Introduction

Development specify maturation of functions, it is related to the

maturation and myelination of the nervous system and indicates
acquisition of a variety of skills for optimal functioning of the
individual.

• According to Hurlock (1959), Development means a progressive

series of changes that occurs in an orderly predictable pattern as a
result of maturation and experience.
• According to J.E Anderson (1950), Development is concerned
with growth as well as those changes in behavior which results
from environmental situations.
• According to R.M Liebert, R.W. Poulos & G.S. Marmor
(1979), Development refers to a process of change in growth and
capability what time, as function of both maturation and interaction
with the environment.

Characteristics of Development: German psychologist Paul Baltes', a

leading expert on lifespan development and aging, developed one of the
approaches of studying development called the lifespan perspective. The
approach is based on several key principles:-
i. Development is lifelong: Lifelong development means that
development is not completed in infancy or childhood or at any
specific age, it encompasses the entire lifespan , from conception
to death. The study of development traditionally focused almost
exclusively on the changes occurring from conception to
adolescence and the gradual decline in old age ; it was believed
that the five or six decades after adolescence yielded little to no
 developmental change at all. The current view reflects the
possibility that specific changes in development can occur later in
life, without having been established at birth. The early events of
one's childhood can be transformed by later events in one's life.
This belief clearly emphasis that all stages of the lifespan
contribute to the regulation of the nature of human Development.
Many diverse patterns of change, such as direction, timing
and order, can vary among individuals and affect the ways in
which they develop. As individuals move through life, they are
faced with many challenges, opportunities and situations impact
their development. Remembering that development is lifelong
process helps us gain a wider perspective on the meaning and
impact of each event.

ii. Development is multi-dimensional: By multidimensional Baltes

is referring to the fact that a complex interplay of factors influence
development across the lifespan, including biological , cognitive
and social emotional changes. Baltes argues that a dynamic
interaction of these factors is what influences an individual's
development.

iii. Development is multi-directional: Baltes states that the

development of a particular domain does not occur in a a strictly
linear fashion but that the development of certain traits can be
characterized as having the capacity for both and increase and
decrease in efficacy over the course of an individual's life.
Extending on the promise of multi-directionality, Baltes also
argued that development is influenced by the "joint expression of
features of growth and decline". This relation between
 development gains and losses occurs in a direction of selectively
optimize particular capacities.

iv. Development is plastic: Plasticity denotes interpersonal variability

and focuses heavily on the potentials and limits of the nature of
human Development. The notion of plasticity emphasis that there
are many possible developmental outcomes and that the nature of
human Development it is much more open and pluralistic than
originally implied by traditional views; there is no single pathway
that must be taken in an individual's development across the
lifespan. Plasticity is imperative to current research because the
potential for intervention is derived from the notion of plasticity in
development. Undesired development odd behavior is could
potentially be prevented or changed.

v. Development is multi-disciplinary: Development is

multidisciplinary in the sense that when an individual grows up,
his growth and development cannot be explained in only one term.
There are roles of many factors in his development such as
physical, cultural, social and psychological. There is also role of
language and environment. Therefore, the development can be
described in in multicultural in nature.

vi. Development is multi-contextual: Contextual means related to a

situation. Developmental psychology aims at studying the behavior
of an individual in contextual manner. It does mean that the
behavior should be analyzed according to the situation. For
example, we are expected to greet each other with a smile when we
 meet socially. But we cannot smile while meeting others in a
condolence meeting. Therefore, there are contexts which guide our
behavior.

Developmental Psychology: Developmental psychology is the

scientific study of how and why human beings change over course of
their life. Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has
expended to include adolescence, adult development, aging and the
entire life span. It studies a wide range of theoretical areas such as
biological, social, emotion and cognitive processes. Three goals of
Developmental psychology are: to describe, explain, to optimize
development. Child Development is an area of a study developed to
understanding constancy and change from conception through
adolescence. Child Development is a part of a larger, interdisciplinary
field known as developmental science which includes all the changes we
experience throughout the lifespan. Development is often divided into
three domains: physical, cognitive, emotional and social. Theory
regarding the children how to grow and change has a much longer
history. Conclusions of theories are inspired when many speculations
have combined with theories.
Contemporary theories of child development are result of centuries
of change in western culture values, philosophical thinking about
children and their scientific progress. To understand the field as it exists
today, we must return to its early beginnings.
Philosophical & Scientific Enlightenment of different aspects of
development:

❖ Philosophies of the enlightenment:

The seventeenth century enlightenment brought new
Philosophies that emphasized ideals of human dignity and
respect. Conceptions of childhood were more humane than those
of the past.

• John Locke: Concept of tabula rasa, (1632-1704): Locke, a

British philosopher, refuted the idea of innate knowledge and
instead proposed that children are largely shaped by their social
environments, especially their education as adults teach them
important knowledge. He believed that through education a child
learns socialization, or what is needed to be an appropriate member
of society. Locke advocated thinking of a child’s mind as a Tabula
Rosa or blank slate, and whatever comes into the child’s mind
comes from the environment. Locke emphasized that the
environment is especially powerful in the child’s early life because
he considered the mind the most pliable then. Locke indicated that
the environment exerts its effects through associations between
thoughts and feelings, behavioral repetition, imitation, and rewards
and punishments (Crain, 2005). Locke’s ideas laid the groundwork
for the behavioral perspective and subsequent learning theories of
Pavlov, Skinner and Bandura.

• Jean Jaques Rousseau: Concept of noble savages, (1712-1778):

In the eighteenth century, French philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau introduced a new view if childhood. Like Locke,
 Rousseau also believed that children were not just little adults.
However, he did not believe they were blank slates, but instead
developed according to a natural plan which unfolded in different
stages (Crain, 2005). He did not believe in teaching them the
correct way to think, but believed children should be allowed to
think by themselves according to their own ways and an inner,
biological timetable. This focus on biological maturation resulted
in Rousseau being considered the father of developmental
psychology. Followers of Rousseau’s developmental perspective
include Gesell, Montessori, and Piaget.

❖ Scientific Beginnings:
The study of child development evolved quickly in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. Early observations of
children were soon followed by improved methods and theories.
Each advance contributed to the firm foundation on which the field
nests today.

