicized > 2.45
*(Cuéllar, Arnold, and Maldonado, 1995, p.275)

Reliability indicators for the two subscales--the Anglo Orientation Subscale
(AOS) and the Mexican Orientation Subscale (MOS)—are fairly strong with
reported a Cronbach’s Alphas of .86 and .88 for the AOS and the MOS, respectively
(Cuéllar et al., 1995). This study’s ARSMA II yielded a high Pearson correlation

46
coefficient (r= .89) with the original scale, with Cronbach’s Alpha of .83 for the
AOS, and .89 for the MOS, respectively.
In terms of validity, the authors reported a high construct validity. The
ARSMA-II was used in their sample of 379 individuals representing generations one
(i.e., respondent was born outside the United States) to five (i.e., respondent, her/his
parents and all grandparents were born in the United States).
Procedures
Students from a large community college were asked to participate in this
study. Given the fact that, at this college, students are blocked from registering in
courses with a pre-determined English requirement, students registered in a course
have either 1) tested above the required English level for that course, or 2) have
completed the pre-determined English course. In order to maximize the homogeneity
of the sample regarding English proficiency, only students enrolled in baccalaureate
level courses with a pre-freshman English prerequisite were selected to participate.
Primarily, participants were recruited from courses with a pre-freshman
English composition prerequisite. This English proficiency criterion was included in
order to increase the likelihood that a good number of the Latino participants would
be acculturated to the American culture to understand the cultural nuances embedded
in the parenting questionnaires (such as expectations from parents to monitor
students’ school assignments or be involved in students’ extra-curricular activities).

47
Students were also recruited from the Languages Department, specifically,
Spanish for the Spanish-Speaking. These classes were chosen in order to obtain
participants who were either Mexican Oriented or Bicultural.
A number of faculty members who were scheduled to teach courses meeting
the above criteria were approached regarding their involvement in this study. A
letter from the investigator was placed in the faculty mail boxes explaining the
general aims of the study (Appendix A). Those who responded met with the
investigator to discuss in more detail the aims of the study, issues regarding
confidentiality, ethical concerns, and debriefing. Professors from five large sections
of Introduction to Psychology, one section of Spanish for the Spanish Speaking
(Spanish 1A), and one section of Introduction to Statistics agreed to give credit to
students who would volunteer to participate in this study. They were given a general
description of the study, and a telephone number to call if they had any questions or
concerns regarding the survey (Appendix A).
The demographic questionnaire was administered first, followed by the
ARSMA-II. The respondents then took a 5 minute brake to avoid fatigue. After the
break, the remaining questionnaires were administered in a randomly alternating
order to avoid potential order set confounds. Half of the participants first answered
the Perception of Family Socialization Style Inventory (PFSSI), followed by the Self
Description Questionnaire (SDQ-III), while the other half were presented the
questionnaires in reverse order.

48
Although English and Spanish versions of the instruments were available,
only the English version was requested by all participants.

49
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter provides an overview of the results of this study. It will include
the outcome of 1) the preliminary analysis, and 2) the analyses corresponding to each
of the research questions. The correlation results will be presented first, followed by
the outcome of the multiple regression analyses.
Preliminary Analysis
Intercorrelations. Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to
examine the relationship among demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, etc.) and the
measured variables: GPA, Academic self-concept, parenting dimensions, and
acculturation. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables
are presented in Table 4-1.
Sex was not significantly related to any of the major measured variables. This
effect suggests that, in this study, men and women were similar with regard to their
GPA, Academic self-concept, ways in which they were raised, and their level of
acculturation.
Age resulted in an inverse relationship with the Nurturance parenting
dimension. This effect was consistent for both Mothers (r = -.29, p < .05) and Fathers
(r = -.19, p < .05). In addition, the Nurturance and Monitoring parenting dimensions
corresponding to both Mothers and Fathers generated significant and direct
correlations. This suggests that: 1) participants who gave their Mothers higher
scores in Nurturance, also tended to rate them highly on Monitoring; 2) those

50
participants who reported having Mothers with higher level of monitoring also
reported having Fathers with higher level of monitoring; and 3) those participants
who reported having Mothers with higher level of nurturance also reported having
Fathers with higher level of Nurturance.
With regard to acculturation, Mothers’ Nurturance was found to have a direct
relationship with Anglo Orientation, r = .22, p < .05. This suggests that those
participants who were more Anglo oriented (more acculturated) gave their Mothers
higher ratings in Nurturance than their less acculturated counterparts. Lastly, as
would be expected, Anglo Orientation was inversely associated with Mexican
Orientation, r = -.21, p < .05.

Table 4-1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Pearson Product
Correlations for Measured Variables

Variables M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 22.60 6.35 .09 .18 .14 -.14 -.06 -.29
***
-.19
*
.03 -.07
2. Sex -- -.04 .13 .04 .09 .07 .03 -.05 -.07
3. GPA 2.59 .74 -- .32
**
-.01 .04 .04 -.13 .01 -.07
4. Academic S.C. 5.73 1.20 -- .03 -.01 .13 .00 .03 -.15
5. AOS 3.98 .52 -- -.21
*
.22
*
.12 .10 .04
6. MOS 3.24 .84 -- .01 -.02 .04 .02
7. Nurturance – M 14.78 4.69 -- .59
***
.29
***
.31
***

8. Nurturance – F 12.59 6.09 -- .16
*
.58
***

9. Monitoring – M 15.97 4.35 -- .48
***

10. Monitoring – F 13.94 5.89 --
Note. 1: Age, 2: Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); 3: GPA; 4: Academic Self-Concept; 5: Anglo Orientation Score; 6:
Mexican Orientation Score; 7: Parenting Dimension --Nurturance, Mother; 8: Parenting Dimension --Nurturance,
Father; 9: Parenting Dimension--Monitoring, Mother; 10: Parenting Dimension--Monitoring, Father
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
50

51
Research Question 1: Do the Nurturance and Monitoring dimensions of parenting
style predict academic achievement in Latino community college students?
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
relationship between the Nurturance and Monitoring dimensions of parenting style
and academic achievement. The independent variables were both Mother’s and
Father’s Nurturance and Monitoring parenting dimensions. The criterion variable
was the participant’s GPA. As illustrated in Table 4-2, the results indicate that these
separate dimensions were not significant predictors of GPA in this sample of Latino
students.

Table 4-2. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Parenting Dimensions on
GPA
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
GPA .034 .967 .429
Mother Nurturance .026 .019 .166 .167
Father Nurturance -.027 .016 -.225 .099
Mother Monitoring .000 .018 -.004 .968
Father Monitoring .001 .016 .008 .948
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 2: Do the Nurturance and Monitoring dimensions of parenting
predict Academic self-concept in Latino community college students?
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
relationship between parenting dimensions and Academic self-concept. The

52
independent variables were Father’s and Mothers’ Nurturance and Monitoring
dimensions of parenting, while the criterion variable was the participants’ Academic
self-concept.
As summarized in Table 4-3, the results indicate that one of the parenting
dimensions, Monitoring, was a significant predictors of students’ Academic self-
concept. More specifically, those participants who reported a higher level of
Monitoring in their fathers’ Parenting style, also scored lower in Academic self-
concept, β = -.28, p < .05. In fact, 6.7% of the variance in Academic self -concept
could be accounted by Father’s Monitoring, F (4, 140) = 2.50, p < .05.

Table 4-3. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Parenting Dimensions on
Academic Self-Concept
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
Academic Self Concept .067 2.496 .046
Mother’s Nurturance .040 .027 .155 .144
Father’s Nurturance .011 .025 .055 .653
Mother’s Monitoring .030 .027 .106 .277
Father’s Monitoring* -.058 .024 -.281 .016
Note. * p < .05

Research Question 3: Does Academic self-concept predict Academic Achievement in
Latino college students?
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
relationship between the Independent variable—Academic self-concept—and GPA,

53
the criterion variable. The results revealed Academic self-concept as a significant
predictor for GPA, β = .32, p < .001. That is, those participants who scored higher
on Academic self-concept also had higher GPAs. More importantly, Academic self-
concept accounted for a significant 10.1% of the variance in GPA, F (1, 114) =
12.83, p < .001. The results are summarized in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Academic Self-concept on
GPA
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
GPA .101 12.832 .001
Academic Self Concept** .191 .053 .318 .001
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 4: What is the Relationship among Acculturation Level,
Academic Self Concept, and Academic Achievement?
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
relationship between acculturation level, Academic self-concept, and academic
achievement. The independent variables were: the participants’ acculturation level
(Anglo Orientation / Mexican Orientation), and Academic self-concept. The
criterion variable was the participants’ GPA. Results are summarized in Table 4-5.
Results indicated that while acculturation by itself had yielded no significant
effects on GPA, the inclusion of the acculturation variables in the regression equation
with Academic self-concept, lowered ASC's strength as a predictor of GPA. That is,
when entered alone, ASC had been able to account for 10.1% of the variance in

54
GPA, whereas when entered with the acculturation variables (Anglo Orientation and
Mexican Orientation), the portion of the explained variance in GPA (R
2)
declined
from10.1% to 7.2%, F (3, 103) = 2.67, p > .05. Notwithstanding this decrease in
power, Academic self-concept remained the most significant predictor of GPA, β =
.27, p < .05.

