1
PARENTING STYLES AND GENDER AS PREDICTORS OF DISPOSITION TOWARDS
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
BY
UGWU UCHE PAMELA PG/M.Sc/06/40625
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA
SEPTEMBER, 2011
2
TITLE PAGE
PARENTING STYLES AND GENDER AS PREDICTORS OF DISPOSITION TOWARDS ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
BY
UGWU UCHE PAMELA PG/M.Sc/06/40625
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.Sc).
IN
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
NSUKKA
SUPERVISOR: P. N. IBEAGHA, PROF.
SEPTEMBER, 2011
3
CERTIFICATION
UGWU UCHE PAMELA, a postgraduate student in the Department of
Psychology, University of Nigeria Nsukka, and with Registration
Number PG/M.Sc/06/40625 has satisfactorily completed the
requirements for course work and comprehensive research work for
the degree of M.Sc. in Psychology (Developmental Psychology). The
work embodied in this thesis report is organized and has not been
submitted in part or full for any other diplomas or degree of this or any
other university.
_______________________ ______________________ Dr. L. I. Ugwu Prof. P.N Ibeagha (Head of Department) (Supervisor)
________________________________ External Examiner
4
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated first to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; you
are the only reason for my living, and to my dear husband who has
always been the wind behind my wings.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am especially grateful to all the researchers whose reports
aided the success of this work.
I am indebted to my Supervisor, Professor P.N. Ibeagha, whose
encouragement kept me striving for success and also Professor B.N
Ezeilo, under whose tutelage this work was birthed. My appreciation
goes to the Head of Department. Dr. L.I.Ugwu , who is always
generous with his fatherly Advice.
My sincere gratitude also goes to Rev. Sr. Dr. N.B Nwoke, Rev.
Sr. Dr. F.C Enukorah for their assistance and useful criticisms Mr. P.
Mefoh, Ike Onyishi, Ph.D, Mrs Oby Omeje, Ph.D and all my lecturers.
I owe a lot of thanks to Mr. Dozie Okafor for his assistance,
thanks my brother. Also to the Staff and students of Trans-Ekulu Girls‟
Secondary School, Enugu, to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Ozoude,
my siblings Amy, Ify, Edu, Ada, Uju, and Kay you are the best. To my
sister-in-law and friend Nkechi Okeke, I say thank you. And to the
Trumpeters, especially Sabina Macfoy Akachukwu. And my friends –
Ego, Tina, Eby, Viv, Edith, Enuma, I say a big thank you.
To all I say, may God bless abundantly.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Cover Page - - - - - - - - i
Title Page - - - - - - - - - ii
Certification - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgement - - - - - - - v
Table of Contents - - - - - - - vi
List of Table - - - - - - - - viii
Abstract - - - - - - - - - ix
Chapter One
Introduction - - - - - - - - 1
Statement of the Problem - - - - - - 7
Purpose of Study - - - - - - - - 8
Operational Definition of Terms - - - - - 8
Chapter Two
Literature Review - - - - - - - 9
Chapter Three
Methodology - - - - - - - - 31
Chapter four
Results - - - - - - - - - 36
Chapter five
7
Discussion - - - - - - - - - 38
Summary and Conclusion - - - - - - 40
Implication of the Findings - - - - - - 41
Limitations of the Study- - - - - - - 41
Suggestions for Further Research - - - - - 42
References - - - - - - - - 43
Appendices - - - - - - - - 51
8
LIST OF TABLES
1. Mean and standard deviation of parenting styles and gender on
disposition towards antisocial behavior
2. ANOVA Summary of parenting styles and gender on antisocial
behavior.
9
ABSTRACT This study investigated the influence of parenting style and Gender as predictors of disposition towards antisocial behavior two hundred (200) SS1 students of Secondary Schools in Enugu (Trans-Ekulu Girls‟ Secondary School, Enugu, Federal Government College, Enugu, New-Haven Boys‟ Secondary School, Enugu) participated in the study. Participants were within the age range of 13 and 18 years with a mean age of 15.5 using ANOVA. The results of ANOVA showed non-significant main effects of parenting styles on antisocial behavior between participants from permissive, authoritarian and authoritative
parents: f (1,194) = 1.048, p .05. The result further showed non-significant main effect of gender on anti - social behavior between
males and females: f (1,194) = 0.448, P .05. There is also no significant interaction between parenting styles and gender on the prediction of anti-social behavior in adolescents: f (1.194) - 0.991,
P .05. The results were discussed in terms of their implications in anti-social behavior and suggestions were made for further studies.
10
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Antisocial behavior is ubiquitous. It is the degree that differs
across cultures and societies. It is the recognized violation of cultural
norms. Norms guide virtually all human activities, so the concept of
antisocial behavior is quite broad, (Macionis, 2000). It spans a wide
range from minor traffic violation to serious offences, such as rape and
murder.
Over the years, antisocial behavior seems to have assumed
gargantuan dimensions. The very existence of some categories of
people can be troublesome to others. Most familiar examples of non-
conformity are negative cases of rule breaking such as stealing from a
convenience store, or driving while intoxicated. What all antisocial
behaviors have in common is some elements of indifference that cause
one to regard another as outsiders (Beker, 1966).
Antisocial behavior include, but are not limited to the following:
armed robbery, theft, rape, cultism, corruption, examination
malpractice, malpractice in banks, advance fee fraud, money
laundering, lying, sexual promiscuity, assault and cruelty to others,
physical and verbal abuse. No nation, no matter how developed is
11
immune to the menace of antisocial behavior. In fact, some of the
countries most vulnerable to or have more sophisticated types of
antisocial behavior are the developed countries. Nigeria like many
other countries is equally affected by this phenomenon.
In time past, Nigeria was known the world over for its sunshine
glamour. It was most talked about, as kings and queens did not live
better than Nigerians. The country had enough resources in her
treasury to prosecute ambitious socio-economic developments and
sustain our collective dreams as a nation. But all these were not to be
as the national economy has taken a plunge, unemployment is a
staggering reality, armed robbery and crime wave across the country is
a clear manifestation of the depth of moral decay (Braithwaith, 1988).
My observation during my internship training brought the
prevalence of antisocial behavior to the fore. I had my internship at the
Trans-Ekulu Girls‟ Secondary School, Enugu. A great number of the
students are involved in behaviors that are viewed as antisocial.
Breaking school rules, fighting, truancy, missing classes, stealing,
verbal abuse of both teachers and fellow students, secret cultism and
gangsterism are some of the practices that are common place in the
school and among the students. The incidence of adolescents in the
Junior Secondary School, beating up their teachers and destroying
school properties at the end of their Junior Secondary School
12
Examination, getting more and more involved in sexual relationships at
such young age, undermining the authorities of their parents or
guardian beats my imagination. One begins to wonder if there is any
difference between these students and other students elsewhere. Are
there situational and environmental factors that cause this antisocial
behavior? Why would a student leave her home for school but prefer to
stay outside the classroom? Is there something common in the lives of
these students who involve in this kind of behavior? What is the place
of their parents in all these? Don‟t the parents check their school work?
How do they relate to their parents? Why would young girls be involved
in such behavior when it is mainly boys that are believed to have such
inclination? All these questions precipitated this study.
