Paste youCHAPTER I
I. INTRODUCTION
From the time of birth, parents are the greatest teachers who prepare their children for life. The parents’ guide their children and this guidance has immediate and permanent effects on children’s developmental stages. The most important factor in the psychosocial development of the child is ‘the attitudes of the parents’. Particularly in childhood and during adolescence, the family environment and parents’ attitudes based on this environment play a crucial role for the child’s personality development as well as the child’s moral development and academic motivation (Englund et al. 2004, Carlo et al. 2011). Numerous researches have been carried out which shows that family life and family environmental are important in the development of children (Andrade et al. 2005, Eccles et al. 1993).
Apart from parents’ attitudes, academic motivation is vital and critical for children’s academic success at any age. Children’s expectancies for success, children’s competence beliefs about ability, achievement goals and subjective task values have crucial effects on their early academic motivation in which different types of academic motivation have different effects for academic achievement (Singh 2011, Wigfield and Eccles 2000, Wigfield 1994). For instance, having higher academic achievement has been associated with higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, and motivation (Bandura 1997, Lane, Lane, and Kyprianou 2004) whereas lower academic achievement has been associated with low levels of particular achievement goals (Boon 2007).
For researchers, demonstrating the relation between parenting style and academic motivation can help parents and educators to make predictions about the students’ success at school. For instance, for teachers, using motivational strategies to involve students in academic activities may improve the students’ performance. For parents, being equipped with appropriate knowledge and skills to the needs and development of their children can improve their children’s motivation.
In different cultures, there could be some diversity in children’s school achievement and school performance due to the fact that parenting style differences between countries (Chao 2001, Steinberg et al. 1994). Even within a country like Turkey, parenting style differs in urban-rural areas or generations (Sunar 2002, Imamoğlu 1987) which may differentially impact children’s academic motivation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the influence of parenting styles on children’s academic motivation. The present study depends on the concepts of control, warmth and rejection, which have often been found to be reliable measures of parenting across different cultural contexts so that we can compare Turkish students living Turkey and Norway (Deković et al. 2006, Dirik, Yorulmaz, and Karancı 2015, Cüre and Danışman 2015, Arrindell et al. 1999)
Although in the literature, there are many studies concerning the influence of different parenting styles across culture and ethnicity (Chao 1994, Leung, Lau, and Lam 1998, Dornbusch et al. 1987, Lamborn et al. 1991, Steinberg et al. 1994, Peng and Wright 1993, Brown and Iyengar 2008, Park et al. 2010), there is no comparative study about Turkish students’ academic motivation and parenting style in Norway and Turkey. Therefore, the goal of the present study is to explore the relationship between parenting styles and 10-12 years old Turkish children’s academic motivation across Norway and Turkey. Moreover, the influence of parenting styles across ethnicity on preadolescent is not yet clear. Thus, the present study can contribute to understand cultural dynamics and their effects on child academic motivation. At the same time, this study can highlight on the immigrant families attitudes -whether they integrate the new cultural values with their own cultural values and to which extent a combination of these values are effective while raising their children in the area of academic motivation. It can also help for Norwegian developmental psychology researchers and pedagogues to understand cultural differences in the association between parenting styles and children’s achievement motivation.
There might be diversity in Turkish parenting styles between Norway and Turkey. For instance, in Turkey, Kağıtçıbaşı, Sunar and Berkman (1988) have revealed that physical punishment is the most commonly used forms of discipline in low socioeconomic status groups (Kağıtçıbaşı, Sunar and Berkman cited in Roopnarine 1992). However, in Norway, physical punishment may result in child welfare agencies taking child away from the family. (Oppedal and Borge 2015)This present research study may shed light on how variations in parenting styles and practices may be associated with cultural values and belief systems, rather than with lack of competence in rearing children.
The Definition of Parenting Style
In the literature, researchers have often used the labels ‘parenting styles’ and ‘parenting practices’ interchangeably (Maccoby and Martin 1983). On the other hand, Darling and Steinberg (1993) defined ‘parenting practices’ more specifically since they claimed that parenting styles entailed other attributes such as such as warmth, coerciveness, restrictiveness, and autonomy granting (Darling and Steinberg 1993, Maccoby and Martin 1983) although developmental researchers have been mostly interested in ‘parenting styles’.