Table 4-5. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Parenting Dimensions and
Acculturation on GPA
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
GPA .072 2.669 .052
Academic Self Concept** .156 .056 .266 .006
Anglo Orientation .004 .135 .003 .974
Mexican Orientation .041 .084 .049 .623
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

55
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among parenting
styles, academic self-concept, acculturation, and academic achievement in Latino/a
college students. Specifically, this study investigated whether GPA in a sample of
Latino/a community college students could be predicted by (1) Baumrind’s separate
components of parenting styles (Nurturance and Monitoring), (2) Shavelson et al.’s
(1976) Academic Self-concept scale of the Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQ-
III) (Marsh, 1992), and by (3) Cuéllar, et al.’s (1995) Acculturation scale, of the
ARSMA II instrument. This chapter is a discussion of the findings, implications,
limitations of the study, and directions for future research.
Discussion of the Results
The sample of Latinos in this study was fairly homogeneous with regard to
financial status, parental education, acculturation level, GPA, Academic self-
concept, and ways in which they perceived being parented. One of the few sources
of variation in this sample was Age, which related differently to the Nurturance and
Acculturation variables.
Relationship among Age, Nurturance, and Acculturation variables
Younger participants rated both their Mothers and Fathers as more Nurturing
than their older counterparts. At the same time, these younger participants tended to
be more Anglo acculturated than their older classmates (this last correlation failed to
meet significance levels, however). These findings suggest that the perception of

56
Nurturance in Baumrind’s (1991) parenting framework may be somewhat culture
dependent. The younger participants, being more Anglo acculturated, are more
familiar with the mainstream American culture and parenting paradigms, which
probably sensitized them into perceiving certain parental behaviors in the parenting
questionnaire as nurturing, in a way that their older (or less acculturated)
counterparts did not. This rationale gains additional support from the resulting
relationship between Anglo acculturation and higher nurturance ratings of Mothers
(but not Fathers), which suggests that the more Anglo acculturated participants were
better able to identify as Nurturing certain maternal behaviors not commonly
associated with Nurturance by Latinos of Mexican or Mexican-American descent.
These varying perceptions of nurturance based on acculturation level is consistent
with Chao’s (1994) assertions that Baumrind’s (1991) parenting styles are somewhat
ethnocentric, and that members from cultures outside of North America may not
agree in their categorization of many of the behaviors in question as belonging to the
nurturing and/or monitoring categories.
This ability to add cultural information about the participants to the results
generated from the examined variables was helpful in the understanding of the above
findings. For example, the relationship between Age and Baumrind’s Nurturance
dimension would not have meant as much without the awareness of how Age and
Acculturation level related to each other. These effects underscore Trimble’s (1990-
1991), as well as Mena, Padilla, and Maldonado’s (1994) suggestions to include
acculturation measures whenever the participants were from distinct social groups.

57
Including an effective measurement instrument of acculturation is, of course,
essential to this process. In this study, the ARSMA-II instrument (Cuéllar et al.,
1995) proved effective in classifying the Latino/a participants according to their
cultural identification and generational level, which was empirically confirmed by
the resulting inverse correlation between the Mexican Orientation and the Anglo
Orientation scales.
Parenting dimensions as predictors of GPA
Neither Nurturance nor Monitoring proved to be good predictors of GPA in
this sample of Latino/a students. These results, based on community college
students in their early twenties, are inconsistent with findings reported by Dornbush
et al. (1987), who found Authoritative parenting (i.e., the combination of high
Nurturance/ Responsiveness and High Monitoring/Demandingness) to be predictive
of high grades in high school students from both Latino and Anglo backgrounds. At
the same time, it is consistent with Dornbush et al.’s (1987) findings for students in
the same study, but from Asian descent, for whom the Authoritative style was not a
good predictor of high grades (instead the Authoritarian style was the better
predictor).
Chao (1994) addressed these different results in Dornbush et al.’s (1987)
study by explaining that students from Asian backgrounds perceived parenting
dimensions differently (i.e. more positively) than students from Anglo backgrounds,
a difference rooted in their cultural view of monitoring or demandingness as an
expression of caring. In Chao’s (1994) opinion, the expectation that students from

58
different ethnic backgrounds would perceive parenting behaviors equivalently failed
to take into account the different values that underlie the various cultural parenting
contexts. For example, one of the values involved in Asian parenting practices is
achievement, which is one of the criteria based on which parents are judged in
society. That is, the extent to which children achieve is seen as a direct result of the
parents’ quality of child rearing. Unlike parents from Asian backgrounds, European
American and Latino parents do not share this parenting goal. Although
achievement is one of the desired outcomes from child rearing in parents from the
Anglo American and Latino communities, it is not the most important goal, and
therefore, their parenting practices are not designed for that outcome (Chao, 1994).
Although Darling et al. (1999) may have speculated what those values may be for the
Anglo American (i.e., self-actualization) and Mizio (1983) and Martinez (1988) for
Latino families (i.e., respect and devotion to family), these goals and the practices
associated with them have not been fully studied. More research is needed in order
to fully ascertain specific child rearing goals and practices relevant to the different
ethnic groups.
Parenting dimensions as predictors of Academic Self-concept
Baumrind’s (1971) Authoritarian parenting style, typified by a high level of
control with a corresponding low level of Nurturance, has been consistently found to
foster lower competence in children and adolescents of Anglo American background
(but not of Asian ethnicity). According to Dornbush et al. (1987), this negative
relationship between Authoritarian parenting and children’s competence came as a

59
result of these highly controlling parents by discouraging their children’s active
exploration and problem solving, which encouraged dependence on adult control and
guidance. Thus, highly controlling parents (along with the low
Nurturing/Responsive dimension) in the Authoritarian style, negatively influenced
competence by hindering autonomy development, a necessary element of self-
confidence.
Dornbush et al.’s explanation of the effects of high control on self-confidence
was supported by the obtained inverse relationship between Father's Monitoring and
Academic Self-concept in this study. These findings are also consistent with previous
data by Ciairano et al. (2008), who found that, “whereas parental support was
significantly associated with positive self-perceptions and expectations for success,
the effects of control were usually negative” (p. 114). Given that the participants in
this study were Latino/a students of Mexican ancestry, these findings seem logical.
The Latino family system is highly patriarchal in nature, which bestows on Fathers
the highest authority and power. By virtue of this powerful position, Fathers’
opinions or judgments, whether expressed or implied, about their children will likely
have a corresponding impact. Therefore, if fathers were to exercise their power
excessively (or be perceived that way by their children), then the meaning conveyed
by such control may be a lack of confidence in the young person’s abilities. In fact,
Ballantine (1993) found lower grades to be associated with the tendency in Latino
families to have an “emphasis on conformity, [based on the premise] that parents
(especially fathers) have the right answers and are to be obeyed” (p. 129). Similar

60
studies, although not with Latino participants, have reported findings on the negative
effects of high monitoring by fathers. For example, Patterson and Bank, (1990) in
their study with early adolescent boys, found that inconsistent and harsh discipline
was associated with the lowest levels of academic achievement.
Academic self-concept as predictor of GPA
Academic self-concept emerged as the most significant predictor of GPA in
this sample of Latino students. These results are congruent with data reported by
Rodriguez (1996), who found that Academic self-concept was the highest predictor
of academic success in Mexican American university students, taking precedence
over educational expectations, family encouragement, and choice of major. These
findings also echo those of many other researchers, based on population samples
from primary grades to high school (Coopersmith, 1969; Marsh, 1990; Byrne, 1996;
Marsh and Yeung, 1997).
The relationship between self-concept and achievement has been extensively
documented. In fact, the belief that academic self-concept has motivational
properties has been cited as one of the reasons for the renewed scientific interest in
self-concept (Byrne, 1984). Thus, sound empirical studies have been designed to
investigate whether changes in academic self-concept would lead to changes in
subsequent academic achievement. For example, Shavelson and Bolus (1982); Byrne
(1984), and Shavelson and Marsh (1986) generated research which revealed a causal
path from self-concept to academic achievement (and not the inverse) through a
series of causal modeling strategies.

61
Moreover, Marsh (1990) used Structural Equation Modeling techniques to
explore the self-concept--achievement relationship models proposed by Calsyn and
Kenny (1977). Calsyn et al.’s (1977) models gave rationales for self-concept either
generating (i.e., the self-enhancement model) or conversely, being the product of
achievement (i.e., the skill-development paradigm). That is, in the self-enhancement
model, self-concept is a primary determinant of academic achievement. In contrast,
the skill development model implies that academic self-concept emerges principally
as a consequence of academic achievement, so that academic self-concept is
enhanced by developing stronger academic skills (Calsyn & Kenny, 1977).
Using standardized test scores, school grades, and academic self-concept
ratings from participants, Marsh (1990) tested the causal ordering of academic self-
concept and academic achievement with four waves of data from the last three years
of high school and one year after graduation. He found support for both models,
however, the greater paths were from prior academic self-concept to subsequent
school grades.
These results have resounding implications for this study, considering the fact
that Academic self-concept accounted for a significant 10.1% of the variance in GPA
in this sample of Latinos. Thus, based on all the available data, any increment
generated in Academic self-concept could also reflect in gains in GPA. Not only
that, but such gains in GPA could subsequently result in additional gains in
Academic self-concept.