• Charles Robert Darwin: The forefather of scientific child

study, (1809-1888): A century after Rousseau, British naturalist
Charles Darwin joined an expedition to distant parts of the world,
where he observed infinite variation among plant and animal
species. He also saw that within a species, no two individuals are
exactly alike. From there observations he constructed his famous
theory of evolution.
The theory emphasized two related principles, natural
selection & survival of the fittest. Darwin explained that certain
species survive in particular parts of the world because they have
characteristics that fit with on are adapted to their surroundings.
 Other species die off because they are not as well suited to their
environments. Darwin’s emphasis on the adaptive value of
physical characteristics and behavior eventually found its way into
important twentieth-century theories.
Darwin concluded the following: In a population, some
individuals will have inherited traits that help them survive and
reproduce (given the conditions of the environment, such as the
predators and food sources present).

• G. Stanley Hall: Normative approach, (1844-1924): G. Stanley

Hall, one if the most influential American psychologist of the early
twentieth century, is generally regarded as the founder of the child-
study movement. He formulated his theory based on Darwin's
evolutionary ideas. He is called the "father" of developmental
psychology is credited with conducting the first systematic studies
of children. These involved questionnaires, which unfortunately
were not structured in a way as to produce useful data. He was also
unsuccessful in research that attempted to show that the child's
development recapitulates the evolution of the species. His major
contributions to the field are that he taught the first courses in child
development, several of his students becoming leading researchers
in the field, and he established scientific journals for the
publication of child development research.
Hall theorized adolescence as the beginning of a new life and
welded this vision to a scientific claim that this new life could
contribute to the evolution of the race, if properly administered.
'Normative Development' means stages of development that the
majority of children of that specific age are expected to achieve.
The Normative Approach is values based approach to building
communities, based on the assumption that all people have a need
 to belong, want to have a sense of purpose, and want to experience
success. This gives every individual ownership in the community.

• James Mark Baldwin: Early developmental theorist, (1861-

1934): James Mark Baldwin was an American psychologist, who
was a keen observer of children's behavior. Drawing inspiration
from Charles Darwin and other evolutionists of the period,
Baldwin developed a biosocial theory of psychological
development that influenced both Jean Piaget and Lev S.
Vygotsky; and he proposed a mechanism relating learned
adaptations in the individual to phylogenesis (frequently termed
the "Baldwin effect") that is of considerable interest to those
currently modeling processes of learning and evolution. After a
brief introduction to Baldwin's career, this article describes the
intellectual context within which his evolutionary thinking
developed. Three of his most important contributions are then
discussed: his theory of individual adaptation or learning, his
concept of "social heredity," and his articulation of the "Baldwin
effect"(an evolutionary mechanism which transforms a culturally
invented and acquired trait into an instinctive trait by the means of
natural selection.) (Baldwin, 1896a; Simpson, 1953; Hall, 2001)
Nurture affects our mental and physical health. In the context
of the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to
biological/genetic predispositions' impact on human traits, and
nurture describes the influence of learning and other influences
from one's environment. Genes can act in a variety of ways to
produce their effects. Some genes may alter brain chemistry so that
a person is better able to learn. This means that a genetic basis for
intelligence is as much about one's nurture as about one's nature.
Parental Development Component:
➢ Hereditary Components:
Heredity, also called inheritance on biological inheritance, us
the passing on of traits from parents to their offspring; either
through asexual reproduction or sexual relationship the offspring
cells or organisms acquire the genetic information of their parents,
the study of heredity in biology is genetics. We are all born with
specific genetic traits inherited from our parents, such as eye color,
height, and certain personality traits. Beyond our basic genotype,
however, there is a deep interaction between our genes and our
environment: Our unique experiences in our environment influence
whether and how particular traits are expressed, and at the same
time, our genes influence how we interact with our environment
(Diamond, 2009; Lobo, 2008). There is a reciprocal interaction
between nature and nurture as they both shape that we become, but
the debate continues as to the relative of each.
➢ Environmental components:
The environment can have an important influence on
development, and this also includes the prenatal period. The
growth that happens during the nine months of prenatal
development is nothing short of astonishing, but this period is also
a time of potential vulnerability. Fortunately, the effects of many
of these hazards can be greatly lessened or even avoided entirely.
While dangers do exist, the vast majority of babies are born
healthy. Today, researchers understand a great deal about
teratogens, a term used to describe the broad range of conditions
and substances that can increase the risk of parental problems and
abnormalities. Teratogens can cause a wide range of problems
 from low birth-weight to brain damage to missing limbs. In order
to minimize and avoid these dangers, it is essential to understand
what poses a risk to the fetus and how such dangers can affect
development.

i. Bronfenbrener’s Ecological System Theory:

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) is responsible for an

approach to child development that has moved to the forefront of
the field because it offers the most differentiated and complete
account of contextual influences on children’s development.
Bronfenbrener(1977) suggested the environment of the child is a
nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next.
He organized them (the five ecological systems) in order of how
much of an impact they have on a child. He named these structures
the Microsystem, Mesosystem, Ecosystem, Macrosystem and the
Chronosystem. Because the five systems are interrelated, the
influence of one system on a child’s development depends on its
relationship with the others. Ecological systems theory views the
child as developing within a complex system of relationships
affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment. The
child’s biologically influenced dispositions join with
environmental forces to mold development,
Bronfenbrener characterized his perspectives as a biological
model. The five ecological systems-

i. The Microsystem: The microsystem is the first level of

Bronfenbrenner’s theory, and is the things that have direct
contact with the child in their immediate environment, such as
 parent, siblings, teachers and school peers. Relationships in a
microsystem are bi-directional, meaning the child can be
influenced by their environment and is also capable of changing
the beliefs and action 0f other people too. Furthermore, the
reactions of the child to individuals in their microsystem can
influence how they treat them in return. The interactions within
microsystems are often very personal and are crucial for
fostering and supporting the child’s development.

ii. The Mesosystem: The mesosystem encompasses the

interactions between the child’s microsystems, such as the
interactions between the child’s parents and teachers, or
between school peers and siblings. The mesosystems are where
a person’s individual microsystems do not function
independently but are interconnected and assert influence upon
one another. For instance, if a child’s parents communicate with
the child’s teachers, this interaction may influence the child’s
development. Essentially, a mesosystem is a system of
microsystems. According to the ecological systems theory, if
the child’s parents and teachers get along and have a good
relationship, this should have positive effects on development if
the teachers and parents do not get along.

