H5₍₁₎: There would be no significant difference in the levels of EI between tribal and non-tribal boys and girls of Jharkhandwith reference to gender among highly rejected parental groups.

H5₍₂₎: There would be no significant difference in the levels of EI between tribal and non-tribal boys and girls of Jharkhandwith reference to ethnicity among highly rejected parental groups.

H6₍₁₎: The dimensions of PAR would not be significantly associated with EI among tribal adolescents.

H6₍₂₎: The dimensions of PAR would not be significantly associated with EI among non-tribal adolescents.

H7₍₁₎: There would be no significant impact of dimensions of PAR on EI among tribal adolescents of Jharkhand.

H7₍₂₎: There would be no significant impact of dimensions of PAR on EI among non-tribal adolescents of Jharkhand.

H8₍₁₎: Ethnicity would not significantly moderate the relationship between the scores of parenting style and EI among highly accepted parental group

H8₍₂₎: Ethnicity would not significantly moderate the relationship between the scores of parenting style and EI among the moderately rejected parental group

H8₍₃₎: Ethnicity would not significantly moderate the relationship between the scores of parenting style and EI among highly rejected parental groups.

Materials and Methods

Research Design

The research employs a cross-sectional, correlational and comparative research design.

Sample and Sampling Technique

In the present study, the sample size was estimated using the guidelines proposed by Israel (1992). Considering a ±7% margin of error, the application of Israel’s (1992) formula yielded a minimum required sample size of 204 participants, which served as the baseline estimate for the study.

To enhance statistical power and compensate for potential non-response, incomplete data, or attrition during the data collection process, the researcher planned a larger sample size of 550 participants. During data collection, complete and usable responses were obtained from 480 adolescents.  The final sample consisted of 480 school-going adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years from Ranchi and Ramgarh districts of Jharkhand. The sample included an equal number of tribal (N = 240, M = 14.84 years, SD = 1.241) and non-tribal adolescents (N = 240, M = 14.51 years, SD = 1.220). Within the tribal group, an equal number of participants belonged to the Munda (N = 120, M = 14.87, SD = 1.273) and Oraon (N = 120, M = 14.81, SD = 1.213) communities. The study also ensured equal representation of boys and girls from both urban and rural areas.

The study employed a multistage mixed sampling technique that combined purposive, simple random, and stratified sampling methods to ensure adequate representation of tribal and non-tribal adolescents from selected regions of Jharkhand. In the first stage, two districts—Ranchi and Ramgarh—were purposively selected from the 24 districts of Jharkhand. The state is characterized by a diverse tribal population with distinct socio-cultural traditions and developmental contexts. To capture this diversity while maintaining feasibility, two major tribal communities of the state, namely the Munda and Oraon tribes, were selected for the present study. Ranchi and Ramgarh districts were chosen because they have a substantial population of these tribal groups as well as a considerable non-tribal population, thereby providing an appropriate setting for comparative analysis. Furthermore, these districts offer adequate accessibility to educational institutions, which facilitated systematic data collection from adolescent participants.

In the second stage, simple random sampling was employed to select administrative blocks from the chosen districts. Out of the 18 blocks in Ranchi district, 9 blocks were randomly selected, while 3 blocks were randomly selected from the 6 blocks of Ramgarh district. In the third stage, schools located in both urban and rural areas within the selected blocks were chosen through simple random sampling to ensure representation of adolescents from diverse localities.

In the fourth stage, stratification was carried out on the basis of ethnicity (tribal and non-tribal), tribal community (Munda and Oraon), gender (boys and girls), and locality (urban and rural). Participants were then selected from these strata in such a way that equal numbers of tribal and non-tribal adolescents, as well as equal numbers of boys and girls from both urban and rural areas, were included in the sample. Within the tribal group, adolescents belonging to the Munda and Oraon communities were selected in equal proportions.

Stratified random sampling also reduces selection bias and improves the generalizability of research findings by preventing the overrepresentation or underrepresentation of any specific subgroup. Moreover, under conditions of limited resources, stratified sampling enhances the precision of subgroup estimates and improves the overall accuracy and reliability of the results (Singh, 2015; Sadaiyandi et al., 2023).