62
Relationship among Acculturation Level, Academic Self-Concept, and GPA
The highly predictive value of Academic self-concept for GPA was
drastically altered when Acculturation was added to the Multiple Regression
equation. From being able to account significantly for 10.1% of the variance in
GPA, Academic self-concept was only able to account for 7.2% of the variance,
below significance. This reduction in power as a consequence of Acculturation is
intriguing, given the fact that acculturation variables by themselves could not predict
GPA. Acculturation and Academic self-concept seem to have shared some of the
variance in GPA, previously attributed entirely to Academic self-concept. Mena et
al. (1994, in Cuellar, 1995) referred to this phenomenon as the “moderating effect”
of acculturation (p.276). Future studies would do well to well to explore the
relationship between correlates of Academic self-concept and Acculturation, in order
to enhance the ability to predict GPA. Nonetheless, these findings reiterate the
importance of including acculturation measures in studies of members of the Latino
community, in order to generate more meaningful results (Mena et al., 1994, in
Cuellar, 1995).
Summary, implication of findings, and suggestions for future research
This investigation was successful in its search for answers regarding the
relationship of the Nurturing and Monitoring dimensions of parenting style and
Academic self-concept to the achievement of Latino community college students.
Although the direct connection between the parenting dimensions and GPA was not
empirically supported, the significant and negative effect of Father’s Monitoring on

63
Academic self-concept partially supports the applicability of Baumrind’s (1971)
parenting styles to Latino participants from Mexican backgrounds. This finding
seems of greater consequence in light of the fact that Academic self-concept was the
strongest predictor of GPA, even after the reducing effect of Acculturation.
Although this predicting path from Monitoring to ASC to GPA is only conjectural, it
has been statistically generated by previous investigators through SEM procedures in
other contexts (Marsh and Yeung, 1997), and should warrant future study.
Limitations
Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the
sample included participants attending a large community college in the greater Los
Angeles area. Therefore, the results should be cautiously extended to university
students or to students from smaller or more rural community colleges. Second, the
reported findings correspond to Mexican or Mexican-American participants, at
varying degrees of acculturation to the Anglo-American culture. Therefore, the
results should not be generalized to individuals from other racial or ethnic
backgrounds.
Third, the instrument used to measure parenting in this study was a modified
version of the parenting questionnaire used by Steinberg et al. (1989) with young
adolescents. Although it yielded high reliability coefficients, it had not been normed
on young adults or used in pilot studies prior to its use in this study. Thus, the results
involving the Nurturance and Monitoring parenting dimensions obtained through
this instrument, may have reflected the participants’ reactions to the way the

64
questions were phrased as well as the content intended. Future research is needed to
develop and norm a parenting style instrument that is age appropriate, as well as
culturally suited to participants from the major subgroups within the Latino
community (i.e. from Mexico, Caribbean-Central America, or South America) in
order to address within group variability.
A fourth limitation may stem from this study’s separate use of Baumrind’s
(1971) parenting dimensions instead of being combined, as in her classical model.
The rationale for studying the components separately was to explore a version of
Baumrind’s parenting criteria that would be more accommodating of the Latino
culture, given the limited number of studies using this theoretical framework on
racial/ethnic minorities, especially Latinos, and even a lesser number addressing
college students’ recalled parenting styles, not to mention the sparse amount of data
on the parenting patterns of Latinos in the United States, including Mexican
Americans (Martinez, 1988, 1993). And, as it was mentioned earlier, the limited
data available have presented methodological issues, such as use of instruments of
questionable validity, and/or the inclusion of participants of various cultural
backgrounds without properly measuring their acculturation level (Cuellar et al.,
1993). Preferably, to be able to investigate parenting styles in Latino communities, a
larger sample size would be of value, so that parenting dimensions can be studied
separately and jointly, and meaningful comparisons could be made.
In terms of methodology, Structural Equation Modeling techniques would
have provided statistical support for the implied connection between Monitoring and

65
Academic self-concept, and from Academic self-concept to GPA. Finally, the
incorporation of a longitudinal part to this study would provide an even greater
amount of data regarding parenting dimensions, Academic self-concept, and
Acculturation in relationship to degree completion at the community college level,
transfer, and baccalaureate degree attainment.
Future directions
As with other constructs, such as acculturation or self-concept, research
continues to support more rigor in the development and measurement of parenting
measures, such as the development and norming of culture specific instruments to
use with their specific populations (Chao, 1994). Efforts toward this goal may
include an exploratory survey, with qualitative elements in it. For example,
participants could be asked to read a vignette depicting a common parent-child
interaction (i.e. homework completion), with a number of multiple choice items to
select one most descriptive of her parents. In addition, there would be a fill-in-the
blank space to write an answer if none of the ones provided captured the
participants’ perceived parents' practices. This would allow for more input from the
participants regarding common practices in their specific ethnic group, so that
parenting goals and practices can be better understood in members of the Latino
community.
The development of an age and culturally appropriate parenting instrument
may seem like a daunting task. However, the rewards will prove very useful to
future generations of parents, counselors and educators searching for effective

66
interventions for low achieving students. For younger students, assessing parenting
practices that may be hindering their academic self-concept and performance, may
help a teacher devise an effective approach to use in conference with her parents, or
a school counselor may use it as a tool to generate interventions to support her
academic development. Certainly, for a clinician, knowing the parents’ expectations
of the child and the ways employed to get the child to meet those expectations can be
invaluable in designing therapeutic goals for the family.
For young adults, on the other hand, understanding how they were raised, and
the advantages and disadvantages of such parenting practices for their success in
college may help them target areas of change and growth. Raimy (1948) had
introduced measures of self-concept in counseling interviews, working from the
premise that psychotherapy was a process for altering the ways in which individuals
saw themselves. This view was certainly shared and expanded by Rogers (1947),
who introduced his entire system of helping based on the importance of the self, and
its central role in human personality and personal adjustment. Rogers described the
self as a social product, developing out of interpersonal relationships, striving for
consistency and self-actualization. The role of the therapist or counselor was to
provide unconditional positive regard to the individual, so that she could correct
damaging perceptions and expectations of significant others and establish a more
accurate view of herself, consistent with her own feelings of what her real self ought
to be (Purkey and Schmidt, 1987).

67
Conclusion
Despite its limitations, this study provided useful information regarding the
negative relationship between Fathers’ Monitoring and Academic self-concept in this
sample of Latino/a community college students of Mexican descent. A higher
degree of Fathers’ Monitoring proved to be a good predictor of lower grades in these
participants. Considering, also, that Academic self-concept was the highest predictor
of GPA, the relationship between Father’s Monitoring and academic achievement
acquires much more relevance. From William James (1890) to Marsh (1990),
theoretical frameworks and data have supported the fact that self-concept is (1)
learned (from one’s own experience and significant others’ attributions); (2)
multidimensional and organized (according to areas such as general, work-related or
academic, and etc.); (3) hierarchical (some areas are more important to one’s
perceived worth than others); and (4) dynamic (it changes as a result of more recent
and convincing information). These major elements of self-concept have astounding
implications for teachers, counselors, and other student services personnel in their
efforts to raise academic achievement in Latino students, especially as they are
channeled into remedial classes instead of college level classes when they first enter
college.
First of all, self-concept scores could be obtained from first year students to
gauge their cognitive readiness for the college challenge. This could be part of
orientation to college courses, to be collected as data along with other placement
scores. Students could be made aware of the role their self-concept plays in their

68
motivation and determination to meet their goals and challenges. And, certainly,
how to purposefully act to increase their Academic self-concept. Once students
understand how their self-concept was learned, they can be more proactive in
unlearning potentially faulty perceptions, while incorporating new information, such
as the data provided by earning a good grade on a difficult assignment, and/or
receiving meaningful feedback from a professor (Anaya and Cole, 2004; Cole,
2007).
Given the dramatically low achievement rates of Latinos in post-secondary
education, it seems only logical that development of self-concept would be included
in programs designed to assist students to achieve in this population. However, it
has not been that way. Due to the fact that self-concept became a Popular
Psychology term, its cognitive value in achievement has been undermined. As self-
concept measures continue to prove their validity and usefulness in predicting
academic achievement, it is hoped that more members of student services teams
incorporate its measurement as part of the assessment of these Latino students
entering college. This data could provide teachers and counselors valuable
information regarding their perceptions and expectation of success and motivation,
as well as areas of potential concern to address with the students.
Understanding parents’ role in the development of self-concept is useful.
Parent education would be ideal, of course. Unfortunately, this resource is not
available to many lower income families, especially Latinos. Even if it were, issues
involving the goals of parenting in the Latino community may not be reflected in

69
these parenting classes, unless (of course) studies continue to investigate what is
expected of children when they grow up (i.e. goals), and how those expectations are
reflected in the behaviors (i.e. practices) parents choose to use to gain compliance
from their children. If the goals of the Latino family continue to include family
tradition and devotion over academic achievement, then parenting practices will
likely continue to hinder Latinos in their path to academic success. If the goals of
personal achievement are less important than staying close and responsive to the
family, then Latino children may lack the motivation to pursue their own goals.
However, Latino parents are devoted to their children, and if they understood how
their own practices interfere with their academic progress, they may opt to
acculturate in this area of their lives. It seems that the alternative has not helped
Latinos advancement in America.

70
REFERENCES
Anaya, G. & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the
influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of
College Student Development, 42, 3-14.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, J. (1978). Youth in Transition.
Volume VI: Adolescence to Adulthood--Change and Stability in the Lives of
Young Men. Ann Harbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Bachman, J.G., Green S. & Wirtamen, I. (1971). Youth in Transition. Volume III:
Dropping out--Problem or symptom? Ann Arbor, Michigan: Braun-
Brumfield, Inc.
Baumrind, D. (1967). 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.

