the analysis of parenting style and personality disorder of the college students

THE ANALYSIS OF PARENTING STYLE AND PERSONALITY

DISORDER OF THE COLLEGE STUDENTS

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF HOME SCIENCE

IN

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

BY

ROOPA.U. KABBUR

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

COLLEGE OF RURAL HOME SCIENCE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,

DHARWAD-580005

JULY,2006

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dharwad July,2006 (V.S.YADAV) MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by: Chairman:_______________ (V.S. YADAV) Members:1.______________ (V.GAONKAR) 2.______________ (PUSHPA KHADI) 3._______________ (ASHALATA K.V)

CONTENTS

Chapter No.

Title

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS

IV. RESULTS

V. DISCUSSION

VI. SUMMARY

VII. REFERENCES

APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

1. Population and sample of the study

2. The demographic characteristics of the respondents

3. Relationship between the demographic characteristics and each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

4. Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

5. Status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male and female respondents

6. Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

7. Status of each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

8a. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder

8b. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder

8c. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

8d. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

8e. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

8f. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

8g. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

8h. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder

8i. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

8j. Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

8k. Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

8l. Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

8m. Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

1a Relationship between demographic characteristics and paranoid personality disorder

1b Relationship between demographic characteristics and schizoid personality disorder

1c Relationship between demographic characteristics and schizotypal personality disorder

1d Relationship between demographic characteristics and antisocial personality disorder

1e Relationship between demographic characteristics and borderline personality disorder

1f Relationship between demographic characteristics and histrionic personality disorder

1g Relationship between demographic characteristics and narcissistic personality disorder

1h Relationship between demographic characteristics and avoidant personality disorder

1i Relationship between demographic characteristics and dependent personality disorder

1j Relationship between demographic characteristics and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

2 Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

3a Status of perceived model of rejection Vs. acceptance parenting among the male and female respondents

3b Status of perceived model of carelessness Vs. protection parenting among the male and female respondents

3c Status of perceived model of neglect Vs. indulgence parenting among the male and female respondents

3d Status of perceived model of utopian expectation Vs. realism parenting among the male and female respondents

Contd…

3e Status of perceived model of lenient standard Vs. moralism parenting among the male and female respondents

3f Status of perceived model of freedom Vs. discipline parenting among the male and female respondents

3g Status of perceived model of faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation parenting among the male and female respondents

3h Status of perceived model of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment parenting among the male and female respondents

4 Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

5a Status of paranoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5b Status of schizoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5c Status of schizotypal personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5d Status of antisocial personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5e Status of borderline personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5f Status of histrionic personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5g Status of narcissistic personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5h Status of avoidant personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5i Status of dependent personality disorder among the male and female respondents

5j Status of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder among the male and female respondents

6a Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder

6b Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder

Contd…

6c Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

6d Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

6e Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

6f Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

6g Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

6h Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder

6i Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

6j Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

6k Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

6l Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

6m Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

LIST OF APPENDIX

Plate No.

Title

I. Questionnaire

I. INTRODUCTION

Parents play a pivotal role in the socialization of a child. The presence of the parents in an youth’s life may be distinguishing factor between youth who successfully avoid the negative effects of risks they face and those who follow trajectories towards deviance (Werner and Smith, 1982). The existing definition of “youth” as per the Government of India, denotes all those in the age group of 15 to 35 years, Indian adolescents remained ‘incognito’ for long. In today’s fast moving world, the psychological concerns of adolescents are accentuated by parental discard, rapidly changing social and cultural values, increasing exposure to global media, different life styles and exposure to different cultures (Rao, 2002). Parents are important persons in youths lives, because they act as their models by sharing their beliefs and values by expressing a specific style of behaviours. Identifying the parents as their supervisors and models indicate that youth believe that these are the individuals, who are important tutors and worthy of imitation in some respect and that their attitudes or values are ones they would like to assimilate (Pleiss and Feldhusen, 1995). Parents are key reference for youths because they provide knowledge to the future, model for positive behaviour, and display adaptive techniques to which the youth can aspire (Kemper, 1968). Youth without parents of desirable role models may be more at risk for negative outcomes during adolescence. The youths’ relationship with parents and adults contribute to their identity development and foster resilience (Hamilton and Darling, 1996).

Masten (1994) suggested that effective parents make youths feel worthwhile by their close relationships, open opportunities and resources. Through shared activities involving modeling of behaviour, learning opportunities, personal stories of success or failures of parents and significant persons in the family socialize youths (Parke and Buriel, 1998). Parents provide social capital in the form of networking and connection to resources that helps youth to accomplish developmental tasks and negotiate novel situations and challenges during adolescence (Sampson, 1997).

Youths perceive their mothers and fathers as highly important resources of affection, instrumental aid and reliable alliance. Youths view their parents as more influential than same sex friends, siblings, extended family members and teachers (Lempers and Clark-Lempers, 1992). Youths’ perception of their parents is related not only to positive parent-adolescent relationships but also to whether parents reside with youths and to the involvement of parents in their lives. Compare to youth who live with both parents and youth who live with only their mothers are more likely to report that their fathers don’t know them well. Similarly, female adolescents with non-residence fathers reported the lowest levels of intimacy with their fathers (Youniss and Ketterlinus, 1987). The presence of parents may decrease the likelihood that youth will become involved in deviant behaviour and experience psychological distress and academic difficulties. Having a significant positive parental model makes the critical difference in youth. Mason et al. (1994) found that absence of a father magnifies the negative influences of peer problem behaviour on adolescent problem behaviour, such as involving in gang activity, in a drug abuse, steeling, truancy and fighting.

The family provides the first context for the recognition and communication of affective messages. Family members send affective messages to the youth with increasing expectation that the youth will be able to interpret and respond to them. As the youth moves outside of the immediate family environment, it will likely encounter others who don’t share all of the same display rules, and who may be less willing to make the extra effort to understand the youth. In addition, these people may communicate their own needs to the youth in ways that may be less clear than the youth as experienced at home. Thus it is to the youth’s advantage to be well versed in emotional skills as it moves beyond the confines of the family (Boyum and Parke, 1995).

Past research has focused on the type of affective display used by parents during their interactions with their youths. Several studies have found that adolescents who are exposed to higher levels of negative affect are less well accepted by their peers. While, high levels of positive affect are associated with greater peer acceptance (Carson, 1991, MacDonold and Parke, 1984). It is confirmed that adolescents who learn to use high levels of negative affect in interaction with peers are less well accepted and those who use more positive effect are more accepted by their agemates (Hubbard and Coie, 1994). Not only is

the type of affect that adolescents are exposed to in the family important in developing peer relationships, but the frequency of exposes to effective displays may be important as well. Parental emotional expression – an index of the extent to which the parents express emotions in the course of every day interactions-has been suggested as a further link between the systems of life, which provides guidelines for the use of emotion in ongoing social interchanges. The parental emotion expressiveness is a style developed by the parents extends emotional learning among the adolescents beyond the acquisition of specific skills. As Halderstadt (1991) argued that parental emotional expression may involve a combination of emotion types, knowledge of display rules, motivation and ability to control one’s emotion expression. The studies have demonstrated a relationship between parenting style and adolescents’ psychological adjustment. The preponderance of evidence indicates that an authoritative parenting style is effective where parental control is tempered with willingness to negotiate with the adolescent, which promotes psychological adjustment. Common to these studies is the treatment of parental control as a single and undiffentiated construct. However, the notion of parenting style has been redefined, allowing for a more, precise definition of what aspects of adolescents conduct parent should legitimately regulate and what behaviour should be subjected to negotiation or given over to the adolescent to determine (Smetana, 1995; Smetana and Daddis, 2002). Adolescents and parents tend to view parental control as legitimate when excreted over actions that have prudential consequences for adolescents’ health and safety, or that pertain to the general conventions of society (Smetana, 1989; Smetana and Asquith, 1994; Smetana and Gaines, 1999).

In contrast to the acceptance of parental authority, adolescents tend to reject the notion that parent should regulate behaviours that fall within what has been termed the personal domain (Nucci, 1981, 1996). The personal domain refers to action that constitute private aspects of adolescent’s life such as making friends, music, hair style, spending time, selection of dresses, selection of movies, etc. An interesting question is whether the dynamic between parental authority and adolescents claims to an area of privacy and personal discretion is related to adolescent psychological adjustment? More specifically, are their association between parental over-control and psychological problems of adolescents?. Smetana and Daddis (2002) conducted a study to explore whether the use of parental behavioural and psychological control are associated with adolescents activity. Behavioural control refers to parent’s efforts to control or guide adolescents’ conduct through rules, regulations, restrictions and awareness of their adolescents’ activities. Psychological control refers to intrusiveness, guilt induction and love withdrawal by the parents. They pointed out that over control of the personal domain is associated with psychological problems in adolescents.

Different parental styles (eg. authoritarian, authoritative, permissive) are linked with variety of outcomes in offsprings, such as complaints, self control, aggression and distress (Baumrind, 1973; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Parenting styles have a substantial impact on child health and development (Bornstein, 1995). Two general approaches to conceptualizing parenting behaviour, one approach stresses a constellation of positive characteristics such as worth, responsiveness, engagement, support, consistency, and stimulation; and another approach stresses a constellation of negative characteristics such as hostility, disapproval, punitiveness, inconsistency and harshness (Collins et al., 2000). Positive parenting behaviour is associated with the development of adolescent competence in life areas such as cognitive function and behavioural regulation. Negative parenting, in contrast, is implicated in the development of emotional-behavioural problems (Patterson, 1982). Loving and accepting parents provide healthy medium for the adolescent to grow his energies into proper channels and exercise his potentials to the maximum (Kiran and Singh, 1982). Parents of high achievers are found to be more trusting, rewarding, loving and showed more tolerance towards their adolescents than parents of low achievers (Kang et al., 1995). Faulty parent-adolescent relationship ends in adolescents’ maladjustment (Erickson, 1963) and a healthy parent-adolescent relationship leads to the feeling of being loved and accepted with their high degree of self confidence and non-dependency (Hoffman, 1960).

According to Bharadwaj et al. (1998) parental emotional expressiveness involve a combination of emotions, knowledge of display rules, motivation and ability to control one’s emotion expression has been the basis for identifying eight models of parenting viz., 1) Rejection Vs. Acceptance 2) Carelessness Vs. Protection 3) Neglect Vs. Indulgence 4)

Utopian expectation Vs. Realism 5) Lenient standard Vs. Moralism 6) Freedom Vs. Discipline 7) Faulty role expectation Vs. Realistic role expectation and 8) Marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment.

The parenting model of rejection Vs. acceptance was found to be positively associated with adjustment (Shaffer and Shoben, 1956), adolescent helpfulness (Eberly et al., 1993), sports achievements (Woolger and Power, 1993), self-concept, curiosity, cognitive competence and achievement (Bharadwaj, 1996).

The evaluation of few studies on carelessness Vs. protection model of parenting clearly indicate that most of the studies pay greater attention on the study of over protection instead of protection, which is highly needed for the growth of personality. Over protection interms of over care usually leads to development of over-dependence and anxiety, weak achievement, failure to cope with external environment and deemed to be more harmful in the development of boys as compared to girls (Bharadwaj, 1995). Parental carelessness may grow the feeling of unwantedness and may result in chemical dependence (Bharadwaj, 1998). The development of greater emotional competence was found to be greater in the adolescents whose perceived mothering was associated with acceptance than that of rejection (Mithas, 1997).

Most of the parents succumb to the adolescent’s slightest whims interms of indulgence and make adolescents spoil, selfish, demanding, rebellious to authority, and lack of responsibility and demotes need for achievement but, emotional competence was found to be greater in those early adolescents who perceive their fathering as imbued with indulgence in general (Mithas, 1997). Delinquents reported their mother to more neglecting than non delinquents (Kroupa, 1988). It means negligence and over indulgence may play determental role in the development of personality potentials.

Research on the dimensions of Utopian expectation Vs. Realism revealed that parental demand of perfection from their adolescents leads them to internalize parents unrealistic standards and develop depression (Kenney-Benson and Pomerantz, 2005). Parental over ambitiousness regarding their adolescents leads them to continual frustrations, guilt and self-devaluations (Coleman, 1970).

Correspondingly, parental lenient standard may lead to severe conflicting situations for adolescents (Bharadwaj et al., 1998) and emotional competence was found to greater in those early adolescents who perceived fathering moralism (Mithas, 1997).

Parental faulty discipline such as over permissiveness interms of total freedom develop rebelliousness. Total freedom was found to be related positively to adequate expression and control of emotion in boys, ability to function with emotions and ability to cope with problem emotions in weak ego male adolescent labour (Garg, 1996). High restrictions in terms of severe discipline demotes need for achievement and promotes antisocial behaviour (Kulshresta and Abraham, 2005).

Parenting interms of faulty role expectations leads to fear, anxiety, shyness, submission and affects achievement in sports (Wooleger and Power, 1993). A child who fails to meet the unrealistic expectations of a parent desperate to be loved may become the target of abuse and emotional competence was associated with realistic role expectation (Mithas, 1997). Further, father and mother conflicts promote delinquent behaviour among adolescents (Cummings et al., 2003).

Diana Baumrind (1968, 1971, 1989 and 1991) conducted most comprehensive longitudinal studies to examine the effect of parenting style on the development of children ages 3-15 years. She identified seven parenting types : Authoritative, democratic, non-directive, authoritarian – directive, non authoritarian-directive, unengaged and good enough. The results of the studies revealed that good adjustment in children is associated with parents who use with firm and consistent discipline, and who are warm and supportive. The adolescent children from Democratic homes (where the parents are unconventional and moderately firm) had substantially higher drug use than children from Authoritative homes, but are otherwise similar. Adolescents from Non-directive homes (where the parents are supportive, unconventional and lax, also known as ‘Permissive’) were less competent, achievement oriented, and self regulated than adolescent from Authoritative or Democratic

homes. Adolescents from Directive homes (where parents are controlling, firm, rejecting and traditional) lacked social responsibility, were confirming and opposed drug use. Adolescent from Authoritarian – Directive homes (the one of two Directive subtypes in which parents are highly intrusive) had slightly worse outcomes than adolescents from Non-Authoritarian and Directive homes (the other Directive subtypes in which parents are not intrusive). The adolescents who had the lowest achievement scores and least adjusted were from Unengaged homes (where the parents are rejecting and neglecting). Lastly, those adolescents from Good-enough homes (where parents had moderate scores on all parenting dimensions) were as expected moderately competent.

The review of the literature confirms that parental style and combination of parenting styles play a significant role in the development of personality and personality disorders. The scholars in India have sparsely studied the relationship between parenting style and personality disorders among college students. Therefore, the present study was to examine the perceived status of the models of parenting and personality disorders among college students and the relationship between the models of parenting and personality disorders with the following objectives.

Objectives

1. To study the relationship between age, education of parents, occupation of parents and personality disorders of the college students

2. To study the status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the college students

3. To study the status of each of the personality disorders among the college students

4. To study the relationship between each perceived models of parenting and each of the personality disorders of the college students

Scope and limitations

The present research study is an attempt to understand the status of the perceived models of parenting and the personality disorders among the college students. The results of this study help us to know the perception of the college students about their mothers and fathers and correspondingly to identify the level of psychological disorders developed among the students and it also helps to affirm the relationship between the models of parenting and the personality disorders among the college students. The findings contribute to the theoretical frame work of the research on the perceived parenting and also the importance of the perceived models of parenting in relation to tendencies of the personality disorders.

Due to the researcher’s limited time and other resources, this study was confined to only one college and that to 352 students (227 male and 125 female) of B. Sc. This sample is a purposive sample, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all the students of undergraduate courses with different cultural background. This is only an initial attempt to know the status of psychological disorders among the college students, and relationship between the models of parenting and the personality disorders.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Family members, particularly parents, are the chief architects in shaping the personality of a child. The range and depth of emotions which parents display to their children builds up the psychological interior of their children. Emotional and social adjustment of children who are loved, accepted, nurtured, trusted and who have close emotional ties with their parents are definitely superior (Chakra and Prabha, 2004). Cline and Fay (1990) remark “parenting will teach kindness responsibility and that’s what parenting is all about, parents have accomplished a great share of our parental task”. Here is an attempt to review the available literature on parenting, parenting style, personality disorders and related literature which is presented in this chapter under the following headings:

2.1 Concept of parenting

2.2 Concept of personality disorder

2.3 Parenting and psychological problems

2.1 CONCEPT OF PARENTING Parenting is the style of child upbringing, which refers to a privilege of responsibility of

mother and father, together or independently to prepare the child for society and culture. Parenting provides ample opportunity to a child to find roots, continuity and a sense of belonging (Sirohi and Chauhan, 1991) and also serves as an effective agent of socialization. Though parenting, as a perception of the parents of their own attitude towards the child, happens to be of great significance in the dynamics of behaviour for socio-psychological researches, but how child perceives his/her parenting always remains a neglected phase of researches and should be deemed most important as he is the one whose process of socialization stands for furtherance (Bharadwaj, 1996). Child experiences with parents not only help in making the sense of self identity and self ideal but may also lead him to perceive, think and act in a self directed manner. So, it appears that child’s perception of parental attitude towards himself should be of great concern in the dynamics of behaviour and may open new avenues of research for deeper probe in the domain of parent-child relationship.

The two distinctive roles of parents include both mothering and fathering. A child bestows on both mother and father together or independently, the responsibility of upbringing him. These perceptions may be referred to apparently direct and immediate knowledge associated to their conscious or unconscious experiences by which they initiate and control behaviour enormously. It is important to note that most of the children have a fairly definite clear cut concept of ‘father’ which differs markedly from their concept of ‘mother’ (Bharadwaj, et al., 1998). Therefore, it appears to be of utmost importance to study perceptions regarding their fathering and mothering separately as well as parenting as a whole on different dichotomous models of parenting.

Fathering

The role of a father or the style of individual’s upbringing stands as a bridge by which the child comes into the contact of outside world (Meerto, 1968), encourages curiosity and a will to face the challenges of the world and appears as a symbol of assertive, independent, emotional and psychological support in the realization of truth. To love children is predominantly a feature of fathering in non-deviant families and relates to acceptance, satisfaction and differentiating experiences in the children (Khokhar, 1983) that can also be deemed as conditional one because it is acquired or earned by the child’s performance of duty, obedience and fulfillment of father’s expectations. Whereas, inadequate fathering is usually understood to be a prime source of maladjustment (Erickson, 1963), truancy, guilt, self-devaluation and dependency (Coleman, 1970) and chemical dependence (Bharadwaj, 1996).

Mothering

The role of mother or the style of upbringing is largely associated with congenial development of personality because the child first comes in contact with mother and always depends on her to satisfy his basic needs. The role of mother shows better control over the children and stands for friendship with less punishment and dominance (Kegan, 1965), symbol of emotional support, interpersonal sensitivity and help (Faren and Ramsey, 1977) and plays an important role in making a person more productive and imaginative. Whereas,

patterns of inadequate maternal behaviour seem to be responsible for the problem of children’s behaviour and chemical dependence and tends to inhibit the exploration of child’s personality in the environment (Bharadwaj, 1995).

Bharadwaj et al (1998) have identified eight parenting models which are enumerated as under :

a. Rejection Vs. Acceptance

b. Carelessness Vs. Protection

c. Neglect Vs. Indulgence

d. Utopian expectation Vs. Realism

e. Lenient standard Vs. Moralism

f. Freedom Vs. Discipline

g. Faulty role expectation Vs. Realistic role expectation

h. Marital conflict Vs. Marital adjustment.

There is a dichotomy in each parenting model that can be studied as the role of mothering and fathering separately as well as parenting as a whole except the marital conflict vs. marital adjustment which can only be associated with the study of adequate or inadequate parenting as a whole.


A child develops shocks when he does not find proper care and response of his parents. The infantile honesty and truthfulness meets an adverse atmosphere and therefore the psychological growth of the child is affected. It is quite natural that a child meets proper nourishment of his genuine feelings. Denial of love and affection freezes the genial current of infantile simplicity. Various aberrations in the behaviour of child are the product of this denial of natural love to them.

Rejection of parents manifests itself in interpersonal relationships in direct ways, when the child has to face excessive criticism, invidious comparison, harsh and inconsistent punishment by both or either of the parents in his upbringing. Rejection of parents may also evince itself in physical neglect, denial of love and affection, lack of interest in his activities and failure to spend time with him.

On the other hand parental acceptance implies an attitude of love for the child. The accepting parent puts the child in a position of importance in the home and develops a relationship of emotional warmth. Parental acceptance encourages the child and makes itself apparent in receptive or positive attitude towards the child’s idea and judgement, worthiness and capability, love and affection and admiration along with adequate attention towards him.


Parenting on carelessness dimension manifests itself, when both or either parents do not pay adequate heed towards child’s activities thus giving an impression of unwantedness by careless and unthoughtful negligible behaviour towards him even in presence of his proper and worthy behaviour in day to day matters.

On the other hand the sense of protection in the child makes him better and more confident. It is true that over protection is a disease and obstructs the independent growth of the child. But the sense of protection gives him strength and psychological support. So the sense of protection should not be confused with the term overprotection which consists in excessive contact of parents with the child, such as fondling him or sleeping with him, prolongation of infantile care as nursing, bathing and dressing when child can do it itself, prevention of the growth of self reliance by supervising the child’s activities too much and defending him or solving his problems. It also shows over anxiousness towards the child’s health and shield him from vigorous participation in competeting activities. Thus, over protection signifies giving more care to their child than what is necessary and can only be deemed as the hyper state of protection.


Neglecting the children by their parents even after conscious of their need is again injurious to their psychological health. It manifests itself in lack of attention and cooperation

with them, willful ignoring them and their activities and avoidance of their genuine needs. Giving more importance to self designs of work but, least attention to their feelings and needs, come within purview of neglect.

On the other hand over indulgence of parents with the child develops certain whims and psychological inconsistencies in the latter. It may be seen in the parents yielding to every demand of the child and failure to exercise the needed constraint even when necessary. Such a child becomes unfit for a reasonable adjustment in the social circumstances. However, it should be kept open to parents that indulgence with the child to a reasonable degree shall be deemed as a health giving sign. It helps in developing the child’s emotional response to the situation.

d. Utopian Expectation Vs. Realism

The utopian expectation dimension exhibits itself in expecting a very high quality of performance from the child even against his capabilities. Some parents use their children as a means of achieving their own thwarted ambitions without taking into consideration their abilities and limitations. Such parents are over-ambitious regarding their children. The more children achieve, the more parents expect of them. Thus, very high, unrealistic and imaginary demand of parents regarding to the performance of their children come within the purview of utopian expectations which are not fulfilled by the children.

A parental attitude of realism signifies itself in taking into consideration the objective realities pertaining to both, the child’s capabilities and outside world while setting up and expecting his level of performance.

e. Lenient Standard Vs. Moralism

This mode of parenting takes into account lenient standard as the negative dimension and moralism as the positive dimension. Lenient standard of parents make themselves apparent in permitting lesser restrictions from deviations from ethical and moral behaviour and an attitude showing indifference against such inhibitions to restrict child’s freedom and individuality.

Moralism as socio-cultural product refers to the doctrine of duties of life, principles and conduct adhering to what is right and virtuous and plays an important role in the dynamics of social relations. It would be an admirable exercise, if a child is prone to inculcate a reasonable degree of moralism in his personality orientations. If parents’ behaviour evinces moralism to an excessive degree, it harms the child’s natural and dynamic integration. Certain parents develop an attitude of condemnation of the child’s mild departure from the ideals of morality and force them to live a strong puritan life.


Freedom manifests itself in absence of restraints over all matter to what they may pertain to. In fact the child is a sole decision maker of his activities. There is hardly any questioning impediment on the part of parents. He may disregard or disobey his parents without any fear of punishment from them.

On the other hand, parents with a penchant for strict discipline simply pass on orders to their children who have to merely obey them. The child is not allowed to take any decision regarding his dress, appearance, manners, friends or other activities of his life. Disobedience is met with punishment whereas obedience is appreciated.

Although, the discipline is strong need of social orientations yet the severe discipline on the part of parents hamper the delight and liberty of the child which he wishes to obtain at every stage of life.

g. Faulty Role Expectation Vs. Realistic Role Expectation

On the dimension of faulty role expectation parenting, the child is always confused and embarrassed because of the unpredictable expectations of his parents. Parents usually expect divergent and contradictory roles from their children.

The other dimension of realistic role expectation is just reverse. Parents present themselves as an example to be followed by the children and their behaviour is thoughtful, consistent and predictable in day to day strifes. The children know for certain what their parents are alike and what is expected to them.

h. Marital Conflict Vs. Marital Adjustment

On the negative dimension marital conflict affects the child as and when he/she witnesses open conflicts between their parents. The child is not able to reconcile with and it leaves a non-palatable feeling on his mind.

Marital adjustment exhibits itself in a calm and composed adjustment between the parents thereby creating a solidarity and congenial atmosphere of peace and harmony in the family.

2.2 CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY DISORDER According to DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 1994), “Personality Disorder” is defined as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of individual’s culture, is pervasive, and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time and leads to distress or impairment.

