CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the study
Behaviour is seen as deviant when people are alarmed, angered, outraged or threatened by violations of what they consider right and proper. Youth involvement in behaviours that violate social and/or legal norms, rules or conventions has been for long the subject of interest and research, within the most diverse theoretical approaches. According to the APA (American Psychology Association) Dictionary of Psychology (VanDenBos 2007), deviance is defined as “any behaviour that deviates significantly from what is considered appropriate or typical for a social group” (pp. 276), while delinquency is defined as a “behaviour violating social rules or conventions” (pp. 265). Rubinson and Weinberg (1995), defines Deviance as a violation of social rules. It is behaviour that breaches societies or group's widely held values and norms.
Teenage problems, if not handled properly and at the right time are likely to influence them to develop deviant traits. It is evident that teenage problems either stem from maturational changes within the growing adolescents or from environmental factors that influence them. In their attempts to achieve personal autonomy, self-Identity, self-esteem, social belonging and recognition, teenagers find themselves in a dilemma between pursuing their own aspirations and society's values and norms. The prevalence of deviant behaviours has increased tremendously at an alarming rate in Nigeria edu-cational system. The Nigerian education system must however stimulate the spirit of patriotism and lay the solid function of national and international understanding and cooperation in adolescents. Through education service, those manifestation can be eradicated of deviant behaviour in schools, of which a lot of bad behaviour are such as smoking, drunkenness, stealing, abortion, murder, gambling, prostitution etc. The eradication of which can be done by attempting to restructure the in-term and or-ganization of the school, peer group, religious institutions and all other primary organizations in the society.
One of the most important aspects of the self-concept is our self-esteem. Self-esteem is affected by a variety of influences, ranging from formative childhood experiences in relation to our parents tour own standards (or ideal self) to our general culture (Miller, 1999). A vast amount of research exists on self-esteem (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1995; Greenwald and Farnham, 2000; Crocker and Wolfe, 2001), which is defined as a person's global feelings of self-worth (Kernis and Goldman, 2003). Although a person's self-esteem can change, it is unlikely to change in response to a single event or within a short period of time. Any instability in self-esteem usually occurs over an extended period (Rosenberg, 1986). There is a considerable relationship between the evaluation of one's personal worth and deviance in behaviour. Researchers have assumed that low self-esteem predicts deviance, but empirical results and claims have been mixed. One argument that has been put forth suggests that self-esteem, or one’s overall positive or negative evaluation of oneself (Brown, 1993), should be related to deviant behaviour (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009). In particular, theorists have argued that self-esteem can have either a main effect on deviant behaviour or moderate potential negative reactions to environmental stressors (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Such predictions are commonly placed within either a self-consistency theory framework for main effects, (Korman, 1970) or a behavioural plasticity theory framework for moderating effects, (Brockner, 1988). Yet, to date the evidence for the main and moderating effects of self-esteem with respect to deviancies, are at best, inconsistent (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, &Vohs, 2003). Low self-esteem ranks among the strongest ever predictors of emotional and behavioural problems. Compared to people with high self-esteem, people with low self-esteem tend to be more anxious, depressed, lonely, jealous, shy, and generally unhappy. They are also less assertive, less likely to enjoy close friendships, and more likely to drop out of school. Furthermore, they are more inclined to behave in ways that pose a danger to themselves or others. Low self-esteem is associated with unsafe sex, teenage pregnancy, aggression, and criminal behaviour, the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, and membership in deviant groups or society (Baumeister, 1993; Bednar, Wells, & Peterson, 1989; Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989). Given that research strongly implicates low self-esteem as a risk factor for psychological distress and behavioural problems, some have recommended raising self-esteem as a way to remediate a variety of personal and social problems (e.g., Mecca et al., 1989).