71
Baumrind, D. (1991b). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence
and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Booth, G.C. (1987). The Community College Course Withdrawer: A Longitudinal
Analysis of the Program Reduction Phenomenon. Dissertation. The
Claremont Colleges.
Boulter, L.T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshman academic
adjustment. College Student Journal, 36 (2), 234-247.
Brody, G. H. and Stoneman, Z. (1992). Child competence and developmental goals
among rural families: investigating the links. In Parental Belief Systems:The
Psychological Consequences for Children, Sigel, I.E., McGillicuddy-Delisi,
A.V. & Goodnow J., (Eds.), 415-431.
Bugental, D. B. (1992). Affective and cognitive processes within threat-oriented
family systems. In Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological
Consequences for Children, Sigel, I.E., McGillicuddy-Delisi, A.V. &
Goodnow J., (Eds.), 219-247.
Buros, O.K. (Ed.). (1996). The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland
Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Byrne, B.M. (1983). Investigating measures of self-concept. Measurement and
Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 115-126.
Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A
review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54,
427-456.

72
Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of adolescent self-
concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 474-481.
Byrne, B. M. (1986). Self-concept/academic achievement relations: an investigation
of dimensionality, stability, and causality. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 18, 173-186.
Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1987). Adolescent self-concept: Testing the
assumption of equivalent structure across gender. American Educational
Research Journal, 24, 365-385.
Byrne, B. M. (1988a). Measuring adolescent self-concept: Factorial validity and
equivalency of the SDQ III across gender. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
23, 361-375.
Byrne, B. M. (1988b). The Self Description Questionnaire III: Testing for
equivalent factorial validity across ability. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 48, 397-406.

Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-concept across the life span. New York:
Wiley.
Cabrera, A. F. & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college choice of
disadvantaged students. New Directions for Institutional Research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caracosta, R. & Michael, W. B. (1983). The construct and concurrent validity of a
measure of academic self-concept and one of locus of control for a sample of

73
university students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 735-
744.
Chan, D.W. & Lee, B. H.C. (1993). Dimensions of self-esteem and psychological
symptoms among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 22, (4), 425-440.
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.
Ciarano, S, Kliewer, W, Bonino, S, Bosma, H. A. (2008). Parenting and Adolescent
Well-Being in two European Countries. Journal of International Student
Development, 112-115.
Cole, D. G.(2007). Do Interracial Interactions Matter? An Examination of Student-
Faculty Contact and Intellectual Self-Concept. The Journal of Higher
Education, 78, 249-281.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.
Cuéllar , I., Arnold, W. & , Maldonado, G. (1995). Cognitive Referents of
Acculturation: Assessment of Cultural Constructs in Mexican Americans.
Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (4) 339-356.
Darling, N. (2000). Parenting style and its correlates (Report No. EDO-PS-99-3).
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education.

74
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance.
Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Feldman, K. a. & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college students. Volume
I: An analysis of four decades of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Publishers.
Feldman, M. J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a community
college. Research in Higher Education, 34, 503-512.
Fine, M. (1985). Dropping out of high school: An inside look. Social Policy, 16,
43-50.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of urban high schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Finn, J. D. & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic Success Among Students at Risk for
School Failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 221-234.
Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent
school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Gallagher, R. P., Golin, A. & Kelleher, K. (1992). The personal, career, and
learning skills of college students. Journal of College Student Development,
33, 301-309.
Geen, R. G. (1991). Social Motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 377-399.

75
Gibbs, J. T. (1985). Psychosocial Factors Associated with Depression in Urban
Adolescent Females: Implications for Assessment. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 14, (1), 47-60.
Goldenberg I. & Goldenberg, H. (1991) Family Therapy: An Overview. Third
Edition. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Green, K. G. (1989). The Children of the Upheaval: A look at today’s college
freshmen. The Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 1(2), 20-42.
Gunnar, M. R. (1987). Psychobiological Studies of Stress and Coping: An
Introduction. Child Development, 58, 1403-1407.
Halote, B. and Michael W. B. (1984). The construct and concurrent validity of two
college-level academic self-concept scales for a sample of primarily Hispanic
community college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
44, 900-914.
Hamner, T. J. & Turner, P. H. (1996) Parenting in contemporary society. Third
Edition. Allyn & Bacon/Simon & Schuster.
Hurtado, S. (1994). The Institutional Climate for Talented Latino Students. Research
in Higher Education, 35 (1), 112-118.
Joubert, C. (1991). Self-esteem and Social desirability in relation to college
students’ retrospective perceptions of parental fairness and disciplinary
practices. Psychological Reports, 69, 115-120.
Jourard, S. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.

76
Kohn, P. M., & Milrose, J. A. (1993). The inventory of high school students’ recent
life experiences: a decontaminated measure of adolescents’ hassles. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 22, (1), 43-55.
Litovsky, V. G. & Dusek, J. B. (1985). Perceptions of child rearing and self-concept
development during the early adolescent years. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 14 (5), 373-385.
McAdam, E. K. (1986). Cognitive behavior therapy and its application with
adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 1-15.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child psychology: Socialization, personality, and
social development, (4th ed., 1 -101) New York: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Relationship among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensions
of self-concept, and academic achievements. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 1291-1308.
Marsh, H. W. (1988). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic
achievement: A reanalysis of Newman (1984). The Journal of Experimental
Education, 56, 100-104.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept:
Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
417-430.

77
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic
achievement: A multivariate, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 646-656.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). The Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II. A Theoretical
and empirical basis for measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescents"
self-concept: An interim test manual and a research monograph. Macarthur,
Australia: University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Using the national longitudinal study of 1988 to evaluate
theoretical models of self-concept: The Self-Description Questionnaire.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 439-456.
Marsh, H. W. & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal Effects of Academic Self-Concept on
Academic Achievement: Structural Equation Models of Longitudinal Data.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (1), 41-54.
Martinez, E. (1988). Child behavior in Mexican-American/Chicano families:
Maternal teaching and child-rearing practices. Family Relations, 37(3),
275-280.
Martinez, E. (1993). Parenting young children in Mexican-American/Chicano
families. In H. McAdoo (Ed.), Family Ethnicity: Strength and Diversity.
Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Martinez-Pons, M. (1996). Test of a model of parental inducement of academic self-
regulation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 213-227.

78
Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stress and
Specific coping strategies among Immigrant and Later Generation College
Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9 (2), 207-225.
Moore, W., Jr. & Carpenter, L. C. (1985). Academically underrepresented students.
In Increasing Student Retention, Noel, L. & Levitz, R. (Eds.). Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.
National Center for Education Statistics (1990). A Profile of the American Eighth
Grader: NELS: 1988: Student Descriptive Summary. In Hafner, A., Ingels,
S., Schneider, B. & Stevenson, D., Latino Youth and the Pathway to College.
Washington, DC.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1988). Help-Seeking Behavior in Learning. Review of Research
in Education, 12, 55-90.
Neto, F. (1993). The Satisfaction with Life Scale: Psychometrics Properties in an
Adolescent Sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, (2), 125-133.
Ortiz, V. (1986). Generational status, family background, and educational attainment
among Hispanic youth and non-Hispanic white youth. In Latino College
Students, M. A. Olivas (Ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.
Pace, C. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and
recommendations for the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M., (1982). Socialization of Achievement
Attitudes and Beliefs: Parental Influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.

79
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. & Wolfle, L. (1985). Persistence in higher education: A
nine-year test of a theoretical model. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. & Wolfle, L. (1986). Orientation to college and
freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher
Education, 57, 155-175.
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. Findings and
Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Purkey, W. W., & Schmidt, J. (1987). The inviting relationship: An expanded
perspective for professional counseling. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Raimy, V. C. (1948). Self-reference in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 12, 153-163.
Reyes, O. & Jason, L. (1993). Pilot study examining factors associated with
academic success for Hispanic high school students. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 22, (1), 57-70.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sameroff, A. J. and Fiese, B. H. (1992). Family Representations of Development. In
Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for

80
Children.Sigel, I.E., McGillicuddy-Delisi, A.V. & Goodnow J. (Eds.), 347-
369.
Savin-Williams, R. and Demo, H. D. (1983) Conceiving or Misconceiving the Self:
Issues in Adolescent Self-Esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, (1-2),
121-140.
Shavelson, R. J., Bolus, R., & Keesling, J.W. (1983). Self-concepts: Recent
developments in theory and method. New directions for Testing and
Measurement, 7, 25-43.
Shavelson, R.J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and
method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 3-17.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner,J. J., & Stanton,G.C.(1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Shavelson, R.J., & Stuart, K.R.(1981). Application of causal modeling to the
validation of self-concept interpretation of test scores. In M. D. Lynch, K.
Gregan, & A. A. Norem-Hebelson (Eds.), Self-concept: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 223-235). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
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.

81
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact oparenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement,
and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Sue, D.W. & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and
Practice. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Swail, W. S., Cabrera, A. F., & Lee, C. (2004). Latino Youth and the Pathway to
College. Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute, Inc.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994). Statistical Abstract of the United States (114th
edition). Washington DC.
Taylor, L. C., Hinton, I. D. & Wilson, M. N. (1993). Parental Influences on
Academic Performance in African American Students. Psych Discourse, 24,
(11), 6-10.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Trimble, J. E. (1996). Proper measures of acculturation. In, P. B. Pedersen, J. G.
Draguns, W. J. Lonner & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across Cultures
(1996), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 65 (Winter), 89–125.

82
Wintre, M. G. & Crowley, J. M. (1993). The adolescent self-concept: a functional
determinant of consultant preference. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22,
(4), 369-383.
Wylie, R. C. (1968). The present status of self-theory. In E. A. Borgatta & W. W.
Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Vol.2: Theory and research on selected
topics. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements.