The solution to the problem of antisocial behavior and other
social problems in Nigeria have been sought in so many ways such as
constitutional amendment, national orientation programmes,
redesigning of the school curriculum and programme etc. but the
researcher felt that the answer may lie in another field – parenting
styles, since the behavior of individuals stem from orientation
(Bandura, 1986).
What then is parenting style? Parenting style can be very simply
defined as how a person parents (Horner, 2000), which includes the
mode of interaction between the person (as father or mother or
13
guardian) and his/her children. There are four distinct parenting styles:
authoritarian, permissive, authoritative and neglectful parenting styles
(Baumrind, 1991). These four parenting styles are determined by what
emphasis a parent puts on responsiveness (amount of warmth and
attention the parent gives to the child) and demandingness (how much
control the parent places on the child‟s behavior). (Baumrind, 1991)
According to (Baumrind, 1991), authoritarian parents have high
demandingness but low responsiveness. These parents are very
demanding, uncompromising, and physical. They set strict rules, and
expect complete obedience from their children. Permissive Parents
have high responsiveness but low demandingness. These parents
want their children to be creative and to explore the world to such an
extent that they never place any kind of limits on their children.
Authoritative parents have both high demandingness and high
responsiveness. These parents set high goals for their children, and
give large amounts of emotional support. They set limits for their
children, but provide explanations as to why they should do so. For the
neglectful parents, they have both low demandingness and low
responsiveness. These parents are uninvolved and uninterested in
their children. They set no limits for their children, and offer no support
(Baumrind, 1991).
14
Cole & Cole (1989) opined that adolescents with authoritative
parents tend to be withdrawn, moody, obedient, fearful of new
situations and have low self esteem. They also have trouble socializing
with others. He also stated that adolescents with permissive parents
tend to be more creative, but are behaviorally and verbally impulsive,
aggressive and have trouble dealing with school imposed limits. They
also believe that their parents do not care about them or how they
behave. Adolescents with authoritative parents are likely to foster a
positive development. They have high self esteem, are socially
confident, inquisitive, self-assured and self-reliant, they also have high
respect for their parents, (Cole & cloe 1989). Adolescents with
neglectful parents are in the most danger of engaging in antisocial
behavior. Drug and alcohol use is extremely high in adolescents who
were raised by neglectful parents, (Baumrind, 1991).
Numerous studies have been concluded examining the
relationship between parental variables and adolescents antisocial
behaviours. Barber, Stolz, Osten and Maughan (2003) found that
parental psychological control has a positive relationship with
adolescent antisocial behavior and that parental behavior control has a
negative relationship with adolescent antisocial behaviour (See also
Gillet, 2006). Psychological control means the social support which the
child receives from the parents. It includes maternal or paternal
15
protection, over-pampering and most times, allowing the child to have
his or her way in issues even when the parents does not share the
view of the young person. Behavioral control on the other hand means
the parents can criticize, punish, scold or in some cases flog the child
to get him to comply.
Investigating the dimensions of parenting both as separate
variables and in the aggregated form as parenting styles, highlights
their consistent association with greater academic and social
achievement and fewer problem behaviors in children and adolescents
(Barber, Olsen & Shagle, 1994). Unfortunately, their relationship is still
some what unclear due to the fact that gender variables have not
deeply been considered.
Certainly, gender is the additional variable that will be considered
in this study because of its strong ties to empathy and prosocial versus
antisocial behavior in the literature. Thus, it has been repeatedly found
that females score higher than males on measures of empathy
(Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Lopez, Bonenberger & Schneider, 2001) and
lower on levels of antisocial behavior (Calvo, Gonzalez & Martorell,
2001). The question is therefore, what is the contribution of gender
identity in antisocial behavior when parenting styles are taken into
consideration?
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
16
Hall (1904) viewed adolescence as a period of storm and stress.
“Adolescence is a new birth”, he wrote … “the qualities of body and
soul that now emerge are far newer. Development is less gradual and
more salutary, suggestive of some ancient period of storm and stress
when old moorings were broken and a higher level attained” (p.xiii). the
new birth leads the adolescent to want to get away, to conquer new
territory. At this point also adult laws and behaviors are questioned and
criticized, strict family rules are defiled, and child-parent disputes are
at increase. Baumrind (1978); Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg and
Dornbusch (1991) found that different parenting styles are associated
with different outcomes in children‟s behavior. Children of authoritarian
parents tend to be less trusting and contented, and more withdrawn,
than other children. Children of permissive parents tend to show the
least of self-control and are also self-reliant and exploratory. The best
behavioural outcomes are associated with authoritative parenting.
These children are more often self-reliant, self controlled and with
higher self-esteem (Buri, 1989).
Barber, Stolz, Olsen, & Maughan (2003), related an aspect of
parenting to antisocial behavior. Numerous other studies (e.g. Carlo,
Roesch & Melby, 1998) have related parenting with antisocial behavior.
Yet the sources of antisocial behaviors seem unrevealed. It is the
contention of this study that part of the answer lies in gender identity.
17
1. Will parenting style significantly predict the development of
antisocial behavior in adolescent?
2. Will gender significantly predict disposition to antisocial
behavior in adolescents?
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to find out whether parenting styles
and gender could predict adolescents disposition to antisocial behavior.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
Parenting Styles: This refers to the score of a participant in the
parental authority questionnaire (i.e., the subscale that has the highest
score will be regarded as an individual‟s parenting style).
Gender: This refers to male or female Senior Secondary 1 student.
Antisocial Behavior: This is the score of a participant as measured by
the antisocial behavior disposition scale developed by the researcher.
Adolescents: This refers to young people within the age range of 13
and 18 years who can read and write in the schools sampled.
18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of related literature to the study is categorized into
two: Theoretical Review and Empirical Review
THEORITICAL REVIEW
This section looks at the various literatures on antisocial behavior
of adolescents. For this study, both temperament and parenting style
have been shown to be important. Central to investigations that frame
only main effects of temperament and parenting is the notion that
children are similarly affected by the same parenting experience.
Consequently, some of the theories of antisocial behavior include:
1. Contextual theories of antisocial behavior
2. parental acceptance – rejection theory (PAR – Theory)
3. Life-course theory of antisocial behavior
4. Gender Differences in aggressive and antisocial behavior CONTEXTUAL THEORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR (Bronfenbrennner & Morris, 1998) Contextual theories (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) argued that
the notion that children are affected by the same parenting experience
is incomplete. Environmental factors may vary in their developmental
influence as a function of attributes of the child. Empirical research has
shown that how parent‟s rear their children is partially shaped by the
19
parents own characteristics and the characteristics of the child on the
other hand. Thus, a difficult temperament does not necessarily lead to
antisocial behavior by itself, it does so in conjunction with particular
environments (Bates, dodge, Petit & Ridge, 1998; Collins, Maccoby,
Steinberg, Hetherington & Bornstien, 2000). Thomas and Chess (1977)
called this a “goodness of fit” between an individual‟s temperament and
the expectations and resources of specific contexts. Others (e.g.
Belsky, Hsieh, and Crnic, 1998) talked about “risk-buffering” effects
with regards to temperament – by – environment interactions.
Gillet‟s (2006) study deals with such risk-buffering effects for pre-
adolescents on antisocial behavior.
