Mind and Society ISSN 2277-6907

/111
Vol. 10, No. III & IV, Sep. & Dec., 2021, Page No.111 to 116

Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style

among Undergraduate Students
* Bindu Kumari
Received: 30 November 2021
Accepted: 25 Decmber 2021 **Shilpa Kamboj
Abstract
Balanced relationship between parents and their children is one of the factors influencing both their
physical and mental health. Researchers have shown that relationship between children and parents
and how parents communicate with children are considered to be the most important and fundamental
factors among the various factors that affect children’s fostering and healthy character. So, the present
study has been designed to explore the parent-child relationship and preference of leadership style
employed by undergraduate urban and rural students. Also, the present study examines the relationship
between the type of parent child relationship and preference for leadership style among undergraduate
students. For this purpose, the sample size comprised of 160 undergraduate students, out of which
80were male students (40 urban and 40 rural) and 80 were female students (40 urban and 40 rural).
The tools used were parent-child relationship scale and leadership preference scale (LPS). A significant
difference was found between the preference of leadership style among rural and urban students. On
the other hand, no significant difference was found between the preference of leadership style among
male and female undergraduate students. The results also revealed significant correlation between some
of the dimensions of parent-child relationship and preference of leadership style among undergraduate
students. The results of present study implicate that some psycho-education or other interventions may
serve as avenue to strengthen the child parent relationship and affective leadership education programs
must focus on developing people’s relational skills.
Keywords: Parent Child Relationship, Leadership style, Undergraduates

The term relationship is a unique bond between child expectations that are unique to a particular parent
and parents. The parent child relationship is very much and particular child. Parent child relationship is an
responsible in the development of a child. The parent– important tool to understand the individual development
child relationship develops and is shaped by both over the time. The adult’s development largely defined
parental and child characteristics. Parenting is a how the child behaves with their parents; whether they
process of being thoroughly involved into the emotional hide the things or expose in front of their parents.
and physical upbringing of the child. The first learning Children are taught by parents how to behave in the
of the child is from what the parents are doing around. society and relate with others in the surrounding and
The child is a keen observer and while parents make them aware what is wrong and what is right.
unknowingly do wrong actions or speak aloud the wrong Parents act as the primary socialization agents of
words in front of the child, the child immediately gets their children especially for moral and social
the hang of it and is sure to repeat it during that time or development and academics outcomes (Barry, Frick
at a later stage. Parents teach a lot of things to their and Grafeman, 2008). Adams, Ryan and Keating
child and later on complain for the same. (2000) suggest that parents continue to play an
Parent-child relationship has been considered as important role in their children’s lives as they transition
part of parental involvement process and consists to college. One of the research conducted by Rathus
of a combination of behavior s, feelings and and Rinaldi (2017) reveals that significant parental

*Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Hindu Girls College, Sonipat, Haryana, India
**Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, M. D. University, Rohtak, Haryana, India.
 112/ Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style...
involvement with students from a young age continues There would be no significant difference in leadership
to have an effect years later by improving students’ style among undergraduate students from urban and
social and emotional adjustments to college. rural background male and female
It is well acknowledged that parental attitude plays There would be no relationship among parent-child
a pivotal role in shaping the personality of any individual. relationship and leadership style among undergraduate
The loving and cooperative parenting lead to positive boys and girls students.
growth of a child who gets security and confidence in Method
his future venture. The parent’s leadership style or way
Sample: To complete the related study, 80 (40 Rural
of persuasion has an indelible impact on children in
+ 40 Urban) female students from Hindu Girls College,
both constructive and destructive manner. Leadership
Sonipat and 80 (40 Rural + 40 Urban) male students
style is the manner and approach of providing direction,
were selected from Hindu Boys College, Sonipat.
implementing plans, and motivating people (Clark,
Tools
2010). Leadership is a versatile process that requires
working with others in personal and professional Parent Child Relationship Scale (PCRS) developed
relationships to accomplish a goal or to promote positive by Nalini Rao (2011). The tool contains 100 items
change. categorized into ten dimensions namely, protecting,
symbolic punishment, rejecting, object punishment,
The idea of parents being the first leader or the
demanding, indifferent, symbolic reward, loving, object
major influence of leadership style being adopted by
reward and neglecting and rated on 5 point rating scale.
any person in his life has been studied several times.
The test –retest reliability coefficient ranged from .770
Though, numerous researchers have established a link
to .871 for boys sample and .772 to .873 for the girls
between parenting style and the preference for a
sample over the ten sub-scales. The respondent were
leadership type (Avolio, Rotundo, & Walumbwa, 2009;
asked to rate statements as to their own perception of
Popper & Mayseless, 2003) but very less studies are
their relationship with father or mother on a 5 point
found explaining the parent-child relationship and
scale ranging from ‘always’ to ‘very rarely’ weighted
preference of leadership style among undergraduate
5,4,3,2, and 1 on the scale points.
students. Therefore, the present study was undertaken
to assess and compare theparent-child relationship and Leadership Preferences Style (LPS) developed
leadership style of undergraduate urban and rural by L.I. Bhushan in 1995.The scale consists of thirty
students; boys and girls undergraduate students. Also, items, out of which 15 are positively worded and 15
the present study examines the relationship between negatively worded. The range of possible scores on
the parent-child relationship and preference for this scale is from 30 to 150. Higher score on the scale
leadership style among undergraduate students. indicates greater preference for democratic type of
leadership. As regards reliability, the co-efficient of
Objectives
internal consistency as adjusted by Spearman-Brown
To assess and compare the leadership style among
formula was found to be 0.75 where as the co-efficient
undergraduate students fr om urban and r ural
of temporal stability (after four weeks’ interval) was
background male and female students
0.82.
 To study the relationship between parent-child
Results and Discussion
relationship and leadership style among undergraduate
The present investigation was conducted to assess
male and female students
the leadership style among undergraduate students from
Hypotheses
urban and rural background. For this purpose mean
Considering the objectives of the study the following scores of both the groups were calculated and t-test
hypothesis are framed: was applied for testing the significance of difference.
 Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style... /113