83
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO FACULTY

Alina A. Hernández,
Mt. SAC Counselor/Professor
(909) 594-5611 Ext. 5923 H: (909) 396-1890

Dear Faculty Member:

I am hoping to obtain your assistance in collecting needed data for my dissertation
(Counseling Psychology, USC). The purpose of the study is to explore "family and
self-concept factors in college achievement", with special emphasis on ethnic
populations. The data I have collected so far are very low on Latinos and African-
Americans. And, that's why I'd like your help in getting your students to complete
the enclosed questionnaires.

Although answering the questionnaires is a time consuming project, I think it is a
worthwhile experience for any college student. I know many universities expect
their students to participate in surveys because it is a first-hand experience with
research. And for that reason, professors (particularly in the Social Science areas)
usually give their students extra points for participating.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance. If having the students completing the
questionnaires during class time is feasible in your situation, please, write a check
mark next to your name on the list posted next to the mailboxes. I will contact you
as soon as possible to go over the details of scheduling this activity. If you have any
questions about this project, please feel free to call me at any of the numbers given
above. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Alina A. Hernández

cc: Sample questionnaire packet

84
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT AND STUDENT INFORMATION
DIRECTIONS: The following questions were designed to study academic and
family characteristics in college students. Your answers are confidential, and will
not be analyzed separately. Instead, your answers will be combined with the answers
of the rest of the participants in this study to be analyzed as a group. Your
identification number (I.D.) will be used for our records only, to be able to
demonstrate the legitimacy of the data. Your permission is needed to have your
academic record accessed through the Admissions Office. If you agree to give your
consent, please put a check mark on “yes” on the line provided below. If you don’t,
it will not be accessed. Thank You for your participation!

Yes___ I give my consent to the researcher Alina Hernández to view my records.

No ___ I don’t give my consent to the researcher Alina Hernández to see my
records.

PLEASE, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY FILLING IN THE
BLANKS OR CIRCLING THE CHOICE MOST RELEVANT TO YOU.
THANKS!

(01) Identification Number: _________________

(02) Gender: (a) Female (03) (b) Male

(04) Age ____ (05) Date of birth ______

(06) Marital Status: (a) Single (b) Married (or in a Relationship) (c) Other

85
(07) Do you have children? (a) Yes #___ (b) No

(08) Course: (a) ___ Psych 1A (b)___ Psych 5 (c) Other _____________________

(10) Number of Units (or credit) to be completed this semester: Give # ____.

(11) Grade Point Average (G.P.A.) expected this semester (Total of all courses):
Give Number ____.

(a) 4.0 (b) 3.5 to 3.9
(c) 3.0 to 3.49 (d) 2.5 to 2.9
(e) 2.0 to 2.49 (f) 1.5 to 1.9 (g) 0.0 to 1.5

(12) Overall (total) G.P.A. you have accumulated since you graduated from high
school. Give your estimated G.P.A.: ______ Please, choose one of the letters below
to indicate the level where you think your GPA belongs.

(a) 4.0 (b) 3.5 to 3.9
(c) 3.0 to 3.49 (d) 2.5 to 2.9
(e) 2.0 to 2.49 (f) 1.5 to 1.9 (g) 0.0 to 1.5.

(13) Total number of units taken after High School (at MSAC or in other colleges or
universities). Please, give approximate number of total units you have completed in
all colleges and/or universities:________

(14) Please, give an estimate of your G.P.A. in High School : Give #_____
Please, choose one of the letters below to indicate the level where you think your
GPA belongs.

(a) 4.0 (b) 3.5 to 3.9
(c) 3.0 to 3.49 (d) 2.5 to 2.9
(e) 2.0 to 2.49 (f) 1.5 to 1.9 (g) 0.0 to 1.5

(15) I attended Pre-School in the U.S. (a)___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

86
(16) The Pre-school I attended was “Headstart”. (a)___Yes (b) ___No

(17) I attended Elementary School in the U. S. (a)___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ______________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(18) I attended Junior High School in the U.S. (a)___Yes (B) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ______________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(19) I attended High School in the U.S. (a)___Yes (B) ___No

If “No”, Where? (a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ______________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(20) I attended a college or university in another country (a) Yes (b) No.

(21) I grew up thinking that:

I was expected to graduate from high school.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

(22) I was expected to go to college after high school.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

(23) I was expected to go to work and take care of my own expenses.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

87
(24) I was expected to go to work and and help my family financially.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

(25) I was expected to get married after high school or soon thereafter.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

(26) I was expected to do whatever I wanted after I finished High School.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree

(27) Please, indicate the highest level of education achieved by your parents (or
people who raised you).

Elementary School (grades 1 to 6) (a)___mother (b)___father
Middle School (grades 7 to 9) (a)___mother (b)___father
High School (grades 10 to 12) (a)___mother (b)___father
Occupational Training (e.g. vocational nursing, auto mechanics,
accounting, etc.) (a)___mother (b)___father
College or University (1 to 4 years) (a)___mother (b)___father
Graduate (Credential, Doctorate, Medical Dr., Dentist, etc)
(a)___mother (b)___father

(28) I was born in the United States. (a) ___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ______________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(29) I consider myself a(n)___________ (preferred nationality and/or ethnicity).

(30) My mother (or person acting as mother) was born in the U.S. (a)Yes (b) No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ______________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

88
(31) My mother learned to drive
(a) ____ before I was born or while I was in Pre-school.
(b) ____ while I was in Elementary School.
(c) ____ while I was in Junior School.
(d) ____ while I was in High School.
(e) ____ has not learned or does not apply.

(32) My father (or person acting as father) was born in the U.S. (a)__Yes (b) __No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(33) My father learned to drive
(a) ____ before I was born or while I was in Pre-school.
(b) ____ while I was in Elementary School.
(c) ____ while I was in Junior School.
(d) ____ while I was in High School.
(e) ____ has not learned or does not apply.

(34) My paternal grandmother was born in the U.S. (a)___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(35) My paternal grandfather was born in the U.S. (a) ___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

89
(36) My maternal grandmother was born in the U.S (a)___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country ( country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(37) My maternal grandfather was born in the U.S. (a)___Yes (b) ___No

If “No”, Where?
(a) ___ Mexico
(b) ___ Other Latin American country (country’s name)______________
(c) ___ Europe (name of country) ________________________
(d) ___ Asia (name of country) _______________________
(e) ___ Africa (name of country) _______________________
(f) ___ Other (name of country) _______________________

(38) Other relatives (e.g. aunts / uncles, grandparents) used to live in my house
when I was growing up. (a)___Yes (b)___No

(39) I was very emotionally attached to one or more relative (or family friend) who
lived in my home while I was growing up. (a)___Yes (b) ___No.

The relative (or family friend) was a(an) [uncle, etc.] _________________.

(40) Please, indicate the financial situation of your family as you perceived it (you
don’t need worry about the accuracy of the facts).

I estimate that my family’s income was/ is

(41) (a)___lower (b)___similar (c)___better than that of the average child in my
Pre-school.

(42) (a)___lower (b)___similar (c)___better than that of the average child in my
Elementary School.

(43) (a)___lower (b)___similar (c)___better than that of the average child in my
Junior High School.

90
(44) (a)___lower (b)___similar (c)___better than that of the average student in m y
High School.

(45) (a)___lower (b)___similar (c)___better than that of the average student in
College.

(46) In 1980 the U.S. Census gives the median income for all families in the U.S. as
$33,8399 (1994 money standards). What is your estimate of your family’s income in
1980? The family’s income was (approximately): $_________________________ .

(47) In your estimation, your family’s income in 1980 was

(a) _____Poor (b) _____Lower middle (c) _____Middle
(d) _____Upper middle (e) _____High income

(48) In 1985 the U.S. Census gives the median income for all families in the U.S. as
$36,164 (1994 money standards). What is your estimate of your family’s income in
1985? The family’s income was (approximately): $______________ .

(49) In your estimation, your family’s income in 1985 was

(a) _____Poor (b) _____Lower middle (c) _____Middle
(d) _____Upper middle (e) _____High income

(50) The U.S. Census gives the median income for all families in the U.S. as
$37,950 in 1990 to $36,812 in 1992 (1994 money standards). What is your estimate
of your family’s income in1990-1992?

(51) The family’s income in 1990-1992 was (approximately): $______________ .

(52) In your estimation, your family’s income in 1990-1992 was

(a) _____Poor (b) _____Lower middle (c) _____Middle
(d) _____Upper middle (e) _____High income

(53) In 1996-1997, there were #____ persons living in your home, and your family’s
income is (approximately): $________________.