These disorders are characterized by developmental defects or pathological trends in the personality, structure, with minimal subjective anxiety and little or no sense of distress. In most instances, the disorder is manifested by a life long pattern of action and behaviour, rather than by mental or emotional symptoms.

DSM-IV notes that the results of having this disorder may distress the person affected. However, individuals with personality disorders may feel no subjective distress; others because of the actions of individuals with personality disorder may feel indeed the distress. This is particularly common with anti-social personality disorder when the individual shows a blatant disregard for the rights of others, yet exhibits no remorse. In certain cases, a judgment has to made by someone other than the person with the personality disorder. This individual must decide whether the disorder is causing significant functional impairment because the affected person often cannot make such a judgment. Personality disorders are considered as chronic problems that do not come and go during different times in a person’s life. It may originate in childhood and to continue throughout adulthood.

DSM-IV divides the personality disorders into 3 groups or “clusters”. The cluster division of the disorders is based on resemblance.

Personality disorders

Cluster A Odd or eccentric disorders

Cluster B Dramatic or emotional or erratic

disorders

Cluster C Anxious or fearful disorders

Paranoid Antisocial Avoidant

Schizoid Borderline Dependent

Schizotypal Histrionic Obsessive-compulsive

Narcissistic

Cluster A is called the “odd”/“eccentric” cluster, it includes paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal personality disorders. Cluster B is known as the “dramatic”, “emotional”, or “erratic” cluster, it consists of antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders and cluster C is called the “anxious” or “fearful” cluster, it includes avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders.

2.2.1 Paranoid personality disorder

People with paranoid personality disorder are excessively mistrustful and suspicious of other people, without any justification. They tend not to confide in others and expect other people do them harm.

Symptoms

a. They are suspicious : They suspect without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming or deceiving them.

b. Without justification, they may question the loyalty of their friends and acquaintances including the fidelity of their spouse or sexual partners.

c. They are reluctant : They are reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against them.

d. They persistently bear grudges i.e., they are unforgiving of insults, injuries or slights.

e. They perceive attacks : Perceive attacks on their character or reputation that are not readily apparent to others.

f. They are argumentative

g. They are sarcastic

h. They are hard to get along with and often vindictive.

2.2.2 Schizoid personality disorder

Schizoid is an old term used by Beluler in 1924 to describe people who have a tendency to turn inward and away from the outside world.

Individuals with schizoid personality disorder want to be alone, choose a solitary walk, come to class alone, sit alone. People with this disorder show a pattern of detachment from social relationships and a very limited range of emotions in interpersonal situations they seem aloof, cold and indifferent to other people.

Symptoms

a. They are loners: People with schizoid personality disorder want to be alone and keep to themselves.

b. They lack confidence.

c. They lack close friends : They neither desire nor enjoy close relationships including being part of a family.

d. They prefer solitary activities: Usually select activities that do not require much interaction with others.

e. Their behaviour is cold, detached and impassive so they take pleasure in few activities.

f. They usually display no observable reaction to either pralse or criticism.

g. They have, if any, little interest in having sexual experiences with another person.

2.2.3 Schizotypal personality disorder

People with schizotypal personality disorder are typically socially isolated like those with schizoid personality disorder. In addition, however, individuals with schizotypal personality disorder also behave in ways that would seem unusual to many of us. Also they tend to be suspicious and to have odd beliefs about the world.

Symptoms

a. These individuals lack close friends and confidence

b. They feel unusual perceptual experiences including bodily illusions.

c. They are anxious in social situations and they feel that they do not fit in. This occurs even when they become more familiar with a person. This is not because they feel inferior, but is due to their suspiciousness and their fear of being harmed.

d. They are more conscious about self their self: consciousness make them think that people are especially aware of them or talking about them.

e. Inappropriate or constricted affect i.e., their affect is constricted or inappropriate.

f. Their behaviour is often eccentric or peculiar or odd

g. These individuals tend to be superstitious. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences their behaviour.

h. Their thinking also tends to be odd and their speech may be vague, circumstantial, metaphorical or stereotyped.

2.2.4 Antisocial personality disorder :

People with antisocial personality disorder have a history of failing to comply with social norms. They perform actions most of us would find unacceptable, such as stealing form friends and family. They also tend to be irresponsible, impulsive and deceitful. They completely lacking in conscience and feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do violate social norms and expectations, without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.

Symptoms

a. Failure to confirm to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

b. They are impulsive

c. They are unconcerned about feelings and rights of others.

d. They are reckless.

e. They often abuse alcohol and drugs

f. They frequently engage in criminal activity.

g. They are usually unable to maintain consistent relationship even when it is available and they neglect their financial obligations.

h. They do not feel guilt and they lack remorse and they rationalize or lie about their misbehaviour

i. They are prone to physical confrontations and can be violent at times.

j. 10. They do not learn from experience and their antisocial behaviour in one form or another is usually evident from childhood.

2.2.5 Borderline personality disorder

People with borderline personality disorder lead tumultuous lives.

They lack stability in their moods and in their relationships with other people and unusually they have a very poor self-image these people often feel empty inside and are at great risk from dieing by their own hands.

Symptoms

a. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.

b. They have a pattern of farming intense and stormy relationships in which they alternate from admiring to despising the same person.

c. Identity disturbance: They have an inconsistent self image that is reflected in uncertainly about such issues as their values, career choice, sexual orientation of their choices relating to friendships.

d. Their mood is unstable and often changes from day to day or hour to hour usually in relation to some events in their lives.

e. They frequently display intense or inappropriate anger and have difficulty controlling their anger

f. They experience chronic feelings of emptiness.

g. They engage in impulsive, self damaging behaviours like gutka (binge) eating, alcohol and drug abuse, gambling, inappropriate spending and sexual activity without consideration of the consequences.

h. Recurrent suicidal behaviour, gestures or threats or self-mutilating behaviour.

2.2.6 Histrionic personality disorder

Individuals with histrionic personality disorder tend to be overly dramatic and often appear almost to be acting or theatrical in manner.

Symptoms

a. These individuals need to be the center of attention. They feel uncomfortable in situations which they are not the center of attention.

b. They use their physical appearance to draw attention to themselves.

c. They display rapidly shifting and -shallow expression of emotions i.e., their enthusiasm and emotional displays are shallow and superficial.

d. They are easily suggestible i.e., they are easily influenced by what is going on around then at the movement.

e. They consider relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.

2.2.7 Narcissistic personality disorder

The name for this disorder was borrowed from Greek mythology.

Freud used this term to describe people who show an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a pre-occupation with receiving the attention of others. People with this disorder think highly of themselves perhaps beyond their real abilities. These people consider themselves special and somehow different from others and deserving of special treatment.

Symptoms

a. People with narcissistic personality disorder have an exaggerated sense of self importance.

b. They show arrogant behaviours.

c. They require excessive admiration and recognition.

d. They usually have grandiose fantasy life focused on subjects like fame, success, power, beauty, brilliance and ideal love.

e. They believe that they are special and unique and should associate with other special or high-status person or institute.

f. They are interpersonally exploitative i.e., take advantage of others to achieve their own ends.

g. They lack empathy i.e., they are unable to put themselves in other person's situation and feel what others are feeling or experiencing.

h. They are often anxious of others and they may under estimate or devalue other people in order to inflate their own worth.

i. They have a sense of entitlement.

2.2.8 Avoidant personality disorder

People with this disorder are extremely sensitive to the opinion of others and therefore avoid social relationships. It does not mean that they are shy but they actively avoid close relationships. They have extremely low self-esteem. This poor opinion of themselves coupled with a fear of being rejected causes them to reject the attention others crave.

Symptoms

a. They avoid interpersonal situations not because they lack the interest as desire, but because they are concerned about being embarrassed, ridiculed or rejected.

b. They are unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked.

c. They show restraint within intimate relationships of the fear of being shamed or ridiculed.

d. They are preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situation.

e. They are inhibited in new interpersonal situations because of feelings of inadequacy.

f. They view self as socially inept, personally unappealing or inferior to others.

g. They are usually reluctant or hesitant to take personal risks or to engage in any new

activities because they may prove embarrassing.

2.2.9 Dependent personality disorder

People with this disorder be dependent on other person. They depend on others in making every day decisions as well as important life decisions and it results in an unreasonable fear of being abandoned.

Symptoms

a. They have difficulty making every day decisions without an excessive amount of advice or reassurance from others.

b. They need others to assume responsibility for most major areas of their life.

c. They have difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support.

d. They have difficulty initiating new works or doing things on their own because lack of self-confidence in judgement or abilities rather than lack of motivation or energy.

e. They feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being alone to care for themselves.

f. They go to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant.

g. They urgently seek another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship ends.

2.2.10 Obsessive - compulsive personality disorder

People with this order are characterized by a fixation on things being done the right way. Although many might envy their persistence and dedication, this preoccupation with details prevents them from actually completing much of anything.

Symptoms

a. They are preoccupied with details, rules lists, order, organization or schedules, to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.

b. They show perfectionlism that interferes with task completion.

c. They are excessively devoted to work and productivity even when economically unnecessary, that they .often have little or no time remaining for friendships or leisure activities.

d. They are over conscientious, scrupulous and rigid about matters of morality, ethics, rules.

e. They are stubborn and reluctant to delegate tasks unless, these tasks are done exactly as they prescribed.

f. They are unable to discard worn-out or worth less objects even when they have no sentimental value.

2.3 PARENTING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Family as a unit of social organization where parent-child relationship happens to be central factor in children’s social development (Bretherton, 1985) and also influences the segments of personality (Saxena, 1987). Ordinarily the child’s key models are his parents and their behaviour can have beneficial and detrimental effect on the way the child learns to perceive, think, feel and act. Fathers’ and mothers’ degree of investment in parenting is more consequential for their socialization practices and view of their children than degree of investment in work (Green and Goldbery, 1989). How a child behaves and performs usually depend on the various parenting styles by which they are being treated. It was found that good relations of parents tend to show better social adjustment among children (Bers and Obers, 1950), emotional adjustment (Lewis, 1945) and self-esteemed development (Dembo et al., 1987). Loving and accepting parents provide healthy medium for the child to grow his energies into proper channels and exercise his potentials to the maximum (Kiran and Singh, 1982).

A predominant view in clinical and development research is that parental behaviour is a relatively specific, learnt pattern of behaviour that reflects a history of relationships influence on the development of characteristics of the children (Conger et al., 1994). An alternative view derived from personality psychology, is that behaviour in a parenting context affect general and stable personality characteristics among children (Kochanska, 1997). Numerous investigation connect various forms of psychopathology with impaired parenting behaviour (Downey and Coyne, 1990; Rutter and Quinton, 1984; Radke – Yarrow, 1991).

For decades, parents and professionals who work with families have been told that adolescent misbehaviour is determined by parenting characterized by high levels of monitoring and controlling of children’s behaviour. According to studies, when parents are characterized as high in behaviour control and are effective monitors of their children’s behaviour, adolescents were less likely to engage in problem behaviour, including substance use and delinquency (Barber, 1996; Mott et al., 1999; Pettit et al., 1999). However, recent research by Stattin and Kerr (2000) has suggested that the associations between adolescent misconduct and parental monitoring and control may not be as clear-cut as has previously being asserted. Fletcher et al. (2004) conducted a study on 2568 adolescents and reported that problem behaviour of adolescents was best predicted by a model that included indirect effects of warmth, control and monitoring all by way of parental knowledge, as well as direct effects of control and monitoring.

Early in the study of parents’ socialization of children, parents’ use of control was identified as a key dimension (Becker, 1964; Maccoby and Martin, 1983; Rollins and Thomas, 1979). Consequently there is an extensive body of theory and research on multiple forms of parental control with varying consequences (Pomerantz and Ruble, 1998; Steinberg, 1990). The current research was guided by Deci and Ryan’s (1987) definition of control, emphasizing parents’ use of practices oriented toward pushing children to achieve particular outcomes, often in an intrusive manner (Pomeratz et al., 2001). Such control may entail continually directing attention to the standards that indicate success (i.e., reminding children that they need to get an ‘A on a test’) frequently demanding that performance standards be met (i.e., indicating that children’s privileges will be revoked if they don’t do well in examination), regularly monitoring progress toward these standards (i.e., checking children’s grades on their assignments), and constantly regulating children’s behaviour around these standards (i.e., telling children how to do and behave). When parents engage in these types of practices, they may convey to children that success is essential to pleasing them and, there by to receiving their love, while failure is unacceptable. This type of parental modeling is expecting perfectionist behaviour from children (Pacht, 1984). Kenney-Benson and Pomerantz (2005) conducted a study to investigate the possibility that when parents use heightened control with children and children develop perfectionist concerns. The results revealed that mothers using heightened control had children with perfectionist concerns and heightened depressive symptoms.

Since the recognition in 1962 of the seriousness of child’s physical abuse (Kempe et

al., 1962), child maltreatment has received heightened media and scholarly attention. Anonymous surveys demonstrate the vertically universal practices of parental physical discipline of children and severe parent-child violence. The evidences indicated that children maltreatment is characterized as detrimental to victims, resulting in both short term and long term consequences in psycho-social and cognitive functioning (Fantazzo, 1990; Starr and Wolfe, 1991). Physically abused children were more likely than non-abused children to demonstrate such characteristics as oppositionality, behaviour problems, depression, fearfulness, social withdrawal and lower self-esteem (Kazdin et al., 1985; Cerezo and Frias, 1994). Rodriguez (2003) conducted a study to investigate the differences in children’s emotional functioning as a product of their parents’ reported disciplinary practices and child abuse potential. The results revealed that children’s anxiety symptoms were higher in those children whose parents were higher in abuse and had harsher discipline practices. Children’s depressive symptoms and maladaptive attributional style was also found in families with higher abuse potential.

Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) conducted a study to know the effect of family experiences in preadolescence and development of delinquency. The results revealed that undesirable quality of parent-child relations, abusive parental discipline practices and inconsistent family problem solving behaviour of the parents were more influential in predicting delinquency.

Wagner et al. (1996) used longitudinal data from 517 adolescents to examine whether the associations of negative stressful events with symptoms of depression and conduct discarder were modified by the adolescents’ reports of parental warmth and harsh discipline. The central questions of this research were 1) Does a positive relationship with just one parent moderate the association of stress with symptoms? 2) Does a positive relationship with two parents offered more protection from stress? The results indicated that adolescents who reported relatively warm parenting by both mothers and fathers had a smaller association of stressful events with symptoms of depression as compared to the other adolescents. Further, those adolescents who reported relatively harsher discipline by both parents had a higher association of stress with depressive symptoms as compared with other adolescents.

Garber et al. (1997) studied relations between three components of parenting (acceptance Vs. rejection, autonomy Vs. psychological control and firm Vs. lax control) and young adolescents depressive symptoms in a sample of 240 mothers and children. The results revealed that maternal acceptance show a significant negative relation to depressive symptoms, and maternal psychological control was positively associated with depressive symptoms. These relations were mediated partially through the adolescents’ perceived self-worth.

Jackson and Foshee (1998) have studied relations between two dimensions of parenting behaviour and violence – related behaviour in a sample of 1221 adolescents. The results indicated that the higher the perceived responsiveness and demandingness of fathers and mothers, lower the likelihood that adolescent had hit peers, beatup peers, carried a weapon or threatened with adolescents who perceived high levels of parental responsiveness or demandingness. Adolescents who perceived relatively low levels of these dimensions were two to three times more likely to report violence-related behaviours. The results also indicated that parental responsiveness and demandingnes were associated more strongly with violence-related behaviour of females than with those of meals.

Aziz et al (2002) conducted a study to determine the prevalence rate of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and OCS (Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms) among the Egyptian school children in Qatar aged between 9-12 years old, associated abnormal psychosocial situations, and its effect on the cognitive function and the education level. The sample consisted of 1093 Egyptian school children. The results revealed that the overall prevalence was 0.64 per cent. The most common symptoms were “put things away just so, hate dirt and contamination, anger if someone messes desk, repeated thoughts or wards and worry about being clean enough”. There is cognitive impairment in 71.4 per cent of the cases.

Bhatti and George (2002) conducted a study to understand the family interaction patterns of children with psychiatric conditions. Two hundred families that attend the child and adolescent psychiatry unit at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences were administered the Family Interaction Pattern Scale. The results indicated that interaction of most families fell onside the normal expected range. In addition, reinforcement patterns were found significantly associated with types of psychiatric conditions.

Bournia and Roussos (2002) conducted a study to investigate the presence of obsessive-compulsive disorder of children and adolescent is a predictor of increase risk for the functioning of the family and the psychosocial adaptation of the siblings who don’t have the disorder. The results revealed that family history of obsessive-compulsive disorder and severity of illness seem to increase the risk of parental over involvement in the obsessive compulsive symptomalogy of their children.

Kirsti and Riitta (2002) conducted a study to assessed the relationships of peer victimization, psychiatric disturbance and family dynamics of children who are targets of peer harassment and bullying in a community setting. 382 boys and 380 girls of 7-12 years, attending elementary school were selected as a sample of the study. Victims of peer harassment and bullying displayed clearly more psychiatric symptoms and the psychiatric disturbance among them was more common than among the children not harassed or bullied. Further more, bullied children had less pro social skills than other children. The study revealed that peer harassment and bullying is a many-faceted phenomenon but cannot be explained by the family dynamics of the victims.

Oner and Kilic (2002) conducted a study to investigate similarities and differences of behavioural and emotional difficulties in offspring of patients with schizophrenia and cases

with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder when compared with normal control. 21 attention deficit hyper activity disorder cases, 18 children of schizophrenic parents and 30 normal controls were included in the study. Results revealed that 7 of 18 (38%) children of schizophrenic parents were diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Both groups had significantly higher child behaviour checklist (CBCL) scores than normal controls in most of the syndrome scales of child behaviour checklist, except social withdrawal syndrome scale. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder cases had significantly higher child behaviour checklist attention problems, delinquent behaviour, aggressive behaviour, and externalizing problems scores than children of schizophrenic parents. The results indicate that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be more prevalent in offspring of schizophrenic patients and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder cases have more externalizing and attention problems.

Riitta and Kristi (2002) conducted a study to examine the background factors of psychiatric disorders and reasons to child’s possibility to get psychiatric help. 762 children at ages 7-12 in eastern Finland were selected for the study. Results refer to that family structure is connected with child’s psychiatric disorders. In natural families 14 per cent, in one parent families 20 per cent, and in remarried families 30 per cent of children need psychiatric help. Certain problems were prevalent in remarried families (conduct and peer problems) and in one-parent families (emotional problems) when compared natural families.

Sharma et al. (2002) conducted a study aimed at studying psychosocial factors contributing to the genesis of conversion disorder in 30 patients of age ranged 6-17 years. These patients were assessed with the help of psychiatric history, physical and mental status examination, record of investigations and IQ testing. The psychological factors elicited were : improper schooling, borderline intellectual functioning, current/ past psychological illness; incidental radiological findings, only son/youngest child; recent loss of loved one; improper parenting; conversion/epileptic symptoms in family/neighbourhood; sibling rivalry; and other family stresses.

Srivastava (2002) conducted a study to know the perceived parental behaviour of Indian adolescents in relation to their mental health status. In the research 100 adolescents of normal mental health (normal group) and 100 adolescents normal health (clinic group) who might have needed psychological and psychiatric intervention were identified. The adolescents perceived maternal child rearing practices was assessed. The results revealed that adolescents of normal group reported significantly higher acceptance, child centeredness, positive involvement and extreme autonomy from their mothers than the adolescents of clinic group. On the other had the adolescents of clinic group perceived significantly more rejection, hostile, control, instilling persistent anxiety, and withdrawal of relations from their mothers than normal group adolescents. The results suggested that adolescents perception of their parental behaviour play crucial role in their personality and behaviour development.

Tamboli et al. (2002) conducted a research to study the effects of family and school environment on personality traits of teenagers. 291 boys and 145 girl students studying in standard 8

th and 9

th of English medium schools were assessed for 14 personality traits and for

family and school environment. The results revealed that among various personality traits, reserved, affected by feelings, sober, tenderminded, tense, doubting, phlegmatic, vigourous, shy, placid, obedient, more intelligent and conscientious were seen to be affected by school and family environment. Parent education, occupation and birth order were also seen to influence personality traits. Composite scores showed moderate leadership potential and creatively. To conclude personality traits in teenagers were significantly affected by their school and family environment. Certain traits such as reserved, affected by feelings, sober, tender-minded, tense and doubting can affect school achievement, thus leading to neurotic condition or danger of delinquency.

Bryald and Zimmermand (2003) studied the effect of role models on psycho-social outcomes (substance use, delinquency, academic engagement and psychological well being) by selecting 679 adolescents. The results revealed that male adolescents without male role models and females identifying brothers as role models reported the most problem behaviour. Adolescents with parental male role models had the most positive school outcomes, no differences were found in psychological well being among adolescents in terms of their male role models. The presence of female role models, in contrast, was associated with psychological well being such that adolescents with maternal role models reported the

least distress. Adolescents without female role models had the lowest grades and most negative school attitudes.

Cummings et al. (2003) have studied children’s responses to marital conflict of parents. The results revealed that marital conflicts-threat, personal insult, verbal hostility, non-verbal hostility-were associated with heightened negative emotionality among children; but clam discussion, support and affection of parents were linked with increased positive emotionality.

Wheeler et al. (2003) examined the role of late adolescent females ongoing perceived reciprocity in their relationship with parents, their sense of incompetence (interms of an impersonal – causality orientation), and their identity style and commitment in predicting disordered eating symptoms. Some variables were also examined from the mothers’ perspectives to consider the potential impact of mother – daughter discrepancies on symptomatology. This questionnaire based study used a multicultural samples of 256 female university students. The results revealed that disordered eating was inversely related to the perception of reciprocity with parents and positively related to sense of incompetence, an avoidant identity style and a lack of identity commitments. Further, the styles are related to disordered analyses revealed that both perceived parental reciprocity and an avoidant identity eating indirectly through their relation to personality variables linked to eating disorder psychopathology.

Boyle et al. (2004) examined the impact of differential-maternal parenting behaviour, evaluated as a family-level experience on children’s emotional – behavioural problems. Data from 3 child development studies : 2128 children of 4 to 16 years olds (Ontario Child Health Study); 7392 children of 4 to 11 years olds (National longitudinal study of children and youth); and 1992 children of 3 to 14 years olds (National Longitudinal study of Youth). In two of three studies, there was consistent evidence that differential-maternal behaviour had an adverse impact on all siblings as a group, over and above parenting directed at individual siblings. The strength of association was sensitive to the type of maternal parenting behaviour, dimension of child maladjustment and respondents perspective (Stronger for hostile/negative parenting, externalizing problems, and mother assessment of child emotional-behavioural problems).

Kosterman et al. (2004) conducted a study to know the unique influence of mothers and fathers on their children’s anti-social behaviour. They have examined 325 families of adolescents. The results suggested that, although the relationships were often similar for both parents and for both daughters and sons, mothers and fathers uniquely influenced their children’s antisocial behaviour depending on children’s gender. Overall cross gender influence appear to be particularly important for fathers’ control of their daughters’ antisocial behaviour. They concluded that socialization experiences with fathers directly affected the behaviour of their daughters but not their sons. Sons were influenced indirectly by their fathers; parental bonding promoted prosocial beliefs which interm inhibited sons’ antisocial behaviour.

Bynum and Brody (2005) have tested the hypothetical model linking maternal education and maternal coping behaviour with parent-child relationship quality and intern, children’s self-regulatory behaviour and mental health difficulties. The findings revealed that mothers’ use of active coping behaviours predicted more positive parent-child relationship quality, grater child self-regulatory behaviour and fewer perceived behavioral and emotional difficulties in children.

O’Connar et al. (2005) conducted a longitudinal study including biological and step families and investigated mutual influence between marital conflict and children’s behaviour problems. Children (4-17 years; N=296) residing 127 families drawn from a general population study were investigated at time 1 again 2 years later at time 1 and again 2 years later. These nested data were analyzed using multilevel modeling, controlling for previous child behaviour or marital conflict. The results revealed that marital conflict about children predicted change in children’s behaviour. Children’s behaviour also predicted as increased in marital conflict, particularly in step families. Differences between siblings in exposer to conflict and the extent to which siblings were a source of argument increased more in step families than in biological families.

Orbuch et al. (2005) hypothized that the resiliency model of family stress, adjustment and adaptation, certain family strengths can promote positive outcomes for children undergoing adverse or stressful circumstances. They have proposed that chief among these

potential strengths are high quality parent-child relationships. Data from self-report of 190 long term survivors (3 + years post treatment) of childhood cancer were analyzed. The findings indicated that survivors who report better relationships with their mothers and fathers consistently reported a higher quality of life, especially in the psychological domain. Although survivors reported better relationships with their mothers than with their fathers, father-child relations were associated more highly with survivors’ reports of quality of life.

