The Effects of Parenting Styles on Sex-Role Ideologies of Pru West Senior High Students

South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Year: 2021 (August), Volume: (2), Issue. (4)
First page: (1) Last page: (26)
Online ISSN: 2582-7065
doi: 10.48165/sajssh.2021.2401

The Effects of Parenting Styles on Sex-Role Ideologies of Pru West Senior High Students

Amos Amuribadek Adangabe1, Ankama Mensah Gideon2, Daniel Inkoom3, and Dogbey Alice Emmanuella4

1Pedagogy Department -Nusrat Jahan Ahmadiyya College of Education, Box 71- Wa, Ghana.
2Prang Senior High School Box 14, Prang, Bono East Region, Ghana.
3Pedagogy Department -Berekum College of Education Box 74, Berekum – Bono Region, Ghana.
4Pedagogy Department -Akatsi College of Education, PMB – Akatsi, Ghana.

Corresponding Author: Amos Amuribadek Adangabe, Email: jesseayuekanbe@gmail.com

Online Published:
8th Aug 2021

Received:
10th May 2021

Accepted:
8th July 2021

How to cite the Article

Adangabe, A. A., Gideon, A. M., Inkoom, D., & Emmanuella, D. A. (2021). The Effects of Parenting Styles on Sex-Role Ideologies of Pru West Senior High Students. South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(4), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.48165/sajssh.2021.2401 Cite
Adangabe, Amos Amuribadek, et al. “The Effects of Parenting Styles on Sex-Role Ideologies of Pru West Senior High Students.” South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 2, no. 4, 2021, pp. 1–26, http://doi.org/10.48165/sajssh.2021.2401. Cite
1.
Adangabe AA, Gideon AM, Inkoom D, Emmanuella DA. The Effects of Parenting Styles on Sex-Role Ideologies of Pru West Senior High Students. SAJSSH. 2021;2(4):1‑26. DOI: 10.48165/sajssh.2021.2401 Cite
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is images.png
View on Google Scholar

ABSTRACT

No two parents view things in the same way when it comes to raising their children. In this light, the current study attempted to establish a link between parenting methods and gender role ideas. This study used a correlational research design. We selected 300 individuals from a population of 1480 using stratified and simple random selection procedures. The participants’ parenting styles were assessed using Buri’s (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), and their sex role beliefs were assessed using Williams and Best’s Sex-Role Ideology Scale (SRIS) (1990). Moment of Pearson-Product Correlation was used to determine the relationship between parenting methods and sex role ideology, while regression was utilised to determine the variables’ predictions. It was discovered that parenting techniques had no effect on the participants’ sex-role ideas. Individuals with an authoritative parenting style, on the other hand, were more likely to develop a more modern sex-role ideology, whereas those with an authoritarian parenting style developed a more conventional sex-role ideology. Additionally, both sex and religion predicted modern and traditional sex-role ideas, respectively. Tribe anticipated an authoritative parenting style without regard for either permissive or authoritarian parenting methods. The study recommends that because parenting styles are related to sex-role ideology, guidance and counselling coordinators should place a premium on the most effective parenting style in order to help students develop an acceptable sex role ideology.  

KEYWORDS

Parenting Styles, Sex-Role, Ideology, Pru west

INTRODUCTION

Parenting style does not refer to ones’ sense of fashion as a mom or dad neither does it necessarily refer to providing just the adequate needs of children. Instead, the term parenting style in this study focuses on how the parents act, attend, respond, demand and react to their children. Expectations, attitudes, and ideals about how parents’ mentor, coach, and encourage their children. From disapproving and domineering parents to democratic parents that let their children to do things their way. Parents may or may not be conscious of their style and how it impacts their children. However, identifying the connection between particular actions of parents and subsequent child behaviour is extremely difficult (Cherry, 2010). According to Cherry (2010), children reared in a different setting may have comparable sex-role ideas as adults. Instead, children who grow up in the same house and with the same influences tend to have wildly diverse gender stereotypes. Cherry concluded that the complexities of the sex-role ideologies formed by the participants in his study were a result of the parenting styles of the parents of the participants.

In general, it is believed that from childhood through maturity, people get informal but powerful perceptions about the role they are expected to play in society through socialisation. Small females may have been hugged and handled more tenderly as new-borns than little boys. As children grow, family members continue to nurture masculinity and femininity by encouraging a kid to act in ways and pursue hobbies that are thought suitable for the child’s gender, while rejecting any behaviour deemed inappropriate (Anane, Adangabe & Inkoom, 2021). Again, it is also believed that parents play a very key role in every aspect of their children lives which leads to adult personality formation. All the influences the parents give in one’s life are transferred through parenting. The parenting styles parents choose to go a long way to influence the individual. Parents directly or indirectly influence the morals, roles, values of children; and are the first agents of socialisation, and role models for children, and therefore their style of parenting influence children a lot (Pratima & Mahananda, 2021). 

These general perceptions have led researchers to develop theories scientifically to support the ontological position on sex role beliefs and parenting styles. Psychologists have developed numerous theories to justify why people form certain roles based on sex/gender. 