The contextual theory of antisocial behavior is of the opinion that
parenting style alone does not determine behavior but, an interaction of
the parenting style and environmental context in which the child is
brought up affects his behavior. The researcher agrees with these
theory because observation has shown that a greater percentage of
individuals, living in a particular environment tend to talk, react, dress
and generally behave in the same manner irrespective of their parents‟
style of upbringing. This is atypical for young people living in the
barracks or in the low cost quarters.
20
PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE – REJECTION THEORY (PARTHEORY)
AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Parental acceptance-rejection theory is an evidence based
theory of socialization and life span development that attempts to
predict and explain major causes, consequences and other correlates
of interpersonal acceptance and rejection (Rohner, 1986; 2004;
Rohner & Rohner, 1980). It attempts to answer five classes of
questions divided into three sub-theories; personality sub-theory,
coping personality sub-theory and socio-cultural sub-theory.
Personality sub-theory ask two general questions. First, is it true, as
the personality sub theory postulates that children everywhere, in
different socio-cultural systems, racial or ethnic groups, gender and the
like, respond in essentially the same way when they perceive
themselves to be accepted or rejected by their parents? Second, to
what degree do the effect of childhood rejection extend into adulthood
and old age?
Coping sub-theory asks one basic question. What gives some
children and adults the resilience to emotionality cope more effectively
than others with the experiences of childhood rejection? Finally, socio-
cultural systems sub-theory asks two very different classes of
questions. First, why are some parents warm and loving, and others
cold, aggressive and neglecting/rejecting? Is it true, for example, as
21
parental acceptance-rejection theory predicts, that specific
psychological, familial, community, and societal factors (e.g. anti-social
behavior) tend to be reliably associated the world over with specific
variations in parental acceptance-rejection? Second, in what way is the
total fabric of society as well as the behavior and beliefs of individuals
within society affected by the fact that most parents in that society tend
to either accept or reject their children? For example, is it true as
parental acceptance-rejection theory predicts, that a people‟s religious
beliefs, artistic preferences and other expressive beliefs and behaviors
tend to be universally associated with their childhood experiences of
parenting style.
According to Rohner, Khaleque and Cournajer (2007), parental
acceptance and rejection form the warmth dimension of parenting. This
is a dimension or continuum on which all humans can be placed
because everyone has experienced in childhood more or less love at
the hands of major care-givers. Thus, the warmth dimensions has to do
with the quality of the affectional bond between parents and their
children, and with the physical, verbal and symbolic behaviors parents
use to express these feelings. One end of the continuum is marked by
parental acceptance, which refers to the warmth, affection, care,
comfort, concern, nurturance, support or simply love that children can
experience from their parents and other care-givers. The other end of
22
the continuum is marked by parental rejection, which refers to the
absence or significant withdrawal of these feelings and behaviors, and
by the presence of a variety of physically, and psychologically hurtful
behaviors and effects. Extensive cross-cultural research over the
course of nearly half a century (Rhoner, et al; 2007) reveals that
parental rejection can be experienced by any combination of four
principal expressions.
1. Cold and unaffectionate, the opposite of being warm and
affectionate.
2. Hostile and aggressive
3. Indifferent and neglecting and
4. Undifferentiated rejection
According to Rohner et al (2007), undifferentiated rejection refers
to individuals‟ belief that their parents do not really care about them or
love them, even though there might not be clear behavioral indicators
that the parents are neglecting, unaffectionate or aggressive towards
them. Moreover, youths and adults who perceive themselves to be
rejected appear tp be disposed towards behavioral problems and
conduct disorders, to be depressed or have depressed effects, and to
become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, among their antisocial
behaviors.
23
LIFE –COURSE THEORY OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
According to this model, the development of child antisocial
behavior can gain momentum even before birth and then increase in
velocity and intensity through successive cascading antecedents
during childhood and adolescence. Throughout such a developmental
process, family factors play a powerful role. Longitudinal studies have
provided strong evidence that use of clear and consistent discipline
techniques, close monitoring and supervision of the child, high rates of
positive reinforcement and secure, responsive parent-child attachment
relationships are related to prosocial outcomes in childhood,
adolescence, and adulthood (Fagot & Pears, 1996; Fisher, Ellis &
Chamberlain, 1999; Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992).
However, the exact nature, and functions of family factors change
markedly over development.
Before birth, direct parental antecedents have to do with nutrition,
toxins and maternal stress. Although these risks are most directly
occasioned by the mother, they are in turn significantly affected by
contextual and social factors. Across infancy and toddler hood,
parenting behavior become critical to set the stage for general
psychological and social development as the child matures, specific
parenting factors become more complex, involve different socialization
agents. Finally, during adolescence, the parents must deal not only
24
with mentoring their youngsters‟ activities, but also their transitions to
other primary relationships, their increasing independence, and their
increasing individual accountability (Eddy & Reid, 2002).
According to Reid and Eddy (2002), despite the importance of
parenting behaviors, the displaying of antisocial behavior by youths is
clearly an outcome of the interactive process between parent, child and
others. It is this process that drives the development of antisocial
behavior. Research on the stability of conduct-related problems
indicates that serious child problem behaviors commonly begin at an
early age in the context of parent and sibling-child relationship when
some or all of effective parenting strategies and qualities are not
present (e.g., Olweus, 1980, Speltz, Deklyen, & Greenberg, 1999).
Early failures in discipline, continued child non-compliance, insecure
parent-child attachment relationships, and low levels of prosocial skill
appear to set the stage for reactions from teachers, peers and parents
that cause the child to be rejected and isolated (Fagot & Pears, 1996).
At this stage, the teacher, parents and peers of the child sees him as
one who is always on the wrong side of the law and as such as “bad
egg”. The child on the other hand, believes that he is rejected, no body
understands or wants to understand him. Most often, the individual
involves himself more in antisocial activities in a bid to draw attention to
himself or to get back at the society or people that rejected him.
25
A lot of the literature on gender as it relates to antisocial behavior
reveals a disparity in the behavior of males and females. We will now
look at some of the theories.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVE AND ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
There is a vast literature concerning theories of gender
differences in aggression and antisocial acts focusing on biological,
social and cultural factors. There is an overwhelming consensus (see
Marsh & Campbell, 1986, The social Issue Research Centre, 2004)
that human males are more aggressive and display aggression in
different ways, compared to their female counterparts. The greatest
differences, according to the Social Issues Research Centre (2004) are
seen from puberty to early adulthood although differences are evident
from the age of two years.
Some social scientists (e.g. Crick & Grot Peter, (1995), have
challenged the allegedly simplistic account of aggression and gender
differences based on measures of physical violence. They argue that
aggression may also underline behavior that do not involve physical
aggressions (e.g. manipulation, exclusion, gossip, etc). They suggest
that levels of aggression as a whole may not be significantly different
between the sexes rather it is the manner in which it is expressed that
26
is gender specific. While there may be a valid point here (see Paquette
and Underwood, 1999), it relies on a broadening of the definition of
aggression to include a wide range of additional social behavior that
are not ordinarily defined as aggressive. These behaviors are more of
antisocial behaviors. Most of the behaviors viewed as aggressive are
really anti-social behavior. Examples are rape, street fighting, cultism
etc.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSION IN THE PERSPECTIVE
OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (Barkow, Comsides & Tooby,
1987)
It is clear from the evidence that substantial differences between
the sexes exist in the context of aggression, risk taking and tendencies
towards antisocial behavior. The remaining question concerns the
origins of these clear differences.