Stolz et al. (2005) assessed the importance of parental and maternal support, behavioural control and psychological control in explaining depression, antisocial behaviour and social initiative within 644 adolescents. The results supported the importance of fathering and mothering in development of a child. Additionally suggested a) mothers’ behavioural control was relatively more important than fathers’ in explaining sons’ subsequent antisocial behaviour, b) fathers’ support was relatively more important than mothers’ support in explaining subsequent youth social initiative, and c) mothering and fathering have a cross gendered effect on early adolescents’ depression.

Carlson (2006) used data on biological fathers’ relationship with their children from 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N=2733) to assess whether father involvement mediates the relationship between family structure (i.e., father absence) and five measures of adolescent behaviour (aggression, antisocial behaviour, depression, anxiety and low self esteem). The results revealed that differences in father involvement are shown to account for a sizable fraction of the variance in outcomes of family structure. Father involvement does not affect boys and girls differently but is more beneficial when father lives wit the adolescent.

Huh (2006) tested the hypothesis that parenting who show reciprocal relations with adolescents’ problem behaviour using longitudinal data from 496 adolescent girls. The results provided support for the assertion that female problem behaviour has an adverse effect on parenting: elevated externalizing symptoms and substance abuse symptoms predicted future decreases in perceived parental support and control. There was less support for the ascertain that parental deficits foster adolescent problem behaviours : initially low parental control predicted feature increases in substance abuse but not externalizing symptoms, and low parental support did not predict future increases in externalizing or substance abuse symptoms. The results suggest that problem behaviour is a more consistent predicator of parenting than parenting is of problem behaviour, at least for girls during middle adolescence.

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS The present study entitled “The analysis of parenting style and personality disorder” of the college students was conducted during the year 2005-06 in Dharwad city of Karnataka State. The Material and methods used in study are discussed under the following headings;

3.1 Population and sample

3.2 Research design

3.3 Variables and their measurement

3.4 Tools used for the study

3.5 Procedure of data collection

3.6 Methods of statistical analysis

3.1 POPULATION AND SAMPLE The population of the study was degree college students. There were six degree colleges in Dharwad city. Among these colleges Janata Shikshana Samiti College (JSS) was purposively selected because this college was well established and popular college in Dharwad city. This college was strict in adhering to the compulsory attendance of the students to each course and also this college was convenient for the researcher to collect the data. The principal of the college was contacted and explained the purpose of the study and requested to give the permission to conduct the study on the students of JSS college. The principal of the college encouraged the researcher and permitted for the data collection. The college had been offering Arts, Science and Commerce degree courses. The students of science course were selected as the respondents for the study because compared to Arts and Commerce students, the students of science very regular for the classes and studious in their studies. In the science course, B.Sc. I year consisted of 102 male and 86 female students, B.Sc. II year consisted of 66 male and 35 female students and B.Sc. III year consisted of 75 male and 65 female students. So, the initial size of the sample was 429. After scrutinizing the informations given by the students 77 students’ informations were not included because of incompleted answering or some of them were living with either of the parents or absence in the class. So, the final sample consisted of 352 comprising 98 male and 35 female students of B.Sc. I year; 58 male and 31 female students of B.Sc. II year; then 71 male and 59 female students of B. Sc. III year who were living with both the parents (Table 1).

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN This study was aimed to analyze the status of the models of parenting and the personality disorders and also their relationships. The ex-post-facto research design with purposive sample was adopted for this study.

3.3 VARIABLES AND THEIR MEASUREMENT WITH OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

The details of independent and dependent variables selected for the study are given below:

For the present study models of parenting and few demographic characteristics were selected as independent variables and personality disorder as dependent variable.

3.3.1 Independent variables

3.3.1.1 Models of parenting

Parenting is the style of child upbringing, which refers to a privilege or responsibility of mother and father, together or independently to prepare the child for society and culture, which provides ample opportunity to a child to find roots, continuity and sense of belongingness and also serves as an effective agent of socialization (Bharadwaj et al., 1998).

According to Bharadwaj et al. (1998) parenting style includes eight models of parenting viz., a. Rejection Vs. Acceptance, b. Carelessness Vs. Protection, c. Neglect Vs. Indulgence, d. Utopian expectation Vs. Realism, e. Lenient standard Vs. Moralism, feedom

Vs. Discipline, g. Faulty role expectation Vs. Realistic role expectation, h. Marital conflict Vs. Martial adjustment.

3.3.1.1a Rejection Vs. Acceptance

Rejection of parents refers to the manifestations of excessive criticism, invidious comparison, harsh and inconsistent punishment by both or either of the parents in upbringing of the child. Acceptance of parents refers to parents attitude of love for the child, positive attitude towards the child’s idea and judgment, feeling of child’s worthiness and capability, expression of love and affection of love and affection and admiration along with adequate attention.

3.3.1.1b Carelessness Vs. Protection

Carelessness refers to either or both the parents inadequate attention towards child’s activity, reaction of unwantedness, negligible behaviour towards child even in the presence of worthy behaviour of the child. Protection refers to giving adequate and more than expected attention to the child through nourishing, bathing, foundling with love and affection.

3.3.1.1c Neglect Vs. Indulgence

Neglect refers to lack of attention and cooperation with the child, willful ignoring the child and its activities and avoidance of its genuine needs. Indulgence refers to parents yielding to every demand of the child and failure to exercise needed constraint even when necessary.

3.3.1.1d Utopian expectation Vs. Realism

The utopian expectation refers to parents expecting of very high quality of performance from the child even against the child’s capabilities. Realism refers to the parents’ consideration of objective realities pertaining to the child’s capabilities and outside world while setting up and expecting the child’s level of performance.

3.3.1.1e Lenient standard Vs. Moralism

Lenient standard of parents refers to permitting the child without restrictions and keeping quite when there are deviations from moral and ethical behaviours and an attitude of showing indifference against the inhibitions to restrict child’s freedom and individuality. Moralism refers to the parents’ role to develop the doctrine of duties of life, principles and conduct adhering to what is right and virtues in the child.

3.3.1.1f Freedom Vs. Discipline

Freedom refers itself in the absence of restraints from the parents for all matters and leads the child to make soul decision in day today activities. Discipline refers to the parents with a pungent restriction and simply pass on orders to their children who have to merely obey.

3.3.1.1g Faulty role expectation Vs. Realistic role expectation

Faulty role expectation makes the child to be under confused and embarrassed always because of the unpredictable expectations of the parents. Realistic role expectation refers to the parents as a model, who present themselves as an example to be followed by the children.

3.3.1.1h Marital conflict Vs. Marital adjustment

Marital conflict refers to the child’s witnesses open conflicts between the parents. The child is not able to reconcile with and it leaves a non palatable feeling. Marital adjustment refers to a calm and imposed adjustment between the parents thereby creating a solidarity and congenial atmosphere.

3.3.1.2 The demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics comprise of three sets of characteristics viz., respondents related variables–age and gender; parents related variables–education and occupation; and family related characteristics consisted of family type, religion, domicile and number of siblings.

Table:1: Population and sample of the study

3.3.1.2a Age

The chronological age of students in completed years at the time of investigation is referred to as age. The age of the students ranged between 18 to 23 years. The details of the age of students is as follows:

Male Female Sl. No. Age

Freq. % Freq. %

1 18-19 114 50.20 34 27.20

2 20-21 105 46.30 76 60.80

3 22-23 008 03.50 15 12.00

3.3.1.2b Gender

It is a scheme for classification of the individuals based on biological differences as males and females. The respondents were grouped as follows:

Sl. No. Gender Score Frequency Percentage

1 Male 1 227 64.49

2 Female 2 125 35.51

3.3.1.2c Education of parents

The students were requested to write his/her parents’ educational qualification. For the analysis, each standard or year of education of parents was given a score. Later, the students were classified on their parents’ education and the status as follows:

6. Education of parents Score

A. Father

a. Illiterate 0

b. Primary 7

c. High school 10

d. Pre university 12

e. Graduation 15

f. Master degree 17

g. Ph. D. 20

B. Mother

a. Illiterate 0

b. Primary 7

c. High school 10

d. Pre university 12

e. Graduation 15

f. Master degree 17

g. Ph. D. 20

3.1.2d Occupation of parents

It is the job undertaken by the parents and the jobs were classified as follows:

Sl. No. Occupation Score

A Father

1 Class I officer 25

2 Class II officer 20

3 Businessman 15

4 Skill oriented worker 10

5 Farmer 5

6 Non-working father 0

B Mother

7 House wife 1

8 Working woman 2

3.3.1.2e Family type

Type of family was classified into two types depending on the structure; Nuclear and joint.

Nuclear type consists of husband, wife and either children.

Joint family is of more than the primary family, that includes grand parents, uncles, aunts and cousins, etc.

Sl. No.

Types of family Score

1 Joint 2

2 Nuclear 1

3.3.1.2f Religion

Religion refers to the religious community in which the respondent is born. The respondents were classified into 3 religious groups such as Hindu, Muslim and Christian.

Sl. No. Religion Score

1 Hindu 1

2 Muslim 2

3. Christian 3

3.3.1.2g Domicile

Domicile refers to residential background of the family of respondent. The respondents were classified into rural and urban domicile.

Sl. No.

Domicile Score

1 Rural 1

2 Urban 2

3.3.1.2h Number of siblings

Siblings refer to brothers and sisters born to their own parents and were classified as follows:

Sl. No.

No. of siblings Score

1 0 0

2 1 1

3 2 2

4 3 3

5 4 4

6 5 and above 5

3.3.2 Dependent variable

In this study personality disorder of the college students was considered as dependent variable.

3.3.2.1 Personality disorder

Personality disorder is defined as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individuals’ culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time and leads to distress or impairment (DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorder, 1994). Viz., paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive.

3.3.2.1a Paranoid

Individuals with this disorder do not trust people and they go through life expecting to be mistreated or harmed. They are suspicious and are prone to misinterpret innocuous remarks and benign events. They perceive attacks on their character and reputation that are not readily apparent to others. This may make them angry and cause them to retaliate. Without justification, they may question the loyalty of their friends and acquaintances including the fidelity of their spouse or sexual partners. They are argumentative, sarcastic, hard to get along with, and are often vindictive.

3.3.2.1b Schizoid

Individuals with schizoid personality disorder are loners and keep to themselves. They lack close friends and they do not seem to enjoy intimacy or to have a need for sexual relationships. They prefer solitary activities and usually select occupations that do not require much interaction with others. Their demeanor is cold, detached and impassive, and they usually display on observable reaction to either praise or criticism.

3.3.2.1c Schizotypal

These individuals lack close friends and confidants. They are anxious in social situations and feel that they do not fit in. This occurs even when they become more familiar with a person. This is not because they feel inferior, but is due to their suspiciousness and their fear of being harmed. Their self-consciousness make them think that people are especially aware of them or are talking about them. Their affect is constricted, inappropriate and their behaviour is often eccentric or peculiar. These individuals tend to be superstitious and to have unusual beliefs that influence their behaviour. Their thinking also tends to be odd and their speech may be vague, circumstantial, metaphorical or stereotyped. They some times have unusual perceptual experiences or bodily illusions.

3.3.2.1d Antisocial

Individuals with antisocial personality disorder are callous and unconcerned about the feelings and rights of others. They are impulsive, reckless and irresponsible. They are prone to physical confrontation and can be violent at times. They often abuse alcohol and drugs, and frequently engage in criminal activity. They are usually unable to maintain consistent employment, even when it is available and they neglect their financial obligations. These individuals can be glib and employ superficial charm to con others. They do not experience guilt, they lack remorse, and they rationalize or lie about their misbehaviour. They do not seem to turn from experience, and their antisocial behaviour in one form or another is usually evident from childhood.

3.3.2.1e Borderline

People identified with borderline personality disorder have a pattern of forming intense and stormy relationships in which they alternate from admiring to despising the same person. They have an inconsistent self image that is reflected in uniformity about such issues as their values, career choice, sexual orientation, and their choices relating to friendships. They may be chameleon-like and take on the attributes or personality of the person they are with at the moment. Their mood is unstable and often changes from day to day or hour to hour, usually in relation to some event in their lives. They frequently display intense or inappropriate anger, and have difficulty controlling their anger. They also engage in impulsive, self damaging behaviours like binge eating, alcohol or drug abuse, gambling, inappropriate spending, and sexual activity without consideration of the consequences. These individuals are prone to suicidal attempts or gestures, and to self mutilating behaviour like deliberately cutting or burning themselves. They make frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. During times of stress they may experience transient episodes of severe depersonalization or derealization as well as paranoid ideas.

3.3.2.1f Histrionic

These individuals need to be the center of attention. They use their physical appearance to draw attention to themselves and they tend to be flirtatious and sexually provocative. They are often flamboyant, self- dramatizing and theatrical. However, their enthusiasm and emotional displays are shallow and superficial. They are suggestible and easily influenced by what is going on around them at the moment. They exaggerate and often speak in a global, impressionistic way, without giving details or specifics. They believe that many of their relationships are deeper and more initiate than they actually are.

3.3.2.1g Naricissistic

Individuals with this disorder have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, sometimes reflected in arrogant, haughty behaviour. They have an excessive need for admiration and recognition, and a conviction that they are special, unique, and the object of envy. They are also envious of others, and prefer to associate with the famous or powerful to enhance their own status. They may underestimate or devalue other people in order to inflate

their own worth. They expect privileged or special treatment, and automatic compliance with their requests. They lack empathy, disregard the needs and feelings of others, and prone to use or exploit people. They are intolerant of criticism and are humiliated by it. They usually have a grandiose fantasy life focused on subjects like fame, success, power, brilliance and ideal love.

3.3.2.1h Avoidant

People with this personality disorder view themselves as inept, unappealing, and inferior. As a result, they void interpersonal situations, not because they lack interest or desire but because, they are concerned about being embarrassed, ridiculed, or rejected. For similar seasons, they are restrained or inhibited in close or intimate relationships. When meeting someone for the first time, avoidant individuals are quiter or more cautious than usual, and are willing to get involved with the person only if they are convinced that they will be liked. They are also hesitant about taking personal risks or engaging in new activities that may prove embarrassing.

3.3.2.1i Dependent

These individuals are passive, helpless, and cling to others. They have difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice or reassurance, and they rely on others to make their major life decisions for them. They have difficulty initiating projects or doing things on their own. This is due to a lack of self-confidence and feelings of ineptness, rather than the absence of motivation or energy. They feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone, and have unrealistic fears of being left alone to care for themselves. Their concerns about abandonment make then submissive and reluctant to disagree with others. They may also seek to ingratiate themselves by volunteering to do unpleasant things. When a close relationship ends, there is a sense of urgency about replacing it with a new one.

3.3.2.1j Obsessive – compulsive

Individuals with this personality disorder are likely to be very orderly, organized, and are given to careful planning. They are preoccupied with details to the extent that they lose sight of the major purpose of the activity they are performing. Their need for perfection significantly delays or prevents the completion of projects and is often associated with excessive checking for errors. They are stubborn and reluctant to delegate tasks, unless these tasks are done exactly as they prescribed. They are so devoted to work, even when economically unnecessary, that they often have little or no time remaining for friendships or leisure activities. They are usually overly conscientious, scrupulous and rigid about rules, morals, and ethics. They are also inclined to be miserly and reluctant to discard worthless items, even when they have no sentimental value. They may appear emotionally constricted, overly controlled, and formal or stilted in their demeanor.

3.4 TOOLS USED FOR THE STUDY The tools and instruments used to carryout the study are enumerated below:

3.4.1 Personal information schedule

3.4.2 Parenting scale (Bharadwaj et al., 1998).

3.4.3 OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory (Armand W. Loranger, 2001).

Description of the tools

3.4.1 Personal information schedule

Personal information schedule consisted of items to collect information of the respondents regarding age, gender, education and occupation of parents, type of family, religion, domicile, and number of siblings.

3.4.2 Parenting scale

Parenting scale developed and standardized by Bharadwaj et al. (1998) consists of eight models of parenting, with mothering, fathering and parenting status. Eight parenting models measured by this scale are as follows:




d. Utopian expectation Vs. Realism

e. Lenient standard Vs. Moralism


g. Faulty role expectation Vs. Realistic role expectation

h. marital conflict Vs. Marital adjustment

There is a dichotomy in each parenting model that can be studied as role of mothering and fathering separately as well as parenting as a whole.

Each models of parenting consisting of five items with five alternative answers for measuring each model of parenting with father and mother perspective. The answer to each statement by the respondent is to be responded separately in relation to their mother and father upto 35 statements. But the concluding five statements will have only one answer which is to be given keeping in mind the relations between the mother and the father. The scoring of this parenting scale is of quantitative type and is based on 5 point scale as suggested Likert. The scoring and determination of mothering and fathering as well as parenting depends on the following pattern :

a. Each item of the scale is to be scored from upper to lower in terms of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 scores and the scoring of item number 4, 11, 18, 25 and 32 will be in reverse order i.e., 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 scores.

b. The obtained scores for both father and mother are to be added to determine the raw score for mothering and fathering separately for different modes of parenting.

c. The obtained raw scores for different models of parenting are to be transformed into ‘Z’ score with the help of standard table.

d. The total ‘Z’ scores for each model of parenting in relation to both the parents shall be treated as parenting score of that specific model of parenting and the grand total of each parenting model is to be treated as parenting score.

e. ‘Z’ scores obtained for the marital conflict vs. marital adjustment model of parenting is to be added only once with other ‘Z’ scores obtained for seven models of parenting to determine the parenting score as a whole.

f. ‘Z’ scores obtained for the marital conflict vs. marital adjustment are to be added on both the occasions along with other ‘Z’ scores obtained for different models of parenting to determine the scores for mothering and fathering separately.

g. Each model of parenting can be studied separately except one of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment in terms of both the role of mothering and fathering.

Interpretation : The interpretation of scores for both the roles of parenting either in relation to each model of parenting or as a whole can be made with the help of norms known as ‘sten’ scores that refers to standard scores derived from standard ten scale. The interpretation of different dimensions of parenting can be made with the help of ‘sten’ scores. Sten score 5 and below is considered as low score and the sten score 6 and above is considered as high score. The lower score means negative or rejection dimension of model of parenting. High score means positive or acceptable dimension of model of parenting.

Reliability

According to Bharadhwaj et al. (1998) the test-retest reliability of this test is 0.72 and validity is 0.75. Before this study the reliability of the test was tested by administering on 52 students of B.Sc. (Agri.). The reliability of parenting scale was analyzed by split-half method following Spearman and Browne formula. The coefficient of reliability was 0.88 and it was significant.

3.4.3 OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory

OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory developed and standardized by Loranger Armand W. (2001). It has ten subscales, which are considered as measures of personality disorder viz., paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

OMIN-IV Personality Disorder Inventory can only be scored using their respective software systems. To score an OMNI-IV personality disorder inventory the item responses from a completed inventory were entered into the appropriate software. The software provide the percentile and they are converted to sten scores of each personality disorder.

The reliability of OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory was assessed by Loranger (2001). The alpha of each subscale ranges from 0.5 to 0.81 and the median alpha was 0.71. Correspondingly the validity is determined with NEO personality inventory and International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). He remarks that OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory is Reliable and Valid Measure. The pilot study was conducted on a sample of 52 undergraduate students of B. Sc. (Agri.) and split-half method by following Spearman and Browne formula. Test reliability coefficient of OMINI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory was 0.768 which was significant.

3.5 PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION The personal information schedule, personality disorder inventory and parenting scale were used for data collection. The data collection of main study was carried out with prior permission of principal and the class teachers to get the responses from the students of each class. To establish good rapport with the students, introduction was given about the objectives of the study, importance of their co-operation and their sincere responses just before the administration of the questionnaire. They were informed that the informations given by them will be kept under strict confidence. The students were instructed very clearly about the pattern of answering to each item of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered on the students of each class separately. The necessary clarifications were given to the students as and when they raised doubts while answering the questionnaire. They were given enough time to answer all the questions.

They were asked to fill in the personal information schedule first, then requested to give their response to each item of personality disorder inventory and parenting scale. It took about 2 hours to complete the questionnaire by each student. It was observed that the respondents were involve in answering to each item of the questionnaire without experiencing fatigue and also they were interest to know the results by scoring their own responses by themselves by taking even more time.

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The collected data was analyzed by using the following statistical techniques.

a. Frequency and percentage were used to interpret the demographic characteristics of college students

b. ‘t’ test was used for the comparison between two groups with the help of the following formula:

X1 – X2

‘t’ =

S2 (1/n1 + 1/n2)

Where,

{ (n1-1) S12 + (n2 – 1) S2

2}

S2 =

(n1 + n2 – 2)

X1 = mean of the first group

X2 = mean of the second group

n1 = Number of observations in the first group

n1 = Number of observations in the second group

S12 = Variance of first group

S22 = Variance of second group

√

S2 = pooled variance of S1 and S2

c. Chi-square : To find out the association between gender and models of parenting and then gender and personality disorder, chi-square test was applied using the formula:

Where,

Oi = Observed frequency

Ei = Expected frequency

The chi-square value was compared with table values for (r-1) (c-1) degrees of freedom (d.f). ‘r’ denoting the number of rows, ‘c’ denoting the number of columns in the contingency table.

d. Modified chi-square test of independent was applied to determine the association between dependent and independent variables wherever the frequencies were less than five, using the formula:

Where,

�2 d 0.05 is table �

2 value at ‘d’ degrees of 5 per cent level of significance

n = grand total

d. Correlation : Karl Person’s product moment correlation coefficient analysis was carried out to assess the degree of relationship between demographic variables, parenting style and emotional intelligence using the formula.

N � X Y – � X � Y

‘r’ =

{n� X2 – (�X)

2} {(n�Y

2 – (� Y)

2}

Where,

r = Simple correlation coefficient

X = Independent variable

Y = Dependent variable

�X = Sum of ‘X’ values

�Y = Sum of ‘Y’ values

�X2 = Sum of squares of ‘X’ values

�Y2 = Sum of squares of ‘Y’ values

�X Y = Sum of squares of ‘XY’ values

n = Number of pairs of observations

HYPOTHESES The following directive hypotheses are based on conceptual frame work and the

review of literature:

(Oi - Ei)2

�2 =

Ei

{1 – 1 (1-d-½

)} X �2 d 0.05 at 5% level

Modified �2 =

n

√

ε

1. There is significant positive relationship between age and each of the personality disorders of the respondents

2. There is significant negative relationship between education, occupation of parents and each of personality disorders of the respondents

3. There is significant difference between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

4. The majority of the respondents have developed acceptable perceived model/s of parenting

5. There is significant difference between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

6. At least three per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of each of ten personality disorders

7. There is significant negative relationship between each perceived models of parenting and each of ten personality disorders of the respondents

IV. RESULTS The results of the study entitled “The analysis of parenting style and personality disorder of the college students” are presented under the following sub headings.

4.1 Demographic characteristics of the male and female respondents

4.2 Relationship between demographic characteristics and each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

4.3 Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

4.4 Status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male and female respondents

4.5 Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

4.6 Status of each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

4.7 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and each of the personality disorders of the respondents

The relationship between two variables is expressed by stating that there is positive or negative significant correlation between two variables. It means that the increase or decrease in the nature of one variable corresponds to the increase or decrease in the nature of another variable correspondingly.

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

The characteristics of sample presented in the Table 2 indicate that the age of the respondents ranged between 18-23 years. Among the respondents 50.20 per cent of the male respondents and 27.20 per cent the female respondents were in the age of 18 and 19 years; 46.30 per cent of the male and 60.80 per cent of the female respondents belonged to 20 and 21 years of age; and 3.50 per cent of the male and 12.00 per cent of the female respondents were between 22 and 23 years of age. On the whole, 42.04 per cent of the respondents belonged to 18 and 19 years of age, 51.42 per cent of respondents were 20 to 21 years of age and 6.53 per cent of respondents were 22 and 23 years of age. The mean age of the respondents was 19.82.