Tools and Measures Used

Parental Acceptance - Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ Hindi version) (Imam & Singh,2019)

The Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) is a self-report tool designed to assess individuals’ perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection experienced between ages 7 and 12. It is a Hindi adaptation of Rohner’s PARQ by Prakash and Bhargava (1980) and contains 60 items, with 7 negatively scored items (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49). Responses are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from Almost always true (4) to Almost never true (1), with reverse scoring for negative items. Total scores range from 60–240, classified as: 60–129 (highly accepted parenting), 130–150 (moderately rejected parenting), and 151–240 (highly rejected parenting).Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to calculate reliability. PARQ reliability coefficient for the adult version range from .86 to .95.Also, the reliability coefficient for the present study for the non-tribal population was .754 while for tribal adolescents was .833.

Emotional Intelligence Scale (Rani & Shukla,2021)

This tool wasdeveloped by Dr Arun Kumar Singh and Dr Shruti Narain in 2014. It consists of 31items divided into four areas- 1.Understanding emotion2.Understanding motivation3. Empathy 4. Handling relations. This scale can be administered on 12 years & above. Out of 31 items, 4 items (i.e., 13, 17, 20, 21) are negative items. For each item subject had to respond in Yes or No categories. For positive items, a +1 score will be given for a Yes response and 0 for a No response and vice versa. The reliability coefficient of the scale was .086. Also, the reliability coefficient for the present study for the non-tribal population was .650 while for tribal adolescents was .603.

Procedure

To carry out the present study, ethical clearance was obtained from the Departmental Research and Degree Committee (DRDC) of the concerned department. Then, various schools located in different regions of the Ranchi and Ramgarh districts were visited. The purpose and procedure of data collection of the study were explained to the school administration. After seeking permission from the school administration, two scales, namely the Parental Acceptance-Rejection questionnaire and the Emotional Intelligence Scale, were administered on the samples. The proper rapport was built with the participants, and informed consent was taken. The subjects were informed about voluntary participation and the objective, time required for data collection, usage of the data, data integrity and data confidentiality. The data were collected following APA guidelines (APA, 2016).

Results

The data were analysed using SPSS v.27 through various statistical techniques. A 2×2 ANOVA was conducted to test differences in EI between tribal and non-tribal adolescents, as well as across highly accepted, moderately rejected, and highly rejected parental groups. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine associations between the dimensions of PAR and EI. Additionally, the PROCESS Macro in SPSS was applied to test whether ethnicity moderated these relationships.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for EI by gender and ethnicity

p*<.001

The table1 presents descriptive statistics and ANOVA results assessing the effects of gender and ethnicity on EI among adolescents. For emotional intelligence, the main effect of ethnicity was statistically significant, F (1,476) = 16.05, p = .001, Partial ?² = .033, indicating that non-tribal adolescents (M = 19.85, SD = 3.67) scored higher than their tribal counterparts (M = 18.44, SD = 4.06). However, the effects of gender, F (1,476) = 1.99, p = .096, Partial ?² = .008, and the gender × ethnicity interaction, F (1,476) = 0.96, p = .327, Partial ?² = .002, were not significant. The hypothesis H1₍₁₎was accepted but the hypothesis H1 ₍₂₎ was rejected.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for EI by gender and tribal community.

p*?.05

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and two-way ANOVA results for EI with respect to gender and tribal community among adolescents belonging to the Munda and Oraon tribes. The overall mean scores indicate that the level of EI among Munda adolescents (M = 18.50, SD = 4.29) and Oraon adolescents (M = 18.38, SD = 3.852) was almost similar. The two-way ANOVA results reveal that the main effect of gender on EI was not statistically significant (F = 1.028, df = 1,236, p > .05, Partial ?² = .017). Similarly, the main effect of tribal community was also not significant (F = .050, df = 1,236, p > .05, Partial ?² = .000). However, the interaction effect between gender and tribal community was found to be statistically significant (F = 6.142, df = 1,236, p ? .05, Partial ?² = .025). The hypotheses H2 ₍₁₎ and H2 ₍₂₎ were accepted.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for EI by ethnicity and gender among the highly accepted parental group, the moderately rejected group and the highly rejected parental group

p*<.01,     p**<.05

The table3 provides descriptive statistics and two-way ANOVA results assessing the effects of gender and ethnicity on EI across three parental behavior groups: highly accepted, moderately rejected, and highly rejected.