The parenting styles concept that is defined as parent’s general attitude towards the child has been introduced to Diana Baumrind (Baumrind 1971a, 1978, 1989). She has described three parenting typologies: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive.
Darling and Steinberg (1993) have claimed that child socialization processes cannot be separated from the study of parental goals, style, and practices, which are connected each other. Darling and Steinberg defined parenting style ‘a constellation of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and that, taken together, create an emotional climate in which the parent’s behaviors are expressed’ (1993, 488). On the other hand, they defined parenting practices as ‘the mechanisms through which parents directly help their child attain their socialization goals (1993, 493) which consist of several important parenting constructs, such as parental belief and parental expectations-Jeynes 2010 (Jeynes cited in Areepattamannil 2010). The study of specific socialization practices can facilitate researchers to understand specific child outcomes as a direct consequence of certain socialization goals like academic achievement. It can be said that parenting practices are best viewed as specific actions that often have different meanings based on the emotional climate (Darling and Steinberg 1993).
Another description of parenting styles is that they are “sets of behaviors that are communicated to the child and cause an emotional climate where parental behavior is expressed. Include both behaviors in which parents explicitly represent their parenting practice as nonverbal behaviors and spontaneous emotional expressions (Steinberg,2001)”. (Leal-Soto et al. 2013, 331)
The Definition of Academic Motivation
In the literature, there are many studies concerning academic motivation, achievement motivation, school achievement, school motivation, educational achievement (Weiss and Schwarz 1996, Singh 2011, Köseoglu 2015, Gutman and Midgley 2000).
It is claimed that one of the most important factors that leads people to reach their goals is the drive which is known as motivation (Singh 2011). Motivation can affect people behaviors, attitudes and cognitive structures.
In psychology literature, motivation is generally defined as ‘internal condition that stimulates, direct and maintains behavior’(Awan, Noureen, and Naz 2011, 72). Atkinson (1964) has claimed that the central element in motivation is intentionality, which concerns the determination to act toward a goal or engage in a particular behavior (Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci 1991, 508). It is stated that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of social-cognitive theories of motivation came out. Self-efficacy studies, attribution theory, expectancy-value theory , and achievement goal theory are four major examples of such theories (Urdan and Maehr 1995).
Gottfried defines academic intrinsic motivation as “enjoyment of school learning characterized by a mastery orientation; curiosity; persistence; task-endogeny; and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks.”(Gottfried 1990, 525) In contrast, Turner regards motivation as cognitive engagement and interprets ‘motivation in the classroom’ as ‘an interact on between individual goals and behaviors and the opportunities that literacy instruction, especially task, afford students’ (Turner 1995, 413).
The Definition of Culture
Culture shapes people’s values, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes. Besides, culture is shaped in ongoing interactions between persons and their social environment (Cavalli-Sforzza and Feldman cited in Phalet and Schönpflug 2001). Particularly, beliefs and values are identified as the hard core of culture. Triandis (2001) has shown that specific attitudes and values are usually different between individualistic and collectivistic societies. That is, collectivistic cultures are likely to define themselves as aspects of groups and define most relationships with in-group members whereas individualistic cultures tend to give priority to independence and the pursuit of individual achievement (Triandis 2001).
Although the concept of “culture” may be highly diverse in other cultures (Matsumoto and Juang cited in Watabe 2011), each culture comprises cognitive, affective and behavioral processes and has codes, languages, verbal/nonverbal expressions, skills and motivational/attitudinal issues (Kim cited in Oppedal, Røysamb, and Sam 2004). According to Kim, culture is “an emergent property of individuals and group interacting with their natural and human environment” and “the collective utilization for natural and human resources to achieve desired result”(Kim 2001, 58). Kim (2001) stated that there is differences in cultures. That is, people have different goals, different meanings and different valuation. That’s way differences in academic motivation and parenting styles can reflect different values at the cultural level (Kim and Park 2006).
Hypotheses
Some cross-cultural research and conceptualization have showed that there are differences between countries in the relative preference for the various parenting styles associated with basic cultural values (Tamis‐LeMonda et al. 2008, Yaman, Mesman, van IJzendoorn, et al. 2010).