Regarding region, 95.20 per cent of the male and 92.00 per cent female respondents were Hindu, 2.20 per cent of the male and 6.40 per cent of the female respondents were Christian and 2.60 per cent of the male and 1.60 per cent of the female respondents were Muslim. Among the selected respondents 94.03 per cent were Hindu, 3.69 per cent were Christian and only 2.27 per cent were Muslim. 28.60 of male and 41.60 per cent of the female respondents were from rural background 71.40 per cent male and 58.40 per cent of the female respondents were urban background. Around 33.24 per cent and 66.76 per cent of respondents were from rural and urban background, respectively. Among the respondents 18.50 per cent of the male and 13.60 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were class-I officers, whereas 34.80 per cent of the male and 29.60 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were class-II officers, 15.00 per cent of the male and 14.40 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were businessmen 11.00 per cent of the male and 22.40 per cent of the female respondents fathers were farmers, but 20.30 per cent of the male and 15.20 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were skill oriented workers. Lastly 0.40 per cent of the male and 4.80 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were not working. Correspondingly, 89.00 per cent of the male 83.20 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers were housewives and 11.00 pre cent of male and 16.80 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers were working women. Among the respondents 86.93 per cent and 13.07 per cent respondents’ mothers were housewives and working women, respectively. In general, 16.76, 32.95, 14.77, 15.06, 18.47 and 1.99 per cent of respondents’ fathers were class-I officers, class-II officers businessmen, farmers, skill oriented workers and not working, respectively. Among the respondents 2.20 per cent of the male and 6.40 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were illiterates, whereas 2.20 per cent of the male and 8.80 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers had completed their primary education, 19.30 per cent

of the male and 21.60 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers had completed their high school education, 11.90 per cent of the male and 17.60 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers had completed per-university education, 41.90 per cent of the male and 31.20 per cent of the female then 19.80 per cent of the male and 13.60 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were graduates and post graduates, respectively. Around 2.60 per cent of the male and 0.80 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were Ph. D. holders. Overall 3.69, 4.54, 20.17, 13.92, 38.10, 17.61 and 2.00 per cent of respondents’ fathers were illiterates, had completed their primary, high school, pre-university graduation, post-graduation and Ph. D. education, respectively. Similarly, among the respondents 7.00 per cent of the male and 15.20 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers were illiterates, whereas 10.90 per cent of the male and 21.60 per cent of the female then 39.40 per cent of the male and 38.40 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers had completed their primary and high school education, respectively. Around 17.60 per cent of the male and 8.00 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers had completed pre-university education, 18.10 per cent of the male and 12.80 per cent of the female then 7.90 per cent of the male and 4.00 per cent of the female respondents’ mothers were graduates and post graduates, respectively.

Overall, 9.94, 14.77, 38.35, 14.20, 16.20 and 6.53 per cent of respondents’ mothers were illiterates, had completed their primary, high school, pre-university graduation and post-graduation, respectively.

Regarding number of siblings, 6.60 per cent of the male and 9.60 per cent of the female respondents had no siblings, 37.90 per cent of the male and 23.20 per cent of the female respondents had only one sibling. 29.10 per cent of the male and 40.00 per cent of the female respondents had two siblings, 15.00 per cent of the male and 9.60 per cent of the female respondents had three siblings, and 4.85 per cent of the male and 10.40 per cent of the female respondents, then 6.60 per cent of the male and 7.20 per cent of the female respondents had four, and five and above siblings, respectively. Overall, 7.67 per cent of respondents had no siblings, 32.67, 32.95, 13.06, 6.81 and 6.81 per cent of respondents had one, two, three, four, five and above siblings, respectively. Regarding type of family, 35.70 per cent of the male and 44.80 per cent of the female respondents were from joint family, and 64.30 per cent of the male and 55.20 per cent of the female respondents were from nuclear family. Overall, 38.92 per cent of respondents were from joint family and 61.08 per cent respondents were from nuclear family.

4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS AMONG THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

The results of the Table 3 indicated that the relationship between the demographic characteristics and personality disorders, the co-efficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of male respondents and their paranoid personality disorder was -0.130, 0.069, -0.044, -0.128, -0.149, respectively. Similarly, coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their paranoid personality disorder was 0.142, -0.054, -0.203, -0.040, -0.008, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their paranoid personality disorders. Similarly, except occupation of mother, there was no relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their paranoid personality disorder. Occupation of mother and paranoid personality disorder of female respondents were significantly positively related at 0.05 level.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of male respondents and their schizoid personality disorder was 0.094, -0.054, 0.111, -0.171, 0.089, respectively. Similarly, coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of female respondents and their schizoid personality was -0.011, -0.094, 0.056, 0.053, -0.009, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their schizoid personality disorder except qualification of father. The qualification of father and

Table : 2 The demographic characteristics of the respondents

Male: n=227 Female: n=125 Sl. No.

Demographic characteristic Freq. % Freq. %

Total: n=352

1. Age

a. 18-19 114 50.20 34 27.20 148

(42.04)

b. 20-21 105 46.30 76 60.80 181

(51.42)

c. 22-23 08 03.50 15 12.0 23

(6.54)

Mean age – 19.82

2. Religion

a. Hindu 216 95.20 115 92.00 331

(94.03)

b. Muslim 06 2.60 02 01.60 08

(2.27)

c. Christian 05 2.20 08 06.40 13.0

(3.70)

3. Domicile

a. Rural 65 28.60 52 41.60 117

(33.24)

b. Urban 162 71.40 73 58.40 235

(66.76)

4. Occupation of father

a. Class 1 officer 42 18.50 17 13.60 59

(16.75)

b. Class 2 officer 79 34.80 37 29.60 116

(32.95)

c. Businessman 34 15.00 18 14.40 52

(14.77)

d. Skill oriented worker 46 20.30 19 15.20 65

(18.47)

e. Farmer 25 11.0 28 22.40 53

(15.06)

f. Not working 01 0.40 06 4.80 07

(2.00)

5. Occupation of mother

a. Housewife 202 89.00 104 83.20 306

(86.93)

b. Working woman 025 11.00 0.21

16.80 46

(13.07)

Contd…

The demographic characteristics of the respondents



Total: n=352

6. Education of parents

A. Father

a. Illiterate 05 2.20 08 6.40 13

(3.36)

b. Primary 05 2.20 11 8.80 3.70

(4.54)

c. High school 44 19.40 27 21.60 71

(20.16)

d. Pre university 27 11.90 22 17.60 49

(13.90)

e. Graduation 95 41.90 39 31.20 134

(38.10)

f. Master degree 45 19.80 17 13.60 62

(17.60)

g. Ph. D. 06 2.60 01 0.80 07

(2.00)

B. Mother

a. Illiterate 16 7.00 19 15.20 35

(9.95)

b. Primary 25 10.70 27 21.60 52

(14.77)

c. High school 87 39.30 48 38.40 135

(38.35)

d. Pre university 40 17.40 10 8.00 50

(14.20)

e. Graduation 41 18.00 16 12.80 57

(16.20)

f. Master degree 18 7.60 05 4.00 23

(6.53)

g. Ph. D. 0 0 0 0 0

7. Number of siblings

a. 0 15 6.60 12 9.60 27

(7.67)

b. 1 86 38.00 29 23.20 115

(32.67)

c. 2 66 29.10 50 40.00 116

(32.70)

Contd

The demographic characteristics of the respondents



Total: n=352

d. 3 34 15.00 12 9.60 46

(13.06)

e. 4 11 4.80 13 10.40 24

(6.81)

f. 5 and above 15 6.50 09 7.20 24

(6.81)

8. Type of family

a. Joint 81 35.70 56 44.80 137

(38.93)

b. Nuclear 146 64.30 69 55.20 215

(61.07)

schizoid personality disorder of male respondents was significantly and positively related at 0.01 level and there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their schizoid personality disorder.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of male respondents and their schizotypal personality disorder was 0.072, -0.022, -0.109, -0.081, -0.119, respectively. Similarly the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of female respondents and their schizotypal personality disorder was 0.089, -0.128, 0.103, -0.010, -0.147, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their schizotypal personality disorder and there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their schizotypal personality disorder.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of male respondents and their antisocial personality disorder was 0.215, -0.060, 0.038, -0.180, -0.158, respectively. Similarly the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother, of female respondents and their antisocial personality disorder was 0.101, -0.146, -0.044, -0.085, -0.113, respectively. These results indicated that qualification of father and mother of male respondents and their antisocial personality disorder were significantly negatively related at 0.01 and 0.05 level, respectively and age, of male respondents and their antisocial personality disorder were significantly positively related at 0.01 level, and their was no significant relationship between occupation of father and occupation of mother of male respondents and their antisocial personality disorder. Similarly there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their antisocial personality disorder.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their borderline personality disorder was 0.191, -0.075, 0.011, -0.102, -0.89, respectively. Similarly, the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their borderline personality disorder was 0.162, -0.052, 0.030, -0.205, -0.160, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their borderline personality disorder except age. Age of male respondents and their borderline personality disorder was significantly positively related at 0.01 level.

Table 3 : Relationship between the demographic characteristics and each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Borderline Sl. No.

Demographic characteristic

M F M F M F M F M F

1 Age 0.130 0.142 0.094 -0.011 0.072 0.089 0.215** 0.101 0.191** 0.162

2 Occupation of father -0.069 -0.054 -0.054 -0.094 -0.022 -0.128 -0.060 -0.146 -0.075 -0.052

3 Occupation of mother -0.044 -0.203* -0.111 0.056 -0.109 0.103 0.038 -0.044 0.011 0.030

4 Qualification of father -0.128 -0.040 -0.171** 0.053 -0.081 -0.010 -0.180** -0.085 -0.102 -0.205*

5 Qualification of mother -0.149 -0.008 0.089 -0.009 -0.119 -0.147 -0.158* -0.113 -0.089 -0.160

M – Male : n=227 F – Female : n=125 ** - 0.01 level of significant * - 0.05 level of significant

Contd…

Relationship between the demographic characteristics and each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent Obsessive-compulsive

Sl. No.

Demographic characteristic

M F M F M F M F M F

1 Age 0.135* 0.109 0.204** 0.064 0.145* 0.179* 0.183** 0.226* 0.084 0.122

2 Occupation of father -0.058 -0.139 -0.077 -0.003 -0.013 -0.049 -0.045 -0.172 0.057 -0.094

3 Occupation of mother -0.018 0.001 -0.012 0.092 -0.060 0.079 -0.037 0.053 -0.061 0.096

4 Qualification of father -0.060 -0.089 -0.101 -0.096 -0.096 -0.051 -0.129 -0.090 -0.043 -0.115

5 Qualification of mother -0.108 -0.132 -0.117 -0.046 -0.164* -0.067 -0.190** -0.130 -0.176** -0.066

M – Male : n=227 F – Female : n=125 ** - 0.01 level of significant * - 0.05 level of significant

Fig .1a: Relationship between demographic characteristics and paranoid personality disorder.

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rrela

tio

n

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualificatio

n of father

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1a: Relationship between demographic characteristics and paranoid personality disorder

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Co

eff

icie

nt o

f co

rrela

tio

n

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualifica

tion of m

other

Male

Female

Fig. 1b: Relationship between demographic characteristics and schizoid personality disorder

Fig.1b: Relationship between demographic characteristics and schizoid personality disorder.

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ela

tion

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualifica

tion of m

other

Male

Female

Fig. 1c: Relationship between demographic characteristics and schiozotypal personality disorder

.1c: Relationship between demographic characteristics and schiozotypal personality disorder.

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ola

tion

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1d: Relationship between demographic characteristicsand antisocial personality disorder

Fig.1d: Relationship between demographic characteristics and antisocial personality disorder.

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Coeffic

ient of corr

ola

tion

Age

Occupatio

n of f

ather

Occupatio

n of m

other

Qualifica

tion o

f fath

er

Qualifica

tion o

f moth

er

Male

Female

Fig. 1e: Relationship between demographic characteristicsand borderline personality disorder

Fig.1e: Relationship between demographic characteristic and borderline personality disorder.

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ola

tion

Age

Occupation of fa

ther

Occupation of m

other

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1f: Relationship between demographic characteristics and histrionic personality disorder

Fig.1f: Relationship between demographic characteristics and histriostic personality disorder.

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Co

eff

icie

nt

of co

rro

latio

n

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupation of m

other

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1g: Relationship between demographic characteristics and narcissistic personality disorder

Fig.1g: Relationship between demographic characteristics and narcissistic personality disorder.

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ola

tion

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1h: Relationship between demographic characteristicsand avoidant personality disorder

Fig.1h: Relationship between demographic characteristics and avoidant personality disorder.

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rro

lati

on

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupatio

n of mother

Qualificatio

n of father

Qualificatio

n of mother

Male

Female

Fig. 1i: Relationship between demographic characteristics and dependent personality disorder

Fig.1i: Relationship between demographic characteristics and dependent personality disorder.

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rro

lati

on

Age

Occupatio

n of father

Occupation of m

other

Qualifica

tion of fa

ther

Qualifica

tion of m

other

Male

Female

Fig. 1j: Relationship between demographic characteristics and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Fig.1j Relationship between demographic characteristics and obsessive compulsive personality disorde

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their histrionic personality disorder was 0.135, -0.058, -0.018, -0.060, -0.108, respectively. Similarly, the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their histrionic personality disorder was 0.109, -0.139, 0.001, -0.089, -0.132, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their histrionic personality disorder except age. Age of male respondents and their histrionic personality disorder was significantly and positively related at 0.05 level and there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their histrionic personality disorder.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their narcissistic personality disorder was 0.204, -0.077, -0.012, -0.101, -0.117, respectively. Similarly, the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their narcissistic personality disorder was 0.064, -0.003, 0.092, -0.096, -0.046, respectively. These results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their narcissistic personality disorder except age of the male respondents. Age of the male was significantly and positively related to narcissistic personality disorder at 0.01 level and there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their narcissistic personality disorder.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their avoidant personality disorder was 0.145, -0.013, -0.060, -0.096, -0.164, respectively. Similarly, coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their avoidant personality disorder was 0.179, -0.049, 0.079, -0.051, -0.067, respectively. The results indicated that age of male respondents was significantly, positively related to avoidant personality disorder at 0.05 level and qualification of mother of male respondents was significantly and negatively related to avoidant personality disorder at 0.05 level and there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their avoidant personality disorder except age. Age of the female respondents was significantly and positively related to avoidant personality disorder at 0.05 level.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their dependent personality disorder was 0.183, -0.045, -0.037, -0.129, -0.190, respectively. Similarly, the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their dependent personality disorder was 0.226, -0.172, 0.053, -0.090, and 0.131, respectively. The results indicated that age of male respondents was significant and positively related to dependent personality disorder at 0.01 level and qualification of mother of male respondents was significantly and negatively related to dependent personality disorder at 0.01 level. There was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and dependent personality disorder except age. Age of female respondents was significant and negatively related to dependent personality disorder at 0.05 level.

The coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of male respondents and their obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was 0.084, 0.057, -0.061, -0.043, -0.176, respectively. Similarly, the coefficient of correlation between age, occupation of father, occupation of mother, qualification of father, qualification of mother of female respondents and their obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was 0.122, -0.094, 0.096, -0.115, -0.066, respectively. The results indicated that there was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of male respondents and their obsessive-compulsive personality disorder except qualification of mother. Qualification of mother of male respondents was significant and negatively related to obsessive compulsive personality disorder at 0.01 level.

Table 4 : Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

Mean of Sten Score

Sl. No. Model of parenting Male n=

227 Female n=125

‘t’ value

1 Rejection Vs. acceptance 6.55

(1.05) 6.40

(1.18) -1.256

2. Carelessness Vs. protection 4.57

(2.20) 4.73

(2.20) 0.641

3. Neglect Vs. indulgence 5.53

(1.71) 5.50

(1.77) -0.181

4. Utopian expectation Vs. realism 7.88

(1.62) 7.77

(1.85) -0.569

5. Lenient standard Vs. moralism 5.17

(1.71) 5.01

(1.70) -0.842

6. Freedom Vs. discipline 5.62

(1.75) 5.53

(1.63) -0.458

7. Faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation

5.45 (1.52)

5.50 (1.60)

0.260

8. Marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment

9.63 (1.20)

9.53 (1.52)

-0.680

The values in parenthesis are standard deviations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mean

vale

of

ste

n s

co

res

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness Vs.

protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict Vs.

marital adjustment

Model of parenting

Male

Female

Fig. 2 : Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

Fig.2:Comparision between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

There was no significant relationship between demographic characteristics of female respondents and their obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

To conclude, age was significantly and positively related to antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant and dependent personality disorder among male respondents and was significantly positively related to avoidant and dependent personality disorder among female respondents. There was no significant relationship between occupation of father and personality disorders of both male and female respondents. Occupation of mother was significantly and positively related to paranoid personality disorder among female respondents. Qualification of father was significantly and positively related to schizoid personality disorder among male respondents and was significantly and negatively related to antisocial personality disorders of male respondents and borderline personality disorder among female respondents. Qualification of mother was significantly and negatively related to antisocial, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders of male respondents.

4.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS ON EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING

It is evident from the results of the Table 4, that the mean value of rejection Vs. acceptance model of parenting was 6.55 in males and 6.40 in females with ‘t’ value -1.256, the mean value of carelessness Vs. protection model of parenting was 4.57 in males and 4.73 in females with ‘t’ value 0.641, the neglect Vs. indulgence model of parenting was 5.53 in males and 5.50 in females with ‘t’ value -0.181, the mean value of utopian expectation Vs. realism model of parenting was 7.88 in males and 7.77 in females with ‘t’ value -0.569, the mean value of lenient standard Vs. morlasim model of parenting was 5.17 in males and 5.01 in females with ‘t’ value -0.842, the mean value of freedom Vs. discipline model of parenting was 5.62 in males and 5.53 in females with ‘t’ value -0.458, the mean value of faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation model of parenting was 5.45 in males, 5.50 in females, with ‘t’ value 0.260 and the mean value of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment model of parenting was 9.63 in males, 9.53 in females with ‘t’ value -0.680.

The observation of ‘t’ values indicated that there was no significant difference between male and female respondents on all perceived models of parenting. These ‘t’ values were not significant even at 0.05 level of significance.

4.4 STATUS OF EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING AMONG THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

The status of perceived models of parenting among male and female respondents was adjudged on the basis of sten scores between 1 to 10. The sten scores 5 and below were considered as low score or negative perception of parenting and between 6 and 10 sten scores were considered as high scores or positive perception of parenting on psychological continuum of the sten scores. The respondents are classified on gender and dimensions of the continuum. The chi-square analysis was adopted to know the association between gender and perceived models of parenting.

4.4.1 Status of rejection Vs. acceptance perceived model of parenting

The results of the Table 5 indicated that under rejection Vs. acceptance model of parenting among males 3.50, 13.20, 25.60, 39.60 and 18.1 per cent were under 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 1.60, 4.00, 16.80, 26.46, 32.80 and 18.40 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. The combined results of male and female respondents denoted that 0.60, 3.70, 14.50, 25.90, 37.20 and 18.20 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. The classification of respondents under low score and high score notified that 16.74 per cent of the male and 22.4 per cent of the female respondents were perceived rejection model of parenting and 83.25 pr cent of male and 77.60 per cent of the female respondents were perceived acceptance model of parenting. In general, 18.75, 81.25 per cent of respondents were perceived rejection and

Table 5 : Status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male and female respondents

Low score High score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

r2 Sl. No.

Model of parenting

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

0 0 0 0 0 2

(1.60) 8

(3.50) 5

(4.00) 30

(13.2) 21

(16.8) 58

(25.6) 33

(26.4) 90

(39.6) 41

(32.8) 41

(18.1) 23

(18.4) 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 (0.60) 13 (3.70) 51 (14..50) 91 (25.90) 131 (37.20) 64 (18.20) 0 0 1 Rejection Vs. Acceptance

M .38 (16.75) + F.28 (22.40) = 66 (18.75) M.189 (83.25) + F.97 (77.60) = 286 (81.25)

1.695NS

36 (15.9)

13 (10.4)

14 (6.2)

6 (4.8)

21 (9.3)

20 (16.0)

26 (11.5)

19 (15.2)

33 (14.5)

23 (18.4)

53 (23.3)

14 (11.2)

31 (13.7)

13 (10.4)

9 (4.00)

13 (10.4)

4 (1.80)

4 (3.20)

0 0

49 (13.90) 20 (5.70) 41 (11.60) 45 (12.80) 56 (15.90) 67 (19.00) 44 (12.50) 22 (6.30) 8 (2.30) 0 2 Carelessness Vs. Protection

M.130 (57.26) + F.81 (64.80) = 211 (59.94) M.97 (42.74) + F.44 (35.20) = 141 (40.06) 1.904NS

3 (1.30)

1 (0.80)

10 (4.40)

9 (7.20)

14 (6.20)

7 (5.60)

35 (15.4)

17 (13.6)

41 (18.1)

26 (20.8)

55 (24.2)

24 (19.2)

36 (15.9)

23 (18.4)

33 (14.5)

18 (14.4)

0 0 0 0

4 (1.10) 19 (5.40) 21 (6.00) 52 (14.80) 67 (19.00) 79 (22.40) 59 (16.80) 51 (14.50) 0 0 3 Neglect Vs. Indulgence

M.103 (45.37) + F.60 (48.00) = 163 (46.31

) M.124 (54.63) + F.65 (52.00) = 189 (53.69)

0.223NS

0 0 1

(0.40) 1

(0.80) 2

(0.90) 3

(0.24) 1

(0.40) 2

(1.60) 15

(6.60) 7

(5.60) 26

(11.5) 18

(14.4) 41

(18.1) 21

(16.8) 54

(23.8) 22

(17.6) 45

(19.8) 24

(19.2) 42

(18.5) 27

(21.6)

0 2 (0.60) 5 (1.40) 3 (0.90) 22 (6.30) 44 (12.50) 62 (17.60) 76 (21.60) 69 (19.60) 69 (19.60) 4 Utopian

expectation Vs. Realism

M.19 (8.37) + F.13 (10.40) = 32 (9.10) M.208 (91.63) + F.112 (89.60) = 320 (90.90) 0.402NS

M – Male : n=225 F – Female : n=125 NS –Non-significant Contd…

Status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male and female respondents


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sl. No.

Models of parenting


r2

6 (2.60)

5 (4.00)

10 (4.40)

6 (4.80)

20 (8.80)

12 (9.60)

44 (19.4)

21 (16.8)

41 (18.1)

28 (22.4)

55 (24.2)

27 (21.6)

32 (14.1)

21 (16.8)

19 (8.4)

5 (4.00)

0 0 0 0

11 (3.10) 16 (4.50) 32 (9.10) 65 (18.50) 69 (19.60) 82 (23.30) 53 (15.10) 24 (6.80) 0 0

5 Lenient

standard Vs. Moralism

M.121 (53.30) + F.72 (57.60) = 193 (54.83) M.106 (46.70) + F.53 (42.40) = 159 (45.17)

0.601NS

6 Freedom Vs.

discipline 0 0

16 (7.00)

8 (6.40)

15 (6.60)

7 (5.60)

25 (11.0)

12 (9.60)

45 (19.8)

33 (26.4)

39 (17.2)

29 (23.2)

57 (25.1)

24 (19.2)

28 (12.3)

9 (7.2) 2

(0.90) 3

(2.40) 0 0

0 24 (6.80) 22 (6.30) 37 (10.50) 78 (22.20) 68 (19.30) 81 (23.00) 37 (10.50) 5 (1.40) 0

M.101 (44.49) + F.60 (48.00) = 161 (45.74) M.126 (55.51) + F.65 (52.00) = 191 (54.26) 0.399

NS

7

Faulty role expectation Vs.

Realistic role expectation

2 (0.90)

3 (2.40)

7 (3.10)

2 (1.60)

8 (3.50)

4 (3.20)

48 (21.1)

18 (14.4)

43 (18.9)

40 (32.0)

59 (26.6)

25 (20.0)

48 (21.1)

20 (16.0)

7 (3.10)

11 (8.8)

5 (2.20)

2 (1.60)

0 0

5 (1.40) 9 (2.60) 12 (3.40) 66 (18.80) 83 (23.60) 84 (23.90) 68 (19.30) 18 (5.10) 7 (2.00) 0

M.108 (47.58) + F.67 (53.60) = 175 (49.72) M.119 (52.42) + F.58 (46.40) = 177 (50.28) 1.170

NS

8 Marital conflict

Vs. marital adjustment

0 0 0 2

(1.60) 3

(1.30) 2

(1.60) 0

1 (0.30)

2 (0.90)

0 5

(2.20) 0

7 (3.10)

3 (2.40)

2 (0.90)

6 (4.80)

8 (3.50)

2 (1.60)

200 (88.1)

109 (87.2)

0 2 (0.60) 5 (1.40) 1 (0.30) 2 (0.60) 5 (1.40) 10 (2.80) 8 (2.30) 10 (2.80) 309 (87.80)

M.5 (2.20) + F.5 (4.00) = 10 (2.84) M.222 (97.80) + F.120 (96.00) = 342 (97.16) 0.943

NS

M – Male : n=225 F – Female : n=125 NS –Non-significant

Fig.3a: Status of perceived model of rejection Vs. acceptance parenting among the male and female responders.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40P

erc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3a : Status of perceived model of rejection Vs. acceptance parenting among the male and female respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3b : Status of perceived model of Carelessness Vs. protection parenting among the male and female respondents

Fig.3b: Status of perceived model of carelessness Vs. Protection parenting among the male and female responders.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3c : Status of perceived model of Neglect Vs. Indulgence parenting among the male and female respondents

Fig.3c: Status of perceived model of Neglect Vs. Indulgence parenting among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

enta

ge o

f dis

trib

ution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3d : Status of perceived model of Utopian expectation Vs. Realismparenting among the male and female respondents

Fig.3d: status of perceived model of utopian expectation Vs. Realisparenting among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

en

tag

e o

f dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3e : Status of perceived model of Lenient standard Vs. Moralism among the male and female respondents

Fig.3e: Status of perceived model of Lenient standard Vs. Moralism among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

enta

ge o

f dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3f : Status of perceived model of freedom Vs. discipline among the male and female respondents

Fig.3f: Status of perceived model of freedom Vs. discipline among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3g : Status of perceived model of faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role exptection among the male and female

respondents

Fig.3g: Status of perceieved model of faculty role expectation Vs. realistic role among the male and female respondents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 3h : Status of perceived model of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment among the male and female respondents

Fig.3h: Status of perceieved model of martial conflict Vs. martial adjustment among the male and female respondents.

acceptance model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value of rejection Vs. acceptance model of parenting was 1.695 which was not significant. It means there was no significant association between gender and rejection Vs. acceptance model of parenting.

