• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Perceived parenting style and its relationship to hopefulness, happiness, and optimism in a college student sample

Dissertation
Author: Sarah J. Griess
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate differences among positive psychology traits of happiness, hopefulness, and optimism, between three perceived parenting styles in 291 undergraduate college students. It was hypothesized that students identifying with the reared authoritative parenting style would endorse higher levels of hopefulness, happiness, and optimism than the permissive and authoritarian parenting styles. Multivariate and discriminant analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. Data analysis in this study supported that the perceived authoritative parenting style contributed to higher levels of optimism than the authoritarian parenting style. The development of optimism or lack thereof can become a means of clinical intervention both individually and in providing parenting interventions. Based on the studies relating optimism to coping skills, identifying levels of optimism in students can help provide ideas for clinical intervention. The hypothesis that the perceived authoritative parenting style would contribute to the development of higher levels of optimism than the perceived permissive style were inconclusive due to the limitations of using multivariate analyses. The hypotheses suggesting that the perceived authoritative parenting style would also contribute to the development of higher levels of happiness and hopefulness were not supported in this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………… 1 Need for the Study Purpose of the Study Definition of the Terms Assumptions Delimitations of the Study

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………… 12 Positive Psychology Parenting Styles

III. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………… 46 Research Design Sample Data Collection Procedures Instrumentation Research Hypotheses and Statistical Analyses

IV. RESULTS ………………………………………………… 58 Demographic Description of the Sample Hypotheses and Statistical Analyses

V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………. 70 Discussion Implications

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 85

APPENDIX A: CLASSES AND ACTIVITIES SELECTED FOR DATA COLLECTION …………………………………….. 94

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ………………………… 96

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ……………………... 98

APPENDIX D: PERCEIVED PARENTYING STYLE SURVEY ………….. 100

APPENDIX E: SHORT DEPRESSION-HAPPINESS SCALE (SDHS) ……. 102

vi

APPENDIX F: THE HOPE SCALE …………………………………………. 104

APPENDIX G: LIFE ORIENTATION TEST-REVISED (LOT-R) …………. 106

APPENDIX H: RESEARCHER SCRIPT ……………………………………. 108

APPENDIX I: IRB APPROVAL STATEMENT …………………………….. 110

APPENDIX J: MANUSCRIPT FOR PEER REVIEW PUBLICATION ……... 112

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Ethnic Percentages in Student Sample and University Population 61

Table 2 Demographic Description of Participants 62

Table 3 Demographic Frequencies and Percentages Across 63 Parenting Styles

Table 4 Frequencies and Percentages of Perceived Parenting Styles 64 on the PPSS by Participants

Table 5 Caregiver rated for Perceived Parenting Style Survey (PPSS) 65 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviation Results for Hopefulness, Optimism, and Happiness, Across Parenting Styles 66

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As new generations of students enter into college, universities find ways to adjust to the unique issues presented with each changing generation of students. Since the era of the baby boomers becoming parents, universities are finding themselves adjusting to the unique issues brought about by over involved parents that have earned themselves the name of “helicopter parents” through their constant hovering (Lum, 2006, White, 2005). The term “helicopter parents” evolved from the idea of a hovering helicopter being like many parents of college students that hover around their children, getting involved in every aspect of their children‟s lives, and impacting the social development and independence of the students as they immerse themselves in the college experience. As a University staff working with students, it is often predictable to identify which students have been raised with helicopter parents and which students have not, by observing the way they adjust to college life and exert their new found independence as college students. Helicopter parenting is just one style of parenting, displaying the same parenting characteristics of Baumrind‟s authoritarian parenting style (1966, 1991). The study of parenting styles and their effects on child development and socialization has been a widely researched topic. Diana Baumrind is one of the most well established researchers in the area of parenting. She developed her own theory and categorization of parental