Moral competence among adolescents can be approached in terms of good character. Recent ethical decision-making models suggest that individuals own views of their morality is malleable, i.e. easily influenced or changed rather than static, responding to their immoral actions and reflections about the world around them. However, defining the concept of moral competence has to deal with the understanding of how the term competence is defined in general. The concept of moral competence includes at least two levels: competence can be understood as a possession of any knowledge, as the ability to reason on a certain problem. It can also be considered as an experience in a certain sphere, ability to act, and behave in a proper or acceptable way. Moral competence, as an object to examine, bases on norms, values, purposes, intentions, interests, motives, feelings etc. of moral situation comprehension and may be defined by its three components. Self-competence assumes the ability to adequately perceive oneself as a subject of moral interaction, to realize one’s interests, intentions, aims, motives, feelings and value definitions caused by moral conflict and possible ways of behaving in a situation involving a moral choice. Competence in partner assumes an ability to perceive or view other individuals participating in that situation, to understand their aims, interests, motives, feelings, system of values and possible actions adequately. Competence in situation assumes an ability to have an integrated view of the situation, to analyse consequences of events, to comprehend the values and norms, which people of that situation are guided by and to take into account all the peculiarities of the conflict and the individuals involved in it. Studies about moral competence in Brazil conducted by Bataglia (1998) reported that student in Brazil have a lower moral competence scores when compared to students in Europe, but similar to students in Mexico.
Parental support is the largest influence on creating preferable behavior in adolescents. A parent is a model towards their children. Research on modeling has shown that when parents are held in high esteem and are the main sources for reinforcement, their child is more likely to model them (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Conger 1991). If a parent acts in a negative way, the child is more likely to follow their parent’s negative attitude. They are also more likely to generalize this attitude to the rest of society. Thus, parents have much influence over their child’s behavior. From birth, a parent will mold and shape behaviors suitable to the norms of society through childrearing and socialization processes. However, there are certain parenting techniques that have a greater impact on a child’s behaviors. The largest is parental support (Barnes et al 2006). Parental support is behaviors toward the child, such as praising, encouraging, and giving affection. They show the child that he or she is valued and loved. In multiple studies, it has been found that support from parents bonds the adolescent to institutions and builds their self-control (Barnes et al 2006). This building of self-control will hinder deviant behaviors from forming.
The quality of parenting is far more essential than the quantity of time spent with the child. For instance, a parent can spend an entire afternoon with his or her child, yet the parent may be engaging in a different activity and not demonstrating enough interest towards the child. Parenting styles are the representation of how parents respond and demand to their children. According to a literature review by Spera (2005) and Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggest that it is important to better understand the differences between parenting styles and parenting practices: "Parenting practices are defined as specific behaviours that parents use to socialize their children", while parenting style is "the emotional climate in which parents raise their children". Parenting practices are specific behaviours, while parenting styles represent broader patterns of parenting practices. This parenting styles have been widely compared with parental bonding styles as possessing a close and a more defined characteristic label in understanding parent-child relationship and the respective attitude and behaviours of the bonding process.
To understand why adolescents may be partaking in deviant behaviors one may refer to social disorganization theory. The main theme of this theory is community social control (Law and Barber 2007). The essence of social disorganization theory is that high rates of delinquency arise when a community’s informal social control deteriorates. Concerning juvenile delinquency, an especially important aspect of a neighborhood is the relationships among adolescents, their parents, and other adults (Osgood and Anderson 2004). This means that the more adults in the neighborhood who know one another, the more they will take responsibility for supervising one another’s children, which in turn will lower the delinquency rates. According to the literature (e.g. Emler and Reicher 1995; Farrington et al. 2013; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Hansen 2003; Junger-Tas, et al. 2003), the engagement in deviant and delinquent activities escalates from pre-adolescence to mid-adolescence, when it reaches its peak (generally around 16 years old), and then starts to stabilize and decrease in the subsequent years.
1.2. Statement of problem
Understanding what constitutes deviance is the first step toward defining which acts violate social norms and behaviours. The construction of social norms, which vary from society to society, illustrates that deviance is a social phenomenon. Only norm violations found most unacceptable to society are codified into laws and acted upon by criminal justice agencies. Policies created to prevent and reduce deviance are closely based on what a society believes causes deviance.