4.4.2 Status of carelessness Vs. protection perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among males 15.90, 6.20,9.30, 11.50, 14.50, 23.30, 13.70, 4.00 and 1.80 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 10.40, 4.80, 16.00, 15.20, 18.40, 11.20, 10.40, 10.40 and 3.20 per cent were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. The combined results of male and female respondents indicated that 13.90, 5.70, 11.60, 12.80, 15.90, 19.00, 12.50, 6.30 and 2.30 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. On the whole, 57.26 per cent of the male and 64.80 per cent female respondents were perceived carelessness model of parenting and 42.73 per cent of the male and 35.20 per cent of the female respondents were perceived protection models of parenting.

In general, 59.94 and 40.05 per cent of respondents were perceived carelessness and protection model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value of carelessness Vs. protection model of parenting was 1.904 which was non-significant. It means there was no significant association between gender and carelessness Vs. protection model of parenting.

4.4.3 Status of neglect Vs. indulgence perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among males 1.30, 4.40, 6.20, 15.40, 18.10, 24.20, 15.90 and 14.50 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 0.80, 7.20, 5.60, 13.60, 20.80, 19.20, 18.40 and 14.40 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. The combined results indicated that 1.10, 5.40, 6.00, 14.80, 19.00, 22.40, 16.80 and 14.50 per cent of respondents were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. On the whole 45.37 per cent of the male and 48.00 per cent of the female respondents were perceived neglect model of parenting and 54.62 per cent of the male and 52.00 per cent of the female respondents were perceived indulgence model of parenting. In general, 46.31 and 53.69 pre cent of respondents were perceived neglect and indulgence model of parenting, respectively. The Chi-square value of neglect Vs. indulgence was 0.223 which was not significant. It means there was no significant association between gender and neglect Vs. indulgence perceived model of parenting.

4.4.4 Status of utopian expectation Vs. realism perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among male respondents 0.40, 0.90, 0.40, 6.60, 11.50, 18.10, 23.80, ,19.80 and 18.50 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 0.80, 0.24, 1.60, 5.60, 14.40, 16.80, 17.60, 19.20 and 21.60 pre cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores, respectively. The combined result indicated that 0.60, 1.40, 0.90, 6.30, 12.50, 17.60, 21.60, 19.60 and 19.60 per cent of respondents were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. On the whole 8.37 per cent of male and 10.40 per cent of the female respondents were perceived Utopian expectation model parenting and 91.62 per cent of the male and 89.60 per cent of the female respondents were perceived realism model of parenting. In general, 9.09 and 90.90 per cent of respondents were perceived Utopian expectation and realism model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value was 0.402, which was not significant. It means, there was no significant association between gender and Utopian expectations Vs. realism model of parenting.

4.4.5 Status of lenient standard Vs. moralism perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among male respondents 2.60, 4.40, 8.80, 19.40, 18.10, 24.20, 14.10 and 8.40 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 4.00, 4.80 ,9.60, 16.80, 22.40, 21.60, 16.80 and 4.00 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. The combined results of male and female respondents denoted that 3.10, 4.50, 9.10, 18.50, 19.60 ,23.30, 15.10 and 6.80 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 sten scores, respectively. On the whole, 53.30 per cent male and 57.60 per cent of the female respondents were perceived lenient standard model of parenting and 46.69 per cent of the male and 42.40 per cent of the

female respondents were perceived moralism model of parenting. In general, 54.83 and 45.17 per cent respondents were perceived lenient standard and moralism model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value was 0.601, which was not significant. It means, there was no significant association between gender and lenient standard Vs. moralism perceived model of parenting.

4.4.6 Status of freedom Vs. discipline perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among male respondents 7.00, 6.60, 11.00, 19.80, 17.20, 25.10, 12.30 and 0.90 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 6.40, 5.60, 9.60, 26.40, ,23.20, 19.20, 7.20 and 2.40 pre cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 sten scores, respectively. The combined results of male and female respondents denoted that 6.80, 6.30, 10.50, 22.20, 19.30, 23.00, 10.50 and 1.40 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. On the whole 44.49 per cent male and 48.00 per cent of the female respondents were perceived freedom model of parenting and 55.51 per cent of the male and 52.00 per cent of the female respondents were perceived discipline model of parenting. In general, 45.74 and 54.26 per cent of respondents were perceived freedom and discipline model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value was 0.399, which was not significant. It means, there was no significant association between gender and freedom Vs. discipline model of parenting.

4.4.7 Status of faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among male respondents 0.90, 3.10, 3.50, 21.10, 18.90, 26.60, 21.10, 3.10, and 2.20 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 2.40, 1.60 ,3.20, 14.40 ,32.00, 20.00, 16.00, 8.80 and 1.60 pre cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 sten scores, respectively. The combined results of male and female respondents denoted that 1.40, 2.60, 3.40, 18.80, ,23.60, 23.90, 19.30, 5.10 and 2.00 per cent were under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 sten scores, respectively. On the whole 47.58 per cent male, 53.60 per cent of the female and 52.42 per cent of the male, 46.40 per cent of the female respondents were perceived faulty role expectation and realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting, respectively. In general, 49.72 and 50.28 per cent of respondents were perceived faulty role expectation and realistic role expectation on model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value was 1.170, which was not significant. It means, there was no significant association between gender and faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation model of parenting.

4.4.8 Status of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived model of parenting

The classification in Table 5 indicated that among male respondents 1.30, 0.90, 2.20, 3.10, 0.90, 3.50 and 88.10 per cent were under 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 1.60, 1.60, 0.30, 2.40, 4.80, 1.60, and 87.20 pre cent were under 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores, respectively. The combined results denoted that 0.60, 1.40 ,0.30, 0.60, 1.40, 2.80, 2.30, 2.80 and 87.80 per cent of respondents were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores, respectively. On the whole 2.20 per cent male, 4.00 per cent of the female and 97.80 per cent of the male, 96.00 per cent of the female respondents were perceived marital conflict and marital adjustment models of parenting, respectively. In general, 2.84 and 97.16 per cent of respondents were perceived marital conflict and marital adjustment model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square value was 0.943, which was not significant. It means, there was no significant association between gender and marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived model of parenting.

4.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS ON EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS

With regard to personality disorder the Table 6 indicated that the mean value of paranoid personality disorder was 4.31 in male and 4.35 in female respondents with ‘t’ value 0.415, the mean value of schizoid personality disorder was 4.09 in males and 4.14 in female

Table 6 : Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

Mean of Sten Score

Sl. No. Personality disorder

Male n=227 Female n=125

‘t’ value

1 Paranoid 4.31 (0.69) 4.35

(0.78) 0.415

NS

2. Schizoid 4.09

(0.67) 4.14

(0.61) 0.587

NS

3. Schizotypal 4.44

(0.89) 4.32

(0.64) -1.310

NS

4. Antisocial 4.78

(0.80) 4.64

(0.74) -1.685

NS

5. Borderline 4.74

(0.95) 4.64

(0.82) -1.003

NS

6. Histrionic 4.17

(0.76) 3.93

(0.63) -3.030**

7. Narcissistic 4.17

(0.64) 4.04

(0.55) -1.970*

8. Avoidant 4.19

(0.92) 4.16

(0.95) 0.101

NS

9. Dependent 4.52

(0.86) 4.45

(0.89) 0.537

NS

10. Obsessive-compulsive 4.10

(0.72) 4.08

(0.65) 0.291

NS

** - Significant at 0.01 level * - Significant at 0.05 level NS – Not-significant The values in parenthesis are standard deviations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mean v

alu

e o

f ste

n s

core

s

Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Borderline Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent Obsessive-

compulsive

Personality disorder

Male

Female

Fig. 4 : Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

Fig4: Comparision between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorder

respondents with ‘t’ value 0.587, the mean value of schizotypal personality disorder was 4.44 in male and 4.32 in female respondents with ‘t’ value -1.310, the mean value of antisocial personality disorder was 4.78 in male and 4.64 in female respondents with ‘t’ value -1.685, the mean value of borderline personality disorder was 4.74 in male and 4.64 in female respondents with ‘t’ value -1.003, the mean value of histrionic personality disorder was 4.17 in male and 3.93 in female respondents with ‘t’ value -3.030, the mean value of narcissistic personality disorder was 4.17 in male and 4.04 in female respondents with ‘t’ value -1.97, the mean value of avoidant personality disorder was 4.19 in male and 4.16 in female respondents with ‘t’ value 0.101, the mean value of dependent personality disorder was 4.52 in male and 4.45 in female respondents with ‘t’ value 0.537 and the mean value of obsessive-compulsive was 4.10 in male and 4.08 in female respondents with ‘t’ value 0.291.

The observation of ‘t’ value indicated that there was no significant difference between male and female respondents on eight personality disorders viz., paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive, but their was significant difference between male and female respondents on histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders at 0.01 and 0.05 level, respectively.

4.6 STATUS OF EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS AMONG THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

The status of the respondents on the components of personality disorder was identified on the basis of sten scores. The sten scores 5 and below were classified under low score dimension, 6 and above sten scores were the indicators of higher score dimension of the components of the personality disorder. Low score dimension was indicator of lower level of development of a specific components of personality disorder and the high score dimension was the indicator of higher level of specific components of personality disorder.

A critical look at the results of the Table 7 revealed the following informations.

4.6.1 Status of paranoid personality disorder

Among male respondents 0.40, 14.10, 40.10, 40.50and 4.84 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 11.20, 45.60, 40.80 and 2.40 per cent were under 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 0.28, 13.06, 42.05, 40.62 and 3.97 per cent of respondents were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 95.15 per cent of the male and 97.60 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 4.84 per cent of the male and 2.40 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of paranoid. It means that around 96.00 per cent of respondents were not having the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder and around 4.00 per cent of respondents were having the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder. The modified chi-square value was 1.98 which was not significant. So there was no significant association between gender and paranoid personality disorder.

4.6.2 Status of schizoid personality disorder

Among male respondents 0.90, 17.20, 54.20, 26.00 and 1.80 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 13.60, 62.40, 22.40 and 1.60 per cent were under 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 0.57, 15.90, 57.10, 24.71 and 1.70 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 98.23 per cent of the male and 98.40 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 1.80 per cent of the male and 1.60 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of schizoid. It means that around 98.00 and 2.00 per cent of respondents were not having and having the tendencies of schizoid personality disorder, respectively. The modified chi-square value was 0.74 which was not significant. So there was no significant association between gender and schizoid personality disorder.

4.6.3 Status of schizotypal personality disorder

Among male respondents 3.00, 12.30, 33.90, 39.60 and 11.00 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 9.60, 49.60, 36.00 and 4.80 per cent were under 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results

Table 7 : Status of each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SSl. No.



r2

0 0 1

(0.40) 0

32 (14.1)

14 (11.2)

91 (40.1)

57 (45.6)

92 (40.5)

51 (40.8)

11 (4.84)

3 (2.40)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 (0.28) 46 (13.06) 148 (42.05) 143 (40.62) 14 (3.97) 0 0 0 0

1 Paranoid

M.216 (95.15) + F.122 (97.60) = 338 (96.03) M.11 (4.85) + F.3 (2.40) = 14 (3.97) 1.98+

0 0 2

(0.90) 0

39 (17.2)

17 (13.6)

123 (54.2)

78 (62.4)

59 (26.6)

28 (22.4)

4 (1.8)

2 (1.6)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 (0.57) 56 (15.90) 201 (57.10) 87 (24.71) 6 (1.70) 0 0 0 0

2 Schizoid

M.223 (98.20) + F.123 (98.40) = 346 (98.30) M.4 (1.80) + F.2 (1.60) = 6 (1.70) 0.74+

0 0 7

(3.00) 0

28 (12.3)

12 (9.60)

77 (33.9)

62 (49.6)

90 (39.6)

35 (36.0)

25 (11.0)

6 (4.80)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 7 (1.98) 40 (11.36) 139 (39.48) 135 (38.35) 31 (8.80) 0 0 0 0

3 Schizotypal

M.202 (88.98) + F.119 (95.20} = 321 (91.20) M.25 (11.02) + F.6 (4.80) = 31(8.80) 2.858

0 0 0 0 10

(4.40) 5

(4.00) 84

(37.0) 47

(37.6) 83

(36.6) 57

(45.6) 47

(20.7) 15

(12.0) 3

(1.30) 1

(0.80) 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 15 (4.26) 131 (37.21) 140 (39.77) 62 (17.61) 4 (1.13) 0 0 0

4 Antisocial

M.177 (77.80) + F.109 (87.20) = 286 (81.25) M.50 (22.20) + F.16 (12.80) = 66 (18.75) 4.504*

0 0 5

(2.20) 1

(0.80) 19

(8.40) 9

(7.20) 64

(28.2) 41

(32.8) 85

(37.4) 54

(43.2) 54

(23.8) 20

(16.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 6 (1.70) 28 (7.95) 105 (29.82) 139 (39.48) 74 (21.20) 0 0 0 0

5 Border line

M.173 (76.20) + F.105 (84.00) = 278 (78.97) M.54 (23.80) + F.20 (16.00) = 74 (21.03) 3.579

M – Male : n=225 F – Female : n=125 Contd…

Status of each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sl. No.



r2

0 0 3

(1.30) 2

(1.60) 32

(14.1) 29

(23.2) 117

(51.5) 74

(59.2) 67

(29.5) 20

(16.0) 8

(3.5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 5 (1.42) 61 (17.32) 191 (54.26) 87 (24.71) 8 (2.27) 0 0 0 0

6 Histrionic

M.219 (96.47) + F.125 (100) = 344 (97.73) M.8 (3.53) + F.0 (0) = 8 (2.27) 3.06+

0 0 0 0 38

(16.7) 20

(16.0) 122

(53.7) 82

(65.6) 62

(27.3) 22

(17.6) 4

(1.8) 1

(0.80) 1

(0.40) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 58 (16.47) 204 (57.95) 84 (23.86) 5 (1.42) 1 (0.28) 0 0 0

7 Narcissistic

M.222 (97.80) + F.124 (99.20) = 346 (98.30) M.5 (2.20) + F. 1 (0.80) = 6 (1.70) 0.294+

0 0 10

(4.40) 6

(4.80) 34

(15.0) 25

(20.0) 93

(41.0) 46

(36.8) 83

(36.6) 39

(31.2) 7

(3.10) 9

(7.20) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 16 (4.54) 59 (16.76) 139 (39.48) 122 (34.65) 16 (4.54) 0 0 0 0

8 Avoidant

M.220 (96.90) + F.116 (92.80) = 336 (95.45) M.7 (3.10) + F. 9 (7.20) = 16 (4.55) 3.148

0 0 3

(1.30) 1

(0.80) 16

(7.00) 10

(8.00) 101

(44.5) 64

(51.2) 73

(32.2) 34

(27.2) 33

(14.5) 14

(11.2) 1

(0.4) 2

(1.6) 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 (1.13) 26 (7.38) 165 (46.87) 107 (30.39) 47 (13.35) 3 (0.85) 0 0 0

9 Dependent

M.0.193 (85.03) + F.109 (87.20) = 302 (85.80) M.34 (14.97) + F.16 (12.80) = 50 (14.20) 0.314

0 0 7

(3.10) 2

(1.60) 41

(18.1) 25

(20.0) 107

(47.1) 61

(48.8) 70

(30.8) 37

(29.6) 2

(0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 9 (2.55) 66 (18.75) 168 (47.72) 107 (30.39) 2 (0.56) 0 0 0 0

10

Obsessive-compulsive

M.225 (99.10) + F.125 (100) = 350 (99.43) M.2 (0.90) + F.0 (0) = 2 (0.57) 0.097+

M – Male : n=225 F – Female : n=125 * - Significant at 0.05 level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 5a : Status of paranoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5a: Status of paranoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

en

tag

e o

f dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 5b : Status of schizoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5b: Status of schizoid personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 5c : Status of schizotypal personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5c: Status of schizotypal personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5d : Status of antisocial personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig,5d: Status antisocial personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male Female

Fig. 5e: Status of borderline personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5e: Status of boarderline personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

enta

ge o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5f: Status of histrionic personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5f: Status of historic personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

en

tag

e o

f d

istr

ibu

tio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5g: Status of narcissistic personality disorder among the male and female respondents

fig.5g: Status of narcissistic personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Perc

en

tag

e o

f dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5h: Status of avoidant personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5h: Status of avoidant personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

dis

trib

uti

on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5i: Status of dependent personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5i: Status of dependent personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

enta

ge o

f dis

trib

ution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sten scores

Male

Female

Fig. 5j: Status of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder among the male and female respondents

Fig.5j: Status of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder among the male and female respondents.

indicated that 1.98, 11.36, 39.48, 38.35 and 8.80 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 88.98 per cent of the male and 95.20 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 11.00 per cent of the male and 4.80 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of schizotypal personality disorder. It means that around 91.00 and 9.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher level dimension of schizotypal personality disorder, respectively. The chi-square value was 2.858 which was not significant. It means there is no significant association between gender and schizotypal personality disorder.

4.6.4 Status of antisocial personality disorder

Among male respondents 4.40, 37.00, 36.60, 20.70 and 1.30 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 4.00, 37.60, 45.60, 12.00 and 0.80 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 4.26, 37.21, 39.77, 17.61 and 1.13 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 77.97 per cent of the male and 87.50 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 22.02 per cent of the male and 12.80 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of antisocial personality disorder. It means that around 81.00 and 19.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher score dimension of antisocial personality disorder, respectively. The chi-square value was 4.504 which was not significant at 0.05 level. It means there is no significant association between gender and antisocial personality disorder.

4.6.5 Status of borderline personality disorder

Among male respondents 2.20, 8.40, 28.20, 37.40and 23.80 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 0.80, 7.20, 32.80, 43.20 and 16.00 per cent were under 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 1.70, 7.95, 29.82, 39.48 and 21.02 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 76.21 per cent of the male and 84.00 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 23.80 per cent of the male and 16.00 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of borderline personality disorder. It means that around 79.00 and 21.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher level dimension of borderline personality disorder, respectively. The chi-square value was 3.579 which was significant. It means there is significant association between gender and borderline personality disorder.

4.6.6 Status of histrionic personality disorder

Among male respondents 1.30, 14.10, 51.50, 29.50 and 3.50 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 1.60, 23.20, 59.20 and 16.00 per cent were under 2, 3, 4 and 5 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 1.42, 17.32, 54.26, 24.71 and 2.27 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 96.47 per cent of the male and 100.00 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 3.50 per cent of only male respondents were under high score dimension of histrionic personality disorder. In general, around 98.00 and 2.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher dimension of histrionic personality disorder. The modified chi-square value was 3.06 which was significant at 0.05 level. It means there is significant association between gender and histrionic personality disorder.

4.6.7 Status of narcissistic personality disorder

Among male respondents 16.70, 53.70, 27.30, 1.80 and 0.40 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 16.00, 65.60, 17.60 and 0.80 per cent were under 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 16.47, 57.95, 23.86, 1.42 and 0.28 per cent were under 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 97.79 per cent of the male and 99.20 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 2.20 per cent of the male and only 0.80 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of narcissistic personality disorder. In general, around 98.00 and 2.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher dimension of narcissistic personality disorder. The modified chi-square value was 0.294 which was not significant. It means there is no significant association between gender and narcissistic personality disorder.

4.6.8 Status of avoidant personality disorder

Among male respondents 4.40, 15.00, 41.00, 36.60 and 3.10 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 4.80, 20.00, 36.80, 31.20 and 7.20 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 4.54, 16.76, 39.48, 34.65 and 4.54 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 96.91 per cent of the male and 92.80 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 3.10 per cent of the male and 7.20 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of avoidant personality disorder. In general, around 95.00 and 5.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher dimension of avoidant personality disorder. The chi-square value was 3.148 which was not significant. It means there is no significant association between gender and avoidant personality disorder.

4.6.9 Status of dependent personality disorder

Among male respondents 1.30, 7.00, 44.50, 32.20, 14.50 and 0.40 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 0.80, 8.00, 51.20, 27.20, 11.20 and 1.60 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 1.13, 7.38, 46.87, 30.39, 13.35 and 0.85 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 85.02 per cent of the male and 87.20 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and 14.97 per cent male and 12.80 per cent of the female respondents were under high score dimension of dependent personality disorder. In general, around 86.00 and 14.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher dimension of dependent personality disorder. The chi-square value was 0.314 which was not significant. It means there is no significant association between gender and dependent personality disorder.

4.6.10 Status of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Among male respondents 3.10, 18.10, 47.10, 30.80 and 0.90 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. Among female respondents 1.60, 20.00, 48.80 and 29.60 per cent were under 2, 3, 4 and 5 sten score, respectively. The combined results indicated that 2.55, 18.75, 47.72, 30.39 and 0.56 per cent were under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 sten scores, respectively. To conclude 99.11 per cent of the male and 100.00 per cent of the female respondents were under lower dimension and only 0.90 male respondents were under high score dimension of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. In general, around 99.00 and 1.00 per cent of respondents were under lower and higher dimension of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. The modified chi-square value was 0.097 which was not significant. It means there is no significant association between gender and obsessive compulsive-personality disorder.

4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING AND EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS

4.7.1 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality

The critical glance at the results of the Table 8a critically revealed that the coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and paranoid personality disorder was -0.163, -0.072, -0.177, -0.145, -0.084, -0.077, -0.155, -0.108, respectively. These results indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 5 perceived models of parenting and their paranoid viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, faulty role expectation Vs. reaslitic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment. Whereas, there was no significant relationship between perceived carelessness Vs. protection, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline and their paranoid personality disorder. Rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, faulty role expectation Vs. realism and paranoid personality disorder were significantly and negatively related at 0.01 level. Whereas, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and paranoid personality disorder was significantly, negatively

Table 8a : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Paranoid

personality disorder n=352

1 Rejection Vs. acceptance -0.163**

2. Carelessness Vs. protection -0.072NS

3. Neglect Vs. indulgence -0.177**

4. Utopian expectation Vs. realism -0.145**

5. Lenient standard Vs. moralism -0.084NS

6. Freedom Vs. discipline -0.077NS


-0.155**

8. Marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment -0.108*

** - Significant at 0.01 level

* - Significant at 0.05 level NS - Not-significant

-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

co

rro

lati

on

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness Vs.

protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict Vs.

marital adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6a : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder

Fig.6a: Relationship between each of the perceieved models parenting and paranoid personality disorder

related at 0.05 level. But, there was no relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline and paranoid personality disorder.

4.7.2 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and schizoid was -0.153, -0.116, -0.110, -0.096, -0.054, -0.015, -0.013, -0.100 per cent, respectively. These results of the Table 8b indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 3 perceived models of parenting and their schizoid personality disorder viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence. Rejection Vs. acceptance and schizoid personality disorder was significantly negatively related at 0.01 level and carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence and schizoid personality disorder were significantly negatively related at 0.05 level. Whereas, there was no significant relationship between Utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and schizoid personality disorder.

4.7.3 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and schizotypal personality disorder was -0.151, -0.073, -0.086, -0.171, -0.108, -0.139, -0.131, -0.063 per cent, respectively. These results of the Table 8c indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 5 perceived models of parenting and their schizotypal personality disorder viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation. Rejection Vs. acceptance, utopian expectation Vs. realism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and schizotypal personality disorder were significantly and negatively related at 0.01 level whereas, lenient standard Vs. moralism and schizotypal personality disorder was significantly and negatively related at 0.05 level. But, there was no significant relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their schizotypal personality disorder.

4.7.4 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their antisocial personality disorder was –0.239, -0.218, -0.168, -0.210, -0.225, -0.184, -0.204, -0.095, respectively. These results of the Table 8d indicated that there was significant negative relationship between all perceived models of parenting and their antisocial personality disorder with 0.01 level except marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived model of parenting. There was no significant relationship between marital adjustment Vs. marital conflict and antisocial personality disorder.

4.7.5 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their borderline personality disorder was –0.218, -0.169, -0.206, -0.312, -0.152, -0.137, -0.208, -0.059, respectively. These results of the Table 8e indicated that there was significant negative relationship between all perceived modes of parenting and their borderline personality disorder with 0.01 level except marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment which was not significant.

Table 8b: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Schizoid



2. Carelessness Vs. protection -0.116*

3. Neglect Vs. indulgence -0.110*

4. Utopian expectation Vs. realism -0.096NS




-0.013NS

8. Marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment -0.100NS


* - Significant at 0.05 level NS - Not-Significant

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rro

lati

on

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6b : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder

Fig.6b: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizoid disorder.