The social role theory is the first theory that validates the aforementioned view. This theory postulates that nearly all behavioural differences between males and females are the consequence of cultural preconceptions about gender (i.e., how males and females are expected to behave in society) and the consequent social roles taught to children and adolescents (Hyde, 1993). Additionally, gender role socialisation theory claimed that people in a child’s environment give rewards and models that shape an individual’s behaviour to conform to a society’s sex-role standards. The theorists believed that the sex-role norms are transferred through socialisation and agents of socialisation, especially parents who play important roles in transferring the sex role norms. 

Again, another theory that emerged on how people form appropriate role perception was social learning theory. This theory highlighted the significance of both direct reinforcement and modelling in influencing children’s beliefs and behaviours regarding sex roles. Boys and girls acquire new sex roles through observation and imitation of their parents or other members of their sex/gender group. In another case, parents appear to promote sex-type activities in their children by rewarding their boy for playing with trucks and their daughter for playing with dolls with a grin or laughing. They may also react adversely (e.g., with a frown or by removing the toy) if the mode of play does not conform to gender-role expectations.

As a result of the preceding argument, the researchers concluded that the sex-role ideologies or attitudes developed by the children in the study were significantly influenced by the parenting style received by their parents, and thus the study sought to establish a relationship between parenting styles and sex-role ideologies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  1. To what extent do sex, religion, and tribe endorse both sex-role ideologies and parenting styles of Pru West Senior High Students?
  2. To what extend does sex, religion, and tribe predict both parenting styles and sex role ideology of the participants?

         

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The authoritative parenting style will significantly predict modern sex-role ideology, while the authoritarian parenting style will also predict the traditional sex-role ideology.

Theoretical Bases of the Study

Baumrind’s Parenting Styles Theory, Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, and Social Role Theory influenced this study.

Parenting styles theory

The notion of parenting styles is predicated on two key tenets: exigency and responsiveness. According to the idea, all parenting styles fall somewhere between high and low in terms of demandingness and responsiveness, or anywhere in between, depending on a parent’s parenting philosophy. Baumrind classified parents’ behaviour into three categories based on their levels of parental demandingness or responsiveness and developed a typology of three parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Ribeiro, 2009). Each of these parenting styles represents a unique natural pattern of parental beliefs, practises, and behaviour (Ribeiro, 2009), as well as a particular balance of responsiveness and assertiveness.

Permissive parents, on the other hand, are more receptive than demanding parents, according to this idea. This is a non-traditional and permissive parenting approach. Parents do not expect adult behaviour, they permit significant self-regulation, and they refrain from confronting their wards (Ribeiro, 2009). On the other side, authoritarian parents are extremely demanding, directive, and unresponsive. They are obedient and status-driven, and anticipate that their commands will be followed without explanation (Baumrind, 1991; cited by Ribeiro, 2009). However, authoritarian parents appear to maintain well-structured and orderly settings with well-defined norms (Ribeiro, 2009). They are reasonable in their demands and receptive in their responses. The parenting style theory has provided defined and explained the parenting styles variables used in this study as independent variables. Based on this theory, a parent’s style of bringing up a child can be classified as authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive and makes it possible to study parenting styles as different constructs.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory

The Social Cognitive Theory places a premium on learning by observing others’ behaviour. Modelling and mimicking other people’s behaviour is a critical tenant of this contextual paradigm. This theory (SCT) provides a comprehensive explanation of how children develop their learning abilities as a result of the events to which they are exposed.

According to this idea, modelling and reinforcement are the key mechanisms that account for children’s learning processes. Bandura asserted that youngsters come into contact with interaction on a regular basis and apply it to comparable future scenarios. Children’s views and attitudes about men and women’s roles are considered to be shaped by their good and negative interactions with parents and other key adults. For example, when a parent rewards a kid for performing acceptable roles, the youngster is more likely to continue doing such roles with his or her peers as a result of the incentives received. In another instance, if a kid observes his father consistently assisting his mother with cooking and other household tasks, he may consider it proper and attempt to repeat the gesture with his female siblings and classmates.

Social Role Theory

Social role theory acknowledges the historical separation of duties and responsibilities between men and women, with women frequently assuming tasks at home and males frequently assuming roles outside the house (Eagly, 1987; Moss, 2008). As a result of the concurrent sex disparities in social behaviour, men’s and women’s expectations began to diverge (Eagly, 1987). These expectations are passed down through generations and have an effect on each gender’s social behaviour (Eagly, 1997; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) and serve as sexual stereotypes (Williams & Best, 1982). As a result, men and women’s behaviour is shaped by the preconceptions associated with their social positions (Moss 2008).

Males, for example, evolved characteristics that demonstrate agency in order to adhere to these expectations. This agency is associated with characteristics such as the proclivity to be self-sufficient, aggressive, and competent (Eagly & Wood, 1991). Boys, for example, have a greater capacity for aggression, which corresponds to their more instrumental role. Females, on the other hand, acquire characteristics associated with communal or expressive behaviour, which acts as a check on their violence. Communal characteristics include a proclivity to be kind, selfless, and outspoken (Eagly & Wood, 1991).