In any society, one of their main objectives is to produce individuals with the right and appropriate behaviors to ensure sustainable societal growth and development. Deviance has been reported to have great consequences on the growth and development of the national transformation agenda of the society’s goals. The participation in delinquent crime continues to increase, unless we can identify the factors that have the potential to lower the rate (Barnes, Hoffman, and Welte 2006). Understanding these factors can put into effect social changes that can help our society improve. These changes can include new policies for juveniles or education for those who are a part of a deviant adolescent’s community.
The family as an agent of socialization could have significant impact on the child. This is evident from the fact that it is the first place where the child learns about leadership and what it takes, where basic skills and behavioural pattern of how to behave in the home are taught by the parents. The school as an agent of socialization and training institution for our future leaders and manpower needed in our society is also faced with acute problems which also affect the society at large. This problem is that of deviant behaviour which a form of indiscipline is.
The problem of deviant society manifest itself in the Nigeria society and most of our school products for example lack of total commitment and dedication of their work, lateness to work, absenteeism, neglect of duty and parent who feels less concern about their children needs all have a way of retarding progress of work and also limit effectiveness and efficiency. The school as a guise organization should be able to deliver real services, which is geared to the betterment of the government and the society, such as the ability to teach morals, punctuality, regularity, honesty, dedication to work and loyalty to work. This means that the schools should be able to produce disciplined students whom will later become good citizens who are free from any deviant act or behaviour be it drug addiction, gambling, truancy in school, abortion, smoking, sexual immorality, failure to serve punishment, murder, prostitution, bribery and corruption etc.
Meanwhile, the relationships between self-esteem, moral competence and parental bonding have been able to explain how and why deviance and delinquency arise and develops in the matura-tional changes of adolescents. This study aims at improving the body of knowledge by evaluating issues on self-esteem, moral competence, and parental bonding as predictors of deviant behavior among university undergraduates in Ekiti state, Nigeria.
Therefore the research tends to answer the following questions:
1.3. Objectives of study
1.4. Significance of study
The outcome of this study will add to the existing body of knowledge in the literature on self-esteem, moral competence, child rearing practices and deviant behaviour. It usefulness to counselling units of schools will aid guidance counsellors in understanding the deficiency in parental upbringing of children and also in assessing measures to be adopted in preventing maladaptive behaviours and shaping proper behaviours. It will also help therapists in eradicating deviant behaviour in clinical assessment. This will however aid therapists in determining how and why a person is behaving abnormally and how that person may be helped. It will also help parents in understanding the proper and most adequate child rearing practices and parenting styles to adopt in training their children in socially acceptable behaviours and inculcating sound moral and valued principles in shaping the behaviours of their young ones to make them socially, morally and psychologically competent in adolescence and in adulthood.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical framework
2.1.1. Bandura’s Self Efficacy Theory
2.1.2. Kohlberg Moral Reasoning Theory
Kohlberg (1958) expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the moral development of children. Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows a series of stages. He used the idea of moral dilemmas- stories that present conflicting ideas about two moral values to teach 10 to 16 year-old boys about morality and values. The best known moral dilemma created by Kohlberg is the “Heinz’’ dilemma, which discusses the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life. Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons about a dilemma that determines positive moral development.
After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses and placed them in different stages of moral reasoning. According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9), and to the capacity for conventional morality (early adolescence), and finally toward attaining post-conventional morality (once Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve. Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in various contexts.
Level 1: Pre-conventional
Throughout the pre-conventional, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalised society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad’’ the act is perceived to be.
Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation
Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?’’ position, in which right behaviour is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage 2 reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a ‘you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours’’ mentality. An example would be when a child is asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks “what’s in it for me?’’ and the parents offer the child an incentive by giving him an allowance.
Level 2: Conventional
Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.
Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behaviour and people being “nice’’ to others.
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed’’ to do is seen as valuable and important. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would, thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Most active members of society remains at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
Level 3: Post-conventional
Throughout the post-conventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realisation that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles- principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice, and view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions; their behaviour, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest number of people. This is achieved through majorly decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle
In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those principles, they feel guilty. In this way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not because he or she wants to avoid punishment), it is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.