It is know that Turkish parents are traditionally more likely to have an authoritarian style, with the father making most decisions.(Fisek and Sunar cited in Daglar, Melhuish, and Barnes 2011). In contrast, Norway is among the countries that ranked high on the index of individualism (Hofstede cited in Oppedal, Røysamb, and Heyerdahl 2005). In the present study, it is assumed that Turkish immigrants in Norway has acculturation process that might lead to some changes in their parenting style. Thus, the questions related to the study’s hypothesis are:
1. Are there any differences between Turkish families living in Norway and Turkey respectively in terms of parenting styles?
The first study question based on the following assumption:
• Turkish families living in Norway are more authoritative whereas Turkish families living in Turkey are more authoritarian.
2. Is there any variation in the level of academic motivation between Turkish children living in Norway and Turkey?
The second study question based on the following assumption:
Since the immigrant Turkish parents are typically very ambitious in regards to their children’s education (Alves et al. 2014), it is expected more academic motivation in the immigrant Turkish groups in Norway.
3. Is there variation in the correlation of parenting styles and academic motivation?
In this question, it is hypothesized that there is a positive association between academic motivation and authoritative parenting styles, while the association with authoritarian style is negative.
According to Tjeldvoll the cultural values in the Norwegian schools differ from those endorsed by Turkish families whose children attend these schools (1998). The present study aims to provide a framework for future research to understand the influence of parenting styles on children’s academic motivation across Norway and Turkey as well as to give some advices to Norwegian school authorized people considering cultural values.
CHAPTER II
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Introduction
In this part, parenting, academic motivation and culture concepts and their interrelationships will be examined in the light of literature review.
2. Parenting Typology, Pattern and Dimensions
2.1. Psychodynamic Model
In this model, socialization researchers have investigated the emotional relationship between the parent and child and its influence on the child’s psychosexual, psychosocial, and personality development. These researchers concentrated their efforts on parental attitudes as the attributes of importance (Darling and Steinberg 1993). It has been claimed that attitudes help determine both parental practices which shape the parent-child relationship, in turn, the child development (Darling and Steinberg 1993).
In psychodynamic model, it is claimed that the main determinants of development is biological and the conflict between parents’ wishes and social expectations is inevitable. It is assumed that the interaction between libidinal needs of the child and the family environment determines the individual differences in the development of the children (Yılmaz cited in Yılmazer 2007).
2.2. Behavioral Model
In this model, socialization researchers categorized parenting style according to parental behaviors, but they focused their efforts on parental practices rather than attitudes (Darling and Steinberg 1993).
In this model, it has been claimed that parental practices shape the development of children. Individual differences in the development of the children is a reflection of the differences in the learning environment in which the child is exposed to. Parental behavior, specifically practices have main effect on child’s learning environment (Yılmaz cited in Yılmazer 2007).
2.3. Baumrind’s Parenting Typology
The parenting styles concept has been introduced to Diana Baumrind and theories of socialization revealed that parenting styles are crucial in children’s academic and other outcomes (Baumrind 1967, 1971a, 1966, 1972, 1971b, 1991a, 1978, 2005, 1989, Baumrind and Black 1967).
After studied with pre-school children and their families (Baumrind and Black 1967), it was revealed that family interaction was associated with low levels of independence and social responsibility. Baumrind continued to study with 8-9 years old children (Baumrind 1971a, 1973). It was revealed that the authoritarian pattern with high in demandingness and low in parental responsiveness had different result for gender. According to parents’ child rearing patterns and based on her interviews with parents and children, she has described three parenting typologies for adolescents and their parents: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. (Baumrind 1967, 1978, Baumrind cited in Areepattamannil 2010, 2005, 1991b, Maccoby and Martin 1983).
Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and unresponsive, and more likely to expect obedience and respect for authority. They have high maturity demands for their children primarily because they are intolerant of selfishness or inappropriate behavior. This pattern consists of: Parents attempted to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of their children in accordance with an absolute set of standards; parents emphasize work, tradition, and the preservation of order; verbal give-and-take between parent and child is discouraged. These parents are strict and assert power when their children misbehave. When socializing their children, authoritarian parents express their maturity demands and expectations through rules and orders, and do not communicate to their children the rationale behind these rules. (Baumrind 1971a, 1973, 1978). These parents score high on measures of maturity demands and control but low on measures of responsiveness, warmth, and bidirectional communication (Maccoby and Martin, 1983).