Two mechanisms, according to this idea, explain the relationship between expectations and behaviour (Moss, 2008). To begin, each gender gains unique abilities and characteristics through socialisation processes. That is, authoritative figures such as teachers and parents help students and parents to develop the abilities and characteristics necessary for their social responsibilities. Second, gender roles may have a more direct effect on the actions that individuals do in a given situation (Moss, 2008).

According to Moss (2008), social role theory suggests that individuals may have reservations about women’s ability for specific roles, such as leadership. That instance, males – who are often viewed as dynamic – frequently hold leadership positions. As a result, folks frequently believe that leadership requires these traits of an aggressive, active personality. Thus, the leadership position is adopted in order to bring the masculine temperament into balance (Peters, Kinsey, & Malloy, 2004). Power disparities between men and women are believed to be diminishing. Women’s societal roles appear to be shifting as they acquire access to jobs usually associated with power (Diekman, Goodfriend, & Goodwin, 2004; Moss, 2008).

Perhaps the most revealing conclusion of social role theory is that those who breach gender norms are frequently viewed negatively (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). That is, gender stereotypes are seen as prescriptive, defining not just how males and females should act, but also how they should not behave (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Due to the widespread perception of women as caretakers at home, managers frequently think that female workers are more prone to face conflict between their professional and personal life (Moss, 2008).

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study used a correlational research method to examine the link between students’ parenting techniques and their sex-role ideas. Correlational research is a type of quantitative study that enables researchers to establish relationships between variables.

A positivist quantitative research technique was utilised based on the researcher’s ontological and epistemological positions. According to Mcleod (2008), quantitative research gives a statistical and numerical representation of what individuals believe. Additionally, researchers can use the correlational design to determine the strength of a linear link between two or more variables. However, because the purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive power of parenting styles on sex-role ideologies, the correlation design was chosen because it enables the researcher to establish a relationship between the variables under study, determine the direction of the relationship, and also make predictions about the variable under study. A regression analysis was performed on parenting styles and sex-role ideologies of the respondents to ascertain whether parenting styles can predict sex-role ideologies.

The population of the Study

The targeted population was Senior High Students (S. H. S) in the Pru West Constituency. This population consisted of two Senior High Schools Prang Senior High School and Abease Senior High School. According to the student population data from Pru District Education Office (2015), Prang S.H.S. had a population of about (970) whereas Abease S.H.S. had a population of about (510) as at the time the study was carried out. The total population of this study was 1480 students. Details of the population are provided in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: The population of Prang and Abease SHS 

SchoolsBoysGirlsTotal
Prang SHS520450970
Abease SHS278232510
Total7986821480
Source: Pru District Education Statistics (2015, March)

N = 1480

Sample Size

According to Akinade and Owolabi (2010), a sample is a manageable subset of a population that shares some features. A sample, they say, is a tiny scrap of material taken from a uniform or garment. It possesses the properties of the piece’s other components (which could be likened to accessible population).

According to Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size recommendation, a sample size of 291 was judged suitable for a population of between 1200 and 1500. According to them, a sample size of 291 was expected to produce a margin of error of (.05) and the necessary confidence interval of 95 percent. As a result, the choice to sample 300 respondents from a population of 1480 was made in accordance with Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size selection guidelines. According to Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size guidelines, a sample of 300 students was chosen to reflect the population of 1480 in this study. One hundred ninety-five (195) students from Prang Senior High School and one hundred and five (105) students from Abease Senior High School were selected from the 300-student sample.

Procedures for Sampling Participants of this study were selected using two probability sampling procedures. Probability sampling as defined by many authorities is the kind of sampling in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. However, the larger size of the population did not make it possible for the total population to be participants of this particular study. Therefore, using probability sampling techniques gave every member of the population an equal chance to partake in the study. The two probability sampling techniques used in this study were stratified and simple random sampling techniques. According to Akinade and Owolabi (2010), the criteria for stratifying the population may include sex, class, age, course of study or geographical location. However, the population of this study was stratified into two schools; Prang S.H.S and Abease S.H.S. and samples were selected based on this stratification.

Due to the diverse characteristics and the stratified nature of the population, the stratified probability sampling technique was first used. Akinade and Owolabi (2010) gave criteria for selecting a sample size for a study using a stratified sampling technique. According to them the sample size of a study can be determined by using a common denominator for each stratum to reflect a proportional balance of the strata in the total population. In this particular study, the researcher divided the total population of each stratum by a common denominator of 2 to obtain a sample for each stratum. This was achieved by dividing the total population of Abease S.H.S. and Prang S.H.S. by a denominator of 2 (i.e. a subpopulation of 510/2 = 255 students was obtained from Abease S.H.S., and 970/2 = 485 students were also obtained from Prang S.H.S).

However, after obtaining the sub-population, 195 students were simple randomly selected from the Prang SHS sub-population of 485, and 105 students were also simple randomly selected from Abease SHS sub-population of 255. In all, a total sample of 300 respondents was selected firstly by stratified sampling and simple random selection.