iii. The Ecosystem: The ecosystem is a component of the

ecological system theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in
the 1970s. It corporate other formal and informal social
structures, which do not themselves, contain the child, but
indirectly influence them as they affect one of the
Microsystems. Examples of ecosystem include the
neighborhood, parent’s workplaces, parent’s friends and the
 mass media. These are environments in which the child is not
involved, and are external to their experience, but nonetheless
affects them anyway. An instance of ecosystems affecting the
child’s development could be if one of the parents had a dispute
with their boss at work. The parents may come home and have a
short temper with the child as a result of something which
happened in the workplace, resulting in a negative effect on
development.

iv. The Macrosystem: The macrosystem is a component of

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory the focuses on how
cultural elements affect a child’s Development, such as
socioeconomic status, wealth, poverty, and ethnicity. Thus
culture that individuals are immersed within may influence their
beliefs and perceptions about events that transpire in life. The
macrosystem differs from the previous ecosystems as it does not
refer to the specific environments of one developing child, but
the already established society and culture which is developing
in. This can also include the socioeconomic status, ethnicity,
geographic location and ideologies of the culture. For example,
a child living in a third world country would experience a
different development than a child living in a wealthier country.

v. The Chronosystem: The fifth and final level of

Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory is known as the
chronosystem. This system consists of all of the environmental
changes that occur over the lifetime which influence
development, including major life transitions, and historical
events. These can include normal life transitions such as starting
 school but can also include non-normative life transitions such
as parents getting a divorce or having to move to a new house.

General Problem: On family relationship.

Specific Problem: To determine the parent child relationship of the
participant by a suitable test using Nalini Rao’s (1989) Parent Child
Relationship Scale.
Basic Concept: A family can be defined in terms of three independent
aspects namely, structure, functional and rational. Smith and Pratt
(1969) defined family as a co-residential group consisting of a married
couple living apart from their other kin. Of course, he admitted that
family may be more than a unitary structure. In broader usage, he added,
it may refer to the extended family including grandparents, cousins,
adopted children etc. Landis (1977) emphasized the function dimensions
of family. He considered family primarily as an institution for learning,
teaching and building the personality of children. He also considered it
the basic work unit of the society, combining these various definitions
the family may be conceptualized as having the following
characteristics:
i. Presence of married couple and their off spring.
ii. In some contexts (specially, in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and
some other South Asian countries) the presence of other kin.
iii. Relationship among the members and defined roles to qualify
the relationship.
 iv. Generation and maintenance of certain functions including
setting a specific socialization pattern, management of resources
etc.
v. Explicit recognition of the family by its members and outsiders
as a specific subsystem within the larger social system.
Family relationship is not defined and static phenomenon. It is
very much dynamic in nature, vulnerable to the changes , developing
from intra and interpersonal negotiations and the events of minor and
major consequences.
The family system includes 3 major types of close relationships
within the members of a unitary family-
i. Marital Relationship: Orienting from the interaction between the
husband and the wife.
ii. Parent child relationship: Originating from the interaction
between the parents and the child.
iii. Sibling relationship: Originating from the interaction between
the siblings.

• Marital Relationship: The marital bond is formed when two

adults of the opposite sex join with the purpose of forming a
family. The personal and interpersonal (in both sexual and
emotional sense) as well as the social elements in the institution of
marriage have been emphasized in the available definitions.
Murdock (1949) defined marriage as a complex of customs,
centering upon the relationship between a sexually associated pair
of adults within a family and it is a social group characterized by
common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction.
 Stephens (1963) stated that an explicit marriage contract implies
reciprocal rights and obligations between spouses and their future
children. Rathus & Navid (1980) considered marriage more than a
legal state. They emphasized on a continuing commitment to help
one another, to share intimate feelings and experiences and to
regard each other occupying a special space in everyone's life.
Combining the above ideas a comprehensive operational definition
may be stated that "Marriage is a socially sanctioned event, in the
life of a man and a woman to live as husband and wife together on
the basis of which they endeavor to develop a psychological,
sexual as well as social relationship between themselves and also
try to wither away the difference, if any, that exist between them"
(Dasgupta & Basu, 1997).
Social scientists have emphasized various dimensions of
marriage, like domestic task sharing, relationship characteristics
and attitudes like mutual respect, commitment, reciprocity,
supportiveness and marital equality (Rosenbluth, Steil &
Whitcomb, 1998).
More technically, relationship has been described in terms of
certain effective and relational status, characterizing the family
environment.

• Parent Child Relationship: Parent child relationship starts with

the development of attachment between the caregiver and the
newborn child and this attachment is a strong predictor of the
child's subsequent emotional relation and personality (Bowlby,
1973; Dunn, 1993).
 With time, the early attachment behavior is processed to
generate a two way relationship between the child and the mother
or the father.
Parent child relationship is a multidimensional concept.
Authorities differ regarding the relative importance of these
dimensions. Some consider security as the most important aspect
of parent - child relationship (Bowlby, 1988; Rutter, 1991). Duck
(1989) has highlighted the role of broad emotional nature
involving components like mutual warmth, shared involvement,
shared communication, shared humor and self disclosure. The
issue of mutual control has been emphasized by Cooper et.al
(1984). Reviewing a large number of studies, Rao (1989) suggest
two components of parent-child relationship namely, protecting,
symbolic punishment, rejecting, object punishment, demanding,
different symbol reward, loving, object reward and neglecting.
The quality of parent-child relationship reaches a very crucial
stage when a young star reaches adolescence. The conflict between
parental control and independence (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986),
the confusion over emerging identity (Erikson, 1968; Campbell
et.al, 1984) creates a change in the pattern of intergenerational
relationship. The family atmosphere and sensitive and balanced
parenting is crucial for the resolution of this conflict (Houser, et al.
1984; Amato, 1989).

Different personality and developmental theories explaining the role

of parenting:

• Psychoanalytic Theory: Freud believed that children between age

6 and puberty repress libidinal desires to concentrate on
 developing friendship and social skills — a period he referred to as
latency stage. When you think back to your middle childhood
years, what kind of experiences stand out? Most likely you
remember interactions.
According to the psychoanalytic perspective and in line with our
everyday experience with children, vary greatly in the ways they
response to social situation.
Erikson accepted Freud's view of the central role of peer
relationship and environmental that accompanies them in middle
childhood as a period during middle childhood.