Authoritative parents communicate with their children (bidirectional communication), monitor their children’s behaviors, and express warmth and support their children’s needs and challenges. This pattern consists of: An expectation of mature behavior (e.g. expectations for achievement) from the child and clear setting of standards by the parents; firm enforcement of rules and standards, using commands and sanctions when necessary; providing their children with affection and support in their explorations and pursuit of interests. Besides, encouragement of the child’s independence and individuality; open communication between parents and children, with encouragement of verbal give-and-take; and recognition of the rights of both parents and children. These characteristics show a sense of balance between high levels of demandingness and high levels of responsiveness (Baumrind 1971a, 1973, 1978). Authoritative parents score high on measures of warmth and responsiveness and high on measures of control and maturity demands (Maccoby and Martin, 1983).
Permissive parents have low levels of demandingness and high levels of responsiveness, and moderately imbalance in leniency. These parents, however, are excessively lax in their expectations for their children’s level of maturity and their tolerance of misbehavior. When socializing their children, permissive parents are usually dismissive and unconcerned. This pattern is described as parents are tolerant and accepting toward the child’s impulses, use as little punishment as possible, make few demands for mature behavior, and allow considerable self- regulation by the child (Baumrind 1971a, 1973, 1978). These parents score moderately high on measures of responsiveness and low on measures of maturity demands and control (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). In review of and reflection on the literature, Maccoby and Martin (1983) added a fourth dimension to the Baumrind typology: indulgent. They described indulgent parents as similar to permissive parents in their level of control and maturity demands but different from permissive parents in their level of responsiveness and warmth. Indulgent parents score low on measures of responsiveness, warmth, and control.
After conducting one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies concerning the relationship between parenting style and development of child (Baumrind 1967, 1971a, 1991a, 1989, 1991b), she reported nine parenting styles (Baumrind 1991a, b, 1989). They are:
1. Authoritative: There is good adjustment in children whose parents use firm, consistent discipline and are warm and supportive combination. It is classified as parents in an engaged pattern.
2. Demanding: It is classified as parents in an engaged pattern.
3. Traditional: It is classified as parents in an engaged pattern.
4. Authoritarian: It is as classified as restrictive pattern.
5. Undifferentiated: It is classified as a lenient pattern
6. Democratic: It is classified as a lenient pattern.
7. Permissive: It is classified as a lenient pattern.
8. Nondirective: Children are less competent, achievement oriented, and self- regulated whose parents are supportive, unconventional, and lax. It is classified as unengaged pattern.
9. Rejecting-neglecting-Unengaged: The children who have the lowest achievement scores and are the least adjusted whose parents are rejecting and neglecting. It is classified as unengaged pattern.
2.4. Maccoby and Martin’s Parenting Model (1983)
Baumrind (1966) did not summarize parenting dimensions in her earlier studies. In 1983, Maccoby and Martin suggested a conceptual structure that Baumrind’s parenting styles could be viewed as combinations of differing levels of parental demandingness and warmth that are determined by two dimensions: “demandingness and responsiveness.” Parental responsiveness refers to the degree parents respond to the child’s needs whereas parental demandingness (parental control) is the degree of demands, control, or expectations parents have toward children (Maccoby and Martin 1983).
The responsiveness dimension (also referred to as parental warmth or supportiveness or acceptance) is defined as “the extent to which parents foster individuality and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s requests; it includes warmth, autonomy support, and reasoned communication” (Baumrind 2005, 61, 1971a, 1991b, Maccoby and Martin 1983) whereas the demandingness (also referred to as behavioral control) was defined as “the claims parents make on children to become integrated into society by behavior regulation, direct confrontation, and maturity demands (behavioral control) and supervision of children’s activities (monitoring)”(Baumrind 2005, 62, 1971a, 1991b, Eccles et al. 1993, Maccoby and Martin 1983).
According to Baumrind (1989) and Maccoby and Martin (1983), there are four patterns of parenting styles and two dimensions (Maccoby and Martin 1983, Baumrind 1989). By the means of categorizing parents according to whether they are high or low on parental demandingness and responsiveness, four different parenting styles were formed: authoritative, authoritarian, uninvolved and indulgent which was added as a fourth dimension to the Baumrind typology.