(54) Based on that figure, your family would be considered

(a) _____Poor (b) _____Lower middle (c) _____Middle
(d) _____Upper middle (e) _____High income

91
APPENDIX C
PERCEPTION OF FAMILY SOCIALIZATION STYLE INVENTORY (PFSSI)
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
“For as long as I can remember...” (Elementary school and after) O O O O O O O O
I could count on my mother to help me out if I had some kind of
problem.
O O O O O O O O
I could count on my father to help me out if I had some kind of
problem.
O O O O O O O O
My mother kept pushing me to do my best. O O O O O O O O
My father kept pushing me to do my best. O O O O O O O O
My mother said that I shouldn't argue with adults. O O O O O O O O
My father said that I shouldn't argue with adults. O O O O O O O O
My mother said that you should give in on arguments rather than
make people angry.
O O O O O O O O
My father said that you should give in on arguments rather than
make people angry.
O O O O O O O O
My mother kept pushing me to think independently. O O O O O O O O
My father kept pushing me to think independently. O O O O O O O O
When I got a poor grade in school, my mother would make my life
miserable.
O O O O O O O O
When I got a poor grade in school, my father would make my life
miserable.
O O O O O O O O
My mother would help me with my schoolwork if there was
something I didn't understand.
O O O O O O O O
My father would help me with my schoolwork if there was
something I didn't understand.
O O O O O O O O
My mother would tell me that her ideas were correct and that I
should not question them.
O O O O O O O O
My father would tell me that his ideas were correct and that I should
not question them.
O O O O O O O O
When my mother wanted me to do something, she explained why. O O O O O O O O
When my father wanted me to do something, he explained why. O O O O O O O O
Whenever I argued with my mother, she would say things like,
"You'll know better when you grow up."
O O O O O O O O
Whenever I argued with my father, he would say things like, "You'll
know better when you grow up."
O O O O O O O O

92
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
When I got a poor grade in school, my mother encouraged me to try
harder.
O O O O O O O O
When I got a poor grade in school, my father encouraged me to try
harder.
O O O O O O O O
My mother let me make my own plans for things I wanted to do. O O O O O O O O
My father let me make my own plans for things I wanted to do. O O O O O O O O
My mother knew who my friends were/are. O O O O O O O O
My father knew who my friends were/are. O O O O O O O O
My mother acted cold and unfriendly if I did something she didn't
like.
O O O O O O O O
My father acted cold and unfriendly if I did something he didn't like. O O O O O O O O
My mother would spend time just talking with me. O O O O O O O O
My father would spend time just talking with me. O O O O O O O O
When I got a poor grade in school, my mother made me feel guilty. O O O O O O O O
When I got a poor grade in school, my father made me feel guilty. O O O O O O O O
It was important to my mother that our family have fun together. O O O O O O O O
It was important to my father that our family have fun together. O O O O O O O O
My mother would not let me do things with her/the family when I
did something she didn’t like.
O O O O O O O O
My father would not let me do things with him/the family when I
did something he didn’t like.
O O O O O O O O
My mother knew where I went at night. O O O O O O O O
My father knew where I went at night. O O O O O O O O
My mother knew what I did with my spare time. O O O O O O O O
My father knew what I did with my spare time. O O O O O O O O
My mother knew where I was most afternoons after school. O O O O O O O O
My father knew where I was most afternoons after school. O O O O O O O O
My mother wanted to know where I went at night. O O O O O O O O
My father wanted to know where I went at night. O O O O O O O O
My mother wanted to know about what I did with my free time. O O O O O O O O
My father wanted to know about what I did with my free time. O O O O O O O O
My mother gave me more work and responsibilities than a child
should have.
O O O O O O O O
My father gave me more work and responsibilities than a child
should have.
O O O O O O O O

93
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
My mother attempted to control me using a rigid, unchanging
standard.
O O O O O O O O
My father attempted to control me using a rigid, unchanging
standard.
O O O O O O O O
My mother valued obedience as a virtue in her children. O O O O O O O O
My father valued obedience as a virtue in his children. O O O O O O O O
My mother believed that children should be seen and not heard. O O O O O O O O
My father believed that children should be seen and not heard. O O O O O O O O
My mother assigned household chores in order to develop respect
for work in me.
O O O O O O O O
My father assigned household chores in order o develop respect for
work in me.
O O O O O O O O
My mother believed that I should accept her word for what was
right.
O O O O O O O O
My father believed that I should accept his word for what was right. O O O O O O O O
My mother attempted to direct my activities in a rational, facts
oriented manner.
O O O O O O O O
My father attempted to direct my activities in a rational, facts
oriented manner.
O O O O O O O O
My mother encouraged verbal give and take and told me the
reasoning behind her rules.
O O O O O O O O
My father encouraged verbal give and take and told me the
reasoning behind his rules.
O O O O O O O O
My mother encouraged me to come to my own conclusions as well
as conforming to the rules.
O O O O O O O O
My father encouraged me to come to my own conclusions as well as
conforming to the rules.
O O O O O O O O
When we disagreed, my mother explained where we disagreed,
rather than force her will on me.
O O O O O O O O
When we disagreed, my father explained where we disagreed, rather
than force his will on me.
O O O O O O O O
My mother would enforce her own perspective, but would recognize
my views.
O O O O O O O O
My father would enforce his own perspective, but would recognize
my views.
O O O O O O O O
My mother respected who I was, yet set standards for my conduct. O O O O O O O O
My father respected who I was, yet set standards for my conduct. O O O O O O O O
My mother used reason, authority, and rewards to achieve her
objectives.
O O O O O O O O

94
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
My father used reason, authority, and rewards to achieve his
objectives.
O O O O O O O O
My mother would not base her decisions on what everyone else was
doing.
O O O O O O O O
My father would not base his decisions on what everyone else was
doing.
O O O O O O O O
My mother has been counting the days until I leave the house. O O O O O O O O
My father has been counting the days until I leave the house. O O O O O O O O
My mother allowed me to regulate my own activities as much as
possible.
O O O O O O O O
My father allowed me to regulate my own activities as much as
possible.
O O O O O O O O
My mother avoided trying to control me and did not encourage me
to obey her rules.
O O O O O O O O
My father avoided trying to control me and did not encourage me to
obey his rules.
O O O O O O O O
There were no consequences when I broke my mother's rules. O O O O O O O O
There were no consequences when I broke my father's rules. O O O O O O O O
I could usually talk my mother out of punishing me when I should
have been punished.
O O O O O O O O
I could usually talk my father out of punishing me when I should
have been punished.
O O O O O O O O
It was difficult for me to figure out how my mother felt about what I
did.
O O O O O O O O
It was difficult for me to figure out how my father felt about what I
did.
O O O O O O O O
My mother didn't care what I did as long as it didn't interfere with
her plans.
O O O O O O O O
My father didn't care what I did as long as it didn't interfere with his
plans.
O O O O O O O O
My mother wasn't interested in how I did in school. O O O O O O O O
My father wasn't interested in how I did in school. O O O O O O O O
When things weren't going well, I could count on my mother's
encouragement.
O O O O O O O O
When things weren't going well, I could count on my father's
encouragement.
O O O O O O O O
My mother attended many of my school activities. O O O O O O O O
My father attended many of my school activities. O O O O O O O O

95
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
My mother and I enjoy being with each other. O O O O O O O O
My father and I enjoy being with each other. O O O O O O O O
My mother and I helped each other when needed. O O O O O O O O
My father and I helped each other when needed. O O O O O O O O
My mother and I said what we meant and meant what we said to
each other.
O O O O O O O O
My father and I said what we meant and meant what we said to each
other.
O O O O O O O O
I could go to my mother for understanding and support. O O O O O O O O
I could go to my father for understanding and support. O O O O O O O O
My mother and I enjoy being with each other. O O O O O O O O
My mother used physical punishment to discipline me. O O O O O O O O
My father used physical punishment to discipline me. O O O O O O O O
My mother never hesitated to confront me when I did something
wrong.
O O O O O O O O
My father never hesitated to confront me when I did something
wrong.
O O O O O O O O
My mother values independence and integrity above all. O O O O O O O O
My father values independence and integrity above all. O O O O O O O O
My mother enjoys being my mother. O O O O O O O O
My father enjoys being my father. O O O O O O O O
My mother sets the rules firmly but is not inflexible. O O O O O O O O
My father sets the rules firmly but is not inflexible. O O O O O O O O
My mother held me accountable for what I said I would do. O O O O O O O O
My mother held me accountable for what I said I would do. O O O O O O O O
My father and I enjoy being with each other. O O O O O O O O
My mother used physical punishment to discipline me. O O O O O O O O
My father used physical punishment to discipline me. O O O O O O O O
My mother never hesitated to confront me when I did something
wrong.
O O O O O O O O
My father never hesitated to confront me when I did something
wrong.
O O O O O O O O
My mother values independence and integrity above all. O O O O O O O O
My father values independence and integrity above all. O O O O O O O O
My mother enjoys being my mother. O O O O O O O O
My father enjoys being my father. O O O O O O O O

96
Perception of Family Socialization Style
Inventory
Developed by Alina A. Hernández
(May 1998)
Definitely False
False
Mostly False
More False Than True
More True Than False
Mostly True
True
Definitely True
My mother sets the rules firmly but is not inflexible O O O O O O O O
My father sets the rules firmly but is not inflexible. O O O O O O O O
My mother held me accountable for what I said I would do. O O O O O O O O
My mother held me accountable for what I said I would do. O O O O O O O O

97
APPENDIX D
SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE III (SDQ III)
Item
Number Mathematics

1 I find many mathemeatical problems interesting and challenging.
14* I have hesitated to take courses that involve mathematics.
27 I have generally done better in Mathematics courses than in other courses.
40* Mathematics makes me feel inadequate.
53 I am quite good at mathematics.
66* I have trouble understanding anything that is based on Mathematics.
79 I have always done well in Mathematics classes.
92* I never do well in tests that require mathematical reasoning.
105 At school my friends always came to help to me for help in Mathematics.
118* I have never been too excited about mathematics.

Item
Number Religion SDQ

2* My parents were not spiritual-religious people.
15 I’m not a spiritual-religious person.
28* Spiritual-religious beliefs have little to do with my life’s philosophy
41 Spiritual/religious beliefs make my life better and make me a happier
person.
54 My spiritual-religious beliefs provide the guidelines by which I conduct
my life.
67 Continuous spiritual-religious growth is important to me.
80* I rarely if ever spend time inspiritual meditation or religious prayer.
93 I’m a better person as a consequence of my spiritual beliefs.
106* I’m basically an atheist and belief that there’s no being higher than man.
119 I belief that there will be some form of continuation of my spirit or soul
after my death.
133* Spiritual-religious beliefs have little to doo with the type of person I want
to be.
136* Few if any of my friends are very spiritual or religious.