• Behavioral and Social Learning Theory: Bandura proposed that

the personal, behavioral and environmental factors interact in a
pattern termed reciprocal determinism. Each of the three
components influences and is influenced by the other two. By
organizing the various interactive explanation of how school aged
children develop ideas about the degree of competence they
possess them either the psychoanalytic or the trait theorists do.
Bandura proposed, we gain a more comprehensive understanding
of the mechanisms that drive the development of self-preserved
competence (what Bandura referred to as self -efficiency) in
middle childhood years.

• Cognitive Development Theory: According to Piaget, human

infants cannot out as cognitive beings. Intend, out of their
perceptual and motor activities, they build and refine psychological
structure-organized ways of making sense of experience that
permit children to adapt more effectively to the environment.
 ▪ The stages provide a general theory of development, in
which all aspects of cognition change in an integrated
fashion.
▪ The stages are invariant, they always occur in a lined order
and no stages can be skipped.
▪ The stages are universal, they are assumed to characterized
children everywhere.

Effects of Parenting Style:

• Authoritative parents will set clear standards for their children,

monitor the limits that they set, and also allow children to develop
their autonomy. They also expect mature, independent, and age-
appropriate behavior of children. Punishments for misbehavior are
measured and consistent, not arbitrary or violent often behaviors
are not punished but the natural consequences of the child’s actions
are explored and discussed – allowing the child to see that the
behavior is inappropriate and repeated, rather than not repeated to
merely avoid adverse consequences. Authoritative Parents set
limits and demand maturity and when punishing a child,
authoritative parents are more likely to explain their reason for
punishment. In some cases, this may lead to more understanding
and complying behavior from the child. A child knows why they
are being punished because, an authoritative parent makes the
reasons known. As a result, children of authoritative parents are
more likely to be successful well liked by those around them,
generous and capable of self-determination.

• Authoritarian Parenting has distinctive effects on children:-

i. Children raised using this type of parenting may have less social
competence because, the parent generally tells the child what to
do instead of allowing the child to choose by themselves
making the child appear by to excel in the short term but
limiting development in ways that are increasingly revealed as
supervision and opportunities for direct parental control decline.
ii. Children raised by authoritarian parents tend to be conformist,
highly obedient, quiet, and not very happy. These children often
suffer from depression and self-blame.
iii. For some children raised by authoritarian parents, these
behaviors continue into adulthood.
iv. Children who are resentful of or angry about being raised in an
authoritarian environment but have managed to develop high
behavioral self confidence often rebel in adolescence and/or
young adulthood.
v. Children who experience anger and resentment coupled with the
downsides of both inhibited self-efficacy and high self-blame
often retreat into escapist-behaviors, including but not limited to
substance abuse, and are at heightened risk for suicide.
vi. Specific aspects of authoritarian styles prevalent among certain
cultures and ethnic groups, most notably aspects of traditional
Asian Child-rearing Practices Sometimes described as
authoritarian, often continued by Asian American families and
sometimes emulated by intensive parents from other cultures,
may be associated with more positive median child outcomes
than Baumrind’s model predicts, albert at the risk of
exacerbated downside outcomes exemplified by Asian cultural
phenomenon such as hikikomori and the heightened suicide
rates found in South Korea, in India.
vii. Many non-western parents tend to have more often authoritarian
parenting style rather than authoritative because adult figures
are generally more highly respected in other countries. Children
 are expected to comply with their parents’ rules without
question. This is a common critic Baumrind’s three parenting
styles because authoritarian parenting is generally associated
with negative outcomes. However, many other cultures are
considered to use an authoritarian parenting style and, in most
cases, it does not negatively affect the child.

• Indulgent or Permissive:
Children of Permissive may tend to be more impulsive and as
adolescents may engage more in misconduct such as drug use,
“children never learn to control their own behavior and always
expect to get their way”. But in the better cases they are
emotionally secure, independent and are willing to learn and accept
defeat. Mature quickly and are able to live life without the help of
someone else.

Schaefer’s (1959) concept of two dimensions-Warmth-Hostility &

Control-Autonomy:

Warmth is the single most important and ubiquitous dimension of

care giving, prominent in almost all conceptualizations of parenting
(Rohner, 1976, 1986). Often labeled acceptance, warmth refers to the
expression of affection, love, appreciation, kindness, and regard; it
includes emotional availability, support, and genuine caring.
Expressions of warmth and involvement are especially salient when a
child seeks comfort, but they can also be found in parent – child
interactions focusing on teaching or discipline as well. The conceptual
opposite of warmth is rejection or hostility. Parents are rejecting when
they actively dislike their children. Expressions of rejection include
aversion, hostility, harshness, over reactivity, irritability, and
explosiveness; they also include overt communication of negative
feelings for the child, such as criticism, derision, and disapproval. Often
referred to as hostility, parental rejection can be expressed in reaction to
child bids for help and attention, or it can be initiated by the parent,
independent of the child’s behavior.
Schaefer (1965) discovered a factor defined by parental behaviors
such as ‘‘intrusiveness,’’ ‘‘possessiveness,’’ and ‘‘control through
guilt.’’ Although this factor was only characterized by negative loadings
of controlling behaviors (and not by positive loadings of autonomy-
supportive behaviors), Schaefer labeled this factor as ‘‘Psychological
Autonomy versus Psychological Control,’’ thus assuming that
psychological control and autonomy support are opposite constructs.
The construct of psychological control has been intensively studied in
recent socialization research. Barber (1996) defined psychological
control as a negative, insidious type of control characteristic of parents
who engage in pressuring tactics such as guilt induction, instilling of
anxiety, and love withdrawal. Research has convincingly shown that
psychologically controlling parenting predicts maladaptive outcomes in
adolescents and emerging adults (Barber & Harmon, 2002). This recent
research on psychological control typically adopts Schaefer’s (1965)
view of the relation between autonomy-supportive and controlling
parenting as being opposite constructs. Also referred to as psychological
control, coercive parenting describes a restrictive over controlling
intrusive autocratic style in which strict obedience is demanded. A key
feature of authoritarian parenting (Baumrind, 1967, 1971), coercion has
been linked to both internalizing and externalizing problems in
adolescence (Barber, 1996). Definitions of parental autonomy support,
or autonomy granting, originally focused on the absence of
psychological control or coercion (Barber, 1996). However, research on
self-determination and autonomy has elaborated and clarified this
concept (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989, 1992; Grolnick,
Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Ryan, 1982; Skinner & Edge, 2002b; Skinner &
Wellborn, 1994). Support for autonomy extends beyond allow ing
children freedom of choice and expression to communicating genuine
respect and deference and encouraging children to actively discover,
explore, and articulate their own views, goals, and preferences.
Autonomy support characterizes interactions in which children are
expected to express their views and opinions and in which these are
given weight in planning and problem solving.