2.1.3. Baumrind’s Parenting Typology
Baumrind (1971) is a researcher who focused on the classification of parenting styles. Baumrind’s research is known as “Baumrind’s Parenting Typology”. In her research, she found what she considered to be the four basic elements that could help shape successful parenting: responsiveness vs. unresponsiveness and demanding vs. undemanding. Through her studies Baumrind identified three parenting styles: Authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting and permissive parenting. Maccoby and Martin expanded upon Baumrind’s three original parenting styles by placing parenting styles into two distinct categories: demanding and undemanding. With these distinctions, three new parenting styles were defined.
Authoritative parental bonding
Authoritative parenting is characterized by a child-cantered approach that holds high expectations of maturity. Authoritative parents can understand how their children are feeling and teach them how to regulate their feelings. Even with high expectations of maturity, authoritative parents are usually forgiving of any possible shortcomings. They often help their children to find appropriate outlets to solve problems. Authoritative parents encourage Children to be independent but still place limits on their actions. Extensive verbal give-and-take is not refused, and parents try to be warm and nurturing toward the child. Authoritative parents will set clear standards for their children, monitor the limits that they set, and also allow children to develop autonomy. They also expect mature, independent, and age-appropriate behaviour of children. Punishments for misbehaviour are measured and consistent, not arbitrary or violent. Often behaviours are not punished but the natural consequences of the child's actions are explored and discussed allowing the child to see that the behaviour is inappropriate and not to be repeated, rather than not repeated to merely avoid adverse consequences. Authoritative parents set limits and demand maturity. They also tend to give more positive encouragement at the right places. However, when punishing a child, the parent will explain his or her motive for their punishment. Children are more likely to respond to authoritative parenting punishment because it is reasonable and fair. A child knows why they are being punished because an authoritative parent makes the reasons known. As a result, children of authoritative parents are more likely to be successful, well-liked by those around them, generous and capable of self-determination.
Authoritarian parental bonding
Authoritarian parenting is a restrictive, punishment-heavy parenting style in which parents makes their children follow their directions with little to no explanation or feedback and focus on the children and family's perception and status. Corporal punishment and shouting are forms of discipline frequently preferred by authoritarian parents. The goal of this style, at least when well-intentioned, is to teach the child to behave, survive, and thrive as an adult in a harsh and unforgiving society by preparing the child for negative responses such as anger and aggression that the child will face if his/her behaviour is inappropriate. In addition, advocates of this style often believe that the shock of aggression from someone from the outside world will be less for a child accustomed to enduring both acute and chronic stress imposed by his/her parents. Children raised using this type of parenting may have less social competence because the parent generally tells the child what to do instead of allowing the child to choose by him or herself, making the child appear to excel in the short term but limiting development in ways that are increasingly revealed as supervision and opportunities for direct parental control decline
Permissive parental bonding
Permissive parents try to be "friends" with their child, and do not play a parental role. The ex-pectations of the child are very low, and there is little discipline. Permissive parents also allow children to make their own decisions, giving them advice as a friend would. This type of parenting is very lax, with few punishments or rules. Permissive parents also tend to give their children whatever they want and hope that they are appreciated for their accommodating style. Other permissive parents compen-sate for what they missed as children, and as a result give their children both the freedom and materi-als that they lacked in their childhood. Baumrind researched on pre-school children with permissive parents and she came up with a result that children were immature, absence in impulsive control and they were irresponsible because of permissive parenting style. Children of permissive parents may tend to be more impulsive and as adolescents may engage more in misconduct such as drug use.
Neglectful parental bonding
2.1.4. Deviant behaviour theory.
Psychological Theories of Deviant Behaviour
Psychological theories of deviant behaviour explain deviance in the area of the individual and their personality. There are many differing theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behaviour, including biological explanations, psychological explanations and social explanations.
There are several fundamental assumptions that all psychological theories on deviance have in common. First, the individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories of deviance, i.e. individual human beings are solely responsible for their criminal or deviant acts or behaviours. Sec-ond, an individual’s personality is the major motivational element that drives behaviour within indi-viduals. Third, criminals and deviants are seen as suffering from personality deficiencies. Thus, crime results from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual.