98
Item
Number General SDQ

03 Overall, I have a lot of respect for myself
16* Overall, I lack self-confidence.
29 Overall, I’m pretty accepting of myself
42* Overall, I don’t have much respect for myself
55 Overall, I have a lot of self-confidence
68 Overall, I have a very good self-concept.
81* Overall, nothing that I do is very important.
94 Overall, I have pretty positive feelings about myself.
107* Overall, I have a very poor self-concept.
120* Overall, I have pretty negative feelings about myself.
131 Overall, I do a lot of things that are important.
135* Overall, I’m not very accepoting of myself.

Item
Number Honesty

4* I often tell small lies to avoid embarrassing questions.
17 People can always rely on me.
30* Being honest is not particularly important to me.
43 I nearly always tell the truth.
56* I sometimes take things that do not belong to me.
69 I never cheat.
82* Being dishonest is often the lesser of two evils.
95 I am a very honest person.
108* I feel okay about cheating on a test as long as I do not get caught.
121 I value integrity above all other virtues.
132* I am not a very reliable person.
134 I have never stolen anything of consequence.

Item
Number Relationship With The Opposite Sex

5 I get a lot of attention from members of the opposite sex.
18 I find it difficult to meet members of the opposite sex whom I like.
31 I have lots of friends of the opposite sex.
44* Most of my friends are more comfortable with members of the opposite
sex than I am.
57 I’m comfortable talking to members of the opposite sex.
70* I’m quite shy with members of the opposite sex.
83 I make friends easily with members of the opposite sex.

99
96* I have had lots of feelings of inadequacy about relating to members
of the opposite sex.
109 I am comfortable being affectionate with members of the opposite sex.
122* I have never seemed to have much in common with members of the
opposite sex.

Item
Number Verbal

6* I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something.
19. I can write effectively
32* I have a poor vocabulary .
45 I am an avid reader.
58* I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal reasoning ability.
71 Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite good,
84* I often have to read things several times before I understand them.
97 I am good at expressing myself.
110* In school, I had more trouble learning to read than most students.
123 I have good reading comprehension.

Item
Number Emotional
7 I’m usually pretty calm and relaxed.
20* I worry a lot.
33 I am happy most of the time.
46* I am anxious most of the time.
59 I hardly ever feel depressed.
72* I tend to be highly strung, tense and restless.
85 I do not spend a lot of time worrying about a lot of things.
98* I am often deppressed.
111 I am inclined toward being an optimist.
124* I tend to be a very nervous person.

Item
Number Relations With Parents

8* I hardly ever saw things the same way as my parents when I was
growing up.
21 I would like to bring children of my own (if I have any) like my
parents raised me.
34* I still have many unresolved conflicts with my parents.
47* My parents have usually unhappy or disappointed with what I do or
have done.

100
60 My values are similar to those of my parents.
73* My parents have never had much respect for me.
86 My parents treated me fairly when I was young.
99* It is often been difficult to talk to my parents.
112 My parents understand me.
125 I like my parents.

Item
Number Academic

9 I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects.
22* I hate studying for many academic subjesct
35 I like most academic subjects.
48* I have trouble with most academic subjects.
61 I’m quite good at mathematics.
74* I’m not particularly interested in most academic subjects.
87 I learn quickly in most academic subjects.
100* I hate most academic sugjjects.
113 I get good marks in most academic subjects.
126* I could never achieve academic honors even if I worked harder.

Item
Number Problem Solving

10* I am never able to think answers to problems that haven’t already
been figured out.
23 I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried.
36* I wish I had more imagination and originality.
49 I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems.
62* I’m not much good at solving problems.
75 I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
88* I’m not very original in my ideas, thoughts and actions.
101 I am not an imaginative person.
114* I would have no interest on being an inventor.
127 I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks.

Item
Number Physical Appearance

11 I have a physically attractive body.
24* I am ugly.
37 I have a good body build.

101
50* I would like to change many things about my physical appearance.
63 My body weight is about right (neither too fat nor too skinny).
76* I dislike the way I look.
89 I have nice facial features.
102* I wish that I were physically more attractive.
115* Most of my friends are better looking than I am.
128 I am good looking.

Item
Number Relationship With The Same Sex

12* I have few friends of the same sex that I can really count on.
25 I am comfortable talking to members of the same sex.
38* I don’t get along very well with other members of the same sex.
51 I make friends easily with members of the same sex.
64* Other members of the same sex find me boring.
77 I share a lot of activities with members of the same sex.
90* Not many people of the same sex like me.
103 I am popular with other members of the same sex.
116* Most people have more friends of the same sex than I do.
129 I have lots of friends of the same sex.

Item
Number Physical Ability

13 I am a good athlete.
26* I am awkward and poorly coordinated at many sports and physical
activities.
39 I have good endurance and stamina in sports and physical activities.
52* I hate sports and physical activities.
65 I have a high energy level at sports and physical activities.
78* I’m not very good at any activities that require physical activity and
coordination.
91 I like to exercise vigorously at sports and physical activities.
104* I am poor at most sports and physical activities.
117 I enjoy sports and physical activities.
130* I am a sedentary type who avoids strenuous activities.

102

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
1
I Find many mathematical problems interesting and
challenging
O O O O O O O O
2 My parents are not spiritual/religious people. O O O O O O O O
3 Overall, I have a lot of respect for myself. O O O O O O O O
4 I often tell small lies to avoid embarrassing questions. O O O O O O O O
5
I get a lot of attention from members of the opposite
sex.
O O O O O O O O
6
I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write
something.
O O O O O O O O
7 I am usually pretty calm and relaxed. O O O O O O O O
8
I hardly ever saw things the same way as my parents
when I was growing up.
O O O O O O O O
9 I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
10
I am never able to think up answers to problems that
haven't already been figured out.
O O O O O O O O
11 I have a physically attractive body. O O O O O O O O
12
I have few friends of the same sex that I can really
count on.
O O O O O O O O
13 I am a good athlete. O O O O O O O O
14
I have hesitated to take courses that involve
mathematics.
O O O O O O O O
15 I am a spiritual/religious person. O O O O O O O O
16 Overall, I lack self-confidence. O O O O O O O O
17 People can always rely on me. O O O O O O O O
18
I find it difficult to meet members of the opposite sex
whom I like.
O O O O O O O O
19 I can write effectively. O O O O O O O O
20 I worry a lot. O O O O O O O O
21
I would like to bring up children of my own (if I have
any) like my parents raised me.
O O O O O O O O
22 I hate studying for many academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
23
I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have
not tried.
O O O O O O O O
24 I am ugly. O O O O O O O O
25 I am comfortable talking to members of the same sex. O O O O O O O O

103

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
26
I am awkward and poorly coordinated at many sports
and physical activities.
O O O O O O O O
27
I have generally done better in mathematics courses
than other courses.
O O O O O O O O
28
Spiritual/religious beliefs have little to do with my life
philosophy.
O O O O O O O O
29 Overall, I am pretty accepting of myself. O O O O O O O O
30 Being honest is not particularly important to me. O O O O O O O O
31 I have lots of friends of the opposite sex. O O O O O O O O
32 I have a poor vocabulary. O O O O O O O O
33 I am happy most of the time. O O O O O O O O
34
I still have many unresolved conflicts with my
parents.
O O O O O O O O
35 I like most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
36 I wish I had more imagination and originality. O O O O O O O O
37 I have a good body build. O O O O O O O O
38
I don't get along very well with other members of the
same sex.
O O O O O O O O
39
I have good endurance and stamina in sports and
physical activities.
O O O O O O O O
40 Mathematics makes me feel inadequate. O O O O O O O O
41
Spiritual/religious beliefs make my life better and
make me a happier person.
O O O O O O O O
42 Overall, I don't have much respect for myself. O O O O O O O O
43 I nearly always tell the truth. O O O O O O O O
44
Most of my friends are most comfortable with
members of the opposite sex than I am.
O O O O O O O O
45 I am an avid reader. O O O O O O O O
46 I am anxious much of the time. O O O O O O O O
47
My parents have usually been unhappy or
disappointed with what I do and have done.
O O O O O O O O
48 I have trouble with most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
49 I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems. O O O O O O O O
50 I make friends easily with members of the same sex. O O O O O O O O
51 I am quite good at mathematics. O O O O O O O O
52 I hate sports and physical activities O O O O O O O O

104

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
53 I am quite good at mathematics. O O O O O O O O
54
My spiritual/religious beliefs provide the guidelines
by which I conduct my life.
O O O O O O O O
55 Overall, I have a lot of self-confidence. O O O O O O O O
56 I sometimes take things that do not belong to me. O O O O O O O O
57
I am comfortable talking to members of the opposite
sex.
O O O O O O O O
58
I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal
reasoning ability.
O O O O O O O O
59 I hardly ever feel depressed. O O O O O O O O
60 My values are similar to those of my parents. O O O O O O O O
61 I'm good at most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
62 I'm not much good at problem solving. O O O O O O O O
63
My body weight is about right (neither too fat nor too
skinny)
O O O O O O O O
64 Other members of the same sex find me boring. O O O O O O O O
65
I have a high energy level in sports and physical
activities.
O O O O O O O O
66
I have trouble understanding anything that is based
upon mathematics.
O O O O O O O O
67
Continuous spiritual/religious growth is important to
me.
O O O O O O O O
68 Overall, I have a very good self-concept. O O O O O O O O
69 I never cheat. O O O O O O O O
70 I'm quite shy with members of the opposite sex. O O O O O O O O
71
Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite
good.
O O O O O O O O
72 I tend to be highly strung, tense, and restless. O O O O O O O O
73 My parents have never had much respect for me. O O O O O O O O
74
I'm not particularly interested in most academic
subjects.
O O O O O O O O
75 I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. O O O O O O O O
76 I dislike the way I look. O O O O O O O O
77
I share a lot of activities with members of the same
sex.
O O O O O O O O