Diana Baumrind (1971): Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive

Parenting:
Diana Baumrind, a developmental psychologist, is well known for
her theory about Parenting and its influence on children's development.
(Ang and Goh, 2006, Baumrind, 1967). Out of Baumrind's work
emerged the concept of parenting styles (Baumrind,1971). Baumrind
(1970) looked at 124 preschool and older children in Berkeley,
California in 1967. The original sample was divided into seven parenting
styles including Authoritative, Democratic, Authoritarian, Directive,
Non-Directive, Unengaged and Good enough (Gfroerer, Kern and
Curlette, 2004).
For these parenting styles, Baumrind came up with three main
pattern of family interaction; Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive
(Ang and Goh,2006, Baumrind,1970).

• Authoritative Parenting Style: According to Greenspan (2006),

Baumrind combined the best elements of permissive parenting
(high warmth) with the best elements of authoritarian parenting
(high control) to create the authoritative parenting style. The
qualities of the authoritative parenting style are responsive,
 supportive demanding and guidance (Baumarind, 1996). They
understand the children's activities in appropriate ways and help
their children resolve problems (Baumrind, 1966, 1971).
Authoritative parents recognize and set expectations appropriate
for a child's developmental stage. Parents are firm with the rules
and give clear reasons to children about why they have to follow
them (Baumrind, 1971). Parents with an authoritative style more
openly discuss problem with their children (Baumrind 1978).

• Authoritarian Parenting Style: Hoeve et al (2009) suggested that

authoritarian parents show low responsiveness and warmth but
high control toward their children. According to Baumrind (1966,
1971), authoritarian parents attempt to shape, control and evaluated
the behavior and attitudes of their children according to a set of
principal they provide. Another characteristic of authoritarian
parenting is that authoritarian parents talk to their children rather
than with their children and do not consult with their children
when making decisions (Alegre, 2011, Baumrind, 1971). Most
researchers found that authoritarian parenting style results in
negative outcomes in children and adolescents and is correlated
with less than healthy outcomes including low self-esteem,
decreased happiness, low success, and increased nervousness
(Baumrind, 19660).

• Permissive Parenting Style: According to Baumrind (1966,

1971), permissive parent’s exhibit non-punitive, acceptance, and
affirmative behavior toward their children's needs, desires, and
actions. Baumrind (1991) stated that because, children of
permissive parents always do their activities independently, these
children are more mature and more responsible.
Maccoby and Martin (1983): Authoritarian, Authoritative,
Indulgent, Neglectful Parents:

• Authoritarian Parents are rejecting and psycho logically

controlling. This parenting type has been related to less optional
child outcomes, including lower Self-efficacy more externalizing
Problems (Maccoby and Martin, 1983) and rebellion.

• Maccoby and Martin (1983) describe Authoritative Parents as

clearly setting rules and using reasoning to enforce them,
encouraging open communication, supporting children's
independence, and expressing love and affection. Authoritative
Parenting style has been seemed the optimal Parenting style (e.g.
Baumrind 1966, Maccoby and Martin, 1983) and has been related
to positive child outcomes such as self reliance, social
responsibility and adjustment.

• Permissive (Indulgent) Parents have been conceptualized as

indulgent and allowing children to make their own rules and
decisions (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). This parenting type has
been related to child outcomes such as lower achievement, lack of
impulse control (Maccoby and Mardin, 1983).

• Maccoby and Martin also described a fourth parenting style that

was low on both responsiveness and demandingness that they
labeled the uninvolved style. Parents in this type behave in any
way necessary to minimize parenting effort and time (Maccoby
and Martin, 1983). Thus, Uninvolved (Neglectful) Parents may
 respond to a child with hostility or may not respond at all,
neglecting the needs of the child altogether (Maccoby and Martin
(1983).

The aim of the present study is to determine the parent child

relationship of the participant by using Nalini Rao’s (1989) Parent Child
Relationship Scale.

Preliminaries:
Name of the participant: T.N.
Age of the participant: 16
Sex of the participant: Female
Education Qualification of the participant: Class-XI
Condition of the participant: Fresh and co-operative for the study
Date of the study: 26/11/2021
Time of the study: 10:00 am – 10:30 am

Materials Required:
i. Consumable booklet of Parent Child Relationship Scale (PCRS-
RN) (English version) developed by Dr. Nalini Rao.
ii. Manual of Parent Child Relationship Scale.
iii. Pen, Pencil etc.

Description of the Scale: The present scale adapted from the revised
Roe-Seigalman parent child relationship questionnaire measures
characteristic behaviour of parents as experienced by their children.
After an extensive survey of the above available literature and research
data in the area, the functional concepts of the 10 parent child
relationship dimensions were operationally defined and adapted for
quantitative measure through assessable situations. First series of formal
and informal interviews with children in the age group of 12 to 18 years
and their parents serve as critical data in delineating the structure and
direction of the item protocol. 230 statements thus evolved were cross
checked for their clarity and dimensional and content accuracy by
assigning them once again to the 10 pre-sets dimensions of the scale
with help of five judges. Scrutiny of items on inter-judge evaluation for
lack of overlap, parameter ambiguity and conceptual inadequacy
resulted in 80 items being deleted from the original format.150 items
with 15 items under each dimension were administered on 544 students
in the age group of 12 to 18 starting in standards 7 through12. Item total

correlation further structured the scale format to 100 items evenly

distributed over the 10 dimensions of the scale. In the table below shows
item wise classification of different domains.
Parent Child Relationship Scale by Nalini Rao (1989):
This scale has been developed by Rao (1989). The tool contains
100 items, categorized into 10 dimensions of children’s experience of
family interaction with the two parents. These 10 dimensions are
protecting, symbolic punishment, rejecting, object punishment,
demanding indifferent, symbolic reward, loving, object reward and
neglecting item of the scale are arranged in the same order as the
dimensions and they rotated in a cycle through the scale. Each
respondent assess the relationship for both Father and Mother separately.
Items are common for both the parents.
This is a self administering scale. There is no time limit.
Respondents are instructed to rate statements as to their own perception
of their relationship with either father or mother on a five point scale
ranging from “Always” to “Very rarely” , weighted 5 , 4 ,3 , 2 , 1 on the
scale points.