Finally, these defective or abnormal mental processes could be caused from a variety of things, including a diseased mind, inappropriate learning, improper conditioning, and the absence of appropriate role models or the strong presence of inappropriate role model.
However, certain psychological theories of deviance are explained.
Psychoanalytic theory of deviance
Psychoanalytic theory which was developed from the writings of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), posits that all humans have natural drives, instincts and urges that are repressed in the unconscious and is developed early in life and is composed of three distinct parts: the id, the ego, and the superego (Siegel et al., 2006). The id represents the instinctual drives, the ego represents understood social norms that harness or suppress the id pleasurable desires, and the superego is learned moral reasoning (Siegel et al.). Deviant behavior occurs as a result of imbalance between these three parts of our personality structure and is thought to be a symbolic way of meeting our unconscious needs (Siegel et al.). The internal conflicts that lead to deviancy, usually resulting from a conflict between the id and societal norms understood by the ego, are very painful to the individual, so that the individual pushes them into the unconscious (Shoe-maker, 2005). Then, the individual develops coping strategies called defense mechanisms to cope with the conflicts, and these defense mechanisms can lead to problematic personality traits and problematic behaviors, such as deviancy. In essence, deviant behavior is seen as the external manifestation of an internal disease.
Erik Erikson expanded on this theory, explaining deviancy as an ‘‘identity crisis’’ created by inner turmoil or problems (Siegel et al., 2006). As has been noted by many critics of psychoanalytic theory, this identity crisis created by inner turmoil is difficult to test or validate empirically. The utility of psychoanalytic theory to explain complex, deviant behavior is limited by the lack of evidence to support it (Shoemaker, 2005; Siegel et al.) and by the ‘‘circular nature’’ of psychoanalytic thought (Pfohl, 1994, p. 121). That is the unconscious manifestations of pathology are ‘‘inferred from behavior’’ and that behavior is interpreted as a symptom of the pathology (Pfohl, 1994).
Additionally, all humans have criminal tendencies or potentials. These tendencies are curbed, however, through the process of socialisation. A child that is improperly socialised, then, could develop a personality disturbance that causes him or her to direct antisocial impulses either inward or outward. Those who direct them inward become neurotic while those who direct they outward become criminals.
Social cognitive theory of deviance
The major postulator of the social cognitive theory was Albert Bandura (1925- ), which was formerly referred to as social learning theory (SLT). The theory defines human behaviour as a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal interaction of personal factors, behaviour, and the environment (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory, an individual's behaviour is uniquely determined by each of these three factors. While the SCT upholds the behaviourist notion that response consequences mediates behaviour, it contends that behaviour is largely regulated antecedent through cognitive processes. Therefore, response consequences of a behaviour are used to form expectations of behavioural outcomes. It is the ability to form these expectations that give humans the capability to predict the out-comes of their behaviour, before the behaviour is performed. In addition, the SCT posits that most be-haviour is learned vicariously.
The SCT’s strong emphasis on one's cognitions suggests that the mind is an active force that constructs one's reality, selectively encodes information, performs behaviour on the basis of values and expectations, and imposes structure on its own actions (Jones, 1989). Through feedback and reciprocity, a person's own reality is formed by the interaction of the environment and one's cognitions. In addition, cognitions change over time as a function of maturation and experience (i.e. attention span, memory, ability to form symbols, reasoning skills). However, the SCT posits the interaction of (1) observation, symbolic representations and self-generated stimuli and self-imposed consequences, (2) environmental conditions and (3) behaviors in determining behavior.
2.2. Theoretical conceptualisation
.
The diagram above shows that self-esteem, moral competence and child rearing practices influences deviant behaviour.
2.3. Related empirical studies
There are numbers of works that has been carried out in relation to how self-esteem, moral competence and child rearing practices serve as predictors of deviant behaviour.
These related empirical studies include:
2.3.1.
2.3.2. Moral Judgement and Delinquency in Homeless Youth
2.3.3. The Influence of Parenting Styles on Adolescent’s Delinquency in Delta State.
2.3.4. Impact of Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on Emerging Adults’ Psychosocial Success.
2.3.1.