Instrument

The measuring instruments used in this study were in two sections. The first section contained instruments measuring parenting styles and the second section also contained instruments measuring participants’ gender role ideologies.

The parenting style of the participants was measured with Buri’s (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). Baumrind’s (1991) three parenting styles—authority, disciplinary practises of warmth, demands, expectations, and control—were the principles behind the PAQ. Responded to in a self-report way.

The Parental Authority Questionnaire was utilised in the pilot research. Buri (1991) created a self-report measure to help people recall their parents’ training and behaviour as children. This instrument had 25 items, each of which addressed a parenting style variable. 5 (strongly disagree) (strongly disagree). To score the PAQ, the parenting style elements were totaled together. the mean for authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were 9 and 45, respectively In authoritarian parenting, scores covered the gamut from 7 to 35.

It assessed the sex-role ideology with the Sex-Role Ideology Scale (SRIS) established by Williams and Best (1990). The tool, which assesses men and women’s assigned behaviour and duties, started with 30 items. The instrument was piloted, and 28 elements were modified. It was a classic and modern mix of sex-role philosophy. This sex role ideology assessment looks at respondents’ beliefs on what a male and female role is. Also studied non-traditional sex-role ideas, which saw no differentiation between male and female duties. This modernised sex-role philosophy is made up of 13 components. on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) (strongly disagree). Each participant’s total score on each component was the sum of all item scores that assess that component. For conventional sex-role ideology, the greatest possible mean score was 65 and the lowest possible mean score was 13. Rather, the greatest conceivable mean score for a modern sex-role philosophy is 75, and the lowest is 15.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results of Research Questions 1: To what extent do sex, religion, and tribe endorse both sex-role ideologies and parenting styles of Pru West Senior High Students?

The tables below illustrate the mean scores and the level of agreement of sex, religion, and tribe of the participants on sex-role ideologies and parenting styles. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The levels of agreement were obtained by dividing the total mean scores of each variable on a construct by the total number of items measuring that particular construct. Traditional sex role ideology was measured with thirteen (13) measuring items and according to the scale of measurement the highest possible mean that could be obtained is 65 and the lowest is 13. Modern sex-role ideology, on the other hand, was also measured with fifteen (15) items and the highest possible mean(X) that could be obtained is 75 and the lowest is 15. According to the scale of measurement, the level of agreement was ‘1 = strongly agreed, 2 = agreed, 3 = uncertain, 4 = disagreed, and 5 = strongly disagreed’. The agreement values are run to the nearest figure on the scale to give an accurate level of agreement of response.

From Table 2, the agreement column represents the level of agreement on the scale of measurement of the variables on sex role ideologies. The total mean scores on Traditional sex role ideology were divided by 13 and modern sex role ideology total mean scores were divided by 15 to give the level of agreement on the scale. This was represented by the formulae (total Mean(X)/total number of items = level of agreement). That is (TRSI’s (X)/13= Level of Agreement on the Scale and MSRI’s (X)/15 = Level of Agreement on the scale). 

Means scores and level of agreement of sex, religion, and tribe/ethnicity for the authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style and permissive parenting style are shown in Table 3.

The total mean score for a variable on each of the parenting style construct was divided by the total number of items measuring that construct to obtain the measure of the variable on the scale of measurement. Authoritative parenting style and permissive parenting style were measured with nine (9) items for each construct and therefore the total mean score of each variable was divided by nine (9) to obtain the measure of the variables on the scale. The highest possible total mean score for either authoritative or permissive parenting style is 45 and the lowest possible mean score is 9. However, authoritarian parenting style was measured with seven (7) items and the total mean score for each variable was divided by seven (7) to obtain the measure of the variables on the scale of measurement. Also, the highest possible total mean score for authoritarian parenting style is 35 and the lowest possible mean score is 7. 

Results of Research question 2: To what extend do sex, religion, and tribe predict both parenting styles and sex role ideology of the participants?

Predictions of Sex, Religion and Tribe on Sex-Role Ideologies.

In testing for the contributions and predictions of sex, religion, and tribe on sex-role ideologies, multiple regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the amount of variance accounted for by sex, religion, and tribe on sex-role ideologies and also to determine the extent to which they predict sex-role ideologies. 

Regression analysis utilising the forced entry technique was used to examine the relative influence of sex, religion, and tribe on participants’ sex-role ideas (traditional and modern sex-role ideologies). The unstandardized (B) and Standardized Beta (β) regression coefficients, multiple correlation coefficients (R), adjusted R2, and the value of (t) and its related p-value are displayed in Table 4.

Predictions of Sex, Religion, and Tribe on Modern Sex Role Ideology

The forced entry regression analysis of modern sex-role ideology on sex, religion, and tribe was used to test for their predictions on modern sex-role ideology. Sex, religion, and Tribe were entered as predictors of modern sex-role ideology.

