Parental Psychological Control, Adolescent’s Emotional Autonomy and Its Relationship with Academic Resilience
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objectives: Aim of this research was to examine the impact of parental psychological control on adolescent’s emotional autonomy and its relationship with academic resilience. Method: The sample comprised of 300 adolescents, data were collected from the districts of Attock, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Age range of participants was 16 to 18 years (Mage = 16.50, SD = 1.25). Self-report measures including Psychological Control Scale (Barber, 1996), Academic Resilience Scale (Cassidy, 2016) and Adolescents Emotional Autonomy Scale (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986) were used to collect information from adolescents. Data were analyzed by using SPSS (Version-23). Results: Results of the study revealed that parental psychological control has negative relationship with academic resilience. Results on mediation model indicated that academic resilience significantly partially mediates the association between parental psychological control and emotional autonomy among adolescents. There were no age-related differences among adolescents in parental psychological control, emotional autonomy and academic resilience. Conclusion: Findings on levels of education indicated that academic resilience in relationship to parental psychological control needs studying among young people. Thus, current study has implications for clinical psychologists, practitioners and researchers who are inspired to increase confidence and personal autonomy among adolescents.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Parental Psychological Control, Adolescent’s Emotional Autonomy and Its Relationship with Academic Resilience
- Date Crossref
- 31/01/2024
- Éditeur
- Foundation University Islamabad
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.