The analysis of EI across parental acceptance–rejection groups revealed distinct effects of ethnicity and gender. In the highly accepted parental group, ethnicity had a significant main effect, F (1,64) = 9.03, p = .004, Partial ?² = .124, with non-tribal adolescents (M = 21.06, SD = 3.32) scoring higher than tribal adolescents (M = 18.35, SD = 4.21). Gender (F (1,64) = 0.03, p = .872) and the gender × ethnicity interaction (F (1,64) = 0.77, p = .384) were non-significant. Thus, H3₍₁₎ was accepted, while H3₍₂₎ was rejected.

In the moderately rejected parental group, ethnicity remained a significant predictor, though with a smaller effect, F (1,239) = 4.17, p = .042, Partial ?² = .017; non-tribal adolescents (M = 20.14, SD = 3.69) again scored higher than tribal adolescents (M = 19.11, SD = 4.23). Gender (F (1,239) = 2.94, p = .088) and the interaction (F (1,239) = 1.74, p = .189) were not significant, leading to acceptance of H4₍₁₎ and rejection of H4₍₂₎.

In the highly rejected parental group, none of the effects were significant. Gender (F (1,165) = 2.77, p = .098), ethnicity (F (1,165) = 1.92, p = .167), and the interaction (F (1,165) = 0.20, p = .652) were all non-significant, resulting in acceptance of both H5₍₁₎ and H5₍₂₎.

Note: Since ethnicity significantly affected the level of EI among tribal and non-tribal adolescents, the correlational and regression analyseswere done separately.

Table 4: Top of FormCorrelation coefficients between dimensions of PARwith EI and its dimensions among tribal and non-tribal adolescents

p**?.01, p*?.05

The table4 presents the correlation coefficients between various dimensions of parenting styles and dimensions of EI among tribal adolescents. Warmth/affection showed positive and significant correlations with overall EI (r = .344**) and most sub-dimensions, including empathy (r = .319**) and handling relations (r = .278**). In contrast, neglect/indifference had significant negative correlations with EI (r = -.285**), empathy (r = -.366**), and handling relations (r = -.127*). Aggression/hostility and rejection/undifferentiated showed weaker and mostly non-significant negative associations, with only a few significant links, such as between aggression and empathy (r = -.215**) and rejection and empathy (r = -.152*). The hypothesis H6₍₁₎ was rejected

The table4 also presents the correlation coefficients between different dimensions of parenting styles and EI among non-tribal adolescents. The correlation analysis among non-tribal adolescents showed that warmth/affection had significant positive relationships with overall EI (r = .334**) and key dimensions like empathy (r = .286**) and motivation (r = .240**). In contrast, negative parenting styles—aggression/hostility, neglect/indifference, and rejection/undifferentiated—showed significant negative correlations with EI and its sub-dimensions. Neglect/indifference had the strongest negative association with overall EI (r = -.370**), followed by rejection (r = -.279**) and aggression (r = -.243**). The hypothesis H6₍₂₎ was rejected.

Table 5: Hierarchical regression analysis with socio-demographic variables and dimensions of PAR as predictors and EI as criterion among tribal and non-tribal adolescents

p*<.001,   p**<.01,       p***<.05

The table5 examined the predictive role of PAR dimensions on EI among tribal and non-tribal adolescents using hierarchical regression analysis. For tribal adolescents, Step 1, including socio-demographic variables, was significant (F (6, 233) = 2.949, p = .009), explaining 7.1% of the variance (adjusted R² = .047), with gender (B = 1.133, p = .029) and most time spent with (B = 0.832, p = .008) emerging as significant positive predictors. Step 2 added parental dimensions, significantly improving the model (F (10, 229) = 9.194, p< .001), increasing R² to .199 (adjusted R² = .164). Warmth positively predicted emotional intelligence (B = 0.117, ? = .239, p = .001), while Neglect was a negative predictor (B = –0.135, ? = –.224, p = .023), leading to the rejection of H7 (1).