Table 1: Mean, SD and t-value of undergraduate students from urban and rural background
on leadership style

**significant at 0.01 level

indicates that rural students have significantly higher
It is observed from the above table that the mean
level of leadership style than the urban students. Thus
score of Group I was 100.98 whereas the mean score
the first hypothesis stating that there would be no
of Group II was 96.50. Higher mean score on leadership
significant difference in leadership style among students
style of rural undergraduate students shows that
from urban and rural background has been rejected
students with rural background have more leadership
here.The above results are contrary to the study
tendencies than that of students with urban background.
conducted by Najar and Dar (2017) as they reported
In order to find out the difference between the two
that no significant difference exists between urban and
groups t-value was calculated which was found to be
rural students in their leadership preferences.
2.96 which is highly significant at 0.01 level. This

Table 2: Means, SD and t-value of undergraduate boys and girls students on leadership style

The findings shown in table 2 indicate that the mean roles. On self-perception of leadership skills, Yarrish,
score of boys undergraduate students was 99.94 Zula & Davis (2010) concluded that there are
whereas the mean score of girls undergraduate significant differences in perceived leadership skills
students was 97.54 which indicates too less difference between males and females. According to their study,
between the mean scores of boys and girls on leadership females perceived cognitive and interpersonal/
style depicting that both girls and boys have almost intrapersonal skills as more important than did the male
same leadership tendencies. participants.
In order to find out the difference between the two Further the present investigation was designed to
groups t-value was calculated which was found to be examine the association between democratic style and
0.12 which is non-significant. This indicates that both ten dimensions of parent child relationship among
boys and girls undergraduate students have same level undergraduate students. For this purpose, the
of leadership style. Thus the second hypothesis stating coefficient of correlation between democratic style and
that there would be no significant differences in ten dimensions of parent child relationship of
leadership style among undergraduate boys and girls undergraduate boys and girls was computed by applying
students has been verified here. Pearson’s Product moment method. The results are
The results are contrary with following previous as follows:
studies: Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) concluded The mean and S.D of one of the dimension of
that men tend to fare better when leadership is defined leadership preference style i.e. democratic style and
in masculine terms, such as military settings, while ten dimensions of parent-child relationship (Father and
women performed better when leadership is defined Mother form, where (F) indicates father and (M)
in less masculine terms, such as educational settings
 114/ Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style...
indicates mother) are as follows: for democratic style (SD=6.442), Indifferent Father (INDF)mean score
leadership the mean score was 106.57 (SD=6.768), was 27.01 (SD=6.258), Indifferent Mother
for Protecting Father (PROF) mean score was 37.92 (INDM)mean score was 27.48 (SD=6.792), Symbolic