2

conduct and discussed four styles of parenting including the permissive, authoritative, authoritarian, and rejecting-neglecting parent. Baumrind‟s theory opened the door for a wide variety of research on the characteristics of each parenting style and how those characteristics contribute to the development of both desirable and less desirable traits in offspring. According to Baumrind‟s model, parental behavior is measured in terms of demandingness and responsiveness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Baumrind (1991) stated that demandingness “refers to the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (p. 61-62). Responsiveness then “refers to the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self- assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children‟s special needs and demands” (p. 62). These measurements facilitated Baumrind‟s development of the four models of parenting style (Baumrind, 1990). The authoritative parenting style is considered to produce the most well adjusted children as it focuses on both demandingness and responsiveness and allows for warmth, flexibility, and reason (Baumrind, 1990, Buri, 1991). The remaining styles of parenting behavior, including authoritarian, permissive, and rejecting-neglecting, are more likely to produce children who display behaviors that are likely to lead to lower levels of independent functioning. This is due to a variation in levels of demandingness and responsiveness that are either too high or too low for obtaining optimal child development. Much of the research over the past three decades revolves around the impact of parenting styles on child and adolescent development. Recent studies have begun to look

3

at the effects of parenting style in college students as they transition into adulthood. The transition from adolescence into adulthood can be a great time of change and ambiguity for many college students as they are no longer an adolescent in high school, and are now entering into adulthood (Rindfuss, 1991). Students often find themselves feeling caught between adolescence and adulthood, not quite fitting into either category (Arnett, 2000). As they leave home, many for the first time, they are faced with challenges and choices that may either foster or inhibit their independence. Many students are being introduced to their first jobs, financial freedom, adult romantic relationships, and independent decision making. As new roles and freedoms are encountered, young people find themselves able to have greater freedom in responding to the changes taking place in their lives (Rindfuss, 1991). These roles tend to enhance the feelings of independence encountered upon entering into college. However, in addition to learning to be self sufficient, according to Arnett (1998), the greatest measure of independence is differentiation from others, especially their parents. Baumrind (1991) discussed the significant role changes that take place in adolescence as the child begins to assert his or her independence. In relating to others, peer opinions are now being considered along with family. As the adolescent matures he or she is assigned new duties within the family and in association to the greater society that may or may not foster a greater level of independence that comes with moving into adolescence and emerging adulthood. Bednar and Fisher (2003) discuss the shift from relying totally on one‟s parents for social cues and behavioral guidelines, to referencing peers instead. Fuligni and Eccles (1993) found that the more the adolescent felt they were involved in the decision making with their parents (authoritative parenting style) the less

4

they referenced peers for advice. Ultimately, Bednar and Fisher found that adolescents were more likely to reference their peers in making decisions regarding social matters, and that adolescents in authoritative families tended to reference their parents in making moral decisions. This initial individuation that takes place in adolescence carries into young adulthood and as individuals reach college age. There is research to suggest that the impact that one‟s parents have on them continues well into adulthood. van Wel, ter Bogt, and Raaijmakers (2002) found that the parental bond in young people ages 12 to 24 years had a significant effect on the overall welfare of the participants in the study. Results also showed that the effect of the parental bond was even more significant than that of a best friend or partner. By this time, a precedent has been set as to how much students will turn to their families in times of significant changes and important decision making. Because the college experience is a time of independence in decision making and exploration, this opens the door for many researchers to focus on student engagement in negative behaviors such as drug and alcohol use and exploration, engagement in sexual exploration and unprotected sex, and the relation to issues of self-esteem and depression. There is research to support that these issues have been significantly related to parenting styles that are characterized with less warmth, extremely high or extremely low levels of parental demandingness, and little to no consideration of child input (Smetana, 1995). Studies are also looking at relationships between differing parenting styles of the mother and father and their effects on same sex and opposite sex offspring in regard to self- esteem, alcohol related behaviors, depression, adjustment, and rejection (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2007; Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dawson-McClure, 2008;