For non-tribal adolescents, Step 1 with socio-demographics was not significant (F (6, 233) = 0.874, p = .515, R² = .022), with none of the predictors significant, though income approached significance (p = .087). In Step 2, adding parental dimensions significantly improved prediction (F (4, 229) = 11.074, p< .001), with R² increasing to .181 (?R² = .159). Parental Warmth was a significant positive predictor (B = 0.099, ? = .208, p = .005), and Neglect was negatively associated with EI (B = –0.101, ? = –.182, p = .042), leading to the rejection of H7 (2).

Table 6: Moderation analysis using parental score as predictor, EI as criterion and ethnicity as a moderator among the highly accepted parental group, moderately rejected parental group and highly rejected parental group

The moderation analysis in Table 6 examined whether ethnicity moderates the relationship between parenting style and EI across different PAR groups. In the highly accepted parental group, a significant interaction was found between parental score and ethnicity (B = 0.4284, p = .0298), indicating that the effect of parental acceptance on EI depends on ethnic background. The model explained 21.16% of the variance (R² = .2116), and the interaction accounted for a significant R² change (.0609), leading to the rejection of H8 (1).

In the moderately rejected parental group, parental score did not significantly predict EI (B = –0.0450, p = .3026), while ethnicity had a significant main effect (B = –1.0194, p = .0469). The interaction term was non-significant (B = 0.1173, p = .1870), and the model explained only 2.84% of the variance (R² = .0284), resulting in the acceptance of H8 (2).

In the highly rejected parental group, parental score had a small but significantly positive effect on EI (B = 0.0544, p = .0255). Ethnicity (B = –0.8322, p = .1508) and the interaction term (B = 0.0288, p = .5698) were non-significant. The model accounted for 4.3% of variance (R² = .0430), with negligible contribution from the interaction, leading to the acceptance of H8 (3).

Discussion

The finding that non-tribal adolescents scored higher on EI than tribal adolescents may be interpreted in the light of differences in socio-educational exposure and developmental opportunities. EI is shaped by interactions within family, school, and broader social environments, and adolescents who are exposed to diverse social interactions and emotionally supportive learning environments tend to develop stronger emotional competencies. Research suggests that environmental stimulation, educational opportunities, and interpersonal experiences significantly contribute to the development of EI during adolescence (MacCann et al., 2020). Similarly, the ability model of EI proposes that emotional abilities such as emotional perception, understanding, and regulation develop through continuous interaction with social environments and learning experiences (Mayer et al., 2016). Non-tribal adolescents may therefore benefit from comparatively greater access to educational resources and emotionally stimulating social environments, which may facilitate the development of emotional awareness, empathy, and emotion regulation skills.

Despite the significant difference between tribal and non-tribal adolescents, the findings indicated that Munda and Oraon adolescents did not differ significantly in their EI levels. This result may be explained by the cultural and social similarities shared by these two tribal communities within the Chotanagpur region of Jharkhand. Both tribes are characterized by collectivistic cultural traditions, strong kinship bonds, and community-oriented lifestyles that shape similar patterns of socialization and interpersonal interaction. Cross-cultural research in developmental psychology indicates that basic socioemotional skills such as EI, optimism and social maturity are strongly influenced by proximal environments such as parenting, school environment, daily emotional affordances and others rather than more distal environments. Studies conducted by Gruijters, et.al. (2024) in his study stated that differences in socioeconomic status accounted for much of the variations in socioemotional skill, and when controlled for SES, many differences either neutralise or shrink.