Reliability: The items were administered to 194 students twice over a

period of 4 to 5 weeks. The sample consisted of 96 boys and 98 girls in
the age group 13 to 16 studying in the secondary schools. All the
students answered all the items for both father and mother. The test
retest reliability coefficient range from 0.770 to 0.871 for boys sample
and 0.772 to 0.873 for the girls sample over the 10 subscales. All the
coefficients of correlations are statistically significant at the level of
confidence greater than 0.01.
Validity: Face validity of the scale was established at the development
stage when items were reassigned to the dimensions by judges to
determine whether or not the items met predetermined definition of
behaviour. Construct validity of the scales was attempted by correlating
data from a sample of 93 secondary school students on the PCR scales
with the data obtained on bronfenbrenner parent behaviour
questionnaire. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.289 to 0.578 and
were found to be significant at 0.05 levels or above.

Instructions: ‘A number of statements are given below, which describe

different ways that fathers and mothers act towards their children. Read
each statement carefully and think how well it describes the behaviour of
your father and mother towards you. Apply them to YOUR FATHER
and answer all the statements. Then apply them to YOUR MOTHER
and answer them once again. Write your responses in the columns under
“Father” and “Mother” for each statement. If the behavior is found-

If you see it “ALWAYS”, mark 5 in the column.

If you see it “MANY TIMES”, mark 4 in the column.
If you see it “SOMETIMES”, mark 3 in the column.
If you see it “RARELY”, mark 2 in the column.
If it occurs “VERY RARELY”, mark 1 in the column.

Procedure: Rapport was established between the subject and the

administrator. Booklet of Parent child relationship scale developed by
Nalini Rao was given to the subject. Subject was asked to read the
instructions which are printed in the booklet. She was asked to read all
the statements carefully and was asked to scores the items for both father
and mother separately. Items are common for both the parents except for
three items which are different in the father and mother forms due to the
nature of variation in paternal and maternal relationship with children.
Respondents were asked to rate statements as to their own perception of
their relationship with either father or mother on 5 point scale ranging
from ‘always’ to ‘very rarely’ weighted by 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively on
the scale points. The subject was asked to feel free to report to the
administrator for any clarification. After data collection necessary
calculations were done.

Scoring: The scale is to be scored separately for both father and mother
as per marking preferences from 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 given by the subject.
Each subscale yields a score found by summing the scores of the ratings
of each item of the subscale. Thus the subject will obtain ten scores for
‘father from’ and 10 for ‘mother from’ on the ten dimensions of the
scale. On each page of the scale at the bottom there is space for
recording the total of the preferences of the child for mother and father
separately for all 10 areas.

Norms: Since the scale has five positive areas and five negative areas z-
score norms have been separately prepared for both types of areas.
• z-scores norms for five positive areas:
• Norms for interpretations of the z-scores:

• z-scores norms for five negative areas:

• Norms for interpretation of the z score:
• z-score norms for the total score for mother and father have
been given:
• Norms for finding out the relationship levels of the child with
father and mother have been given:
Datasheets:
Result Table:

Mother Father
Dimensions Raw z- Raw z-
Grade Interpretation Grade Interpretation
Score Score Score Score
Below Average
Protecting 25 -0.97 E Average 33 +0.06 D /Moderate
Favorable Favorable
Above Above
Symbolic
25 +0.53 E Average 17 -0.68 C Average
Punishment Negative Positive
Above
Highly
Rejecting 29 +1.13 E Average 30 +1.28 F
Negative
Negative
Above
Object
23 +0.22 D Neutral 15 -0.98 C Average
Punishment Positive
Above
Demanding 23 +0.22 D Neutral 29 +1.13 E Average
Negative
Below Average
Indifferent 25 -0.97 E Average 29 -0.45 D /Moderate
Favorable Favorable
Below
Symbolic
21 -1.49 F Unfavorable 23 -1.23 E Average
Reward Favorable
Below
Loving 18 -1.88 F Unfavorable 23 -1.23 E Average
Favorable
Object Extremely
13 -2.53 G 18 -1.88 F Unfavorable
Reward Unfavorable

Highly Highly
Neglecting 31 +1.43 F
Negative
33 +1.74 F
Negative
Below
Unfavorable
Total 233 -1.57 F
Relationship
250 -0.85 E Average
Relationship
Interpretation: From the above table, it is clear that the total score of
my participant’s mother is 233, z-score is -1.57 & grade is F. On the
other hand, total score of her father is 250, z-score is -0.85 & grade is E.
It can be interpreted that there exists an ‘unfavorable relationship’ with
her mother & a ‘below average relationship’ with her father.
By using Nalini Rao’s Parent Child Relationship Questionnaire,
we got 10 scores for 10 dimensions along with their z-scores, grades &
interpretation from the norm, given in the manual.
➢ Protecting (Pro.) means the defending attitude overtly expressed
in the acts of guarding, sheltering and shielding the child from
situations or experiences perceived to be hostile, oppressing and
harmful. In case of my participant, it is seen from the result table
that, for mother her raw score and z-score are 25 and -0.97
respectively and the grade in this domain is E, which indicates the
‘below average favorable’ pattern of parenting. For father, her
raw score and z-score are 33 and +0.06 respectively and the
grade in this domain is D, which indicates the ‘average/moderate
favorable’ pattern of parenting.
As she stated, it can be said that, mother of my participant is
sometimes anxious when she is away and till she comes home
[Ref. item sr. no.- 61] but rarely comes to her help when she is
teased or hit by other children or very rarely takes her side when
she is opposed by someone [Ref. item sr. no.- 31 & 51];
sometimes wants to know all that happened to her make sure she is
safe [Ref. item sr. no.- 21(b)]. On the other hand, her father is
always ready to help her all the time or carefully protects her from
accident & [Ref. item sr. no.- 1 & 11]; sometimes does not want
her to play outside when she is not well, for fear she might get sick
 [Ref. item sr. no.- 41]; but rarely keeps her away from situations
that might be unpleasant to her or feelds bad to refuse her anything
she asks [Ref. item sr. no.- 71 & 81] or very rarely her father
cannot think of punishing her [Ref. item sr. no.- 21(a)].
Nevertheless, when it comes to talk about her health parents
always worry about it [Ref. item sr. no.- 91].