(SD=6.658), for Protecting Mother (PROM) mean Reward Father (SRF)mean score was 35.84
score was 36.77 (SD=7.161), Symbolic Punishment (SD=7.625), Symbolic Reward Mother (SRM)mean
Father (SPF) mean score was 30.11 (SD=6.660), score was 34.71 (SD=8.378), Loving Father (LOVF)
Symbolic Punishment Mother (SPM) mean score was mean score was 34.85 (SD=8.359), Loving Mother
30.77 (SD=6.156), Rejecting Father (REJF) mean (LOVM)mean score was 34.70 (SD=7.732), Object
score was 25.52 (SD=7.331), Rejecting Mother Reward Father (ORF)mean score was 29.35
(REJM)mean score was 25.72 (SD=7.399), Object (SD=7.241), Object Reward Mother (ORM)mean
Punishment Father (OPF)mean score was 25.76 score was 28.67 (SD=7.362), Neglecting Father
(SD=7.676), Object Punishment Mother (OPM) mean (NEGF)mean score was 23.19 (SD=6.788), and
score was 26.03 (SD=7.810), Demanding Father Neglecting Mother (NEGM)mean score was 24.52
(DEMF) mean score was 27.35 (SD=6.439), (SD=7.064).
Demanding Mother (DEMM)mean score was 29.43
The result table shows inter correlation among
Table 3: Correlation matrix between
Leadership Preference for democratic style and
democratic style leadership and autocratic style
dimensions of parent child relationship. It is evident
leadership with dimensions of parent child
from table 3 that the rejecting father, rejecting mother
relationship(N=160)
have significant positive relationship with democratic
Variables Democratic Autocratic style leadership (r=.266* and r=.284* respectively) at
style style 0.05 level. Further, object punishment father and object
punishment mother have significant positive relationship
Protecting Father -.135 -.743 ** with democratic style leadership (r=.244* and r=.298**
Protecting Mother -.128 .170 respectively) at 0.05 level and 0.01 level respectively.
Likewise demanding father and demanding mother
Symbolic Punishment Father .001 -.767 **
have significant positive relationship with democratic
Symbolic Punishment Mother .187 -.050 style leadership (r=.292** and r=.416** respectively)
Rejecting Father .266 * -.056 at 0.01 and 0.05 level respectively. The positive
correlation suggests that students having the parent
*
Rejecting Mother .284 -.134 child relationship tendencies like rejecting father,
Object Punishment Father .244 * -.079 rejecting mother, object punishment father, object
punishment mother and demanding father and
Object Punishment Mother .298 ** -.101 demanding mother tend to have democratic style
Demanding Father .292 ** -.016 leadership.
Descriptive Statistics of Correlations between LPS
Demanding Mother .416 ** .142
(Autocratic style) and Parent Child relationship are as
Indifferent Father .050 .279 * follows: The mean and standard deviation of Autocratic
Indifferent Mother .173 .218 style leadership was 91.10 (SD=5.071) and for the first
dimension among 10 dimensions of Parent Child
Symbolic Reward Father -.155 .215 relationship (PCR) i.e. Protecting Father (PF) mean
Symbolic Reward Mother -.156 .186 score was 28.88 (SD=11.310), Protecting Mother
(PM)mean score was 36.02 (SD=6.483), Symbolic
Loving Father -.134 .084 Punishment Father (SPF)mean score was 28.62
Loving Mother -.105 .090 (SD=10.357), Symbolic Punishment Mother
(SPM)mean score was 28.78 (SD=7.237), Rejecting
Object Reward Father -.015 .050
Father (RJ)mean score was 22.68 (SD=6.941),
Object Reward Mother -.079 .222 * Rejecting Mother (RM)mean score was 24.26
Neglecting Father .076 .124 (SD=7.192), Object Punishment Father (OPF)mean
score was 21.37 (SD=8.047), Object Punishment
Neglecting Mother .144 .687 **
 Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style... /115