Table 4: Regression Analysis for sex, religion, and tribe on Modern Sex Role Ideology

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant45.2518.02.000
Sex-4.78-.33-3.75.000
Religion.017.001.012.990
Tribe.278.061.626.533
.333.111


Table 4 also suggested that religion was not a significant predictor of modern sex-role ideology (β = .001, t = .012), (p >.05). The result suggests that religion has no significant contribution to the modern sex-role ideology of participants. As also indicated above, tribe was also found not to be a significant predictor of modern sex-role ideology (β = .061, t = .626), (p> .05).

It appears that among the three variables entered, sex was the major predictor of the variance in the modern sex-role ideology of the participants.

Predictions of Sex, Religion, and Tribe on Traditional Sex Role Ideology 

The forced entry regression analysis of sex, religion, and tribe on modern sex-role ideology was used to test for their predictions on traditional sex-role ideology. Sex, religion, and tribe were entered as predictors of traditional sex-role ideology. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 9: Regression Analysis for sex, religion, and tribe on Traditional Sex Role Ideology

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant37.1219.72.000
Sex-.16-.015-.16.870
Religion-2.59-.247-2.47.015
Tribe-.207-.062-.62.535
.28.080
Source: SPSS regression analysis table


On the contrary, religion was found to be a significant predictor of traditional sex-role ideology (β = -.247, t = -2.47), (p <.05). This means that religion was the major contributor to 8% of the variance in traditional sex-role ideology.

Contributions of Sex, Religion, and Tribe to Parenting Styles

In testing for the contributions and predictions of sex, religion, and tribe on parenting styles, multiple regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the amount of variance accounted for by sex, religion, and tribe on parenting style and also to determine the extent to which they predict parenting styles.

 As part of testing for research question 2, regression analysis using the forced entry method was again performed to assess the relative contribution of sex, religion, and tribe in the prediction of parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parenting style) of participants. Table 10, displays unstandardised (B) and Standardised Beta (β) regression coefficients, the multiple correlation coefficient (R), adjusted R2, and the value of (t) and its associated p-value for each variable that was entered into the regression equation.

Predictions of sex, religion and tribe on authoritative parenting styles

Regression analysis of sex, religion, and tribe on the authoritative parenting style is shown below.

Table 10: Regression analysis for sex, religion and tribe on authoritative parenting styles

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant18.3111.56.000
Sex.065.007.081.936
Religion.94-.107-1.06.292
Tribe.76.2712.69.008
.243.059
Source: SPSS regression analysis


As indicated by Table 6, sex, religion, and tribe collectively contributed to only 6% (adjusted R2 = .06) of the variance in the authoritative parenting style. Based on the order of entry chosen for the forced entry regression analysis, tribe explained the bulk of the variance in authoritative parenting style which accounted for 6% of the variance (β = .27, t = 2.69), (p < .01) and the tribe was, therefore, said be a significant predictor of authoritative parenting style.  

Moreover, as indicated by Table 6, sex and religion were not found to be statistically significant predictors of the authoritative parenting style. The results from Table 6, indicated that sex was not a significant predictor of authoritative parenting style (β = .007, t = 081), (p> .05). This means that sex has no significant contribution to participants’ authoritative parenting style with probability value (p = .936). Religion was also found not to be a significant predictor of authoritative parenting style (β = -.107, t = -1.06), (p> .05). This also means that religion did not contribute significantly to the authoritative parenting style at p = 292.

In sum; sex, religion, and tribe contributed to only 6% of the variance in authoritative parenting style. However only tribe has a significant contribution to authoritative parenting style (β = 27, t = 2.69, p < .05). This means that the tribe can lead to one’s endorsement of the authoritative parenting style.

Predictions of Sex, Religion, and Tribe on Authoritarian Parenting Style

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Regression Analysis for Sex, Religion, and Tribe on Authoritarian Parenting Style

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant14.6110.19.000
Sex.18.02.24.807
Religion.01.001.01.995
Tribe-.05-.02-.18.859
.03.001
Source: SPSS regression Analysis table


Table 7 indicated that sex, religion, and tribe collectively contributed to only 0.1% (adjusted R2 = .001) of the variance in the authoritarian parenting style. According to the Table, none of the variables entered was a significant contributor to the authoritarian parenting style. 

The results above indicated that none of the variables entered (sex, religion, and tribe) was found to be a significant predictor of the authoritarian parenting style. They all have p-values greater than (> .05) significant level.

Predictions of Sex, Religion, and Tribe on Permissive Parenting Style

From the regression analysis conducted contributions of sex, religion, and tribe on permissive parenting style, the results are shown in Table8 below.

Table 8: Regression analysis for Sex, Religion and tribe on Permissive parenting style 

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant30.1115.64.000
Sex-.696-.065-.71.48
Religion-.565-.053-.53.60
Tribe.834.2462.44.06
.23.06
Source: SPSS regression analysis table


As indicated by Table 8, sex, religion, and tribe collectively contributed to only 6% (adjusted R2 = .06) of the variance in the permissive parenting style. Based on the order of entry chosen for the forced entry regression analysis, again none of the variables was statistically significant to predict permissive parenting style. 