➢ Symbolic Punishment (SP) means by which parents show their

temporary annoyance with the child. This punishment is achieved
through labeling certain activities as deviant or undesirable. From
the result table it has been found that her mother has scored 25
with z-score of +0.53 and her grade in symbolic punishment is E,
which indicates ‘above average negative’ pattern of parenting. On
the other hand, from the result table it has been found that her
father has scored 17 with z-score of -0.68 and his grade in
symbolic punishment is C, which indicates ‘above average
positive’ pattern of parenting.
In case of my participant it has been found that, her mother
rarely frightens or threatens her when she does wrong [Ref. item
sr. no.- 62] & always compares her with other children and tells
her she is bad, when she misbehaves [Ref. item sr. no.- 82]; very
rarely scolds her when she is bad or punishes her by not looking at
her or talking to her when she does wrong [Ref. item sr. no.- 22 &
32]; along with this her mother very rarely talks about her bad
behavior before her playmates when she misbehaves [Ref. item sr.
no.- 52]. On contrary, her father sometimes strongly warns her
about the harmful results when she does wrong & rarely shows she
is not loved anymore [Ref. item sr. no.- 92 & 42]; but her father
very rarely puts her to share when she misbehave or tells her she
 was ashamed of her when she misbehave [Ref. item sr. no.- 12 &
72]. Yet her parents always complain about her when she does not
listen to her mother and father [Ref. item sr. no.- 2].

➢ Rejecting (Rej.) refers to the behavior that is evident in

renouncing the child in aversion. The disposition here is indicated
in being disdainful & in outright refusal of the child. The result
table from the study depicts the raw score of the mother as 29 &
the z-score is +1.13 possessing the grade E i.e. ‘Rejecting (Rej.)’
indicating the possibility of having ‘above average negative’
pattern of parenting. Similarly, as for the father, the raw score is
seen to be 30 & the z-score is +1.28, thus claiming the Grade F
for the particular domain indicating to have ‘highly negative’
Parenting Pattern.
In the above mentioned domain, participant's responses
indicate certain statements such as her mother lets her many times
she was not wanted [Ref. item sr. no.- 3]; very rarely does not
want her to bring friends home or makes fun of her and taunts her
[Ref. item sr. no.- 33 & 63]; also her mother sometimes does not
want her company even does not her to be with her when she is in
the company of their friends [Ref. item sr. no.- 83 & 93]. On the
other hand, her father does not always spend much time with her
& dislikes her interests and hobbies even knowingly and wantingly
hurts her feelings [Ref. item sr. no.- 23, 43 & 53]. Along with
this, her father many times refuses to involve in her problems and
troubles & rarely finds faults with her even when she is good [Ref.
item sr. no.- 13 & 73].
➢ Object Punishment (OP) or physical punishment means by which
parents show their temporary annoyance with the child or a
physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience
pain but not injury for the purposes of correction or control of the
child’s behavior. In case of my participant, it is seen from the
result table that, for mother, her raw score and z-scores are 23
and +0.22 respectively, and the grade in this domain is D,
indicates the ‘neutral' pattern of parenting. For father, her raw
and z-scores are 15 and -0.98 respectively, and the grade in this
domain is C, which indicates the ‘above average positive’ pattern
of parenting.
From the analysis of her response, it can be said that, her
mother sometimes takes away her play things when she was bad
& rarely hits or beats her as punishment [Ref. item sr. no.- 4 &
44]; on the other hand, very rarely her mother will not let her for
play when she is bad [Ref. item sr. no.- 34]; but many times
punishes her by being more strict with her [Ref. item sr. no.- 84].
On contrary, her father very rarely slaps or hits for her bad
behavior or cuts down her pocket money or gives her extra work as
a punishment [Ref. item sr. no.- 14, 24 & 54]; but always her
father punishes her by not taking her to cinema or other places that
she had been promised [Ref. item sr. no.- 94]; whereas her father
very rarely punishes her by pushing her out of the room or takes
away her books and play things as a punishment [Ref. item sr.
no.- 64 & 74].

➢ Demanding (Dem.) means expression of authority and claim with

imperious command over the child, executed in the exercise of
overall control. From the result table it has been found that she
 scored for mother 23 with z-score +0.22 and graded D in
demanding, that indicates ‘neutral’ pattern of parenting. On the
other hand, she scored for father 29 with z-score +1.13 and
graded E in demanding, that indicates ‘above average negative’
pattern of parenting.
In case of her mother it can be said qualitatively that her
mother sometimes makes it clear that she is the boss in the house
and instruct her to behave properly even in front of others [Ref.
item sr. no.- 15 & 45]; rarely wants to have complete control over
her & very rarely strictly enforces rules to keep the house clean
[Ref. item sr. no.- 75 & 95]. Her father sometimes expects her to
obey him without a second word & many times does not allow her
to question about his ways & pushes her to do well in school [Ref.
item sr. no.- 85 & 65]; also, rarely presses her to do better than
others in everything & very rarely commands how she should
spend her free time [Ref. item sr. no.- 25 & 35]. Moreover, her
parents many times do not tolerate even her small behavior [Ref.
item sr. no.- 5].