1. Authoritative parenting style consists of authoritative, demanding, and traditional types. Authoritative parenting style is described as high demandingness and high responsiveness whereas demanding parents is described as medium responsive and high demanding. Traditional parents show a different structural role between mothers and fathers. This parenting style is associated with assertive and self-reliant child behavior. (Baumrind 1989, Maccoby and Martin 1983)
2. Authoritarian parenting style is described as high demandingness and low responsiveness (Maccoby and Martin 1983). Authoritarian parenting style is in the restrictive pattern in which parents are more likely to control and evaluate the behavior and attitude of their children. Higher secular authority, obedience, punitive and forceful are some of the important concepts in this style and it is as associated with discontented, withdrawn child behavior (Baumrind, 1989).
3. Uninvolved (unengaged) parenting style is described as low demanding and low or medium responsiveness. It consists of rejecting, neglecting and nondirective parents. Whereas nondirective parents are low demanding, rejecting and neglecting parents are low relative to both demandingness and responsiveness and are unlikely to take part in their children’s activities (Baumrind 1989, Maccoby and Martin 1983).
4. Indulgent parenting style is described as low or medium demandingness and high responsiveness. The lenient pattern consists of democratic, permissive, and undifferentiated parents. Democratic parents are high responsive and medium demanding whereas permissive parents are low or medium demanding and high responsive. Undifferentiated parents did not fit any of the criteria for any classification in Baumrind’s study but because of mean scores’ undifferentiating, these parents added in this style. This parenting style is associated with child behavior characterized by low self-control and low self-reliance. (Maccoby and Martin 1983, Baumrind 1989).
Among these four types of parenting style, it has been found that children raised in authoritative parenting environment in Western context (Baumrind 1991a, b) score higher than their peers from authoritarian, indulgent, or uninvolved parenting environment in terms of academic, competence, achievement, social development, self-perceptions, and mental health. That is, parental warmth, inductive discipline, non-punitive punishment practices, and consistency in child rearing are each associated with positive developmental outcomes in children. (Maccoby and Martin 1983, Baumrind 1967, 1973, Gray and Steinberg 1999)However, it has been claimed that in some collectivist countries such as China, the authoritarian parenting style is not always detrimental to child development, especially regarding academic achievement (Chao 2001, Spera 2005, Rudy and Grusec 2006).
2.5. The Current Study’s Model
Here, in the current study, the relationship between academic motivation and parenting style in respect to emotional warmth, overprotection and rejection will be investigated.
2.5.1. Overprotection
Parental overprotection is an excessive level of maternal or paternal protection with regard to the developmental level and abilities of the child (Thomasgard et al. 1995). Overprotection is defined as a specific but also distinct dimension of control (Pereira cited in Beato et al. 2016)
Overprotection involves too much perceived parental control and intrusion like being too much concerned for the child’s safety or depicting intrusive and overinvolved behaviors. Parents with overprotective styles tend to direct their children’s activities, discourage their independence and over-manage situations, to involve in intrusive behaviors toward their child and feel excessive fear for their child’s safety (Arrindell et al. 1999, Beato et al. 2016, Holmbeck et al. 2002, McLeod, Wood, and Weisz 2007) (Arrindell et al. 1999, McLeod, Wood, and Weisz 2007, Beato et al. 2016). Overprotective parenting style has negative effects of children’s development such as this style hinder children’s opportunity to develop effective coping skills and a sense of mastery over the difficult situations (Chorpita and Barlow 1998).
Over-protection could be separated into two subcategories that are over-caring and supporting autonomy versus overprotective but indifferent and rejected (Parker, Tupling, and Brown 1979). Due to this separation, variation between overprotective mothers can be high and this variation can affect child outcomes differently.
The parenting literature differentiates parental control into two subcategories: parental behavioral control and parental psychological control (Ballash et al. 2006, Barber 1996, Smetana and Daddis 2002).
Parental behavioral control refers to the perceived discipline, pressure, intrusiveness, restriction from the caregiver, and dominance of the parents in relation to the adolescent’ feelings, thoughts and behaviors (Conger 2009, Wang, Pomerantz, and Chen 2007, Wijsbroek et al. 2011). On the other hand, parent uses parental psychological control to control child’s behavior when he/she disapproves child’s behavior by expressing disappointment (Barber 1996, Aunola and Nurmi 2004). That is, psychological control is defined as the intrusive and manipulative behaviors of parents that hamper the development of independence and autonomy of their adolescents (Barber 1996, Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1994, Bögels and Brechman-Toussaint 2006).