To understand the relevance of evolutionary psychology (EP) in
explaining differences between men and women in aggression and
antisocial behavior, it is necessary to consider some of the essential
principles. First, the brain is seen as a physical system that functions
much like a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior
that is appropriate to environmental circumstances. Second, the
circuits of the brain developed through the natural selection to solve
27
problems that our ancestors faced during our evolutionary history.
Third, our 21st century skulls, house essentially stone age minds.
The process of natural circuits require very long periods to time
to develop and adapt. In early hunter gathering communities (Barkow,
et al; 1987) there were requirements for survival, physical protection
and adequate food supply. Those communities that were successful in
achieving these conditions were able to reproduce at a faster rate than
those who were not. Thus, the genes that helped to shape the neural
circuits that were the most effective were passed on in greater
numbers. To achieve an adequate food supply, it was necessary to
develop the skills for both hunting and for gathering wild fruits, nuts,
etc; to provide additional sources of nutrients. At the same time,
children needed to be born and raised. Since women were often in a
state of near permanent pregnancy and infant caring for most of their
child bearing years, a separation of roles between the genders
developed and males, with the additional advantage of slight greater
body size, took on the role of hunting while women took on the role of
careers and gatherers.
During the vast majority of our evolution, it was also necessary to
defend communities from potential attack from rival groups seeking
hunting opportunities and access to an additional pool of women to
mate. In addition, the more an individual male could find sexual
28
partners, the more his genes could be passed on to the future. So,
basic patterns of aggression, calculated risk-taking and “infidelity”
among men arose as a „natural‟ consequence of these basic
requirements. Today, risk taking men are still seen as more attractive
by women, a more suitable opportunity to father children who will be
protected from the consequences of inappropriate engagement in risk
primarily by women (The Social Issue Research Centre, 2004).
In summary, males were more disposed to behaviors that tend
towards aggression than women as a result of natural selection and
roles. In effect, this natural disposition towards aggression further
exposes them to antisocial characteristics which they often exhibit at
the slightest provocation. A close look at the other theories of antisocial
behavior – contextual theory, parental acceptance – rejection theory,
life-course theories in relation of the gender difference in antisocial
behavior reveals that even though aggression is common to both
sexes, its mode of expression differs (gender specific).
Having looked at the theoretical framework of studies done on
antisocial behavior, we will now look at the empirical works done on the
subject.
29
EMPIRICAL REVIEW
Many studies exist that examine parenting styles (e.g. Abell,
Clawson, Washington, Bost & Vaughn, 1996; Beyer, 1995; Bluestone &
Tannis-LeMonda, 1999). Baumrind‟s (1978), three parenting styles of
authoritarian, permissive and authoritative are often used in studies
investigating parenting styles in relation to diverse child outcome
variables such as, academic achievement, self-confidence, aggression,
delinquent behavior, and substance abuse, (Dombush, Ritter,
Leidermann, & Roberts, 1987; Hart, Nelson, Robison, Olsen, &
McNelly-Choque, 1998; Hill, 1995; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, &
Dornbusch, 1991; Shumow, Vandell, & Posner, 1998).
Researchers typically have identified these three parenting styles
based on the levels of control and warmth displayed by parents on a
regular basis and in a variety of situations. Past research has also
included a fourth parenting style called neglectful, which is
characterized by low warmth and low control (Dekovic & Gerris, 1992:
Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg & Ritter, 1997, Leung & Kwan,
1988). Maccoby and martin (1983) call this parenting style indifferent-
uninvolved, they described these parents as emotionally detached.
Indifferent-uninvolved or neglectful parents tend to keep their children
at a distance, responding to child demands to make them cease. Little
is known about this parenting style and research on this population of
30
parents is lacking because they are typically not very responsive or
involved in their children‟s lives and therefore, do not volunteer to be
studied (Tiller, Garrison, Block, Cramer & Tiller, 2004). Because these
parents and consequently their children are difficult to study, the
current study examines only the three previously mentioned parenting
style.
PARENTING AND TEMPERAMENTS
Important recent studies on temperament-by-parenting
interaction have been done by Kochanska (1995; 1997) and Belsky,
Hsieh and Crnic (1998) amongst others. For example, Kochanska
(1995; 1997) studies the development of conscience in young children,
and discovered that for shy temperamentally fearful children, parental
power-assertion does not appear to promote conscience development.
Gentler techniques are called for such slow-to-warm up children. But
with bold assertive children, effective parenting involves firmness,
along with maternal responsiveness and the formation of a close
emotional bond with the child. Belsky, Hsieh, and Crnic (1998)
concluded that children with a difficult temperament are most
susceptible to parenting practices. This is because, the parents in
finding ways to control them must employ effecting parenting which
includes firmness and maternal responsiveness as stated above.
31
Bates, Dodge, Pettit, and Ridge (1998), investigated the interaction
effect of the child‟s temperamental resistance to control and parents‟
restrictive control at early age on externalizing behavior at ages 7 to 11
years. A robust finding was that early resistance to control predicted
later externalizing behavior better when the mother has been relatively
low in control actions, which fits with Kochanska‟s (1995, 1997)
findings for children, and the question is whether and to what extent we
can generalize the results of such studies to late childhood or
adolescence.
There are a number of studies that have examined temperament-
by-environment interactions in late childhood or adolescence and it is
worth-while having a look at their results. For example, Stice and
Gonzales (1998), in their study of 631 adolescents aged 16-19 years,
found that temperament interacted with perceived parenting in their
effects on antisocial behavior. Effective parenting (I.e. maternal control)
was most important for youth that were temperamentally at risk (I.e.,
high on behavioral under control). They argued that because youths
who experience behavioral under control show more variability in
problem behaviors, parenting may have a greater opportunity to
operate. Consequently, they will benefit more from effective parenting.
Furthermore, Stice and Gonzales (1998), reasoned that adolescents
32
who are behaviorally controlled are unlikely to evidence problem
behaviors, regardless of the parenting they experience.
Most of the studies on temperament-by-environment interactions
concerning preadolescents or adolescents have focused on parental
control as environmental factor. This still leaves us with the question
whether the temperament-by-environment interactions for externalizing
behavior can also be found for other environments than parental
control in adolescence. An answer to this question would be an
important further step in the investigation of temperament-by-
environment interactions, as this study is dedicated to this task.
PARENTING AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Numerous studies have been conducted examining the
relationship between parenting variables and adolescent antisocial
behavior. Barber, Stolz, Olsen and Maughan (2003) in their study of
the interactions between parental support and behavioral psychological
control in adolescents found that parental psychological control has a
positive relationship with adolescent anti-social behaviors and that
parental behavioral control has a negative relationship with adolescent
antisocial behavior.
Bradford, Barber, Olsen, Maughan, Erickson and Ward (2004)
replicated the study using recommendations from cross-cultural
33
psychology in which researchers took a model that has been validated
in one culture and “transport and test” it for validity in another. These
authors used the model provided by Barber, et al (2003) and tested it
across 11 different cultures including school-going adolescents from
Bangladesh, Bosnia, China, Colombia. Germany, India, Palestine,
Three different ethic groups in South Africa, and the United States.
Findings suggested that the same relationships found in the Barber et
al (2003) study was present across all 11 cultures that were sampled.
(Bradford, et al, 2004). This research not only reports on significant
relationship between parenting and antisocial behavior, but also
suggested that these relationships are similar cross-culturally in all
parent/child relationship.