Another important finding of the study is the positive relationship between parental warmth with EI and its dimensions. Parental warmth, characterized by affection, support, responsiveness, and emotional closeness, creates a secure emotional environment that facilitates the development of emotional competencies among adolescents. Previous studies have consistently demonstrated that adolescents who experience warm and supportive parenting tend to exhibit higher levels of emotional awareness, empathy, and emotion regulation (Lan, 2022). Similarly, research on parenting practices has shown that positive parental rearing behaviours significantly contribute to adolescents’ EI and prosocial behaviour, highlighting the role of supportive parenting in emotional development (Kausar et al., 2024). Furthermore, studies indicate that adolescents’ emotional well-being and emotional intelligence are strongly associated with the quality of family relationships and the presence of supportive familial environments (Moreno et al., 2024).

The findings of the present study are consistent with the propositions of Parental Acceptance–Rejection (PAR) Theory, which highlights the critical role of perceived parental acceptance in shaping children’s psychological adjustment and emotional development (Rohner et al., 2012). According to this framework, parental warmth, affection, and emotional support foster positive emotional functioning and well-being, whereas parental rejection—manifested through hostility, neglect, or lack of affection—can lead to emotional maladjustment and difficulties in emotion regulation. Supporting this, empirical evidence indicates that parental emotional warmth is positively associated with adolescents’ social and psychological development, including empathy and emotional competence (Zhang et al., 2026). Furthermore, the present study contributes by revealing that ethnicity significantly moderates the relationship between parental acceptance–rejection and emotional intelligence only among adolescents experiencing high parental acceptance, suggesting that in supportive family environments, cultural and socio-environmental differences between tribal and non-tribal groups become more influential in shaping emotional development, as adolescents are better able to utilize available resources; this aligns with prior findings that parental warmth interacts with environmental and contextual factors in influencing socio-emotional development (Ong et al., 2018).

However, the results indicated that ethnicity did not moderate the relationship between PAR and EI among adolescents experiencing moderately rejected or highly rejected parental behaviour. This finding suggests that the negative effects of parental rejection may operate similarly across different cultural groups. Parental rejection has consistently been linked with emotional distress, poor emotional regulation, and lower psychological well-being among adolescents, irrespective of cultural background. Research indicates that adverse family environments and dysfunctional parental relationships can negatively influence adolescents’ emotional intelligence and overall psychological adjustment (Barragán et al., 2021). When adolescents perceive rejection from parents, the detrimental emotional consequences may overshadow the influence of cultural or ethnic differences, resulting in similar emotional outcomes across groups.

Conclusion

The present study contributes to the growing body of literature on parenting and adolescents’ emotional development by examining the association between parental acceptance–rejection and emotional intelligence among tribal and non-tribal adolescents. By incorporating ethnicity as a moderating variable, the study highlights the importance of considering sociocultural contexts when understanding the emotional development of adolescents. Parenting practices characterized by warmth, support, and acceptance play a crucial role in fostering emotional competencies, whereas rejecting or neglectful parental behaviors may hinder the healthy emotional growth of young individuals.

The study underscores the relevance of culturally informed perspectives in psychological research, particularly in diverse societies where adolescents grow up within distinct cultural and social environments. Understanding how family relationships interact with cultural background can help educators, counselors, and mental health professionals design more effective interventions aimed at promoting emotional well-being among adolescents.

Implications

The present study will deepen our knowledge of how culture, social and ethnic background influence emotional intelligence among adolescents. This study highlights what role parental behaviour plays in shaping emotional intelligence of a child. The findings can help the school administration to design EI programs that are culturally suitable for tribal and non-tribal adolescents. Teachers, counsellors and parents can be trained to recognise and address emotional needs based on students’ background and parental dynamic.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has certain limitations that should be considered while interpreting the findings. First, the study employed a cross-sectional design, which restricts the ability to establish causal relationships between parental acceptance–rejection and emotional intelligence among adolescents. In addition, the sample was limited to adolescents belonging to the Munda and Oraon tribes from selected areas of Jharkhand, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other tribal communities or regions. The study also relied solely on quantitative methods, which may not fully capture the cultural nuances, parenting practices, and lived experiences of adolescents from tribal backgrounds.