In western cultures, psychological control and overprotection were found as significant predictor of adjustment problems (Barber 1996) whereas in collectivist cultures where structuring the environment and providing guidance for the offspring are considered as an important task of parents, parental control function as the preservation for the connectedness and order setting in the family (Kagitcibasi 2005, 2013). That is, control might be conceptualized and perceived differently in different cultural contexts relying on cultural beliefs (Kagitcibasi 2013).
Theory of Family Change can explain this cultural variation, which was introduced by Kağıtçıbaşı (1996, Kagitcibasi 2005, 2013) to explain possible factors between the different aspects of parental control and overprotection in individualistic Western and collectivist culture middle class context. Kağıtçıbaşı (2013) mentioned that even though there is a negative relationship between material interdependence and economic increase/urbanization, close familial ties are appreciated in collectivist cultures like Turkey in which psychological / emotional interdependence continue. That is, in Turkish middle class, parental control and overprotection are used to sustain emotional relatedness while preserving also autonomy. Therefore, in this context, children do not evaluate parental psychological control and overprotection in a negative way just like in Western Culture as disturbing, intrusive and rejecting (Kagitcibasi 2013). In accordance with Kağıtçıbaşı’s studies, in a study conducted by Sümer and Kağıtçıbaşı (2010), it has been revealed that overprotection and parental psychological control are evaluated as culturally adaptive factors. However, it has been suggested that overprotection and comparison as a form of parental control are not negative predictors of secure attachment of Turkish children. With regard to self-reports reported by mothers, mothers do not refrain to report their over-protective thoughts and behaviors because over-protection is not seen as a negative behavior in Turkish culture due to the fact that over-protective behaviors toward children by mothers are perceived as positive style in the society and it is appreciated. (Sen, Yavuz-Muren, and Yagmurlu 2014).
With regard to the relation with academic motivation, behavioral control, which is a component of overprotection, has been positively associated with children’s positive self-perception, perceived school success and having prosocial friends-positive peer relationship and negatively associated with behavior problems, both with Western and Turkish samples. (Barber 1996, Kındap, Sayıl, and Kumru 2008, Wang, Pomerantz, and Chen 2007, Tepe and Sayıl 2012, Yaban, Sayıl, and Tepe 2014) Besides, perceived behavioral control positively related to perceived school success, positive peer relations and self-esteem whereas negatively related to self-esteem and perceived school success in these studies (Tepe and Sayıl 2012, Yaban, Sayıl, and Tepe 2014).
2.5.2. Emotional Warmth and Academic Motivation
Parental warmth can be defined as being responsive to children’s behavioral and emotional needs and expressing unconditional positive regard toward children. It consist of acceptance, affection and responsiveness towards the child (McLeod, Wood, and Weisz 2007) That is, parents associated with responsive parenting often encourage their children, motivate and praise children’s actions, promote children’s sense of security and control. These children report more perceived concern and support (McLeod, Wood, and Weisz 2007, Beato et al. 2016). Some studies have indicated that maternal warmth facilitate emotion regulation development in childhood (Morris et al. 2007) as well as parental warmth and responsiveness alleviate self-regulation and assertiveness of children (Baumrind 1991a).
With regard to the relation with academic motivation, paternal warmth significantly predicted later social and school achievement in China (Chen, Liu, and Li 2000). Besides, it has been revealed that there is a positive association between warmth and child’s academic achievement (Kurdek and Fine 1994).
2.5.3. Rejection and Academic Motivation
Rejection is described as negative dimension of parenting style including, disapproval, hostility, indifference, ignorance of emotional and physical need of child, criticizing and humiliating and blaming attitude toward the child. (McLeod, Wood, and Weisz 2007, Temel 2015) Parents described as rejected fail to show sufficient affection, support and acceptance for the child (Haque and Sheikh & Haque cited in Temel 2015). According to Rohner, parents might reject their children by treating in the combination of four aspects that are warmth-affection, hostility-aggression, indifference-neglect and undifferentiated rejection (Rohner cited in Çalışkan 2015, Rohner 2004).