105

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
78
I'm not very good at any activities that require
physical ability and coordination.
O O O O O O O O
79 I have always done well in mathematics classes. O O O O O O O O
80
I rarely if ever spend time in spiritual meditation or
religious prayer.
O O O O O O O O
81 Overall, nothing that I do is very important. O O O O O O O O
82 Being dishonest is often the lesser of two evils. O O O O O O O O
83
I make friends easily with members of the opposite
sex.
O O O O O O O O
84
I often have to read things several times before I
understand them.
O O O O O O O O
85 I do not spend a lot of time worrying about things. O O O O O O O O
86 My parents treated me fairly when I was young. O O O O O O O O
87 I learn quickly in most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
88
I'm not very original in my ideas, thoughts, and
actions.
O O O O O O O O
89 I have nice facial features. O O O O O O O O
90 Not many people of the same sex like me. O O O O O O O O
91
I like to exercise vigorously at sports and/or physical
activities.
O O O O O O O O
92
I never do well on tests that require mathematical
reasoning
O O O O O O O O
93
I am a better person as a consequence of my
spiritual/religious beliefs.
O O O O O O O O
94 Overall, I have pretty positive feeling about myself. O O O O O O O O
95 I am a very honest person. O O O O O O O O
96
I have had lots of feelings of inadequacy about
relating to members of the opposite sex.
O O O O O O O O
97 I am good at expressing myself. O O O O O O O O
98 I am often depressed. O O O O O O O O
99 It has often been difficult for me to talk to my parents. O O O O O O O O
100 I hate most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
101 I am an imaginative person. O O O O O O O O
102 I wish that I were physically more attractive. O O O O O O O O
103 I am popular with other members of the same sex. O O O O O O O O
104 I am poor at most sports and physical activities. O O O O O O O O

106

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
105
At school my friends always came to me for help in
mathematics
O O O O O O O O
106
I am basically an atheist, and believe that there is no
being higher than man.
O O O O O O O O
107 Overall, I have a very poor self-concept. O O O O O O O O
108
I would feel OK about cheating on a test as long as I
did not get caught.
O O O O O O O O
109
I am comfortable being affectionate with members of
the opposite sex.
O O O O O O O O
110
In school I had more trouble learning to read than
most other students.
O O O O O O O O
111 I am inclined towards being an optimist. O O O O O O O O
112 My parents understand me. O O O O O O O O
113 I get good marks in most academic subjects. O O O O O O O O
114 I would have no interest in being an inventor O O O O O O O O
115 Most of my friends are better looking than I am. O O O O O O O O
116
Most people have more friends of the same sex than I
do.
O O O O O O O O
117 I enjoy sports and physical activities. O O O O O O O O
118 I have never been very excited about mathematics. O O O O O O O O
119
I believe that there will be some form of continuation
of my spirit or soul after my death.
O O O O O O O O
120 Overall, I have pretty negative feelings about myself. O O O O O O O O
121 I value integrity above all other virtues. O O O O O O O O
122
I never seem to have much in common with members
of the opposite sex.
O O O O O O O O
123 I have good reading comprehension. O O O O O O O O
124 I tend to be a very nervous person. O O O O O O O O
125 I like my parents. O O O O O O O O
126
I could never achieve academic honors, even if I
worked harder.
O O O O O O O O
127 I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks. O O O O O O O O
128 I am good looking. O O O O O O O O
129 I have lots of friends of the same sex. O O O O O O O O
130 I am a sedentary type who avoids strenuous activity. O O O O O O O O
131 Overall, I do lots of things that are important. O O O O O O O O

107

Self-Description Questionnaire III
Developed by Herbert W. Marsh
(1982)
Definitely FALSE
FALSE
Mostly FALSE
More FALSE than TRUE
More TRUE than FALSE
Mostly TRUE
TRUE
Definitely TRUE
132 I am not a very reliable person. O O O O O O O O
133
Spiritual/religious beliefs have little to do with the
type of person I want to be.
O O O O O O O O
134 I have never stolen anything of consequence. O O O O O O O O
135 Overall, I am not very accepting of myself. O O O O O O O O
136 Few--if any of my friends--are very spiritual or religious. O O O O O O O O

108
APPENDIX E
ACCULTURATION RATING SCALE FOR MEXICAN AMERICANS II
FORM --A: Acculturation Rating Scale--II (ARSMA-II), English Version.
(Cuéllar, Harris y Jasso (1980))

Please, answer the questions in Form “A” (attached) if either you, your parents,
grandparents or great grandparents were born in Mexico or in other Latin American
countries. Please, use the answer sheet provided. Thank you.

Student Number:_____________________ Gender: ___Male ___Female
Age: ___ Date of Birth:_____ Marital Status: __Single __Married __ Other

Please, write an “X” next to ALL the statements that apply to You. Thank You!
(a) Last grade you completed in school (Circle your choice):
1. Elementary--6.
2. 7-8.
3. 9-12.
4. 1-2 years of college.
5. 3-4 years of college.
6. College graduate and higher.
(b) In what country?________________
Circle the generation that best applies to you. Circle only one.
1. 1st generation = You were born in México or another country (other than the
U.S.A.). Please, give country's name: _________________

2. 2nd generation = You were born in the U.S.A.; either parent born in Mexico
or other country.

3. 3rd. generation = You were born in U.S.A., both parents were born in U.S.A.
and all grandparents were born in Mexico or other country.

4. 4th generation = You and your parents were born in the U.S.A. and at least
one of your grandparents were born in Mexico or other country.

5. 5th generation = You, your parents, and all grandparents were born in the
U.S.A.

109
Formulario "A": Escala de Asesoramiento de Aculturación-II (ARSMA-II)
Versión en Español. Este cuestionario fue creado por Cuéllar, Harris y Jasso (1980)

Número de Estudiante_________________________
Genero: Masculino: ______ Femenino:______
Edad: _______ Fecha de Nacimiento: ____________
Estado Civil: ______ Soltero(a) ______ Casado(a) _____ Otro

Marque con una "x" TODAS las oraciones que se apliquen a su persona. Muchas
Gracias!

(a) Hasta qué grado o año fue a la escuela? (Indique con un círculo la respuesta)
1. Primaria --6to.
2. Secundaria (7--8)
3. Preparatoria (9-12)
4. Universidad o colegio (1-2 años).
5. Universidad o Colegio (3 a 4 años)
6. Graduado, o grado más alto de Colegio o Universidad.
(b) En qué país? __________________________.

Indique con un círculo el número de la generación que considere mas adecuada para
usted. Dé sólamente una respuesta.

1. 1a. generación=Usted nació en México u otro país (excluyendo a los Estados
Unidos de América).
Por favor, indique el nombre del pais; _______________________

2. 2a. generación= Usted nació en los Estados Unidos, pero sus padres nacieron
en México o en otro país.

3. 3a. generación=Usted nació los Estados Unidos Americanos y sus padres
también nacieron en los Estados Unidos, Pero sus abuelos nacieron en
México o en otro país.

4. 4a. generación= Usted nació en los Estados Unidos, sus padres también
nacieron en los Estados Unidos y por lo menos uno de sus abuelos nació en
México o algún otro país y el resto en los EE.U.U.

5. 5a. generación = Usted, sus padres y todos sus abuelos nacieron en los
Estados Unidos.

110
FORM “B”: Acculturation Rating Scale--II (ARSMA-II)
(Cuéllar, Harris & Jasso, 1980)

B: Please, use Form “B” if either you, your parents, grandparents or great
grandparents were born in a country other than the United States, but not in Mexico
or other Latin American countries. Please, use the answer sheet provided. Thank
you.
Student Number:_______________ Gender:____ Male ____ Female
Age: ___ Date of Birth: _________ Marital Status:__ Single _ Married___ Other

Please, write an “X” next to ALL the statements that apply to You. Thank You!

(a) Last grade you completed in school (Circle your choice):

1. Elementary--6.
2. 7-8.
3. 9-12.
4. 1-2 years of college.
5. 3-4 years of college.
6. College graduate and higher.

(b) In what country?________________

Circle the generation that best applies to you. Circle only one.

1. 1st generation = You were born in another country (other than the U.S.A.)
Please, give country's name:_________________

2. 2nd generation = You were born in the U.S.A.; either parent was born in
another country.

3. 3rd. generation = You were born in U.S.A., both parents were born in the
U.S.A. and all grandparents were born in other countries.

4. 4th generation = You and your parents were born in the U.S.A. and at least
one of your grandparents was born in another country and all great
grandparents were born in other countries.

5. 5th generation = You, your parents, grandparents and all great grandparents
were born in the U.S.A.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Alina Aymara (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Counseling Psychology)

Publication Date 07/14/2009

Defense Date 02/25/2009

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

Tag academic self-concept,acculturation,achievement,Baumrind's parenting styles.,GPA,Hispanics,Latino college students,Mexican American college students,OAI-PMH Harvest,parenting control,parenting warmth,self-concept

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Ongaro, Giulio M. (committee member)

Creator Email aahernandez@mtsac.edu,alinahdez@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2324

Unique identifier UC1459506

Identifier etd-Hernandez-3002 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-406759 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2324 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hernandez-3002.pdf

Dmrecord 406759

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hernandez, Alina Aymara

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