In addition, numerous other studies report that increases in
parental support and behavior control lead to decreased antisocial
behavior (Claes & Lacourse, 2001). Carlo, Roesch and Melby (1998),
investigated the relationship that adolescent anger and sociability and
parental support have with prosocial and antisocial youth outcomes.
Using self-report measures that represented each of the above
variables, they sampled 80 adolescents. Their findings suggested that
when parental support was high and anger and sociability were low,
aggression and antisocial behavior were corresponding low.
34
It has also been found that an increase in parental support leads
to decreased antisocial behavior (Bryant & Crockenberg (1980); Carlo,
Roesch and Melby (1988), found in their study involving 50 mothers
and their daughters that a mother‟s responsiveness to needs to her
child (interpreted as conceptually comparable to parental support) was
related to a decrease in antisocial behavior and an increase in
prosocial behaviors. In addition, Mestre, Samper, Tur and Diez (2001)
found in their study of 733 youths from Spain (males and females ages
14-15) that prosocial reasoning is strongly related to an adolescent‟s
perceived relationship with their mother and father. When adolescents
perceive that their relationship with their parents was positive and
supportive, they exhibited higher levels of prosocial reasoning. Claes
and Lacourse (2001) found in the study of high students in France that
higher levels of parental monitoring (discussed as behavioral control in
this study) are related to decreases in deviant behaviors.
EMPATHY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
The next step in the review of literature focuses on the
relationship between empathy and antisocial behaviors. Research
shows that increases in empathy are related to decreases in violence
and aggression (Garaigordobil, Alvarez, & Carralero, 2004; McMahon
& Washbum, 2003; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Tremblay, Phil, Vitaro &
35
Dobkin, (1994). Garaigordobil, Alvarez and Carralero, (2004), found in
their study of 139 pre-adolescents (ages 10-12 years) that participants
with high levels of antisocial behaviors showed less concern for others
and a lower capacity for empathy than their non-delinquent
counterparts. In their study including fifth through eight grade students
McMahan & Washburn (2003) found that increases in empathy
significantly predicated less aggressive or antisocial behavior. In
addition, Miller and Eisenberg (1988) found a moderate negative
relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior.
In contrast, a lack of empathy can be related to various antisocial
behaviors, such as increased gang involvement (Valdez, Kaplan &
Codina, 2000), drug dealing (Shreiber, 1992), fire setting (Walsh,
Lambie & Stewart, 2004) and sexual offences (Fair, Brown, & Beckett,
2004). To be more specific, Shreiber (1992) found, in his study of 33
delinquent adolescents, that those who had been charged with dealing
crack cocaine had significantly lower levels of empathy than those who
were not drug dealers. In addition, Farr et al (2004) reported in their
study of 101 adolescent males (44 sexual offenders and 57 non-
offenders) that sex offenders displayed significant empathy deficits
when compared to their non-offenders counterparts. Valdez, Kaplan
and Codina (2000) found in their study involving 75 Mexican American
males in late adolescence that gang members scored twice as high as
36
non-gang members on lack of empathy. Furthermore, Soderstrom
(2003) refers to psychopathy (also sometimes referred to as conduct
disorder or antisocial personality disorder) as an “empathy disorder” –
suggesting that such disorders are related to a lack of or inability to
experience empathy.
Most research on adolescent empathy focuses only on the
negative outcomes that are related to possessing low levels of
empathy. One study, however, reported that programs can be useful in
helping adolescents develop higher levels of empathy and therefore
lower levels of aggressive, delinquent behavior (McMahon &
Washburn, 2003). These authors studied the impact of violence
prevention programmes on fifth through eight grade African American
students in Inner-City, Chicago schools. After evaluating pretest and
posttest surveys measuring a variety of variables, it was discovered
that students who participated in the instituted violence prevention
program showed significant increases in violence prevention
knowledge and skills, self-reported empathy, and teacher-reported
prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, it was reported that increases in
empathy significantly predicted decreases in aggressive and antisocial
behavior (McMahon & Washburn, 2003).
Studies have shown that positive levels of empathy are related to
higher levels of moral reasoning and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et
37
al, 1991). In a longitudinal study which spanned over 11 years, they
found higher level of empathy to be related to increases in moral
reasoning (part of which is defined as prosocial reasoning/behavior). In
their study involving 102 early college students, Lopez et al (2001),
found that higher levels of empathy were directly related to increases in
prosocial behavior. As previously reported, if prosocial behavior is
negatively correlated with antisocial behaviors, it is proposed that the
Lopez et al (2001) and Eisenberg et al (1991), studies provide
evidence that higher levels of empathy would be related to a decrease
in antisocial behaviors.
GENDER AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Although much of the research on gender differences has focused on
adult roles, substantial evidence suggests that sex differences in
antisocial behavior emerge in childhood and early adolescence
Kessler, McGonagle, Schawrtz, Glazer, & Nelson 1993).
On male predominance in antisocial behavior, Marsh and
Campbell, (1986) demonstrated that males are more violent partly
because of the differences in risk-taking and risk-aversion between the
genders. My observation of young females growing up in the midst of
boys has shown that the females tend towards any kind of behavior
exhibited by the males. If the males are gentle and pro-social, it
38
influences the females and if other wise it rubs off on the females. Most
often, they become “Tomboys” behaving like boys and also being as
aggressive as boys.
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE
Several theories have been put across to explain the relationship
between parenting and antisocial (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998).
Such Theories as Parental-Acceptance Rejection Theory (Rohner, et
al, 2007); Life-course theory of antisocial behavior (Eddy & Reid,
2002); Gender differences in aggression (Marsh & Campbell, 1986);
Evolutionary Psychology (Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby, 1987),
and so on, have all been reviewed in this study.
Furthermore, several empirical researches discuss the
relationships between socialization variables (e.g. Parenting) and
child/adolescent empathy and antisocial behavior (e.g. Barnett, 1987;
Lopez et al., 2001). However, only one study could be found that
investigated the constructs of parenting, child-empathy and prosocial
(as opposed to antisocial) behaviors-simultaneously (see Krevans &
Gibbs, 1996). Unfortunately, no studies could be found that
concurrently evaluated the relationship between parenting, gender and
antisocial behavior in an adolescent population.
39
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between
parenting variables (authoritarian, authoritative and permissive styles),
and gender (male and female) on adolescents antisocial behaviors
towards others and self in a sample of adolescents in Enugu
Metropolis. Hopefully, findings from this study will provide suggestions
for marriage and family therapists and other clinicians who work with
adolescents that exhibit antisocial behavior to understand how
socialization factors and gender variables may be related to higher
levels of antisocial behavior in an adolescent.
HYPOTHESIS
The following hypotheses were postulated and therefore will be
tested in this study:
1. Parenting style will not significantly predict the disposition
towards anti-social behavior in adolescents.
2. Gender identity will not significantly predict the disposition to
wards anti-social behavior in adolescents.