Rohner has described parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory (PARTheory) as a socialization theory and lifespan development that aim to explain, anticipate and define precedent and result of the parental acceptance and rejection within the US and worldwide. (Rohner cited in Rohner 2004, Çalışkan 2015)
Several researches have indicated that parental acceptance-rejection influences health status, social, emotional and cognitive development in childhood and psychological harmonization in adulthood (Ryan et al. 2009, Ohannessian et al. 1996, Rohner, Rohner, and Roll 1980, Khaleque and Rohner 2002)
It is claimed that parental rejection has two dimensions: Behavior applied by parents and child’s beliefs and perception (Kagan 1978). To clarify, children’s way of perceiving parent’s behavior is much important than parents’ behavioral patterns. Taking in these two dimensions, parental acceptance-rejection could be perceived and investigated through two different perspectives. The first one called phenomenological perspective is that parental attitudes may be studied as subjectively experienced and perceived by the individual herself/himself. The second one called behavioral perspective is that parental acceptance-rejection may be studied with the help of outside observer. To assess implications of parental attitudes, children’s perceived parental acceptance-rejection should be taken into consideration (Çalışkan 2015).
In terms of perceived parenting, “Rejection, and Overprotection” are presented as negative parenting styles whereas “emotional warmth” is considered as positive one (Temel 2015).
3. The Definition of Academic Motivation
As said earlier, motivation as an academic engagement refers to “cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of student investment in and attachment to education”(Tucker et al. 2002, 477). In a study, it was found that highly motivated students performs better academically than the lowly motivated students (Tella 2007).
It is stated that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of social-cognitive theories of motivation came out. Self-efficacy studies (Bandura, 1986), attribution theory (Weiner,1985), expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983), and achievement goal theory (Ames, 1984; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Maehr, 1984; Nicholls, 1984) are four major examples of such theories (Urdan and Maehr 1995). Due to the fact that social-cognitive theories emphasizes on students’ beliefs about their abilities and their perceptions of contextual factors in the achievement situation, achievement goal theory focuses most directly on students’ perceptions about the reasons for engaging in academic work (Urdan and Maehr 1995). According to Elliot and McGregor, when students engage in academic tasks, they set various personal goals can influence their academic outcomes directly (2001). It has been revealed that achievement goals of the student have a significant effect on their academic motivation as well as family factors’ direct or mediated effects (Boon 2007, Leal-Soto et al. 2013).
In accordance with motivation, there are several research on achievement and achievement motivation. The original definition of achievement motivation was from Atkinson (1964), who defined it as the comparison of performances with others and against certain standard activities (Atkinson cited in Singh 2011).
Generally achievement motivation can been defined as the extent to which individuals differ in their need to strive to attain rewards, such as physical satisfaction, praise from others and feelings of personal mastery (McClelland cited in Awan, Noureen, and Naz 2011). The motivational climate in family environment and at school may have a significant impact both on their own goals and on their academic motivation. It can be said that achievement motivation is a subjective, internal, and psychological drive that enable individuals to pursue perceived valuable work and eventually achieve their goals (Singh 2011).
Actually, the achievement motivation literature has not clearly defined the concept of “academic achievement” that can refer to “particular learning in a particular setting, which is defined by examination marks, teachers’ given grades and percentiles in academic subjects. School success depend upon the ability of the students to perform the operations measured by these techniques” (Chowdhury and Pati 1997, 138). In a study, it has been found that achievement motivation and self-concept are significantly related to academic achievement (Awan, Noureen, and Naz 2011). Depending on this study finding, it can be said that the achievement motivation contributed to enhance achievement level and motivation have an important effects on academic achievement.
It has been claimed that academic achievement contains perceived self-efficacy beliefs, which is described as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives. People’s beliefs in their efficacy influence the choices they make, their aspirations” (Bandura 1991, 257).
Self-efficacy is classified into categories. Among these categories, academic self-efficacy reflects a student’s perceived capability with respect to the tasks a student is expected to perform in academic domain (McCombs and Marzano 1990, Martinez-Pons 2002).
Several studies have presented that self-efficacy as a reliable and well-established predictor of academic motivation and performance (De Raad and Schouwenburg 1996, Farsides and Woodfield 2003, Zimmerman and Bandura 1994, Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons 1992).
4. Culture
Culture decides the limits of behavior that to be controlled and praised. Culture, parents’ cultural roots, parents’ beliefs and practices influence children. It has been revealed that parents’ beliefs and practices reflect the norms and expectations of the cultures where they are embedded (Kağıtçıbaşı cited in Tamis‐LeMonda et al. 2008, Keller 2003). It is expected that the content of beliefs and practices varies widely across cultures although transmission of beliefs and practices from parents to children is universal (Harwood et al. cited in Tamis‐LeMonda et al. 2008).