Table 8c: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Schizotypal personality

disorder n=352



3. Neglect Vs. indulgence -0.086NS


5. Lenient standard Vs. moralism -0.108*

6. Freedom Vs. discipline -0.139**


-0.131**



* - Significant at 0.05 level NS - Not-Significant

-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rre

lati

on

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6c: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

Fig.6c: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder.

4.7.6 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their histrionic personality disorder was –0.178, -0.127, -0.161, -0.246, -0.124, -0.127, -0.163, -0.123, respectively. These results of the Table 8f indicated that there was significant negative relationship between all perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment. All perceived models of parenting were significantly and negatively related at 0.01 level except lenient standard Vs. moralism which was significantly and negatively related at 0.05 level.

4.7.7 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their narcissistic personality disorder was –0.188, -0.164, -0.193, -0.206 –0.121, -0.166, -0.094, -0.083, respectively. These results of the Table 8g indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 6 models of parenting and their narcissistic personality disorder, viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, negligence Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline. Among six models of parenting all were significantly and negatively related at 0.01 level except lenient standard Vs. moralism which was significantly, negatively related at 0.05 level. Whereas, there was no significant relationship between faulty role expectation Vs. realism, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their narcissistic personality disorder.

4.7.8 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and avoidant personality disorder was –0.140, -0.037, -0.126, -0.197, -0.062, -0.148, -0.120, -0.077, respectively. These results of the Table 8h indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 4 models of parenting and their avoidant personality disorder viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism and faulty role Vs. realistic role expectation. Rejection Vs. acceptance, utopian expectation Vs. realism and avoidant personality disorder were significantly, negatively related at 0.01 level whereas, neglect Vs. indulgence, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and avoidant personality disorder were significantly and negatively related at 0.05 level. But, there was no significant relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their avoidant personality disorder.

4.7.9 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and dependent personality disorder was –0.227, -0.197, -0.210, -0.288, -0.151, -0.161, -0.266, -0.097 respectively. These results of the Table 8i indicated that there was significant negative relationship between all models of parenting and their dependent personality disorder except marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment which was not significant. Rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty

Table 8d: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Antisocial



2. Carelessness Vs. protection -0.218**



5. Lenient standard Vs. moralism -0.225**



-0.204**



NS – Not-significant

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0C

oe

ffic

ien

t o

f c

orr

ola

tio

n

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6d : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

Fig.6d: Relationship between each of the perceieved models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder.

Table 8e: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Borderline personality

disorder n=352








-0.208**



NS - Not-significant

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0C

oeff

icie

nt

of

co

rola

tio

n

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6e : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

Fig.6e: Relationship between each of the perceived of parenting and borderline personality disorder.

Table 8f: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Histrionic









-0.163**

8. Marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment -0.123**


* - Significant at 0.05 level

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ola

tion

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6f : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

Fig.6f: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histriotic personalituy disorder

Table 8g: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Narcissistic personality

disorder n=352








-0.094NS




-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rrela

tio

n

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6g : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

Fig.6g: Relationship between each of the perceieved models of parenting and narcissistic disorder.

Table 8h: Relationship between each of the perceived models and avoidant personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Avoidant









-0.120*




-0.2

-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rrela

tio

n

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6h : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder

Fig.6h: Relationship between each of the perceieved models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder.

Table 8i: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting Dependent personality

disorder n=352








-0.266**




-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rro

lati

on

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6i : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

Fig.6i: Relationship between each of the perceieved models of parenting and dependent personality disorder.

Table 8j: Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Sl. No. Model of parenting

Obsessive-compulsive personality

disorder n=352




4. Utopian expectation Vs. realism -0.098NS




-0.083NS




-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rro

lati

on

Rejection Vs.

acceptance

Carelessness

Vs. protection

Neglect Vs.

indulgence

Utopian

expectation Vs.

realism

Lenient standard

Vs. moralism

Freedom Vs.

discipline

Faulty role

expectation Vs.

realistic role

expectation

Marital conflict

Vs. marital

adjustment

Model of parenting

Fig. 6j : Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Fig.6j: Relationship between each of the percei ved models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

Table 8k: Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

Sl. No. Personality disorder Fathering n=352

1 Paranoid -0.184**

2. Schizoid -0.141**

3. Schizotypal -0.141**

4. Antisocial -0.260**

5. Borderline -0.249**

6. Histrionic -0.175**

7. Narcissistic -0.168**

8. Avoidant -0.111*

9. Dependent -0.254**

10. Obsessive-compulsive -0.105*


* - Significant at 0.05 level

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rrela

tio

n

Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Border line Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent Obsessive-

compulsive


Fig. 6k : Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

Fig.6k: Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorder

role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and dependent personality disorder were significantly, negatively related at 0.01 level.

4.7.10 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive–compulsive personality disorder

Coefficient of correlation between rejection Vs. acceptance carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was –0.165, 0.022, -0.116, -0.098, -0.067, -0.029, -0.083, -0.090, respectively. These results of the Table 8j indicated that there was significant negative relationship between 2 models of parenting and their obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence. Rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder were significantly, negatively related at 0.01, 0.05 level, respectively. Whereas, there was no significant relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realism, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and their obsessive compulsive personality disorder.

4.7.11 Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

Coefficient of correlation between paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and fathering was -0.184, -0.141, -0.141, -0.260, -0.249, -0.175, -0.168, -0.111, -0.254 and -0.105, respectively. These results of the Table 8k indicated that there was significant negative relationship between paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and fathering. Except avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders all were significantly, negatively related at 0.01 level whereas, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders and fathering were significantly, negatively related at 0.05 level.

4.7.12 Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

Coefficient of correlation between paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and mothering was -0.177, -0.075, -0.184, -0.287, -0.270, -0.251, -0.231, -0.400, -0.315 and -0.125, respectively. The results of the Table 8l indicated that paranoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and mothering were significantly, negatively related at 0.01 level, whereas obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was significantly negatively related at 0.05 level. But, there was no significant relationship between mothering and schizoid personality disorder.

4.7.13 Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

Coefficient of correlation between paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive personality disorders and parenting was -0.202, -0.115, -0.178, -0.289, -0.282, -0.235, -0.219, -0.133, -0.316 and -0.126, respectively. The results of the Table 8m indicated that paranoid, schizotypal, antisocial, border line, histrionic, narcissistic, dependent personality disorders and parenting were significantly and negatively related at 0.01 level whereas, schizoid, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders were significantly, negatively related at 0.05 level.

Table 8l: Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

Sl. No. Personality disorder Mothering n=352

1 Paranoid -0.177**

2. Schizoid -0.075NS






8. Avoidant -0.140**



** - Significant at 0.01 level * - Significant at 0.05 level NS - Not-significant

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Coeff

icie

nt of corr

ela

tio

n


compulsive


Fig. 6l : Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

Fig.6l: Relationship between mothering and each of the personality disorders.

Table 8m: Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

Sl. No. Personality disorder Parenting n=352

1 Paranoid -0.202**

2. Schizoid -0.115*






8. Avoidant -0.133*



** - Significant at 0.01 level * - Significant at 0.05 level NS - Not-significant

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

co

rre

lati

on


compulsive


Fig. 6m : Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

Fig.6m: Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders.

V. DISCUSSION The results of the present study are discussed under the following sub headings.

5.1 Demographic characteristics of the male and female respondents

5.2 The relationship between demographic characteristics and each of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

5.3 Comparison between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

5.4 Status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male and female respondents

5.5 Comparison of the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

5.6 Status of each of personality disorders among the male and female respondents

5.7 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and each of the personality disorders of the respondents

5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS The data regarding demographic characteristics of the respondents revealed that the

age of the respondents ranged between 18 to 23 years and the mean age of the respondents was 19.82 years with 1.22 standard deviation. Majority of the respondents were of 20 to 21 years. The comparison of male and female respondents indicated that majority of the male respondents were of 18 to 19 years but, majority of the female respondents were of 20 to 21 years. On the basis of these informations, it can be concluded that around 51 per cent of the respondents were of 20 to 21 years of age.

Among the respondents, almost all respondents were belong to Hindu and only few belong to Muslim and Christian. Similarly, majority of the respondents were from Urban background.

With regard to occupation status among the fathers of male and female respondents, about 53.00 per cent of the male and 43.00 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were government officers and 35.00 per cent of the male and 30.00 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were self employed but, only about 11.00 per cent of the male and 22.00 per cent of the female respondents’ fathers were farmers.

Whereas, most of the mothers of the respondents were housewives.

The literacy status among the parents of the respondents was about 93.00 per cent and the rate of illiteracy was about 7.00 per cent, but the rate of higher education of the parents was only about 40.00 per cent.

The information on number of siblings confirmed that majority of the respondents were having two or more seedlings. Among the respondents, about 61.00 per cent and 39.00 per cent were from nuclear and joint family.

5.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS OF THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

Personality disorders are thought to originate in childhood and continue into the adult years (Barlow and Durand, 1995). It means that as the age increases there is every possibility of developing of personality disorders. The results of present study supported that there was positive relationship between age and personality disorders. Specifically there was a significant positive relationship between antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant and age of the male respondents whereas, age and dependent personality disorder was significantly and positively related among the male and female respondents. The positive relationship between age and personality disorder may be due to the fact that as the age of the individual increases there is the need to develop commitment and high exploration to meet the expectations and demands of the society. In this process of developmental

adjustment, the individual experiences failures, as a result there is every possibility of developing psychological problems and personality disorders.

5.2.1 Relationship between education, occupation of parents and each of the personality disorders among the respondents

The home environment is influenced by education of the parents and their occupation. The ascendance in the status of education and occupation of parents provides greater opportunity for providing more facilities and exposes to the children to develop their potentialities and satisfaction adjustment to the demands of the situations. Therefore, it is hypothesized that there is negative relationship between education, occupation of the parents and personality disorders of the respondents. The results in general (Fig. 1a to 1j), confirmed that there was negative relationship between education, occupations of parents and personality disorders of the respondents. Specifically, there was significant negative relationship between paranoid personality disorder of the female respondents and occupation of mother. Similarly, the qualification of mother was significantly and negatively related with antisocial, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders of the male respondents. Correspondingly, qualification of father was significantly and negatively related with schizoid and antisocial personality disorders of the male respondents and with borderline in the female respondents.

5.3 COMPARISON OF THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS ON EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING Generally, it is considered that gender of the children bring perspective changes in

the interactional process among the parents and children. The expectations of parents from male children are different from female children, accordingly, the interaction of parents with female children are different from male children. Correspondingly, the male and female children are supposed to develop different perceptions of parents. Therefore, it is assumed that there is significant difference between the male and female respondents on the perceived models of parenting.

The value of ‘t’ test (Table 4 and Fig. 2) indicated that the mean score on each models of parenting viz., rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, negligence Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment were more or less similar for the male and female respondents. These results mean that there was no significant difference between the male and female respondents on all the eight models of parenting.

These results clearly signified that the male and female respondents were similar in the perception of eight models of parenting. This similarity in the perception of parents among the male and female respondents was due to the fact that they were pressurized more or less similarly by the parents, relatives, and society at large to get more and more knowledge to formulate and develop their future through retrospective process with the help of self exploration and commitment. Therefore, the perception of the male and female respondents about parenting was similar. So, the gender had no influence on the perceived models of parenting. These results are similar to the results of Rai (2000) that males and females did not manifest significant differences on perceived parental rearing style. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant difference between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting is rejected.

5.4 STATUS OF EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING AMONG THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS To identify the status of each of the perceived models of parenting among the male

and female respondents, they were classified 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sten scores. The sten scores from 1 to 5 are considered as low score and rejection dimension whereas, 6 to 10 sten scores are considered as high score and acceptance dimension of model of parenting.

5.4.1 Status of rejection Vs. acceptance perceived model of parenting

The child develops the feeling of being rejected by the parents, when it does not find proper care and response of the parents. On the other hand, the child develops the feeling of parental acceptance when parents put the child in a position of importance in the family and develop a relationship of emotional warmth.

The results of the study (Table 6 and Fig. 3a) conveyed that around 17.00 per cent of the male and 22.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that the relationship between themselves and their parents was rejecting in its nature. About 83.00 per cent of the male and 78.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that their parents were acceptable in their interpersonal interaction. In general, about 19.00 per cent and 81.00 per cent of the respondents had developed rejection and acceptance perceived model of parenting, respectively. Further, the result of chi-square confirmed that there was no significant association between gender and rejection Vs. acceptance model of parenting. It revealed that the male and female respondents had developed more or less similar perceived models of rejection Vs. acceptance parenting. These results are similar to the results of Dodia and Patel (2002) that the males and females did not differ in their perception of parental acceptance. Therefore the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed acceptance perceived model of parenting is accepted.

5.4.2 Status of carelessness Vs. protection perceived model of parenting

The child develops feeling of parental carelessness when both or either parents don’t pay adequate attention towards child’s activities. On the other hand, the child develops a sense of protection if the parents are consistent in their expressive contact, concern over the child, respect and regard the behaviour of the child, encourage and care the positive activities of the child.

Generally, it is conceptualized that parents are careful and express concern over their children. But, the classification (Table 6 and Fig. 3b) of the respondents implied that about 58.00 per cent of the male and 65.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that both or either parents were showing carelessness towards their activities. Thus, gave an impression of unwantedness by carelessness, and negligible behaviour towards them in their-parent interactions. Correspondingly, about 43.00 per cent of the male and 44.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that their parents were protecting them, whenever there were demands. In general, about 60.00 per cent and 40.00 per cent of the respondents had developed carelessness and protection perceived model of parenting, respectively. Further, the result of chi-square conocated that there was no association between gender and perceived carelessness Vs. protection model of parenting. It means that the male and female respondents have developed more or less similar model of carelessness Vs. protection parenting. The results of the study are similar to the results of Purohit and Mehta (1998) on perceived parental protection that the male and female respondents did not differ on perceived parental protection. On the basis of these results, the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed perceived protection model of parenting is rejected.

5.4.3 Status of neglect Vs. indulgence perceived model of parenting

The perception of parental neglect depends on lack of attention, cooperation of the parents with the children, willful ignoring the activities of the children and avoidance of their genuine needs. On the other hand, the feeling of parental indulgence depends on respect, acceptance, helping and caring of the children by the parents.

It is the tendency of the parents to involve and support the children in their developmental process. Therefore, the children perceive that their parents involved with them in their day-to-day activities. Accordingly the results of classification (Table 6 and Fig. 3c) affirmed that about 45.00 per cent of the male and 48.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived neglect model of parenting. But, about 55.00 per cent of the male and 52.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived indulgence model of parenting. On the whole, about 46.00 per cent and 54.00 per cent of the respondents had developed neglect and indulgence perceived models of parenting, respectively. Further, the result of chi-square indicated that there was no association between gender and neglect Vs. indulgence perceived parental model. It revealed that there was similarity among the male and female respondents on the perceived model of neglect Vs. indulgence parenting. These results are

not in accordance with the results of Bharadwaj (1998). The hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed indulgence model of parenting is accepted.

5.4.4 Status of utopian expectation Vs. realism perceived model of parenting

The utopian expectation dimension exhibits itself in expecting a high quality of performance from the child even against his capabilities. The unrealistic demands of parents about the performance or academic achievement of their children come within the perview of utopian expectations.

Generally, the parents will have more expectations from their children. But it is contrary in reality because, the result of present study (Table 6 and Fig. 3d) denoted that about 8.00 per cent of the male and 10.00 per cent of the female respondents perceived that their parents were not satisfied with their performance, the parents were pressurizing too much for better academic performance, parents did not give importance for the efforts, and parents were blaming them for not achieving their expectations. Contrarily, about 92.00 per cent of the male and 90.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that their parents were satisfied with their work, gave importance to their efforts and appreciated their performance. In general, about 9.00 and 91.00 per cent of the respondents had perceived that their parents had utopian expectation and realistic expectation from them, respectively. Further, the value of chi-square conveyed that there was no association between gender and perceived utopian expectation Vs. realism model of parenting. It denoted that there was similarity in the perceived model of utopian expectation Vs. realism among the male and female respondents. These results are in accordance with the results of Bharadwaj (1998) that the perceived mothering of children was higher with realism than utopian expectations. Therefore, the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed realism model of parenting is accepted.

5.4.5 Status of lenient standard Vs. moralism perceived model of parenting

Lenient standard of parents apparent in adopting lesser restrictions from deviations of ethical and moral behaviour. It is an attitude showing indifference against such inhibitions to restrict child’s freedom and individuality. Moralism refers to the doctrine of duties of life, principles of conduct adhering to what is right and virtuous.

In modern society the parents are more concern about the development of the potentiality of their children. Most of parents give more importance to impose restrictions on deviant behaviours and to develop ethical, moral behaviours and potentialities. Therefore, it is assumed that the respondents perceive that their parents were moralistic in their interpersonal interactions. But, the results of the present study (Table 6 and Fig. 3e) signified that about 53.00 per cent of the male and 58.00 per cent of the female respondents perceived that their parents were indifference in directing, inspiring, suggesting and advising in their everyday life. Contrarily, about 47.00 per cent of the male and 42.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that their parents were involved in directing, inspiring, advising, suggesting and critical in information analysis in their day to day activities. In general, about 55 per cent of the respondents had developed lenient standard and 45 per cent of the respondents had developed moralism model of parenting. Further, the value of chi-square analysis signified that there was no association between gender and perceived lenient standard Vs. moralism model of parenting. It expressed that the male and female respondents had developed similar level of lenient standard Vs. moralism perceived model of parenting.

Therefore, the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed moralism model of parenting is rejected.

5.4.6 Status of freedom Vs. discipline perceived model of parenting

Freedom manifests itself in absence of restraint over all matters to what they may pertain to. On the other hand, discipline refers to the process in which parents with penchant for strict discipline simply pass on orders to their children who have to merely obey that.

It is the tendency of the parents to inculcate discipline among the children. Therefore, it is assumed that most of the respondents develop discipline perceived model of parenting. The results (Table 6 and Fig. 3f) indicated that about 44.00 per cent of the male and 48.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that they were the sole decision makers of their activities because, their parents more or less in most of the times permitting in doing

whatever they have decided and parents were not enquiring and sharing with them. Correspondingly, about 56.00 per cent of the male and 52.00 per cent of the female respondents perceived that their parents were expective in good things, in ideal behaviour and also they were enquiring and sharing about the experiences. On the whole, about 46.00 and 54.00 per cent of the respondents perceived freedom and discipline model of parenting, respectively. Further, the result of chi-square analysis evinced that there was no association between gender and freedom Vs. discipline model of parenting. It affirmed that the male and female respondents were more or less similar in their freedom Vs. discipline model of parenting. Therefore, the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed discipline model of parenting is accepted.

5.4.7 Status of faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation model of parenting

If the parents expect divergent and contradictory roles from their children, then the children are confused because of unpredictable expectations of the parents. Such roles are faulty in socialization process. The children develop faulty role expectation conception of their parents. If parents present themselves as an example to be followed by the children, then, the children develop thoughtful, consistent and predictable roles of their parents.

In reality, most of the parents will not present themselves as an example to their children. Therefore, the children have confused about role expectations of parents. The results of (Table 6 and Fig. 3g) this study notified that about 48.00 per cent of the male and 54.00 per cent female respondents had perceived that their parents were worried too much about little things, no controlling over emotions, impatience in their expression, criticizing and creating problems were commonly expressed by their parents in their interaction in every day life.

Contrarily, about 52.00 per cent of the male and 46.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that their parents were objective in their thinking, emotionally mature, critical in their opinion and capable to solve problems in the day to day life. In general, more or less 50.00 per cent of the respondents had developed faulty role expectation and 50.00 per cent of the respondents had developed realistic role expectation model of parenting. Further, the value of chi-square affirmed that there was no association between gender and perceived faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation model of parenting. It connotated, the male and female respondents were similar in their faulty role expectation and realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting. Therefore the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed realistic role expectation model of parenting is rejected.

5.4.8 Status of marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived model of parenting

Father-mother conflicts affect the child as and when it witnesses open conflicts between his parents. Father and mother adjustment exhibits interdependency and solidarity with congenial atmosphere of peace and harmony in the family and encourages for better socialization.

In Indian culture, mothers and fathers are forced to develop marital adjustment. So, there is every possibility of developing marital adjustment perceived model of parenting among the respondents. The results (Table 6 and Fig. 3h) of this study affirmed that about 2.00 per cent of the male and 4.00 per cent of the female respondents had perceived that, their parents were not accepting each others’ opinion, thinking, were more incline to fault finding and displacing their emotions on them. Contrarily, 98.00 per cent of the male and 96.00 per cent of the female respondents perceived that their parents were supporting with each other, express agreement on different issues and express more or less similar opinion and express their emotions adequately. On the whole, about 3.00 per cent and 97.00 per cent of the respondents had developed marital conflict and marital adjustment model of parenting, respectively. The chi-square analysis connotated that there was no association between gender and perceived marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment. It conveyed that the male and female respondents had developed similar marital adjustment perceived model of parenting. Therefore the hypothesis that the majority of the respondents have developed marital adjustment model of parenting is accepted.

5.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS ON EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS The socialization process imparts different experience and gender specific roles to

male and female children. So, the behavioural expression of male and female children will be different. Correspondingly, it is assumed that there is difference between the male and female respondents on the experience of psychological problems or disorders.

The results (Table 5 and Fig. 4) of ‘t’ test analysis indicated that the mean value of the male and female respondents on paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent and obsessive- compulsive personality disorders were more or less similar. Contrarily, there was significant difference between histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders among the male and female respondents.

The results of histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders mean that the male respondents had greater need to be the center of attention, use their physical appearance to draw the attention, tend to be flirtatious and sexually provocative than the female respondents. Correspondingly, the male respondents had more exaggerated self importance, reflected in arrogant, haughtly behavour, an excessive need for admiration and recognition compare to the female respondents. The result of narcissistic personality disorder is similar to the result of Barlow and Durand (1995). The result of dependent personality disorder is similar to the result of Reich (1987). The results of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, barderline and obsessive – compulsive personality disorders are not similar to the results of O’Brien et al. (1993), O’Brien et al. (1993), Kotsaftis and Neale (1993), Dulit et al. (1993), Dulit et al. (1993) and Stone, (1993), respectively. The result of avoidant personality disorder is similar to result of Millon (1986).

On the basis of the results of this study the hypothesis that there is significant differences between the male and female respondents on histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders is accepted but, the hypothesis that there is significant differences between the male and female respondents on paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent and obsessive – compulsive personality disorders is rejected.

5.6 STATUS OF EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS AMONG THE MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

Personality disorders are fairly common and found in 10 to 13.00 per cent of general population (Weissman, 1993). Several of individuals’ personality disorders are relatively rare. In particular, schizoid, narcissistic and avoidant personality disorders are all found in fewer than one per cent of general population. The rest of the disorders including paranoid, schizotypal, histrionic, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders are found in 1 to 4.00 per cent of the general population.

Personality disorders are not illnesses in a strict sense as they don’t distrupt emotional, intellectual or perceptual functioning. However, those with personality disorders suffer a life that is not positive, productive or fulfilling. Not surprisingly, personality disorders are also associated with failures to reach potential.

The socialization process and social interpersonal relationship of adolescence play a pivotal role in the development of personality disorders. One of the objectives of this study was to identify the status of personality disorders among the male and female respondents of undergraduation.

Currently, there are 10 distinct personality disorders identified in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders. Personality disorder is defined as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectation of individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.

The status of the respondents on the components of personality disorder was identified on the basis of sten scores. The sten scores 5 and below were classified under low score dimension, 6 and above sten scores were the indicators of higher score dimension of the components of the personality disorder. Low score dimension was indicator of not having

the tendencies of a specific components of personality disorder and the high score dimension was the indicator of having the tendencies of specific components of personality disorder.

5.6.1 Status of paranoid personality disorder

The paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by extreme mistrust and suspician of others. People with paranoid personality disorder are highly suspicious of other people. They are usually unable to acknowledge their own negative feelings towards other people.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 3 per cent of the general population have the tendency of paranoid personality disorder. The results of (Table 7 and Fig. 5a) this study denoted that about 95.00 per cent of the male and 98.00 per cent of the female respondents had been classified on the low score category but, about 5.00 per cent of the male and about 2.00 per cent of the female respondents were classified under high score category on the continuum of paranoid personality disorder. Further, the modified chi-square value signified that there was no association between gender and paranoid personality disorder. It affirmed that the male and female respondents have developed similar state of the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder. The critical observation of high category sten scores indicated that all the cases were under the 6

th sten

score. It means that about 4.00 per cent of the respondents had just higher level of tendency of paranoid personality disorder. It evinced that around 4.00 per cent of the respondents had the tendencies of concerned that other people have hidden motives, expected to be exploited by others, inability to collaborate, poor self image, social isolation and hostility. The results revealed that about 96.00 per cent of the respondents were not having the tendencies, but about 4.00 per cent of the respondents had the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder. These results are in accordance with the conclusion and documentation of Barlow and Durand (1995). Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.2 Status of schizoid Personality disorder

Schizoid personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by a life long pattern of indifference to others and social isolation. The people with schizoid personality disorder are primarily characterized by a very limited range of emotion, both in expression and experience.