5

Crean, 2008). Parenting styles classified as neglectful are characterized by parental inaction and inattentiveness in raising the child; in essence this style is similar to the child having to rear one‟s self. Youth reared by neglectful parents are more likely to display maladaptive strategies to dealing with issues, are more reactive than proactive, and often display behaviors that take them off task (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000). Knutson, DeGarmo, and Reid (2004) found that youth reared with the neglectful parenting style were often more aggressive, displayed a greater risk of being involved in delinquent behavior, and were more likely to struggle academically. On the other end of the parenting spectrum is research on the parenting style that is likely to produce the most positive behaviors in children. Authoritative parents are more likely to display clear and concrete direction, leaving little ambiguity with the children, while providing a give and take atmosphere, allowing for the children to make choices and be responsible for the consequences (Buri, 1991). It is well researched that authoritative parents most likely rear children who are more independent, responsible, and goal oriented (Buri, 1991; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991; Baumrind, 1966). Steinberg et al. reported that kids reared authoritatively are also more likely to be successful academically and less involved in delinquent activity. Although research suggests that children reared with authoritative parenting are likely to be the best adjusted behaviorally, there is little research to suggest that these children will also be well adjusted in more intrapersonal dimensions of positive psychology such as happiness, hopefulness, and optimism. In neglectful, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles, research shows a link to increased levels of depression, low-self esteem, and substance abuse in comparison to their peers reared by authoritative

6

parents (Baumrind, 1991; Berg-Nielsen, Vikan & Dahl, 2003; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Whether or not these parenting styles also produce some strengths in children and adolescents remains unclear. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) stress the importance of the need “for massive research on human strengths and virtues” (p. 8). They also stress that now that psychology has turned to recognizing the active agency of individuals in their life outcomes, practicing from the positive psychology “worldview may have the direct effect of preventing many of the major emotional disorders” while producing side effects of increased physical health due to the mind body connection and “making normal people stronger and more productive and making high human potential actual” (p. 8). Positive psychology focuses on the strengths of people and how those strengths were acquired. Although positive psychology is not a new concept, recently it has received more attention by researchers (Foster & Lloyd, 2007). In fact, strength based conceptualization and intervention has been an emphasis of Counseling Psychology since its inception over 60 years ago (Gelso & Fretz, 2001). Gable and Haidt (2005) defined positive psychology as an examination of the circumstances and procedures that lead to individuals, groups, and systems functioning and thriving at their highest level or ability. Park, Peterson, & Seligman (2004) noted that positive psychology identifies strengths in character, and that these strengths are associated strongly with the amount of satisfaction one draws from life. Three traits of positive psychology include happiness, hopefulness, and optimism (Harris, Thoresen, & Lopez, 2007; Baldwin, McIntyre, & Hardaway, 2007). According to Gable and Haidt‟s definition, these three traits of positive psychology will contribute to the functioning of individuals at their highest ability. The

7

contribution of these traits is an important consideration for research in looking at interventions focused on helping our college students to be successful. Identifying parenting styles that rear students with high levels of positive psychology may be an important step for both parents and students that can, according to Gable and Haidt‟s findings related to increased ability, maximize the opportunity a student has to be successful in his or her college career. Need for the Study Much of the parenting style research focuses on behavioral outcomes of children reared with one of Baumrind‟s (1990) parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting-rejecting) such as academic adjustment, proneness to substance abuse, autonomy, self control, etc. However, few studies address the positive psychology, or intrapersonal traits and strengths, of college students in relation to parenting styles with which they were reared. In association with research done on the change and transition experienced during the college years, as well as the research that looks at the benefits of traits of positive psychology, research is warranted to begin to look at more intrapersonal displays of positive psychology traits versus negative behavioral displays of college students reared with a particular parenting style. Because much of the prior research has been focused on negative behavioral displays, the authoritative parenting style, yielding the most positive displays of behavior, has been a focus of parenting books and parent training. However, it is currently unclear if authoritative parenting, versus authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting-rejecting, is also producing the most positive intrapersonal outcomes. The relationship between parenting styles and specific traits of positive psychology such as happiness, hopefulness,