40
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred (200) Senior Secondary One (SSI) students of
Trans-Ekulu Girls‟ Secondary School, Enugu, New Haven Boy‟s
Secondary School, Enugu and Federal Government College, Enugu
participated in the study. Participants were drawn by systematic
sampling technique. Ikeagwu (1998) defined systematic sampling
method as one where the population is explicitly ordered in some way
and then every nth unit in a certain order is selected. Thus, a
systematic sample is a sample constructed by selecting for instance,
every 4th person in the students‟ population. A sampling frame was
drawn from the list which the researcher obtained from teachers of the
SSI classes in the schools involved. Senior Secondary one (SSI)
students were sampled as participants for this study in order to meet
the targeted age range as stipulated in the definition of adolescents
under the operational definition of terms. A sampling frame is simply a
list of all the students that have a chance of being selected as
participants for the study (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister
2003). Every participant is numbered, a sample size of (4) was chosen.
The sample size (4) was used to obtain the value of the sampling
41
frame (100) to obtain the value of n, and then every element was
chosen, after choosing the first one randomly.
Therefore, one of the first four people was chosen randomly and
every fourth person thereafter by this method in every school.
Participants comprised of 100 males and 100 females. 50 boys
from New Haven Boy‟s Secondary School, 50 girls from Trans-Ekulu
Girls Secondary School, 50 boys and 50 girls from Federal
Government College, Enugu. It is worthy to note that the sampling
frame for Federal Government College was prepared along gender
lines, one for males and one for females.
Participants were met in their classrooms during teaching hours.
They were told the rationale behind the study as purely academic.
They were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Each
participant received a pen for participating in the study.
INSTRUMENTS
Two instruments were used for these studies. One is the parental
authority questionnaire (PAQ) original developed by Buri (1991). The
PAQ is designed to measure parental authority, or disciplinary style,
from the point of view of the child (of any age). The PAQ has three
subscales: permissive (p: Items 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24 and 28),
42
and authoritarian (A: Items 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 29) and
authoritative/flexible (F: Items 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27 and 30).
There is no sub-scale for studying the fourth parenting style
which is uninvolved/neglectful parenting styles. This is because the
parents are uninvolved/indifferent and tend to keep their children at a
distance. They are typically not responsive to their children and
therefore do not volunteer to be studied.
The questionnaire contains a total of 30 items and the response
pattern is the Likert format raging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. Buri (1991) found an alpha of ∝=.77, and test reliability
of r = .72.
However, the researcher re-validated the questionnaire using 30
Nigerian samples from National Grammar School Nike Enugu State.
An alpha of = .84 and a split-half reliability of = .64 was obtained.
Also a concurrent validity of = .84. P < .001, was obtained correlating
parental authority questionnaire (PAQ) with parental support
questionnaire, by Nwafor (2008) (See Appendix A) (B) Anti-social
Behavior Disposition Scale (ADBS) developed by the researcher.
Antisocial Behavior Disposition Scale (ABDS) is the second
instrument. The ABDS was developed based on literature review of
Crick and Grotpeter (1995), Claes and Lacourse (2001). The scale
43
initially had 26-items. Face and content validation of the instrument by
3 lecturers in the Department of Psychology UNN reduced the items to
22. Item analysis of the instrument using 60 SSI students of National
Grammar School, Enugu reduced the items to 16 and yielded an alpha
coefficient of .89. The scale is a multiple-choice scale (Likert-type), and
it ranges from Never = 1, through rarely = 2, Sometimes = 3, to Always
= 5.
PROCEDURE
The researcher went to three secondary schools, Trans-Ekulu Girls‟
Secondary School, New Haven Boys‟ Secondary School and Federal
Government College, Enugu for data collection. First, with a letter of
identification from the Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka. The researcher introduced herself to the school authority of
each of the three schools. She also explained the rationale behind the
study as purely academic and also assured them of the confidentiality
of their responses.
The researcher with the help of the form teachers of the classes
involved brought the selected students together in a class. The
researcher distributed the two questionnaires simultaneously to each
participant. This same procedure was followed in the three schools.
44
The researcher waited on the students in each of the schools to
complete the questionnaires.
DESIGN/STATISTIC
The design of this study is survey. The independent variable is
parenting styles and gender and the dependent variable is anti-social
behaviours. The study investigated influence of parenting style and
gender on disposition to antisocial behavior in adolescents. Thus, it
tried to ascertain whether parenting styles and gender influences one‟s
disposition towards antisocial behavior.
A 2-way ANOVA was employed in analyzing the data.
45
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT
Table1: Mean and Standard deviation of parenting styles and
gender on antisocial behavior.
Parenting styles Gender Mean SD N
Permissive Male Female Total
39.60 36.50 38.88
11.56 8.09 10.79
20 6 26
Authoritarian Male Female Total
41.92 41.30 41.53
9.63 9.73 9.62
24 40 64
Flexible/Authoritative Male Female Total
41.52 41.50 41.52
9.90 9.27 9.63
70 40 110
Total Male 41.27 10.09 114
Gender Female 41.06 9.40 86
Table 1 above shows that participants from permissive parents are less
disposed to antisocial behavior (M = 38.88) compared with participants
from Authoritarian parents (M=41.53) and those from
flexible/Authoritative parents (M=41.52).
Table 2: ANOVA summary of parenting styles and gender on antisocial behavior
Source SS Df Ms F Sig
Parenting styles 203.23 2 101.615 1.048 NS
Gender 43.48 1 43.48 .448 NS
Parenting style & Gender 36.99 2 18.50 .991 NS
Error 18809.98 194 96.96
Total 358176.00 200
NS - Not Significant
46
The results of ANOVA presented in table 2 above show a non-
significant main effect of parenting styles on disposition to anti-social
behavior between participants from permissive, authoritarian and
authoritative/flexible parents. ƒ (1,194) = 1.048, P>.05 Thus,
hypothesis 1 of no-significant effect was accepted.
The results also show a non-significant main effect of gender on
disposition to antisocial behavior between males and females. (ƒ
1,194) = 0.448, P>.05 Thus hypothesis II of no significant was
accepted.
In addition, the results indicate a non-significant interaction of
parental styles and gender on antisocial behavior. ƒ (1,194) = 0.991,
P>.05 Thus, there was no relationship between parenting, styles and
gender on antisocial behavior.
47
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSIONS
The results of the present study show that there is no statistically
significant difference in antisocial behavior between permissive,
authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles. Thus, hypothesis 1 was
accepted. This result is contrary to Barber, Stolz, Olsen and Maughan
(2003) who found significant relationships between parenting control
and adolescents‟ antisocial behavior. Similarly, it ran contrary to
Bradford, et al (2004) who found significant cross-cultural relationship,
between parenting styles and antisocial behavior.
The non-significant difference between the parenting styles on
antisocial behavior however, may be attributed to the recent upsurge of
globalization which tends to externalize the family circle. Thus,
socialization of the child had gone out of the nuclear family circle,
resulting in a relatively uniform socialization for every child. From the
age of 5 years, the child spends more time in the school than at home.
This continues as the time spent in school and outside the home
increases until the child becomes an adult and move out of the parents
home into his or her own place. This result also reflects the effects of
the rat race where both parents are always outside in search of
resources to keep the home and the children are left at the mercy of
house helps or other care givers who themselves have not much to
48
offer. No wonder, behaviors whether social or antisocial do not
accurately reflect the parenting style.
Moreover, the result also indicates a non-significant effect of gender on
antisocial behavior. This means that there was no statistically
significant difference in antisocial behavior between males and
females. Thus hypothesis II was accepted.