Mother (OPM) mean score was 22.04 (SD=8.052), socioeconomic status. Avolio, Rotundo, & Walumbwa
Demanding Father (DF)mean score was 26.74 (2009) found support for the influence of parenting
(SD=7.026), Demanding Mother (DEM)mean score practices on a child’s future leadership style. Parents
was 26.63 (SD=7.040), Indifferent Father (IND) mean are perceived as role models and leaders, and have
score was 39.67 (SD=2.864), Indifferent Mother tremendous influence over their children (Grunwald &
(IND)mean score was 28.14 (SD=5.718), Symbolic McAbee, 2013). Hartman and Harris (1992)
Reward Father (SRF)mean score was 34.12 investigated whether children adopt the leadership style
(SD=6.329), Symbolic Reward Mother (SRM)mean of an admired parent, but reject and adopt a contrary
scor e was 33.48 (SD=6.469), Loving Father style when the parent is not admired. On the other
(LOVF)mean score was 36.05 (SD=6.890), Loving hand, Lyon (2006) observed that individuals who
Mother (LOVM)mean score was 34.57 (SD=6.643), reported their mothers to be authoritative also reported
Object Reward Father (ORF)mean score was 28.36 having a democratic leadership style, while individuals
(SD=6.766), Object Reward Mother (ORM)mean who reported their mothers to be authoritarian or
score was 27.85 (SD=7.543, Neglecting Father permissive seemed to rebel against their mothers’ style.
(NEGF)mean score was 24.95 (SD=6.415), and There is also evidence that authoritative parenting leads
Neglecting Mother (NEGM)mean score was 11.48 to higher school achievement (Spera, 2005), better
(SD=2.873). school integration and mental well-being (Shucksmith,
The result table 3 also shows inter correlation among Hendry & Glendinning, 1995), better adaptive
Leadership Preference for autocratic style and achievement strategies in adulthood, along with lower
dimensions of parent child relationship. The Protecting levels of failure expectations and higher self enhancing
Father and Protecting Mother have significant negative attributions (Aunola, Stattin & Nurmi, 2000). Lyon
relationship with autocratic style (r=-743** and r=- (2006) proposed that there is a relationship between
767** respectively) at 0.01 level. Indifferent Father leadership styles that adults exhibit later in life and
has significant positive relationship (r=.279*) with perceived parental leadership styles reported.
autocratic style at 0.05 level. Likewise object reward The result of the current study implicates that
mother has significant positive relationship (r=.222*) affective leadership education programs must focus
autocratic style 0.05 level. Neglecting Mother has on developing relational skills. Following the idea and
significant positive correlation (r=.687**) with notion that leadership skills can be taught and learned
autocratic style at 0.01 level. in an academic environment has led to the proliferation
Though the relevant empirical evidence in this area of varied leadership education programs in colleges.
is limited, some of the studies supported the above Educational outcomes in leadership for college
results are as follows: When the students are able to graduates have the potential to positively impact this
overcome challenges and learn to cope with problems nation’s organizations. Furthermore, some psycho-
and difficulties, they are able to augment leadership education or other interventions may serve as avenue
skills (Haynes-Tross, 2015). Spera (2005) indicates that to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Counseling
authoritative parenting styles are often associated with services should be provided to both parents and students
higher levels of student achievement, although these so that transition is smooth from adolescents to
findings are not consistent across culture, ethnicity, and adulthood.

References
Adams, G. R., Ryan, B. A., & Keating, L. (2000). Family relationships, academic environments, and psychosocial development
during the university experience: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 99-122.
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of
adolescence, 23(2), 205-222.
Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Early life experiences as determinants of leadership role occupancy:
the importance of parental influence and rule breaking behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 329-342.
Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Grafeman, S. J. (2008). Child versus parent reports of patenting practices: Implications for the
conceptualization of child behavioral and emotional problems. Assessment, 40(1), 105-121.
Clark, D. R. (2010). Leadership styles. Retrieved from http;//www.nwlink.com/ donclark/leader/leadstl.html.
 116/ Parent-child Relationship and Leadership Style...

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995).Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.
Grunwald, B. B., & McAbee, H. (2013). Guiding the family: Practical counseling techniques. Routledge.
Hartman, S.J., & Harris, O.J., (1992). The role of parental influence in leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(2),
153-167.
Haynes-Tross, E. (2015). The Importance of Developing Leadership Skills in Grades 6-8, Journal of Social Psychology,132(2),
153-167.
Lyon, M. L. (2006). The relation of managers’ perceptions of their leadership styles to parenting styles in their families
of origin (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany).
Najar, I. A., & Dar, W. A. A study on leadership preferences among post graduate students of Kashmir University.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research, 2(6), 10-12.
Nalini Rao (2011), Manual for Parent Child Relationship Scale (PCRS- RN), National Psychological Corporation, Agra.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 41-65.
Rathus, S. A., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2009). Childhood & adolescence: Voyages in development (1st Canadian Edition). Toronto,
ON: Nelson.
Shucksmith, J., Hendry, L. B., & Glendinning, A. (1995). Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-being within
different types of family contexts. Journal of adolescence, 18(3), 253-270.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school
achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125-146.
Yarrish, K. K., Zula, K., & Davis, E. (2010). An exploration of differences of leadership perceptions related to a student’s
gender within the College of Business at a small liberal arts institution. American Journal of Business Education
(AJBE), 3(11), 69-76.