8

and optimism, three traits that are suggested to contribute to optimal functioning, also remains unclear (Harris et al., 2007; Baldwin et al., 2007). For the purpose of this study, only three of Baumrind‟s parenting styles will be used: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Because the neglecting-rejecting parenting style implies a lack of parenting techniques it is difficult to measure on a self- report instrument. This parenting style is also more likely to result in parents abandoning their children and less likely to produce children that attend college and therefore it was eliminated from the study. In fact, one of the most widely used parenting style questionnaires, the Perceived Parenting Style Survey (PPSS, Mclun & Merrell, 1998), also does not attempt to define the rejecting-neglecting parenting style. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate differences among positive psychology traits of happiness, hopefulness, and optimism, between three perceived parenting styles in undergraduate college students. Research Questions Q1 Are there significant differences in happiness [as measured by the Short Depression-Happiness Scale (SDHS) Joseph, Linley, Harwood, Lewis, & McCollam, 2004) among Baumrind‟s (1991) three parenting styles, including Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive [as measured by the Perceived Parenting Styles Survey, (McClun & Merrell, 1998)?]

Q2 Are there significant differences in hopefulness [as measured by the Snyder Hope Scale, Snyder et al., 1991] among Baumrind‟s (1991) three parenting styles including Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive [as measured by the Perceived Parenting Styles Survey, (McClun & Merrell, 1998)?]

Q3 Are there significant differences in optimism [as measured by the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994] among Baumrind‟s (1991) three parenting styles including Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive [as measured by the Perceived Parenting Styles Survey, (McClun & Merrell, 1998)?]

9

Definitions of Terms Used in this Study

Parenting style: “Four-fold classification of parenting behavior that describes how parents reconcile the joint needs of children for nurturance and limit-setting” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Authoritative parenting: This parenting style has been characterized by a high level of demandingness and a high level of responsiveness (Baumrind, 1991). Permissive parenting: A parenting style that is “noncontrolling, nondemanding, and relatively warm” (Baumrind, 1971, p. 2). Authoritarian parenting: The authoritarian parenting style is classified by high demandingness and low responsiveness (Baumrind, 1991). Helicopter parents: “always hovering over their children (running interference for their kids, intimidating teachers and coaches) (Malley-Morrison, 2009, np). Demandingness: “ . . the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 61-62). Responsiveness: “The extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children‟s special needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Positive psychology: “Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 104).

10

Happiness: “By real or genuine happiness we understand a durable state of balance between the individual‟s wishes, goals, and needs, on the one hand, and the surroundings of the world on the other (Jacobsen, 2007). Hopefulness: “a cognitive set that is based on a reciprocally derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed determination) and (b) pathways (planning of ways to meet goals)” (Snyder et al, 1991, p. 571). Optimism: “Having a strong expectation that, in general, things will turn out all right in life, despite setbacks and frustrations” (Goleman, 1995, p. 88). Assumptions Assumptions about this research include: 1. It is assumed that because this study looks at perceptions of parenting style that such perceptions affect the reality of the participant and therefore is assumed to be an approximate report of reared parenting style. 2. All participants participated in this study of their own free will. 3. The participants were honest in responses and represented accurate perceptions of self and perceived parenting style on the self-report questionnaires and demographic data. Delimitations of the Study This study was designed to detect differences in three characteristics of positive psychology between three different perceived styles of parenting. Therefore, only differences between the groups will be discussed and no causal relationships will be inferred. The independent variable, parenting style, is measured by student self-report, identifying their perception of the parenting style with which they were reared. Therefore

11

any self-report measure is subject to personal bias by the reporter. This study also focuses on overall perceived parenting style. Therefore only the perceived parenting style of the primary caregiver will be considered, not allowing for effects of parenting inconsistency to be measured. Finally, this study is set within the boundaries of the undergraduate population at a mid-sized western university and therefore any results should only be considered with this delimitation in mind.