Future research may address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs to better understand the developmental relationship between parental acceptance–rejection and emotional intelligence over time. Studies may also include adolescents from a wider range of tribal communities and geographical regions to improve the generalizability of the findings. The use of mixed-method approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative techniques could provide deeper insights into culturally specific parenting practices and emotional development. Additionally, collecting information from multiple sources, such as parents and teachers, may provide a more comprehensive understanding of adolescents’ emotional functioning.

Acknowledgement

The author sincerely acknowledges the valuable support of the adolescents who participated in this study and the school administration for their cooperation during data collection. Special thanks are extended to the Departmental Research Degree Committee (DRDC) of the Central University of South Bihar (CUSB) for granting ethical clearance to conduct this research. The author is also grateful to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for awarding the NET-JRF fellowship, which provided essential financial assistance for the successful completion of this work.

Funding Sources

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) do not have any conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets collected and/or analyzed during the current work are not publicly available owing to confidentiality and privacy concerns, but they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics Statement

The research was approved by the Departmental Research & Degree Committee (DRDC) of the Department of Psychological Sciences, Central University of South Bihar, Gaya (F. No.-CUSB/Acad/2020/1302).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was taken from the participants before data collection.

Clinical Trial Registration

This research does not involve any clinical trials.

Permission to reproduce material from other sources

Not Applicable

Author Contributions

Kumari Sristee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, and Writing –Original Draft