Clinical psychologists, psychiatrists and psychologists are of the opinion that the tendency of schizoid personality disorder is very low in general population. The results (Table 7 and Fig.5b) expressed that about 98.00 per cent of the male and female respondents were classified under low score category but around 2.00 per cent of the male and female respondents were classified under high score category on schizoid personality disorder continuum. Further, the value of modified chi-square analysis revealed that there was no association between gender and schizoid personality disorder. It implied that the male and female respondents were similar in the development of schizoid personality disorder. The results indicated that about 2.00 per cent of the male and female respondents had developed little inclination towards schizoid personality disorder. The perusal of the results clearly implied that about 2.00 per cent of the respondents did not desire nor enjoy close relationships even with family members, avoid social activities that involve significant interpersonal contact and desire aloof and detached. These results are according to the conclusion and documentation of Barlow and Durand (1995). Therefore the hypothesis that at least 3 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of schizoid personality disorder is rejected.

5.6.3 Status of schizotypal personality disorder

Schizotypal personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by a pattern of deficiency in interpersonal relationships and disturbance in thought patterns, appearance and behaviour. People with schizotypal personality disorder may have unusual pre-occupations and fears.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 3 to 5 per cent of the general population have the tendency of schizotypal personality disorder. The results [Table 7 and Fig. 5c] pointed out that about 89.00 per cent of the male and 95.00 per cent of the female respondents were under low score category but about 11.00 per cent

of the male and 5.00 per cent of the female respondents were classified under high score category on schizotypal personality disorder continuum. Further, the value of chi-square signified that there was no association between gender and schizotypal personality disorder. It conveyed that the male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder. The critical observation of the classification revealed that the frequency under high category is classified under 6

th sten score. It means that only about 9.00

per cent of the respondents have some tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder. It means that about 9.00 per cent of the respondents had developed some degree of discomfort in social situations, few odd beliefs, fantacies or preoccupations, little extent of odd behaviour and inappropriate display of feelings in few situations. On the whole, about 91.00 per cent of the respondents had not developed any tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder, but about 9.00 per cent of the respondents had developed some tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder at a lower level. Therefore, the hypthesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents had developed the tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.4 Status of antisocial personality disorder

Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by chronic behaviour that manipulates, exploits, or violates the rights of others. This behaviour is often criminal.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 3 per cent of the general population had the tendency of antisocial personality disorder. The results (Table 7 and Fig. 5d) of the antisocial personality disorder appeared that about 78.00 per cent of the male and 88.00 per cent of the female respondents were classified under low score category and 22.00 per cent of male and 13.00 per cent of the female respondents were categorized under high score category on the continuum of antisocial personality disorder. It denoted that about 81.00 per cent of the respondents had developed the tendencies of antisocial behaviour but, about 19 per cent of the respondents had developed inclination towards antisocial behaviours. Further, the value of the chi-square revealed that there was association between gender and antisocial personality disorder. It means that the male respondents were higher in the expression of the tendencies of antisocial personality disorder behaviours compared to female respondents. On the basis of these results, the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of antisocial personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.5 Status of borderline personality disorder

Borderline personality disorder is a condition characterized by impulsive actions, mood instability and chaotic relationships. People with borderline personality disorder are impulsive in areas that have a potential for self harm such as drug use, drinking and other risk taking behaviours.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 3 per cent of the general population had the tendency of borderline personality disorder. The results (Table 7 and Fig. 5e) indicated that about 76.00 per cent of the male and 84.00 per cent of the female respondents had not developed borderline personality disorder behavours. But about 24.00 per cent of the male and 16.00 per cent of the female respondents had developed high inclination towards borderline personality disorder behaviours. Further, the value of chi-square analysis confirmed that there was no association between gender and borderline personality disorder. It affirmed that the male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of borderline personality disorder. The observation of the results of high score category on the continuum of borderline personality disorder evinced that all the respondents were classified under 6

th sten score. It signified that about 21.00 per cent of the

respondents had developed very low inclination towards borderline personality disorder. It connotated that these respondents were more inclined to frequent displays of inappropriate anger, recurrent suicidal tendencies, feelings of emptiness and boredom, intolerance of being alone and impulsiveness, substance abuse and sexual relationships. Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of borderline personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.6 Status of histrionic personality disorder

Histrionic personality disorder involves a pattern of excessive emotion expression and attention-seeking including an excessive need of approval and inappropriate seductiveness.

People with this disorder are usually able to function at a high level and can be successful socially and at work. They often fail to see their own situation realistically, instead tending to over dramatized and exaggerate. Responsibility to failure or disappointment is usually blamed on others.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 3 per cent of the general population has the tendency of histrionic personality disorder. The results (Table 7 and Fig. 5f) conveyed that about 96.00 per cent of the male and 100 per cent of the female respondents were classified under low score category but, about 4.00 per cent of the male respondents were classified under high score category of histrionic personality disorder continuum. Further, the value of modified chi-square analysis implied that there was no significant association between gender and histrionic personality disorder. It signified that the male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of histrionic personality disorder. The critical analysis of the results of histrionic personality disorder signified that about 4.00 per cent of the male respondents were classified under 6

th sten score of histrionic

continuum. These results expressed that only about 4.00 per cent of the male respondents had developed some of the tendencies of histrionic personality disorder. It implied that these respondents were inclined to constant seeking of reassurance or approval, excessive dramatics with exaggerated displays of emotions, excessive sensitivity to criticism, or disapproval, excessive concern with physical appearance, a need to be the center of attention, low tolerance for frustration, rapidly shifting emotional state and opinions are easily influenced by others. On the basis of the study it can be concluded that about 2.00 per cent of the respondents had higher level of inclination towards histrionic personality disorder. These results are in accordance with the conclusion and documentation of Barlow and Durand (1995). Therefore the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of histrionic personality disorder is rejected.

5.6.7 Status of narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self importance and an extreme pre-occupation with oneself. People with narcissistic personality disorder shows lack of empathy, need to be admired by others, an inability to see the view point of others and hypersensitive to the opinion of others.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 1 per cent of the general population have the tendency of narcissistic personality disorder. The results (Table 7 and Fig. 5g) indicated that about 98.00 per cent the male and 99.00 per cent of the female respondents were classified under low score category and about 2.00 per cent of the male and 1.00 per cent of the female respondent were classified under high score category. Further, the value of modified chi-square analysis notified that there was no association between gender and narcissistic personality disorder. It indicated that the male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of narcissistic personality disorder. The objective analysis of the high score category classification connotated that most of the respondents were under 6

th sten score. On the basis of the sten score it can be said that

about 2.00 per cent of the respondents had developed few tendencies of narcissistic personality disorder to a higher level. These results are in accordance with the conclusion and documentation of Barlow and Durand (1995). Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of narcissistic personality disorder is rejected.

5.6.8 Status of avoidant personality disorder

Avoidant personality disorder is characterized by marked social inhibition, feeling of inadequacy and extremely sensitive to criticism. Avoidant personalities are often hypersensitive to rejection and are unwilling to become involved with others unless they are sure of being liked. They are fearful of saying something considered foolished by others, and are very hurt by any disapproval by others.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 1 per cent of the general population have the tendency of avoidant personality disorder. The results of classification (Table 7 and Fig. 5h) denoted that about 97.00 per cent of the male and 93.00 per cent of the female respondents were under low score category but about 3.00 per cent of the male and 7.00 per cent of the female respondents were under high score category. Further, the value of chi-square indicated that there was no association between

gender and avoidant personality disorder. It means that male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of avoidant personality disorder. The perusal of the classification revealed that most of the cases under high score category classified under 6

th sten score. It

signified that these respondents had developed inclination towards the expression of some tendencies of avoidant personality disorder. These results confirmed that about 5.00 per cent of the respondents had developed some of the tendencies of avoidant personality disorder. Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of avoidant personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.9 Status of dependent personality disorder

Dependent personality disorder is a chronic condition involving over-realince on others to meet emotional and physical needs. People with this disorder don’t trust their own ability to make decisions, they may be devastated by separation and loss, and bear with suffering abuse to stay in a relationship.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 2 per cent of the general population has the tendency of dependent personality disorder. The results of classification (Table 7 and Fig. 5i) expressed that about 85.00 per cent of the male and 87.00 per cent of the female respondents placed under low score category but, about 15.00 per cent of the male and 13.00 per cent of the female respondents placed under high score category. Further, the value of chi-square confirmed that there was no association between gender and dependent personality disorder. It evinced that male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of dependent personality disorder. On the basis of these results it can be said that about 86.00 per cent of the respondents had not developed the tendencies of dependent personality disorder but, about 14.00 per cent of the respondents had developed some of the tendencies of dependent personality disorder. Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3.00 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of dependent personality disorder is accepted.

5.6.10 Status of obsessive – compulsive personality disorder

Obsessive – compulsive personality disorder is a condition characterized by a chronic pre-occupation with rules, orderliness, fears and control.

Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and psychologists have recognized that about 4 per cent of the general population has the tendency of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. The results of classification (Table 7 and Fig. 5j) signified that 99.00 per cent of the male and 100 per cent of the female respondents were classified under low score category but only about 1.00 per cent of the male respondent classified under high score category. Further, the value of modified chi-square analysis confirmed that there was no association between gender and obsessive – compulsive personality disorder. It affirmed that the male and female respondents were similar in their tendencies of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. On the whole, 99.00 per cent of the respondents had not developed the tendencies of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, but only about 1.00 per cent of the respondents had developed some tendencies of obsessive- compulsive personality disorder. These results are in accordance with the conclusion and documentation of Weissman (1993) and, Barlow and Durand (1995). Therefore, the hypothesis that at least 3 per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of obsessive – compulsive personality disorder is rejected.

5.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH OF THE PERCEIVED MODELS OF PARENTING AND EACH OF THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between parenting style and

psychopathology of adolescents (Hasebe et al., 2004). Smetana and Daddis (2002) indicated that adolescents perceived parental attempts to regulate their behaviours within the personal sphere, which exert psychological control and leads to psychological problems. Similarly, Hasebe et al. (2004) have confirmed the negative effects associated with parental control are not related to behavioural control per se, but rather are related to parental intrusion into areas of activity that are personal in nature. Correspondingly, Cleveland et al. (2005) stressed the importance of adolescents’ cognitions of parenting on adolescents’ behaviours. The present study is an attempt to analyse the relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and the personality disorders.

5.7.1 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder

The individuals with paranoid personality disorder don’t trust people and they are suspicious and more prone to interpret innocuous remarks and benign events. They are argumentative, sarcastic, hard to get along with and are often vindictive. Barlow and Durand (1995) viewed paranoid personality disorder as a non-adaptive way to view the world, at it seems to pervade every aspect of the lives of these individuals, we do not know how they developed these perceptions but, there is some speculation that the roots are in the early upbringing of the affected individuals, their parents are thought to teach them to be careful about making mistakes and to impress on them that they are different from other people. This vigilance causes them to see that other people are being deceptive and malicious toward them. Therefore, it is assumed that there is negative relationship between parenting and paranoid personality disorder.

The results of coefficient of correlation (Table 8a and Fig. 6a) revealed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder. Correspondingly, the coefficient of correlation between carelessness Vs. protection, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder was negative but not significant. These results confirmed that as parental acceptance, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental realistic role expectation and parental marital adjustment increase paranoid personality disorder decreases. It implied that if children perceived that their parents accept their thoughts, give attention, accept their views pleased by their action and being loved, give respect to their perspective, being help in critical conditions, being satisfied with work, give importance to their efforts, appreciate their efforts, being patient, non-critical to their mistakes and being developed good marital adjustment contribute to develop lower level of tendencies of paranoid personality disorder. These results support to the hypothesis that there is negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. reaslism, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder. To be specific, there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived models of parenting and paranoid personality disorder.

5.7.2 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schzoid personality disorder

Individual with schizoid personality disorder are loners and keep to themselves. They lack close friends and they don’t seem to enjoy intimacy. Their behaviour is cold, detached and impassive.

Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are of opinion that positive parenting decreases the tendencies of schizoid personality disorder. Therefore, it is assumed that acceptance models of parenting contribute to decrease the tendencies of schizoid personality disorder. The observation of the values of coefficient of correlation (Table 8b and Fig. 6b) signified that there was negative relationship between the models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder, but, the significant negative relationship was between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder. These results clearly pointed out that if the parents were being perceived that they are accepting the thoughts of children, attentive to their views, acceptable to the thinking, pleased with their behaviour, concern to their demands with regard, encourage them by helping and fulfilling their demands led to decrease in developing the tendencies of schizoid personality disorder. These results support the acceptance of the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence perceived models of parenting and schizoid personality disorder.

5.7.3 The relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder

These individuals lack close friends and confidants. They are anxious in social situation and feel that they don’t fit in. Their affect is constricted or inappropriate and their behaviour is often eccentric or peculiar.

Psychiatrists are of opinion that the development of schizotypal personality disorder depends on the family environment. So, it is assumed that acceptance models of parenting reduce the tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder. It is evident from the results of this study (Table 8c and Fig. 6c) that there was negative relationship between perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder. It confirmed that as parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment increase the tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder decrease. To be specific, parental perceived acceptance, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation were significantly and negatively related to schizotypal personality disorder. These results expressed that if the parents inculcate acceptance, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation patterns of behaviours in interaction with the respondents, there was every possibility to reduce the tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder among the respondents. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting and schizotypal personality disorder is accepted.

5.7.4 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder

People with antisocial personality disorder characteristically act out their conflicts and ignore normal rules of social behaviour. These individuals are impulsive, irresponsible and callous. They show no respect for other people and feel no remorce about the effect of their behaviour on others.

The studies on antisocial behaviour confirm that parents play a pivotal role in the development of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, it is assumed that acceptable models of parenting contribute to reduce the tendencies of antisocial personality disorder. The perusal of the results (Table 8d and Fig. 6d) affirmed that seven perceived models of parenting and antisocial personality disorder of the respondents were negatively and significantly related. It connotated that as the parental acceptance, parental protection, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental moralism, parental discipline and parental realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of antisocial personality disorder decrease. These results are in accordance with the results of Kosterman et al. (2004) that parental warmth and caring reduces risk of antisocial behaviour. Therefore the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and antisocial personality disorder is accepted.

5.7.5 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder

People with borderline personality disorder are unstable in interpersonal relationships, behaviour, mood and self-image. These individuals generally have great difficulty with their own sense of identity.

The results of the family studies confirmed that borderline personality disorder is more prevalent in the children where, the parents are suffering from borderline personality disorder. So, it is assumed that acceptable models of parenting reduce the tendencies of borderline personality disorder among the respondents. An observation of the results (Table 8e and Fig. 6e) clearly confirmed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and borderline personality disorder. From these results, it could be inferred that as the perceived parental acceptance, parental protection, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental moralism, parental discipline and parental realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of borderline personality disorder of the respondents decrease. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty

role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting and borderline personality disorder is accepted, but the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived model of parenting and borderline personality disorder is rejected.

5.7.6 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder

People with histrionic personality disorder are usually able to function at a high level and can be successful socially and at work. They often feel to see their own situation realistically, instead tend to over dramatized and exaggerate.

Clinical psychologists are of opinion that personality disorders are phenotypal. Therefore, it is assumed that acceptance models of parenting contribute to reduce the developmental tendencies of histrionic personality disorder among the respondents. The results of present study (Table 8f and Fig. 6f) affirmed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder. These results clearly pointed out that as the parental acceptance, parental protection, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental moralism, parental discipline, parental realistic role expectation and parental marital adjustment increase the tendencies of histrionic personality disorder of the respondents decrease. Therefore the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment perceived models of parenting and histrionic personality disorder is accepted.

5.7.7 Relationship between each of the the perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder

People with narcissistic personality disorder have an exaggerated sense of self importance, are absorbed by fantacies of unlimited success and seek constant attention. They are over sensitive to failure and prone to extreme mood swings. These people tend to exploit interpersonal relationships.

Socialization process involves teaching children with acceptable models of parenting. Therefore, it is believed that narcissistic personality disorder arises largely from a profound failure empathic “mirroring” on the part of parents vary early in child’s development. Therefore, it is assumed that there is negative relationship between models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder. The results of this study (Table 8g and Fig. 6g) indicated that there was negative relationship between the models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder. Specifically, the results confirmed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline and narcissistic personality disorder. From these results it could be inferred that as the parental acceptance, parental protection, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental moralism and parental discipline increase the tendencies of narcissistic personality disorder of the respondents decrease. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline perceived models of parenting and narcissistic personality disorder is accepted, but, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and narcissistic personality disorder is rejected.

5.7.8 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder

People with avoidant personality disorder are often hypersensitive to rejection, fear of criticism, avoid social situations and experience excessive social discomfort. The review of Barlow and Durand (1995) highlighted the importance of parents’ role in development of avoidant personality disorder.

The results of present study (Table 8h and Fig. 6h) revealed that there was negative relationship between perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder. To be specific, the results confirmed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation and avoidant personality disorder. It signified that as parental acceptance, parental indulgence, parental realism and parental realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of avoidant personality disorder decrease. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting and avoidant personality disorder is accepted, but, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and avoidant personality disorder is rejected.

5.7.9 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder

People with dependent personality disorder may exhibit a pattern of dependent and submissive behaviour, relaying on others to make decisions for them. They require excessive reassurance and advice, and are easily hurt by criticism or disapproval. Bornstein (1992) stressed that the part of socialization process involves helping the children and live more independent lives. It is thought that disruptions in this development, such as the death of a parent at an early age or undesirable parenting could cause feeling of dependency (Stone, 1993). The present study attempted to identify the relationship between the perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder among the college students.

The values of coefficient of correlation (Table 8i and Fig. 6i) revealed that there was significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role Vs. realistic role expectation and dependent personality disorder. These results clearly confirmed that as the parental acceptance, parental protection, parental indulgence, parental realism, parental moralism, parental discipline and parental realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of dependent personality disorder decrease. On the basis of these results the hypothesis that there is significant and negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, carelessness Vs. protection, neglect Vs. indulgence, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation perceived models of parenting and dependent personality disorder is accepted, but the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between perceived marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment model of parenting and dependent personality disorder is rejected.

5.7.10 Relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

People with obsessive – compulsive personality disorder believe that their pre-occupations are appropriate. They are characterized by perfectionism, inflexibility and express uncontrollable patterns of thought and action. Barlow and Durand (1995) viewed that some people might be predisposed to favour structure in their lives and predisposition to obsessive – compulsive personality disorder did require parental reinforcement.

The results of this study (Table 8j and Fig. 6j) revealed that there was negative relationship between models of parenting and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. But to be specific, parental acceptance and parental indulgence had significant negative relationship with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It pointed out that as the parental acceptance and parental indulgence increase the tendencies of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder decrease. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between rejection Vs. acceptance, neglect Vs. indulgence and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is accepted, but, the hypothesis that there is significant negative relationship between carelessness Vs. protection, utopian expectation Vs. realism, lenient standard Vs. moralism, freedom Vs. discipline, faulty role expectation Vs. realistic role expectation, marital conflict Vs. marital adjustment and obsessive – compulsive personality disorder is rejected.

5.7.11 Relationship between the fathering and each of the personality disorders

Personality disorder is expressed by the way an individual thinks, feels and behaves. When the behaviour is flexible, maladaptive, and antisocial, then that individual is diagnosed with a personality disorder. Most personality disorders begin as problems in personal development and character, which peak during adolescence.

Extensive research has shown that living apart from one’s biological father is associated with a greater risk of adverse outcomes for children and adolescents, regardless of race, education or mothers’ remarriage. Charlson (2006) has confirmed that father involvement is more beneficial, when the father live with the adolescents. Therefore, this study attempts to identify the relationship between the fathering and each the personality disorders of the respondents.

The results of present study (Table 8k and Fig. 6k) confirmed that there was significant negative relationship between paternal involvement and personality disorder. It signified that as the perceived paternal acceptance, indulgence, realism, protection, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment increase the tendencies of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, historinic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders decrease.

5.7.12 Relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders

The role of mother is pivotal in upbringing of children. It is largely associated with congenital development of personality, because the child first comes in contact with mother and always depends on her to satisfy the basic needs. The patterns of inadequate maternal behaviour seemed to be responsible for problem of children’s behaviour (Bharadwaj, 1995). On this background this study intended to identify the relationship between the mothering and each of the personality disorders of the respondents.

The results of present study (Table 8l and Fig. 6l) clearly indicated that the roles of mothering had negative relationship with personality disorders. It affirmed that maternal acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment of mothers were significantly contributing to decrease the tendencies of paranoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive –compulsive personality disorders.

5.7.13 Relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders

Parenting includes roles of mother and father in socializing a child. Child’s perception of parental attitudes towards him is of great important in developing dynamics of behaviour and is a new area of research for deeper probe in the domain of parent-child relationship (Bharadwaj, 1996). This study is an attempt to know the relationship between the parenting and each of the personality disorders of the respondents.

The results of present study (Table 8m and Fig. 6m) confirmed that the roles of parenting or perceived models of parenting had significant negative correlation with personality disorders. It connotated that parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment contribute to reduce the tendencies of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive – compulsive personality disorders of the respondents.

VI. SUMMARY

Family as a unit of social organization where, parent-child relationship happens to be the central factor in children’s social development and also influences the segments of personality. Ordinarily the child’s key models are his parents and their behaviour can have beneficial and detrimental effect on the way the child learns to perceive, think, feel and act. Father’s and mother’s degree of investment in parenting is more consequential for their socialization practices and view of their children than degree of investment in work. How a child behaves and performs usually depend on the various parenting styles by which they are being treated. The good relations of parents tend to show better social adjustment emotional adjustment and self esteemed development among children. Loving and accepting parents provide healthy medium for the child to grow his energies into proper channels and exercise his potentials to the maximum.

Numerous investigations connect various forms of psychopathology with impaired parenting behaviour (Downey and Coyne, 1990; Rutter and Quinton, 1984 and Radke-Yarrow, 1991).

Parental over ambitiousness regarding their adolescents leads them to continual frustrations, guilt and self devaluations and chemical dependence. Parental high restrictions in terms of severe discipline demotes need for achievement and promotes antisocial behaviour. Parenting in terms of faulty role expectations leads to fear, anxiety, shyness and submission. Therefore, this study is undertaken to analyse the status of the models of parenting and personality disorders of the college students with the following objectives.

1. To study the relationship between age, education of parents, occupation of parents and personality disorder of the college students.

2. To study the status of each the perceived models of parenting among the college students.

3. To study the status of each of the personality disorders among the college students.

4. To study the relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and each of the personality disorders of the college of students.

The above objectives are explained by accepting or rejecting of the following hypothesis:

1. There is significant positive relationship between age and each of the personality disorders of the respondents

2. There is significant negative relationship between education, occupation of parents and each of the personality disorders of the respondents

3. There is significant difference between the male and female respondents on each of the perceived models of parenting

4. The majority of the respondents have developed acceptable perceived model/s of parenting

5. There is significant difference between the male and female respondents on each of the personality disorders

6. At least three per cent of the respondents have developed the tendencies of each of ten personality disorders

7. There is significant negative relationship between each of the perceived models of parenting and each of ten personality disorders of the respondents

The study was conducted during 2005-06 in Dharwad city of Karnataka state. The research design followed was ex-post facto with purposive sample. The sample of the study consisted of students of the B. Sc. I, B. Sc. II and B. Sc. III year from JSS College and age ranged between 18-23 years.

The questionnaire was administered on the respondents class-wise and scoring was carried out according to the standard procedure. In this process, 77 students’ informations were not included because of incompleted responses or living with single parent or absence in the class. So, finally, the selected sample was consisted of 352 students comprising of 227 males and 125 females, who were living with their both the parents. The information about age, gender, education of parents, qualification of parents, siblings and types of family was collected through personal information schedule, personality disorder was measured using OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory developed by Loranger Armand (2001) and parenting style was measured using parenting scale developed by Bharadwaj et al. (1998). The data were subjected to frequency, percentage, Carl Pearson correlation, ‘t’ test and chi-square test to know the status, relationship of the perceived models of parenting and the personality disorders and association between gender and personality disorders among the respondents.

The major general inferences drawn from the study are as follows:

a. Background of the respondents

1. The age of the respondents ranged between 18-23 years with mean age of 19.82 years. Majority of the respondents were of 20 to 21 years.