Analysis of Research Hypotheses: Authoritative parenting style will significantly predict modern sex-role ideology, while the authoritarian parenting style will also predict traditional sex-role ideology.

Predictions of Parenting Styles on Traditional Sex Role Ideology

Results from the forced entry regression analysis of authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, and permissive parenting styles on traditional sex-role ideology are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Regression Analysis for parenting styles on Traditional Sex Role Ideology

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant24.906.56.000
APS.083.069.747.456
UPS.22.1791.93.056
PPS.084.078.933.353
.203.41
N = 300Source: regression analysis table from SPSS


The forced entry regression analysis of authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parenting on traditional sex-role ideology was used to test for the predictions of parenting styles on traditional sex-role ideology. 

As shown in Table 9, the authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style and permissive parenting style collectively explained 41% (adjusted R2 = .41) of the variance in traditional sex-role ideology. This also suggests that there is about 59% of the variance is due to other factors. This suggested that the present variables entered were not good predictors of traditional sex-role ideology. As indicated by Table 9, the contributions of the authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, and permissive parenting style to the variance in traditional sex-role ideology were not statistically significant (p >.05). 

This result does not support the fourth hypothesis that ‘authoritarian parenting style would significantly predict more traditional sex-role ideology’. Moreover, Table 9 indicated that permissive parenting style was also found not to be a significant predictor of the respondents’ traditional sex-role ideology (β = .078, t = .933), (p >.05).

In conclusion, none of the parenting style constructs (authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles) was found to be a significant predictor of traditional sex-role ideology. All the three collectively contributed to only 41% of the variance in predicting the traditional sex-role ideology of the participants and therefore parenting styles are not good predictors of traditional sex-role ideology.

Predictions of Parenting Styles on Modern Sex Role Ideology

Table 10 summarises the unstandardized (B) and standardised beta () regression coefficients, the multiple correlation coefficients (R), adjusted R2, and the value of (t) and its related p-value for each variable included in the regression equation.

Table 10 shows the results of a forced entry regression study of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles on current sex-role ideology.

Table 10: Regression Analysis for parenting styles on Modern Sex Role Ideology

VariablesEntered
B

Beta

T

R

R2

Sig.
Constant29.515.72.000
APS.252.1551.68.096
UPS.152.093.996.321
PPS.094.072.768.444
.199.04
Source: regression analysis from SPSS


As shown in Table 10, the authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style and permissive parenting style collectively explained only 4% (adjusted R2 = .04) of the variance in modern sex-role ideology. This also suggests that there is about 96% of the variance was due to other factors. This suggested that the present variables entered are not good predictors of traditional sex-role ideology. As indicated by Table 10, the contributions of the authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, and permissive parenting style to the variance in modern sex-role ideology were not statistically significant (p < .05). 

This result also does not support the research hypothesis that ‘authoritative parenting style would significantly predict modern sex-role ideology.’ The result suggests that the authoritative parenting style has no significant contribution to the modern sex-role ideology of participants. 

In summary, it was determined that none of the parenting style categories (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles) were statistically significant predictors of sex-role ideology. On traditional sex-role ideology, the three parenting methods together explained just 41% of the variation in predicting the participants’ traditional sex-role ideology. However, because the individual contributions of parenting styles were not statistically significant, parenting styles are ineffective predictors of conventional sex-role ideology. In contemporary sex-role ideology, all parenting techniques together accounted for just 4% of the variation. Based on the results shown above, the hypothesis that ‘authoritative parenting style would significantly predict modern sex-role ideology whilst authoritarian parenting style would also predict significantly traditional sex-role ideology’ is rejected. 

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Research Question 1

The results show that men were more strongly associated with traditional sex-role ideology whereas females were more strongly associated with current sex-role ideology. This study revealed that males had more conventional sex role attitudes while women had more contemporary sex role attitudes. Men and women have a difference kind of socialisation in their households. Men are trained to think that their duty is to work outside the home, while women are indoctrinated to feel that their role at home is to be a housewife.

While on the other side, the study found that men and women agreed with authoritative and authoritarian parenting approaches correspondingly. Nobody agreed to the lax parenting approach. This finding was partly consistent with previous studies and partly inconsistent with reviewed literature. In a study conducted in Western culture by Conrade and Ho (2001), males were more likely to form an authoritarian parenting style whilst females were more likely to form an authoritative parenting style. This could be because parents choose to train their male children with an authoritarian parenting style and train their daughters with an authoritative parenting style. However, the inconsistency of the Conrade and Ho (2001) study with the finding of this study may be due to the different cultural background of the studies. Hence one could conclude that parents of the participants did not train their children with different parenting styles based on the sex/gender of the child.  As confirmed by Kokpo (2007), authoritarian parenting style in a different culture may be considered as advantageous, less harmful and more beneficial but in American culture, it is considered very harmful. In Ghana, per the finding of this study, the authoritarian parenting style is not considered harmful since some parents think it is the appropriate way of training their children.