12

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences among positive psychology traits of happiness, hopefulness, and optimism, between three perceived parenting styles in undergraduate college students. This chapter will provide a literature review of the benefits of positive psychology and the traits of happiness, hopefulness, and optimism. A review of research on parenting style will also be discussed, as well as Baumrind‟s three styles of parenting and findings associated with offspring reared from each style. Positive Psychology According to Dahlsgaard, Peterson, and Seligman (2005), psychology has ignored human potential for far too long. Part of this lack of attention is because we lack a solid definition of those traits and virtues that contribute to optimal human functioning as defined by positive psychology. The DSM-IV defines that which limits and contributes to dysfunctional human behavior and discussion of mental health rarely focuses on more than the deficiency or nonexistence of mental illness (Dahlsgaard et al.). The re- emergence of positive psychology pushes the field toward changing focus, toward a building of strengths and virtues that allow humans to focus on what is good and right within themselves. Gable and Haidt (2005) discussed over 20 conditions or traits of positive psychology that can be focused on to “contribute to the flourishing or optimal

13

functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (p. 104). Happiness, hopefulness, and optimism are three traits within the realm of positive psychology that make contributions to the positive functioning of individuals, helping people understand not what is wrong, but “what is right with people” (p. 105). Positive psychology is, for the purpose of this study, defined as “the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 104). This term grew out of recognition that psychological research and focus was mostly geared toward mental illness, and the desire arose to focus less on psychopathology and more on areas that contribute to positive psychological growth and functioning. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) stressed the importance of the incorporation of positive psychology into current research and psychological practice. They suggested that there is a need for considerable amounts of research focusing on the strengths and virtues that humans possess so that environments within the profession of psychology can be created to cultivate these strengths. They reinforced the idea that humans are being seen now, more than ever, as active agents in their lives and that by practicing from the viewpoint of positive psychology prevention of mental and emotional dysfunction can take place versus continuous focus on the correction and treatment of mental disorders. Counseling Psychology has long focused on prevention as one of its defining features. Gelso and Fretz (2001) state that prevention is a role of the counseling psychologist that looks ahead and prepares for difficulties that may arise. This approach can help clients make appropriate changes in their lives so that the interruption that future struggles may cause in the client‟s life can be minimized.

14

Although the term may be fairly new, the idea of positive psychology can be traced back to Aristotle. Hackney (2007) reviewed Aristotle‟s idea of Eudaimonia and telos being linked to the optimal functioning of humans. William James also discussed ideas that fit with the concept of positive psychology. In The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) James stated, “For practical life at any rate, the chance of salvation is enough. No fact in human nature is more characteristic than its willingness to live on chance. The existence of the chance makes the difference . . . between a life of which the keynote is resignation and a life of which the keynote is hope” (p. 526-527). This phrase perhaps captured the essence of positive psychology; a focus not on resignation to what is causing dysfunction or dissatisfaction, but instead “the existence of chance. . .” and a focus on “hope” (James, 1902, p. 526-527). Gable and Haidt (2005) stated that positive psychology is emerging after several years of fading into the background of psychopathology. Positive psychology has focused on several traits such as love, optimism, intrinsic motivation, inspiration, hope, forgiveness, happiness, and morality. Gable and Haidt reinforced the notion that although positive psychology focuses on positive traits of life, it does not automatically assume that the rest of psychology is negative. Positive psychology has come about to draw a “balance” between the focus on mental illness and mental health. Dahlsgaard et al. (2005) discussed the idea that psychology has innumerable measures that look at the classification of “what is wrong with people,” such as the DSM- IV TR and the ICD-10, however psychology lacks measurements for the classification of positive human virtues (p. 203). As a result, Dahlsgaard et al. researched the existence of virtues that are recognized across culture and history. They conducted a survey through a