2.3.2. Moral judgement and delinquency in homeless youth.
2.3.3. The influence of parenting styles on adolescent’s delinquency in Delta State.
Okorodudu, Grace Nwamaka., Okorodudu and Omoni (2000) carried out a research on ‘the influence of parenting styles on adolescent’s delinquency in Delta Central Senatorial District’. They observed that adolescents may exhibit suicidal tendencies, juvenile delinquency, vandalism, destruction of public property, maiming and murder of parents and violence against the larger society. Juvenile delinquency is noted by Ekojo and Adole (2008) as gang delinquency. The gangs delinquent are group of adolescents and youths that exhibit criminal behaviour. Several researches done on factors that precipitate delinquency among adolescents (Okorodudu and Okorodudu, 2003; Eke, 2004; Eke, 2004a, Eke, 2004b) stress that adolescence is a period of stress and storm. Eke also observed that the period is characterized by rebelliousness. This is caused by non-conducive environment. Okorodudu and Okorodudu (2003) listed environmental factors; social factors, physical factors, psychological factors; peer group influence, drug abuse and the family factor as causes of delinquency among adolescents.
Eke (2004) observes that causes of juvenile delinquency tend to find theoretical explanations in the interaction between biological, environmental and social factors. She believes that the biological or genetic make-up of individuals can predispose adolescents‟ engagement in delinquent activities. Chromosomal abnormalities among the adolescents may predispose them to antisocial behaviours. The Nigerian Government had devised and employed several measures aimed at curbing adolescents‟ delinquency in our society but to no avail. For instance establishment and administration of juvenile justice; promulgation of juvenile laws and courts, establishment of remand homes, establishment of security and law enforcement agency etc. Many researchers agree that the foundation of adolescent delinquency is rooted in the kind of home the adolescent is brought up (Odebumi, 2007; Otuadah, 2008; Okpako, 2004; Utti, 2006). The basis for good behaviour orientation and good adolescents‟ attitude development is founded on positive parenting. Okpako (2004) stated that the parents should be blamed and be made to take responsibility for the misfortune that befalls the adolescents. Hence the study wishes to examine the relationship between adolescents‟ delinquency and parenting styles.
Edwards & Shane (2006) emphasized the importance of extended family ties in Latino culture as well as the strong identification and attachment of individuals with tier families. In Africa, parents expand beyond immediate mother and father to include members of the extended family, neighbours and every other person who in one way or the other is involved in upbringing of the child (Okpako, 2004). However, factors which constitute negative parenting (poor parenting) were equally identified as: parental harshness, aggression; lack of love, lack of affection, lack of care, adequate monitoring and supervision, and lack of control to mention but a few. These and a host of other conditions may prong the adolescents into delinquent behaviours and increase in crime rate. Besides, poor parenting may enhance adolescents‟ health problems. For instance, Kring et al (2007) reported a clinical case of a 19 year old man with irregular breathing, a rapid pulse and dilated pupils. Diagnosed symptoms began after excessive drugs use resulting from poor and parental disharmony. Apart from addiction he was also into other delinquent activities such as: disobedience, disengagement from family activities, stealing and selling people’s properties to get money for drugs and videos. Darling (2007) also observed that children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved perform most poorly in all domains.
The study investigated the influence of parenting styles on adolescents’ delinquency. 404 sample sizes were used for the study. 6 research questions and 6 research hypotheses were designed and formulated for the purpose of the study. Regression statistic was used for the analyses of the study. Irrespective of gender, location and age, the results of the analyses show that lassiez-faire parenting style effectively predicts adolescents’ delinquency while authoritarian and authoritative did not. Parents who are positively oriented in their styles (demandingness and responsiveness) will make their adolescents socially competent and goal – directed. Parents who exerted control and monitored adolescent activities and promoted self-autonomy were found to have the most positive effects on adolescents’ behaviour. Uninvolving parents and also non responsive to adolescents needs had negative impacts on their behaviour.
2.3.4. Impact of parenting styles and locus of control on emerging adults’ psychosocial success
2.4. Statement of Hypothesis
2.5. Operational definition of terms