Christians and Muslims agreed to the authoritative parenting style however, Muslims agreed to the authoritarian parenting style whilst Christians did not agree to the authoritarian parenting style. The endorsement of the parenting styles by the religions was mostly influenced by the belief systems based on scriptures and doctrines of the religions. None of the religion endorsed the permissive parenting style. This means giving a child full freedom to operate is not cherished by both Christianity and Islam, and therefore parents train their wards in some form of direction when they are going wrong.

Again, from the analysis, Muslims in this study endorsed traditional sex-role ideology whilst Christians were uncertain about the traditional sex-role ideology. None of the religions agreed to or endorsed modern sex-role ideology.

Sorkhabi (2005) found that parental styles vary based on the culture of the parents. Similarly, respondents’ parenting style may be influenced by their tribe. Respondents picked parenting type based on the parenting style in the society. According to the results of this study, all the tribes associated with authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles save Twummurus. While no tribe adopted a liberal parenting approach, according to these claims, the aforementioned tribes are more likely to be taught with or to have an authoritative parenting style, and disapprove of permissive parenting styles. However, according to the findings of this study, among the tribes, Gonjas were the only tribe to have endorsed or to be more identified with traditional sex-role ideology. Besides, Akans also were more identified with or agreed to modern sex-role ideology. This means that Akans in this study believed in modern sex-role ideology than traditional sex-role ideology. Gonjas on the other hand believed more in traditional sex-role ideology than modern sex-role ideology. 

Research Question 2

Sex was revealed to be a significant predictor of modern sex-role ideology but not of traditional sex-role ideology in the regression analysis.

Additionally, sex was not a significant predictor of parenting style, implying that sex did not significantly influence the individuals’ parenting styles. Apart from gender, religion was not a significant contributor to the parenting styles of the participants. This implies that religion does not predict the parenting style of the individual in any significant way and therefore the endorsement of the parenting styles by religion were not influenced by their religious beliefs (Christianity and Islamic) but rather may be due to other variables. 

However, the regression analysis also showed a significant prediction of religion on traditional sex-role ideology. This means that the religion of the participants leads to their traditional sex-role ideology. Specifically, Islam leads to traditional sex-role ideology since Muslims in this study endorsed traditional sex-role ideology. Nevertheless, religion was not a significant contributor to modern sex-role ideology. 

The tribe of the participants of this particular study predicted the authoritative parenting style perception of the participants. This means that belonging to any of the tribes in this study may influence one’s formation of the authoritative parenting style. However, the regression analysis indicated that the tribe was not a significant contributor to sex-role ideologies. This indicates that, while there is a strong correlation between the tribe and conventional sex-role ideology, the tribe does not contribute to the participants’ sex-role ideology.

Research Hypothesis 

The premise was that ‘authoritative parenting style would predict contemporary sex-role ideology, whereas authoritarian parenting style would predict traditional sex-role ideology.’ The data, however, did not support the hypothesis above about the prediction of parenting methods based on sex-role ideas. Although research based on parental interviews, children’s reports, and parents’ observations indicated that there is a consistent relationship between authoritative parenting style and children’s academic achievement and overall well-being (Baumrind, 1991), the findings in this study indicated otherwise. Despite the fact that there is a positive association between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, as well as modern and conventional sex-role beliefs, the data do not support the theory.

Greenwood (2014) demonstrated, contrary to previous research, that authoritative parenting is the optimal parenting style since it appears to create children with a high degree of self-reliance and self-esteem, children who are socially responsible, autonomous, and goal-oriented. The findings for the predictions of parenting styles means that authoritative parenting style did not lead to modern sex-role ideology formed by the students whilst authoritarian parenting style also did not lead to traditional sex-role ideology formed by the children as hypothesised. This may be since the sex-role ideologies formed by the children were a result of other variables.

Moreover, students’ perception of traditional sex-role ideology may have not been influenced by their perception of the authoritarian parenting style. As asserted by Padilla-Walker and Nelson (2010), the overall goal of the authoritarian parenting style is to control children behaviour as opposed to learning and promotion of autonomy. Hence the children with authoritarian parenting styles’ perception did not copy the traditional sex-role ideology from their parents as the parents control almost every aspect of their lives. This did not support Owano (2010) assertion that the authoritarian parenting style is primarily found in controlling behaviour to meet the expectations of the parents. Since the authoritarian parenting style is rigid and requires unquestioning obedience, parents’ perception, beliefs and perceptions are transferred directly to the children without questioning. However, in this study, the perceptions and beliefs of the children on the appropriate roles of men and women are not due to their parents’ authoritarianism.

In conclusion, the parenting styles of the participants (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) did not significantly predict any of the sex-role ideologies (traditional and modern) and therefore the sex-role ideology formed by a participant could be attributed to other factors. 

CONCLUSION

This study was conceived based on the researcher’s ontological and epistemological position that there is a natural fact that parenting styles have some relationships with sex-role ideologies and therefore the researcher tried to use an objective scientific approach and theories to discover this natural knowledge. 