➢ Indifferent (Ind.) means the expression of unconcerned apathetic,

passive behavior and functioning without either importance or
interest in child. In case of my participant it is seen from the result
table that her mother scored 25 and her z-scored is -0.97 and her
grade in indifferent domain is E which indicates ‘below average
favorable’ pattern of parenting whereas, her father scored 29 with
z-score of 0.45 and his grade in the same domain is D which
means ‘average or moderately favorable’ parenting pattern.
 From the analysis of this domain, it can be said that her
mother very rarely has set very few rules for her or lets her dress
in any ways she likes [Ref. item sr. no.- 16 & 46(b)]; sometimes
lets her escape easily when she does some small wrongs & does
not object when she is late for meal [Ref. item sr. no.- 26 &
56(b)]; also very rarely allows her to stay away from school
whenever she want [Ref. item sr. no.- 76]. Similarly, her father is
not aware many times what she is doing in school again rarely does
not ask her how she spent the money given to her [Ref. item sr.
no.- 36 & 6]; always does not check on her & many times lets her
do whatever she likes after school [Ref. item sr. no.- 56(a) &
46(a)]. Even her father very rarely does not check on whether she
did her home work & rarely lets her off when she does not obey
rules [Ref. item sr. no.- 96 & 86]; and many times does not
question about her going out or coming in home [Ref. item sr. no.-
66].

➢ Symbolic Reward (SR) means the symbolic expression of

appreciation for emotional, psychological security of the child as
against physical, tangible, concrete action of warmth. Both indicate
parent’s acceptance of the child which is a precursor for the child
to achieve, aspire and advance. In case of my participant, it is seen
from the result table that, for mother, her raw & z-scores are 21,
and -1.49 respectively, and the grade in this domain is F, which
indicates the ‘unfavorable’ pattern of parenting. For father, her
raw & z-scores are 23 and -1.23 respectively, and the grade in this
domain is E, which indicates the ‘below average favorable’
pattern of parenting.
 From the analysis of this domain, it can be said that, her
mother very rarely tells her she is proud of her & treats her as if
she is a grown up, responsible person when she behaves well [Ref.
item sr. no.- 27 & 37]; as well as her mother very rarely gives her
special attention as a reward or says nice things about her when she
is good [Ref. item sr. no.- 67 & 77]. On the other hand, her father
rarely praises her before her playmates & many times shows more
affection when she is good or makes her feel happy and proud
when she did something nice [Ref. item sr. no.- 47, 57 & 87]; but
very rarely compares her favorably with other children when she
does well & always encourages her to keep up her work [Ref. item
sr. no.- 17, 7]; moreover her father sometimes praises her to others
[Ref. item sr. no.- 97].

➢ Loving (Lov.) refers to the expression of fondness, devoted

attachment and amiableness shown to the child. The above table
delineates, that in case of my participant, the raw score of her
mother came out to be as 18 and z-score as -1.88, having grade F
in loving domain. This indicates the possibility of having
‘unfavorable’ pattern of parenting. In case of my participant’s
father, the raw score came out to be as 23 and z-score -1.23,
having grade E in domain loving. This indicates the possibility of
having ‘below average favorable’ pattern of parenting.
So, we can say, the relationship with mother is hostile. This
indication can be supported by certain statements like her mother
very rarely makes her feel wanted and needed & comforts her
when she is scared or upset [Ref. item sr. no.- 18 & 38]; and very
rarely takes her point of view and encourages her to say it [Ref.
item sr. no.- 58]; but her mother enjoys listening to her
 experiences sometimes but very rarely encourages her to bring
friends home and treats them well [Ref. item sr. no.- 98 & 78]. On
the other hand, the relationship between my participant and her
father is substandard. This indication can be supported by certain
statements like her father sometimes talks to her in a warm and
affectionate way & teaches her things she wants to learn [Ref. item
sr. no.- 28 & 88]; whereas her father rarely willingly helps her in
her work whenever she goes to him or allows her to do things she
thought were important even if it were troublesome to him but
enjoys listening to her experiences many times [Ref. item sr. no.-
48 & 68]. Yet her parents are really interested in her affairs many
times [Ref. item sr. no.- 8].

➢ Object Reward (OR) is an appetitive stimulus given to a child to

alter his/her behavior. It is an event that produces pleasant or
positive experiences which act as reinforcement. In case of my
participant, it is seen from the result table that her mother scored
13 and her z-score is -2.53 and grade in object reward domain is
G, which indicates ‘extremely unfavorable’ pattern of parenting.
And her father scored 18, z-score is -1.88 and his grade in the
same domain is F, which means an ‘unfavorable’ parenting
pattern.
It can be comprehended from the statements, where her
mother very rarely hugs her and pats her when she is good & lets
her go out with friends as reward on very rare occasions [Ref. item
sr. no.- 89 & 69]; also very rarely gets her/makes her favorite food
as a reward or allows her to stay with friends for longer time as a
reward [Ref. item sr. no.- 59 & 39]; rarely rewards her by letting
her not to do some of the regular duties in the house [Ref. item sr.
 no.- 49]. Similarly, We can perceive the adversity of their
relationship from the statement where she says that her father
many times rewards her by giving her extra money or increasing
her pocket money but very rarely takes her out to cinema or other
places as a reward or gives her surprise gifts as reward or buys her
sweets, dress or story book as reward [Ref. item sr. no.- 79 ,9, 99
& 29]; but her father always gives her more freedom as a reward
[Ref. item sr. no.- 19].

➢ Neglecting (Neg.) means a careless slighting treatment indicated in

accustomed omission and deliberate disregard towards the child
which might leave the child to devalue himself. In case of my
participant, it seen from the result table that her mother scored 31
and her z-score is 1.43 and her grade in neglecting domain is F
which indicates ‘highly negative’ pattern of parenting. On the
other hand, her father scored 33, z-score is 1.74 and his grade in
the same domain is F which means ‘highly negative’ parenting
pattern.
From the analysis of this domain, it can be said that parents
of my participant’s always leave her alone for herself when she is
in troubles & they are always too busy to answer her questions also
they do not know always what her needs are [Ref. item sr. no.- 80,
20, 90]. Her mother sometimes behaves as if she is not existing
there & very rarely do not care who her friends are [Ref. item sr.
no.- 50 & 70]. In case of her father, many times father keeps
forgetting important things he is supposed to do for her or does not
bother to know what she is doing in school [Ref. item sr. no.- 10
& 30]; sometimes does not care whether she gets and eats right
kind of food [Ref. item sr. no.- 40]; and very rarely her father
 pays attention only to silence her when she worries him & does not
care whether she has some nice clothes/things as other children
[Ref. item sr. no.- 60 & 100].

Conclusion: From the above interpretation it can be concluded that the

parent child relationship of participant with her mother is unfavorable
& is below average with her father by using Nalini Rao’s Parent Child
Relationship Questionnaire.