The non-significant gender differences in disposition towards antisocial
behavior found in this study might be attributed to the increasing
exposure of children of both genders to television violence mostly in
form of movies, video games and cartoons. These among other
technological fall outs have been acknowledged by the younger
generation as ways of exploiting leisure times.
Considering the recent clamor for gender equality, it is no surprise,
however, that females have arisen to appear or even to compare with
males in all ramifications, including criminality.
The result indicates a non-significant interaction of parenting styles and
gender on disposition to antisocial behavior. This is a clear indication
that gender identity does not determine antisocial inclinations when
parenting styles are considered. In other words being a female (for
example) brought up in an authoritative home may or may not
guarantee disposition to antisocial behavior. Consequently, there may
49
be other factors such as residence locality which may serve as a
mediator.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Having examined the influence of parenting styles and gender on
disposition towards antisocial behavior. This study has demonstrated
that antisocial behaviors are determined by factors beyond the home
environment. In as much as gender differences exist, antisocial
behavior may reflect gender differences only when other factors are
considered in addition. To this end, this study has come up with the
following conclusions
1. Parenting style is not an indicator of antisocial behavior among
adolescents in Enugu.
2. Gender differences in antisocial behavior among adolescents
reflect differences in exposure outside the home.
IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS
The present study demonstrated the prevailing uniformity of both
gender in recent times. This is a period when gender equality is being
promoted at all spheres of life, perhaps, except in biology.
Practically, women have risen up to the challenges of ensuring equal
treatment, equal share, and equal practices. This study
therefore,reflects this current move by women to be rated equal.
50
Surprisingly, the younger generation has also been affected, hence,
this findings
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Like every other study in the social sciences, this study has some
limitations.
First, there is the problem of population coverage. The sample used for
the study is not a true representative of the entire population of
adolescents in Enugu State particularly, and Nigeria in general.
There is also the issue of social desirability. It is possible that some
participants responded in ways that would make them appear in good
lights. However, the rationalism behind the study is well articulated.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Further research on this study should expand the population
coverage. This will enable for a more meaningful result. Efforts should
be made to include other variables such as residence locality and
school locality.
This will enable the researchers arrive at more holistic results that will
make for a more meaningful analysis.
51
REFERENCES
Abell, E, Clawson, M., Washington, W. N., Bost K. K., & Vaugh, B. E. (1996). Parenting Values, Attitudes, Behaviors and Goals of African – American Mothers from a low-income Population in Relation to Social and Society contexts. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 593 – 613.
Bandura,A. (1986) Social Foundation of Thoughts and Action. A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood cliffs. N.J: Prentice Hall Barber B.K., Olsen, J.E., & Shegle, S.C. (1994). Associations Between
Parental Psychological And Behavioral Control And Youth Internalized And Externalized Behaviour. Child development, 67, 3263-3277.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental Psychological Control. Revisiting a
Neglected Construct. Child development, 67, 3296-1136. Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., Olsen, J. A., & Maughan, S. L. (2003).
Parental Support, Psychological Control and Behavior Control. Validations across Time, Analytic Method and Culture. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Tennessee.
Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1987). The Adapted Mind:
Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, M. (1987). Empathy and Related Responses in Children. In N.
Eisenberg & J. Strager (Eds.) Empathy and its Development (pp. 146-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, J.E.; Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction
of Temperamental Resistance To Control And Restrictive Parenting in the Development of Externalizing Behavior. Developmental Psychology 34, 942-995.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent
transition. In P.A.Cowan & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.). Advances in family research (vol. 2) Hillsdale, N.J Erlbaum.
52
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental Disciplinary Patterns and Social
Competence in Children and Social Competence in Children. Youth & Society, 9(3), 239-251.
Beker, H. S. (1966). Outside Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
New York: Free Press. Belsky, J., Hsieh, K. H., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, Fathering, and
Infant Negativity as Antecedents of Boy‟s Externalizing Problems and Inhibition at 3 years: Differential Susceptibility to rearing experience. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 301-319
Beyer, S., (1995). Maternal Employment and Children‟s Academic
Achievement. Parenting Style as Meditating Variable Developmental Review 15, 212-253.
Bluestone, C., & Tannis – LeMonda, C. S. (1999). Correlates of
Parenting Styles in Predominantly Working and Middle-Class African American Mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 881-893.
Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L.
D., & Ward, D. (2004). A Multi-National Study of Interparental conflict, Parenting, and Adolescent Functioning South Africa, Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Palestine, Colombia, and the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-137.
Braithwaite, T. (1988). Who Will Save Nigeria? Congress Paper.
Lagos, December 19, pp. 6-9. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. (1998). The Ecology of Developmental
Processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. I. Theoretical Models of Human Development (5 ed., pp. 993-1028) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bryant, B. K., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates and Dimensions
of Prosocial Behavior. A Study of Female Siblings with Their Mothers. Child Development, 51, 529-544.
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and Appraisals of Parental Behavior.
Journal of Adolescent Research 4, 33-49.
53
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A &
Dahlstrom, W. G. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2TM (MMP1-2). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Calvo, A. J., Gonzalez, R. & Martorell, M. C. (2001) Variables
Relacionadas Con la Conducta Prosocial en La Infanica y Adolescencia: Personalidad, Autoconcepts, Y Genero. Infancia Y Apredizaje, 24, 95-111.
Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C. & Melby, J., (1998). The Multiplicative
relations of Parenting and temperament to Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence, 18, 266-290.
Claes, M. & Lacourse, E. (2001). Practiques Parentales et
Comportements. Deviants a L’adolescence, Enfance, 43, 379-399.
Cole, M. & Cole S.R (1989). The Development of Children. Scientific
American Books Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., &
Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary Research on Parenting. American Psychologist, 55, 218-232.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational Aggression, Gender,
and Social-Psychological Adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Dekovic, M. & Gerris, J. R. M. (1992). Parental Reasoning Complexity,
Social class, and Child-rearing Behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 675-685.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., & Roberts, D.F.,
(1987). The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Eddy, M. J. & Reid, J. B. (2002). The antisocial Behavior of the
Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Developmental Perspective.
54
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A. Shell, R., McNalley, S. & Shea, C. (1991). Prosocial Development in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 849-857.
Elander, J., West, R. & French, D. (1993). Behavioral Correlates:
Individual Differences in Road Traffic Crash Risk: an Examination of Methods and Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113:2, 279-294.
Fagot, B. I., & Pears, K. C. (1996). Changes in Attachment during the
Third Year: Consequences and Predictions. Development and Psychology. 8, 325-344.
Farr, C., Brown, J. & Beckett, R. (2004). Ability to emphasized and
Masculinity Levels: Comparing male adolescent sex offenders with a normative sample of non-offending adolescents. Psychology, crime and law, 10, 155-167.
Feshback, N D. (1987). Parental empathy and child adjustment/maladjustment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer. (Eds.), Empathy and its development. (pp. 271-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, P. A., Ellis, B. H., & Chamberlain, P. (1999). Early Intervention
Foster Care: a Model for Preventing Risk in Young Children who have been maltreated. Children services: Social Policy, research and Practice 2(3), 159-182
Garaigodobil, M., Alvarez, Z. & Carralero, V. (2004) Conducta
Antisocial en ninos de 10 a 12 anos: Factoros de personalidad asociados y variable predictoras. Analisis y modificacion de conducta, 30, 241-271.