Dharmendra Kumar Singh: Writing – Review and Editing

References

1. Amandeep, D. (2017). Emotional Intelligence In Relation To Perceived Parenting Style Of Early Adolescent. The International Journal Of Indian Psychology, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.25215/0403.020
   CrossRef
2. American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the" Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct"(2002, as amended 2010). The American Psychologist, 71(9), 900.
   CrossRef
3. Barragán Martín, A. B., Molero Jurado, M. D. M., Pérez-Fuentes, M. D. C., Oropesa Ruiz, N. F., Martos Martínez, Á., Simon Marquez, M. D. M., & Gázquez Linares, J. J. (2021). Interpersonal support, emotional intelligence and family function in adolescence. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(10), 5145. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105145
   CrossRef
4. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic psychology monographs.
5. Bu?u, A. F. (2020). Emotional intelligence as a type of cognitive ability. Revista de ?tiin?e Politice. Revue des Sciences Politiques, (66), 204-215.
6. Costa, S., Barberis, N., Gugliandolo, M. C., Larcan, R., & Cuzzocrea, F. (2018). The intergenerational transmission of trait emotional intelligence: The mediating role of parental autonomy support and psychological control. Journal of adolescence, 68, 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.008
   CrossRef
7. Gruijters, R. J., Raabe, I. J., & Hübner, N. (2024). Socio-emotional skills and the socioeconomic achievement gap. Sociology of Education, 97(2), 120-147.https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407231216424
   CrossRef
8. Hafeez, S., & Habib, H. A. (2021). Perceived paternal acceptance as predictor of emotional intelligence in adolescents. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review, 2(3), 136-142.
9. Hussain, S., & Munaf, S. (2012). Perceived father acceptance-rejection in childhood and psychological adjustment in adulthood. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(1).
10. Imam, N., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Gender and socio-economic differences on perceived parental acceptance-rejection among college students of Ranchi University. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(4), 643-9. https://doi.org/10.25215/0704.072
11. Israel, G.D. (1992) Determining Sample Size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS, Florida.
12. Kaur, S., & Kaur, K. (2020). Perceived Parenting and Perceived Teaching Styles in Relation to Social Maturity of Adolescents. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2020/v10/i1/1353
    CrossRef
13. Kausar, S., Khaliq, A. A., & Javaid, M. (2024). Influence of parental rearing practices on prosocial behavior: the mediating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Professional & Applied Psychology, 5(2), 191-200. https://doi.org/10.52053/jpap.v5i2.285
    CrossRef
14. Lan, X. (2022). Perceived parental warmth, emotional awareness, and positive adjustment profiles in Chinese and Italian early adolescents: A person?centered approach. Journal of Adolescence, 94(2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12018
    CrossRef
15. MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 146(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219
    CrossRef
16. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion review, 8(4), 290-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916639667
    CrossRef
17. Mehta, K. (1995). Effects of family structure on intelligence of young children. Indian Psychological Review, 44, 24-28.
18. Mendo-Lázaro, S., León-del-Barco, B., Polo-del-Río, M. I., Yuste-Tosina, R., & López-Ramos, V. M. (2019). The role of parental acceptance–rejection in emotional instability duringadolescence. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(7),1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071194
    CrossRef
19. Mittal, P. C., & Srivastava, S. (2006). Diet, nutritional status and food related traditions of Oraon tribes of New Mal (West Bengal), India. Rural and Remote Health, 6(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH385
    CrossRef
20. Molina Moreno, P., Fernández Gea, S., Molero Jurado, M. D. M., Pérez-Fuentes, M. D. C., & Gázquez Linares, J. J. (2024). The role of family functionality and its relationship with psychological well-being and emotional intelligence in high school students. Education Sciences, 14(6), 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060566
    CrossRef
21. Mousavi, A., & Juhari, R. (2019). Systematic Review of Parenting Style and Children's Emotional Intelligence: Recent Updates on Western and Non-Western Families. Malaysian Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences, 15.
22. Ong, M. Y., Eilander, J., Saw, S. M., Xie, Y., Meaney, M. J., & Broekman, B. F. (2018). The influence ofperceived parenting styles on socio-emotional development from pre-puberty intopuberty. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 27(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1016-9
    CrossRef
23. Purkayastha, N. (2018). Tribe in Making: A Study On Oraon Tribe in Barak Valley Region of Assam. Global Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science, 7(1).
    CrossRef
24. Raj, S. P., & Raval, V. V. (2013). Parenting and family socialization within a cultural context. Journal of Communications Research, 5(2).
25. Ramakrishnan, M. (2023). Folklore studies in Jharkhand. Folklore Studies in India: Critical RegionalResponses, 163.
26. Rani, S., & Shukla, G. (2021). A study of emotional intelligence in senior secondary students. Shodh Prabha, 46(4)
27. Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2012). Introduction to parental acceptance-rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 73-87.
    CrossRef
28. Rohner, R.P., Putnick, D.L., Molayer, A.D., Ali, S., Butt, M.M, Ibrahim, D.M.,…& Senese, V.P. (2020). Psychological Maladjustment Mediates the Link Between Remembrances of Parental Rejection in Childhood and Loneliness in Adulthood: A cross-cultural Comparative Study. International Journal of Psychology 55(4), 590-600.DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12621
    CrossRef
29. Sadaiyandi, J., Arumugam, P., Sangaiah, A. K., & Zhang, C. (2023). Stratified sampling-based deep learning approach to increase predictionaccuracy of unbalanced dataset. Electronics, 12(21), 4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12214423
    CrossRef
30. Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (1999). Coping intelligently: Emotional intelligence and the coping process.
31. Singh, A. K. (2015). Tests, measurements and research methods in behavioural sciences.Bharati Bhawan.
32. Sofrona, E., & Giannakopoulos, G. (2024). The impact of parental depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms on adolescents’ mental health and quality of life: the moderating role of parental rejection. Children,  11(11),1361.Children 2024, 1 1(11),1361;  https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111361
    CrossRef
33. Srivastava, M. (2007). The sacred complex of Munda tribe. The Anthropologist, 9(4), 327-330.
    CrossRef
34. Uktamovna, R. Z. (2025). The transformative journey of adolescence: a study of the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social changes during the teenage years. Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity, 39, 169-172.
35. Yadav, P., Shukla, P., Padhi, D., & Chaudhury, S. (2021). A correlational study between perceived parenting style, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence among adolescents. Industrial psychiatry journal, 30(Suppl 1), S108-S114.
    CrossRef
36. Zhang, X., Wang, Y., & Geng, F. (2026). Perceived parental warmth and young adults’ social-emotional skills: Influence through social and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 160(1), 62-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2025.2502728
    CrossRef
37. Zheng, J. (2025). The effects of parenting styles on children's emotional and social skill development: The mediating role of emotion regulation skills. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and PublicMedia, 84, 6-10. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/2025.20550
    CrossRef