Based on this position, the researcher was of the view that parenting styles would predict the sex-role ideologies of the participants. The researcher was also of the view that variables such as sex, religion, and tribe influence both parenting styles as well as sex-role ideologies which were identified as intervening variables in the study. The researcher therefore apart from sought to measure how the intervening variables (sex, religion, and tribe) influence both sex-role ideologies and parenting styles. Following abovementioned formulation and testing of hypotheses, the following conclusions were derived from the findings stated previously.

The study’s findings indicate that parenting techniques do not influence or predict any of the sex-role beliefs. Thus, while there are some associations between parenting methods and sex-role beliefs, parenting styles do not contribute to the growth or formation of sex-role ideologies among the Pru West SHS students. Secondly, it is concluded that males in this study are more identified with traditional sex-role ideology whilst females are identified with more modern sex-role ideology. On the other hand, both males and females endorsed or agreed to authoritative and authoritarian. This means that even though the participants were trained by different parents with different parenting styles; they all have some kind of authoritativeness and authoritarianism in them. 

Thirdly, it is concluded that religion leads to a reduction or decrease in the traditional sex-role ideology of individuals. This can be attributed to the fact that the practices and teachings of Christianity and Islam in the Pru West Constituency were all against traditional sex-role ideology.

Another conclusion is that the tribe leads to or contributes to an authoritative parenting style. Thus, tribes in Pru West Constituency have some influence on the authoritative parenting style. This is shown by a significant positive predictor of the tribe on the authoritative parenting style. All the tribes endorsed an authoritative parenting style and almost all with exception of Twummurus endorsed an authoritarian parenting style. Again, the tribe predicted or contributed to an authoritative parenting style.

On the other hand, Akans agreed to or are more identified with modern sex-role ideology than traditional sex-role ideology. Gonjas on the other hand believed more in traditional sex-role ideology. Finally, it is concluded that, on average, tribes in Pru West are less identified with the permissive parenting style. The participants in all contexts are uncertain about the permissive parenting style.

REFERENCES

Akinade, E. A., & Owolabi, T. (2010). Research methods: A pragmatic approach for social sciences, behavioural sciences and education. Lagos: Connell Publications.

Akotia, C. S., & Anum, A. (2012). The moderating effects of age and education on gender differences on gender role perceptions. Gender and Behaviour, 10(2), 5022-5043.

Ampofo, A. A. (2001). When men speak women listen: Gender socialisation and young adolescents’ attitudes to sexual and reproductive issues. African Journal of Reproductive Health.5(3), 196-212. 

Anane, C., Adangabe, A. A., & Inkoom, D. (2021). Coping strategies and perceived support of student-mothers at the university of education, winneba-campus. South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities2(3), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.48165/sajssh.2021.2310

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

Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110-119.

Chao, R. (2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 233-248. 

Cherry, K., (2010). Parenting styles: the four styles of parenting. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 260-290.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education, (7th Ed). London: Routledge.

Conrade, G., &Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers: Differential treatment for sons and daughters. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 29-35.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundation of Social Research: Meaning and Perspectives in the Research Process. London: Sage.236pp.

Diekman, A. B., Goodfriend, W., & Goodwin, S. (2004). Dynamic stereotypes of power: Perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies. Sex Roles.50(4), 201-215.

Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behaviour: a meta-analytical perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.17, 306-315.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender.123-174.

Etchezahar, E., & Ungaretti, J. (2013). Women stereotypes and ambivalent sexism in a sample of adolescents from Buenos Aires. Journal of Behaviour, Health and Social Issues, 6, 87 – 94.

Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing Research in the Real World. LA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. London: Sage.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D. &Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.

Hyde, L. (1993). Social Role Theory. Annual Review of Sex Research, 10(1), 70-99.

Keller, H. & Otto, H. (2009). The cultural socialization of emotion regulation during infancy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (6), 996-1011.

Kopko, K., (2007). Parenting styles and adolescents. Cornell Cooperative Extension: Cornell University, U.S.A.

Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30. 607-610.

Mcleod, S. (2008). In-depth Interview: Researching People. Longman: Cheshire.

Moss, P. (2008). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care-language of evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ work. Vol. 5(1), 03 – 12.

Owano, D. A., (2010). Perception of secondary school students on the effects of parenting styles on their academic performance: A case study of Bongo District, Kenya. Kenya: Egerton University.

Peters, S., Kinsey, P., & Malloy, T. E. (2004). Gender and leadership perceptions among African Americans. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(1), 93-101.

Pratima, K., & Mahananda, M. (2021). A Research on Level of Loneliness Among Female and Male Students Studying Professional Courses. South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities2(2), 79-85. https://doi.org/10.48165/sajssh.2021.2207

Pring, R. (2000). The ‘false dualism’ of educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(2),247-260.

Ribeiro, L. L., (2009). Construction and validation of a four-parenting style scale. California, Arcata: Humboldt State University

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific interpretive and critical research paradigms. Qatar: Qatar University.

Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrind’s parent typology to collective cultures: Analysis of cultural explanations of parent socialization effects. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 29(6), 552-563.

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.