15

review of literature that attempted to record “virtues crucial to human thriving” (p. 204). They also studied whether such records of virtues would converge when researching the works of “early thinkers” and if there were any particular virtues that extended across tradition and culture (p. 204). Dahlsgaard et al. examined the following cultural virtues: Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Athenian, Jewish, Islamic, and Christian. What they found was a list of six virtues including: courage, justice, humanity, temperance, wisdom, and transcendence. Although these virtues did not compare in an exact manner across cultures and traditions, what the researchers were looking for was for them to share “more features than not” and that they showed “coherent resemblance, that the higher order meaning behind a particular core virtue lined up better with its cross-cultural counterparts than with any other core virtue (e.g. examples of Confucian justice have more to do with those of Platonic justice than with those of Platonic wisdom)” (p. 204). These virtues are part of the view of positive psychology. Dahlsgaard et al. found that the general traits of the six virtues correspond well with other positive psychology traits that “predispose individuals to the (psychological) good life” such as happiness, hopefulness, and optimism (p. 210). Martin E. P. Seligman is one of the current leading researchers in positive psychology. Seligman discussed what he termed positive psychotherapy, targeting the development of positive emotions, thoughts, and strengths versus decreasing psychopathology and its symptomology (Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006). Seligman et al. conducted experiential interventions to qualitatively examine the outcome of the implementation of positive psychology on students, colleagues, and clients. Seligman taught traits of positive psychotherapy to over 200 undergraduates, assigning them tasks

16

dealing with positive psychology and received feedback from the students. Such tasks included: writing down the good things that happened in each day and why they thought those things happened, writing an obituary for themselves according to what they would want to be remembered for, and taking time out once a day to truly enjoy something that was usually done in a rush (i.e. eating, walking, etc.) and write about how it felt to enjoy it versus hurry through it (Seligman et al.). These students described their experience with the exercises as “life-changing” (p. 775). He also trained over 500 mental health professionals who took what they had learned back to their practices and again Seligman et al. received astounding feedback at its efficacy in application to the workplace with patients and clients. Happiness One of the most studied traits of positive psychology is that of happiness. According to Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005), research on well-being has told us that life qualities desired and valued by society are highly correlated with happiness. Many people and researchers will spend their lives in pursuit of what they believe happiness to be. Seligman (2002) predicted that happiness could be broken down into three sub-categories, including positive emotion (termed the pleasant life), engagement (termed the engaged life), and meaning (termed the meaningful life). Seligman et al. (2006) tested the lack of these three sub-categories and their correlation with depression, using 327 college students at the University of Pennsylvania (mean age= 23.51). Seligman et al. sampled clinically depressed (n=97), non-depressed psychiatric (n=46), and non-depressed non-psychiatric (n=184) students. What they found was that students who were classified as clinically depressed reported experiencing significantly fewer

Full document contains 151 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences among positive psychology traits of happiness, hopefulness, and optimism, between three perceived parenting styles in 291 undergraduate college students. It was hypothesized that students identifying with the reared authoritative parenting style would endorse higher levels of hopefulness, happiness, and optimism than the permissive and authoritarian parenting styles. Multivariate and discriminant analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. Data analysis in this study supported that the perceived authoritative parenting style contributed to higher levels of optimism than the authoritarian parenting style. The development of optimism or lack thereof can become a means of clinical intervention both individually and in providing parenting interventions. Based on the studies relating optimism to coping skills, identifying levels of optimism in students can help provide ideas for clinical intervention. The hypothesis that the perceived authoritative parenting style would contribute to the development of higher levels of optimism than the perceived permissive style were inconclusive due to the limitations of using multivariate analyses. The hypotheses suggesting that the perceived authoritative parenting style would also contribute to the development of higher levels of happiness and hopefulness were not supported in this study.