2. Majority of the respondents were from Hindu religion.

3. Majority of the respondents were from urban background.

4. Majority of the respondents’ fathers were class 2 officers.

5. Majority of the respondents’ mothers were housewives.

6. Majority of the respondents’ fathers were graduates and mothers were completed high school education.

7. Majority of the respondents had two siblings.

8. Majority of the respondents were from nuclear family.

b. Relationship between demographic characteristics and the personality disorders of the respondents

1. Age was positively related to personality disorders; but qualification and occupation of fathers and mothers were negatively related to personality disorders.

c. Comparison between the male and female respondents on the perceived models of parenting

1. There was no significant difference between male and female respondents with respect to eight perceived models of parenting.

d. Status of the perceived models of parenting among the respondents

1. Majority of the respondents had developed acceptance, carelessness, indulgence, realism, lenient standard, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment perceived models of parenting.

e. Comparison between the male and female respondents on the personality disorders

1. There was no significant difference between eight personality disorders but, there was significant difference between the male and female respondents on two personality disorders.

f. Status of the personality disorders among the male and female respondents

1. Around 4, 2, 9, 19, 21, 2, 2, 5, 14 and 1.00 per cent of respondents had developed tendencies of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic,

narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders, respectively.

g. Relationship between the perceived models of parenting and each of ten personality disorders of the respondents

1. As the perceived parental acceptance, indulgence, realism, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment increase the tendencies of paranoid personality disorder decrease.

2. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection and indulgence increase the tendencies of schizoid, personality disorder decrease.

3. As the perceived parental acceptance, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of schizotypal personality disorder decrease.

4. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of antisocial personality disorder decrease.

5. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of borderline personality disorder decrease.

6. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment increase the tendencies of histrionic personality disorder decrease.

7. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism and discipline increase the tendencies of narcissistic personality disorder decrease.

8. As the perceived parental acceptance, indulgence, realism and realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of avoidant personality disorder decrease.

9. As the perceived parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline and realistic role expectation increase the tendencies of dependent personality disorder decrease.

10. As the perceived parental acceptance and indulgence increase the tendencies of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder decrease.

11. As the paternal, maternal and parental acceptance, protection, indulgence, realism, moralism, discipline, realistic role expectation and marital adjustment increase the tendencies of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders decrease.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

1. In the present liberalized and globalized world, the students are under tremendous pressure due to fast changing condition of world technological advancement, urbanization, industrialization, revolution in information technology, which complicated the career of young generation. The world has become so complex and complicated and it challenges every student to adjust. But, failures to achieve the expected and desirable goals and desires lead to various psychological problems. The development of successful career depends not only on the part of the students but also on the role of the parents. In the formative stage of the college students, the models of parenting enforce the children to develop their natural potentialities and skills in order to lead a successful career. Thus, there is necessity of providing proper and supportive parenting to the college students in the developmental stage of life. The results of present study have revealed that the parents play a significant role in developing and reducing the tendencies of personality disorders. Correspondingly, the development of undesirable tendencies of personality disorders decrease by the acceptable parenting.

2. The results highlighted that the perceived models of parenting were directly related in decreasing the tendencies of personality disorders. The study also confirmed that the tendencies of schizotypal, antisocial, borderline and dependent personality disorders are at the ascendance trend irrespective of gender of the students. So, the present study signifies the developmental trend of personality disorders and the importance of the parenting.

3. There is a need to create awareness among parents, educators and counselors about the importance of the parenting in the development of personality disorders among the college students.

4. The results of present study support to create awareness which of the models of parenting contribute significantly in reducing the tendencies of personality disorders.

5. The results also revealed that the respondents have not yet developed strong and extreme tendencies of personality disorders under dominated acceptance, indulgence, moralism, discipline and marital adjustment perceived models of parenting.

6. Though, the extent of relationship between models of parenting and personality disorders is at lower level, but they are significantly related. This signifies the need of indepth study on parenting and personality disorders.

7. The present study support for the necessity of intervention programme for the parents to develop positive and effective parenting to develop the potentialities among the children to face the failure frustration, depression and stressful events of their life.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

1. The status of parenting and personality disorders under different geographical settings and religious communities.

2. The status of models of parenting and personality disorders in the developmental stages.

3. The role of single parenting in the development of personality disorders.

4. The influence of unmarried parents on the development of personality disorders among the children.

5. The status of the perceived models of parenting and the personality disorders among destitute children.

6. Prevalence of psychological disorders among slum children.

VII. REFERENCES ARMAND, L. W., 2001, Omni Personality Inventories Professional Manual, Psychological

Assessment Resources. Inc. Florida, USA.

AZIZA, A. A., SADEK, A., MAHALAEVY, N. E. L., HAMID, M. A., AZIZ, E. A. A. AND ALEEM, M. A., 2002, Prevalence of obsessive compulsive symptoms and disorders in a sample of Egyptian school children. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, November 2

nd, New Delhi, p. 139.

BARLOW, D. H. AND DURAND, V. M., 1995, Abnormal Psychology : An Integrative Approach. Books/Cole Publishing Company, London.

BAUMRIND, D., 1968, Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75 : 43-88.

BAUMRIND, D., 1971, Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 : 99-102.

BAUMRIND, D., 1973, The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed.). Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 7 : 3-46.

BAUMRIND, D., 1989, The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and problem behaviour. Paper Presented at the APA’s Science Weekend, New Orelans, LA.

BAUMRIND, D., 1991, Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. Lerner, A. C. Petersen and J. Brook S. Gunn (Eds.). The Encyclopedia on Adolescence, Garland, New York, pp. 746-758.

BECKER, W. C., 1964, Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.). Review of Child Development Research, New York : Russell Sage, 1 : 169-208.

BERS AND OBERS, 1950, The effect of extreme deprivation in infancy on psychic structure in adolescence – a study in ego development. The Psycho-analytic Study of Child, 5, New York : International Universities Press.

BHARADWAJ, R. L., 1995, Development of parenting scale. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education, 26 : 109-112.

BHARADWAJ, R. L., 1996, Fathering as perceived by the chemical dependent and non-dependents. Disabilities and Impairments, 10 : 87-92.

BHARADWAJ, R. L., 1998, Perceived mothering as associated with school-going children and child labour. Presentation 2

nd National Conference of Praachi Psycho-

Cultural Research Association Patiala : Punjab, University.

BHARADWAJ, R. L., SHARMA, H. AND GARG, A., 1998, Manual for Parenting Scale, ‘Bal Niwas’ Taj Basci, Agar, India.

BHATTI, R. S. AND GEORGE, T. S., 2002, Family interactions in childhood psychiatric conditions. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, New Delhi, p. 90.

BORNSTEIN, R. F., 1992, The dependent personality : Development, social and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112 : 3-23.

BORSTEIN, M., 1995, Handbook of Parenting, Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

BOURNIA, M. AND ROUSSOS, A., 2002, Factors affecting parental over involvement with the obsessive compulsive symptomatology of their children with obsessive compulsive. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, October 29

th, New Delhi, p. 104.

BOYUN, L. A. AND PARKE, R. D., 1995, The role of family emotional expressiveness in the development of children’s social competence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57 : 502-608.

BRABER, B. K., 1996, Parental psychological control : revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67 : 3296-3319.

BRETHERTON, I., 1985, Attachment theory : Retrospect and Prospect. Monographs of the Society of research in Child Development, 50 : 209.

BRYANT, A. L. AND ZIMMERMAN, M. A., 2003, Role models and psychosocial outcomes among African American Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18 : 36-67.

BYNUM, M. S. AND BRODY, G. H., 2005, Coping behaviours, parenting and perceptions of children’s internalizing and externalizing problems in rural African American mothers. Family Relations, 54 : 58-71.

BYOLE, M. H., JENKINS, J. M., GEORGIADES, K., CAIRNEY, J., DUKER, E. AND RACINE, Y., 2004, Differential-maternal parenting behaviour : Estimating within and between family effects on children. Child Development, 75 : 1457-1476.

CARLSON, M. J., 2006, Family structure, father involvement and adolescent behavioural outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Fiamly, 68 : 137-154.

CARSON, J. L., 1991, In search of mediating processes : Emotional causes as links between family and peer systems. Paper Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Developmental, Seattle, WA.

CEREZO, M. A. AND FRIAS, D., 1994, Emotional and Cognitive adjustment in abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18 : 923-932.

CHAKRA, A. AND PRABHA, R., 2004, Influence of family environment on emotional competence of adolescent. Journal of Community Guidance and Research, 21 : 213-222.

CLEVELAND, M. J., GIBBONS, F. X., GERRARD, M., POMERY, E. A. AND BRODY, G. H., 2005, The impact of parenting on risk cognitions and risk behaviour : A study of mediation and moderation in a panel of African American Adolescent. Child Development, 76 : 900-916.

CLINE, F. A. AND FAY, J. M., 1990, Parenting with love and logic, Dever, Co. Pinon Press.

COLEMAN, J. C., 1970, Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, Bombay : D. B. Tavaporwala and Sons.

COLLINS, W. A., MACCOBY, E. E., STEINBERG, L., HETHERINGTON, E. M. AND BORNSTEIN, M. H., 2000, Contemporary research on parenting : The case for nature and nature. American Physiologist, 55 : 218-232.

CONGER, R. D., GE, X., ELDER, G. H., LORENZ, F. AND SIMONS, R., 1994, Economic stress, Coercive family process and developmental problems of adolescent. Child Development, 65 : 541-561.

COUGHLIN, C. AND VUCHINICH, S., 1996, Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58 : 491-501.

CUMMINGS, E. M., GOEKE-MOREY, M. C. AND PAPP, L. M., 2003, Childrens responses to every day marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74 : 1918-1929.

DECI, E. L. AND RYAN, R. M., 1987, The Support of autonomy and the control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 : 1024-1037.

DEMBO, D. H., SMALL, S. A. AND SAVINWILLAMS, R. C., 1987, Family relations and the self-esteem of adolescents and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49 : 705-715.

DODIA, G. R. AND PATEL, M. K., 2002, Perceived parental acceptance and avoidance with reference to gender and economic status. Journal of Community Guidance and Research, 19: 119-124.

DOWNEY, G. AND COYNE, J. C., 1990, Children of depressed parents : An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108 : 50-76.

DULIT, R. A., MARIN, D. B. AND FRANCES, A. J, 1993, Cluster B personality disorders. In D. L. Dunner (Ed.). Current Psychiatric Therapy, Philadelphia : W. B. Saunders, pp. 405-411.

EBERLY, M. B., MONTEMAYOR, R. AND FLANNERY, D. J., 1993, Variations in adolescent helpfulness towards parents in a family context. Journal of Early-Adolescence, 13 : 228-234.

ERICKSON, E. U., 1963, Childhood and Society (2nd

ed.) W. S. Norton and Co., New York.

FANTAZZO, J. W., 1990, Behavioural treatment of the victims of child abuse and neglect. Behaviour Modification, 14 : 316-39.

FARREN, D. C. V. AND RAMSAY, T., 1977, Child development, Infact day care and attachment behaviour towards mothers and teachers. Journal of Child Development, Ctrchape Hill, 48: 112-116.

FLETCHER, A. C., STEINBERG, L. AND WILIAM-WHEELER, M., 2004, Parental influences on adolescent problem behaviour : Revisiting Stattin and Kerr, Child Development, 75: 781-796.

GARBER, J., ROBINSON, N. S. AND VALENTINER, D., 1997, The relation between parenting and adolescent depression : self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12 : 12-33.

GARG, A., 1996, Parenting, Ego-strength and Sex as Correlated of Emotional Competencies among Adolescent Labour, Doctoral Dissertation, Agra.

GREEN, B. E. AND GOLDBERY, W. A., 1989, Parenting and socialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 25 : 22-35.

HALBERSTADT, A. G., 1991, Socialization of expressiveness : Family influences in particular and a model in general. In R. S. Feldman and B. Rime (Eds.) Fundamentals in Nonverbal Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 106-160.

HAMILTON, S. F. AND DARLING, N., 1996, Mentors in adolescents’ lives. In K. Hurrelmann and S. F. Hamitton (Eds.). Social Problems and Social Contexts in Adolescence, Aldiende Gruyter, New York, pp. 199-215.

HASEBE, Y., NUCCI, L. AND NUCCI, M. S., 2004, Parental control of the personal domain and adolescent symptoms of psychopathology : A cross national study in the United States and Japan. Child Development, 15 : 815-828.

HOFFMAN, M. L., 1960, Power association by the parent and its impact on the child. Child Development, 31 : 129-143.

HUBBARD, J. A. AND COIE, J. D., 1994, Emotional determinants of social competence in children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40 : 1-21.

HUH, D., TRISTAN, J., WADE, E. AND STICE, E., 2006, Does problem behaviour elicit poor parenting? A prospective study of adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21 ; 185-204.

JACKSON, C. AND FOSHEE, V. A., 1998, Violence-related behaviours of adolescents : relations with responsive and demanding parenting. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13 : 343-359.

KANG, T. K., SIBIA, R. AND GILL, R., 1995, Parent-child relationship of high and low achieving boys and girls. Praachi Journal of Psycho-Cultural Dimensions, 11 : 79-82.

KAZDIN, A. E., MOSER, J. COLBUS, D. AND BELL, R., 1985, Depressive symptoms among physically abused and psychiatrically disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94 : 298-307.

KEGAN, J., 1965, The child perception of parent. Journal of Abnormal Society of Physiology, 53: 257-258.

KEMPE, C. H., SILVERMAN, F. N., STEELE, B. F., DROEGEMUELLER, W. AND SILVER, H. K., 1962, The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181 : 17-24.

KEMPER, T. D., 1968, Reference groups, socialization and achievement. American Sociological review, 33 : 31-45.

KENNEY-BENSON, G. A. AND POMERANTZ, E. M., 2005, The role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfectionism : Implications for the development of children’s depressive symptoms. Journal of personality, 73 : 23-46.

KHOKHAR, C. P., 1988, Parenting, sex and economic status as correlates of socio-genetic need satisfaction of children. Doctoral Dissertation (Unpub) Meerut : University of Meerut.

KIRAN AND SINGH, M. B., 1982, Factors affecting the parental acceptance of pre-school children. Asian Journal of Psychology and Education, 9: 21-28.

KOCHANSKA, G., CLARK, L. A. AND COLDMAN, M. S., 1997, Implications of mothers’ personality for their parenting and their young children’s developmental outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65 : 387-420.

KOSTERMAN, R., HAGGERTY, K. P., SPOTH, R. AND REDMOND, C., 2004, Unique influence of mothers and fathers on their children’s antisocial behaviour. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 : 762-778.

KOTSAFTIS, A. AND NEALE, J. M., 1993, Schizotypal personality disorder I : The clinical syndrome. Clinical Psychology Review, 13 : 451-472.

KRISTI, K. AND RIITTA, V., 2002, Family dynamics and victims of peer harassment. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, October 29

th, New Delhi, p. 51.

KROUPA, S. E., 1988, Perceived parental acceptance and female juvenile delinquency. Adolescence, 23 : 171-185.

KULSHRUSTHA, S. AND ABRAHAM, A., 2005, To study the effect of corporal punishment on children in relation to exhibition of antisocial behaviour. Indian Psychology Review, 64 : 209-214.

LEMPERS, J. D. AND CLARK-LEMPERS, D. S., 1992, Young, middle and late adolescents’ comparisons of the functional importance of five significant relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21: 53-96.

LEWIS, W. J., 1945, Influence of parental attitude on children’s personal inventory scores. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 67 : 195-201.

MACCOBY, E. E. AND MARTIN, J. A., 1983, Socialization in the context of the family : Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) and E. M. Hetherington. Handbook of Child Development, 4 : 1-101.

MACDONALD, K. AND PARKE, R. D., 1984, Bringing the gap : Parent – Child play interaction and peer interacting competence. Child Development, 55 : 1265-1277.

MASON, C. A., CAUCE, A. M., GONZALES, N. AND HIRAGA, Y., 1994, Adolescent problem behaviour: the effect of peers and the moderating role of father absence and mother-child relationship. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22: 723-743.

MASTEN, A., 1994, Resilience in individual development : Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. C. Wang and E. W. Gordon (Eds.). Educational Resilience in Inner-city America, N. J : Lawrence Erlbaum Hillsdale, pp. 3-25.

MEERTO, J. A., 1968, The psychological role of father. Journal of child and Family, 17 : p. 2.

MELTZER, H., 1943, Sex differences in children’s attitude to parents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 62: 331-336.

MILLON, T., 1986, Schizoid and avoidant personality disorders in DSM-III. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143 : 1321-1322.

MITHAS, U. J., 1997, Parenting Models and Sex as Correlates of Emotional Competence Among Early Adolescent Labourer and Non-Labourers Doctoral Dissertation, Agra : Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University.

MOTT, J. A., CROWE, P. A., RICHARDSON, J. AND FLAY, B., 1999, After-school supervision and adolescent cigarette smoking : Contributions of the settings and intensity of after-school self-care. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 22 : 68-89.

NUCCI, L., 1981, Conceptions of personal issues : A domain distinct from moral or societal concepts. Child Development, 52 : 114-121.

NUCCI, L., 1996, Mortality and the personal sphere of actions. In E. Reed, E. Turiel and T. Brown (Eds.).Values and Knowledge, Mah Wale, NJ : Erlbaum, pp. 41-60.

O’BRIEN, M. M., TRESTMAN, R. L. AND SIEVER, L. J., 1993, Cluster A personality disorders. In D. L. Dunner (Ed.).Current Psychiatric Therapy, Philadelphia : W. B, Saunder, pp. 399-404.

O’CONNOR, T. G., JENKINS, J., SIMPSON, A., DUNN, J. AND RASBOSH, J., 2005, Mutant influence of marital conflict and children’s behaviour problems : shared and non-shared family risks. Child Development, 76: 24-39.

ONER, O. AND KILIC, E., 2002, Offspring of schizophrenic parents and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder : Behavioural difference and similarities. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, November 2


ORBUCH, T. L., PARRY, C., CHESLER, M., FRITZ, J. AND REPETTO, P., 2005, Parent-child relationships and quality of life : resilience among childhood cancer survivors. Family Relations, 54 : 171-183.

PACHT, A. R., 1984, Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39 : 386-390.

PARKE, R. D. AND BURIEL, R., 1998, Socialization in the family : Ethnic and ecological persectives. In W. Damon and n. Eisenberg (Eds.) Handbook of Child Psychology : Social Emotional and Personality Development, New York, pp. 464-480.

PATTERSON, G. R., 1982, Coercive Family Process, Eugene, OR : Castalia.

PETTIT, G. S., BATES, J. E., DODGE, K. A. AND MEECE, D. W., 1999, The impact of after-school pre contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70 : 868-778.

PLEISS, M. K. AND FELDHUSEN, J. F., 1995, Mentors, role models and heroes in lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30: 159-169.

POMERANTZ, E. M. AND RUBLE, D. N., 1998, The Multidimensimal nature of control : Implications for the development of sex differences on self-evaluation. In J. Hekhausen and C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Motivation and Self-regulation across the Life – Span, Cambridge University Press : New York, pp. 159-184.

POMERANTZ, E. M., SAXON, J. L. AND KENNEY, G. A., 2001, Self-evaluation : The development of sex differences. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive Social Psychology: On the Tenure and Future of Social Congnition, Mahawah, N. J., Elbaum, pp. 59-74.

PUROHIT, N. AND MEHTA, M., 1998, Relationship between perceived parental behaviour and ways of coping among school going adolescents. Indian Psychological Review, 5 : 200-211.

RADKE-YARROW, M., 1991, Attachment patterns in children of depressed mothers. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde and P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment Across the Life Cycle, London : Tavistock/Routledge, pp. 115-126.

RAI, R. N., 2000, Perceived parental rearing style among Mizo boys and girls. Indian Psychological Review, 54 : 78-87.

RAO, U. N. B., 2002, Adolescents say they are now more children. Yojana, pp. 11-15.

REICH, J., 1987, Sex distribution of DSM-III personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 24 : 12-16.

RITTA, V. AND KIRSTI, K., 2002, Children’s psychiatric disorders are connected with changes in family structure. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, New Delhi, p. 65.

RODRIGUEZ, C. M., 2003, Parental discipline and abuse potential affects on child depression, anxiety and attributions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 : 809-817.

ROLLINS, B. C. AND THOMAS, D. L., 1979, Parental support, power and control techniques in the socialization of children. In. W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye and I. L. Reiss (Eds.). Contemporary Theories about the Family, Free Press, New York, pp. 317-364.

RUTTER, M. AND QUINTON, D., 1984, Parental psychiatric disorder : Effects on children. Psychological Medicine, 14 : 853-880.

SAMPSON, R. J., 1997, The embeddedness of child and adolescent development : a community level perspective on urban violence. In J. McCord (Ed.). Violence and Childhood in the Inner-city, Combridge, England, Combridge University Press, pp. 31-77.

SAXENA, S., 1987, A Study of Parental-child Relationship as Correlates of Personality of Child (Doctoral Dissertation) Agra : University of Agra.

SHAFFER, L. F. AND SHOBEN, E. J., 1956, The Psychology of Adjustment (2nd

Ed.) Boston : Houghton Mifflin.

SHARMA, I., DUTTA, A., GIRI, D. AND MAJUMDAR, P., 2002, Psychosocial factors in children and adolescents conversion disorder. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, New Delhi, p. 73.

SIROHI, A. AND CHAUHAN, N. S., 1991, Parenting in child socialization : A study of fathering in multivariate setting. Indian Journal of Psychology, 66 : 29-35.

SMETANA, J., 1989, Adolescents’ and parents’ reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Development, 60 : 1052-1067.

SMETANA, J. G. AND DADDIS, C., 2002, Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring. The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73 : 563-580.

SMETANA, J. G. AND GAINES, C., 1999, Adolescent-parent conflict in middle class African American families. Child Development, 70 : 1447-1463.

SMETANA, J. G., 1995, Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66 : 299-316.

SMETANA, J. G. AND ASQUITH, P., 1994, Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. Child Development, 65 : 1147-1162.

SRIVASTAVA, R. K., 2002, Consequences of socio-cultural deprivation on mental health of Indian adolescents. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, New Delhi, p. 90.

STARR, R. H. AND WOLFE, D. A., 1991, The Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect : Issues and Research, New York, Guilford Press.

STATTIN, H. AND KERR, M., 2000, Parental monitoring : A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71 : 1072-1085.

STOLZ, H. E., BRABER, B. K. AND OLSEN, J. A., 2005, Toward Disentagling fathering and mothering : an assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67: 1076-1092.

STONE, M. H., 1993, Cluster C personality disorders. In D. L. Dunner (Ed.). Current Psychiatric Therapy, Philadelphia. W. V. Saunders, pp. 411-417.

TAMBOLI, S. S., DESALE, V. F., KASTURE, M. S., SHIVAGAJE, A. J. AND CHIRANJEEV, 2002, Effects of family and school environment on personality traits of teenagers. Proceedings (abstracts) of International Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Allied Professions, November 2


WALSH, T., 1977, Premature parenting and child abuse. Presentation – At the Workshop on ten Parenthood, New York. On Ondaga Community College.

WANGER, B. M., COHEN, P. AND BROOK, S., 1996, Parent/adolescent relationships moderators of the effects of stressful life events. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11: 347-374.

WEISSMAN, M. M., 1993, The epidemiology of personality disorders : A 1990 update. Journal of Personality Disorders, Supplement, Spring, 44-62.

WERNER, E. E. AND SMITH, R. S, 1982, Vulnerable bat invincible : A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York, McGraw – Hill.

WHEELER, H. A., WINTER, M. G. AND POLIVY, J., 2003, The association of low parent-adolescent reciprocity, a sense of incompetence and identity confusion with discarded eating. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18 : 405-429.

WOOLGER, C. AND POWER, T. G., 1993, Parent and sport socialization views from the achievement literature. Journal of sport Behaviour, 16 : 171-189.

YOUNISS, J. AND KETTERLINUS, R. D., 1987, Communication and connectedness in mother and father - adolescent relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16 : 265-280.

APPENDIX

THE ANALYSIS OF PARENTING STYLE AND PERSONALITY DISORDER OF THE COLLEGE

STUDENTS

ROOPA U. KABBUR 2006 Dr. V. S. YADAV Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

This was an ex-post-facto study to analyse parenting style and personality disorder on a purposive sample of 227 male and 125 female science students of JSS college, Dharwad, Karnataka state, who were living with their both the parents. The age of the respondents ranged between 18 to 23 years. Respondents were undergraduate from B. Sc. I, B. Sc. II and B. Sc. III years. Parenting scale (Bharadwaj et al., 1998) was used to measure models of parenting and OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory (Loranger Armand, 2001) was used to measure personality disorders.

The data were subjected to percentage, correlation and association to analyze the results. The results revealed that there was positive relationship between age and personality disorders, negative relationship between education, occupation of parents and personality disorders.

There was no significant difference between the male and female respondents on eight perceived models of parenting and eight personality disorders, but there was significant difference on two personality disorders. Majority of the respondents had developed acceptance, indulgence, realism, discipline and marital adjustment model of parenting, even then the respondents had developed obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, histrionic, schizoid, paranoid, avoidant, schizotypal, dependent, antisocial and borderline tendencies hierarchically from 1.00 to 21.00 per cent. Correspondingly, eight perceived models of parenting had negative relationship with 10 personality disorders. Subsequently, it was confirmed that mothering, fathering and parenting have significant negative relationship with 10 personality disorders.

Documents

the analysis of parenting style and personality disorder of the college students