Gillet, K. S. (2006). Parental and Religious Influences on Adolescent
Empathy and Antisocial Behavior among Latino and Euro-American Youth: An Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Effects. A Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech. University.
Glasgow, K. L. Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L. & Ritter, P.
L., (1997). Parenting Styles, Adolescents‟ Attributions, and Educational Outcomes in nine heterogeneous High Schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.
55
Hall, G.S. (1904). Adolescence: Its Psychology and its relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education (vols. 1 & 2). New York: Appleton.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robison, C. D., Olsen, S. F., & McNelly-
Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and Relational Aggression in Russian Nursery-School Age Children: Parenting Style and Marital Linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.
Hathaway, S. R. & Mickinley, J. C. (1967). A multiphasic Personality
Schedule (Minnesota): 1 Construction of the Schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254.
Hill, N. E. (1995). The relationship Between Family Environment and
Parenting Style: A Preliminary Study of African-American Families. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 408-423.
Horner, B. (2000). Adolescence: Change and Continuity:
http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/ndarling/adfambl.htm. Ikeagwu, E. K. (1998). Groundwork of Research Methods and
Procedures. Enugu: Institute for Development Studies. Ivor, E.E. (1984). The Effect of Anxiety on the Ego-Strength of Juvenile
Delinquents. Unpublished B. Sc. Thesis. Department of Psychology, University of Lagos.
Kessler, R.C, McGonagle, K.A., Swartz, M. Blazer, D.G & Nelson C.B.
(1993). Sex and depression in the National comorbidity survey/: life time prevalence, www. Books. Google. Com. Ng/ books? Is bn = 04712 37361
Kochanska, G. (1995). Multiple Pathway to Conscience for Children
with Different Temperaments, Mother‟s Discipline, and Security of Attachment: Multiple Pathways to Emerging Internalization. Child Development, 66,597-615.
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple Pathways to Conscience for Children
with Different Temperaments, from Toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228-240.
56
Krevans, J. & Gibbs, J.C. (1996). Parents‟ Use of Inductive Discipline: Relations to Children‟s Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263-3277.
Kukoyi, O. A. (1997). Criminal Tendency Characteristics among
detainees in Police Cells. Unpublished B. Sc. Thesis. Development of Psychology, University of Lagos.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S. Steinberg, L. & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1991). Patterns of Competence and Adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Leung, P.W., & Kwan, K.S.F. (1998). Parenting Styles, Motivational
Orientations, and Self-Perceived Academic Competence: A Mediational Model. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 1-19.
Lopez, N. L., Bonenberger,J. L., & Schneider H. G. (2001). Parental
Disciplinary History, Current Levels of Empathy, and Moral Reasoning in Young Adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 193-204.
Macobby, E . E. & Martin, J. A., (1983). Socialization in the Context of
the family: Parent-child Interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development. (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Maccoby, E.E. (2002). Parenting and its Effects on Children: on
reading and Misreading Behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27.
Macionis, J. J. (2000). Society, the basics (5th Ed.). New Jersey: Upper
Saddle River. Marsh P. and Campbell, A (Eds.) (1982). Aggression and Violence.
Oxford: Oxford university press. McMahon, S.D. & Washburn, J.J (2003). Violence prevention: An
evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. Journal of primary prevention, 24, 43 – 62.
57
Mestre, M.V., Samper, P., Tur, A. & Diez, I (2001) Estilos de crianza y desarrollo prosocial de los hijos. Revista de psicolgia General y Applicada, 54, 691-703
Michiels, W. & Scneider, P. (1984). Traffic Offences: Another
Approach to Description and Prediction. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6, 223-238.
Miller, P.A. & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The Relationship of Empathy to
Aggressive and Externalizing/Anti-social Behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.
Norris, F. H., Mathew, B. A., & Riad, J. K. (2000(. Characterological
Situational, and Behavioral Risk Factors for Motor vehicle Accidents. A Prospective Examination. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32, 505-515.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and Temperamental Determinants of
Aggressive Behavior in Adolescent Boys: A Causal Analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-656.
Paquette, J. & Underwood, M. (1999). Gender Differences in Young
Adolescents‟ Experiences of Peer Victimization: Social and Physical Aggression. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242-265.
Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive Family Process, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R. Reid, J. B., & Dishion J. M. (1992). A Brief History of
the Oregon Model. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial Behaviour in children: Developmental Theories and Models for Intervention. Washington D.C American Psychology Association.
Rohner, R. P. & Rohner, E. C. (1980). Worldwide Tests of Parental
Acceptance-rejection Theory (Special Issue). Behavior Science Research, 15.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The Warmth Dimension: Foundations of Parental
Acceptance Rejection Theory. Beverly Hills, C. A.: Sage Publications, Inc.
58
Rohner, R. P. (2004). The Parental “Acceptance _rejection Syndrome”. Universal Correlates of Perceived rejection. American Psychologists, 59, 830-840.
Ronald, P. R., Khaleque, A. & Cournoyer, D. E. (2007). Introduction to
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory, Methods, Evidence and Implications. www.cspar.uconn.edu.
Schreiber, K. (1992). The Adolescent Crack Dealer: a Failure in the
Development of Empathy. Journal of the American Academy of psychoanalysis, 20, 241-249.
Shaughnessy, J.J, Zechmeister, E.B. & Zechmeister, J.S (2003).
Research methods in psychology (6th Ed.) New York: McGraw Hill Co.
Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K., (1998). Harsh, Form, and
Permissive Parenting in Low Income Families: Journal of Family Issues, 19, 438-507.
Soderstrom, H. (2003). Psychopathy as a Disorder of Empathy.
European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 249-252. Speltz M.L, Deklyen, M & Greenberg, M.T (1999) Attachment in Boys
with Early Conduct Problems. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 269-285.
Stice, E., & Gonzalez, N. (1998). Adolescent Temperament Moderates.
The Relation of Parenting to Antisocial Behavior and Substance use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 5-31
The Social Issue Research Centre, (2004). Sex differences in Driving
and Insurance Risk: An Analysis of the Social and Psychological Differences between Men and Women that are Relevant to Their Driving Behavior. Oxford University: Social Issues Research.
Thomas, A & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and Development. New
York: Brunner and Mazel. Tremblay, R, Pihl, R. O. Vitaro, F. & Dobkin, P.L. (1994). Predicting
Early Onset of Male Anti-social Behaviour from Preschool Behaviour. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 732-739
59
Valdez, A, Kaplan, C.D. & codina, E. (2000) Psychopathy Among Mexican American Gang Members: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 46-58
Waller, P. F., Elliot, M. R., J. T., Raghunathan, T. E., & Little, R., J. A.
(2001). Changes in young Adults Offences and crash Patterns Overt Time. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 33, 177-128.
Walsh, D. Lambie, I. & Stewart, M. (2004). Sparking up: Family
Behavioral and Empathy Factors in Adolescent Firesetters. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 5-32.
Wootton, J. M. Frick, P. J., Shelton. K. K. & Silverthorn, P., (1997).
Ineffective Parenting and Childhood Conduct Problems. The Moderating Role of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 301-308.
Yagil, D. (1998). Gender and age-related Differences in attitudes
Toward Traffic Laws and Traffic Violations Transportation Research, Part F: 1, 123-135.
60
APPENDIX A Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nuskka. I4th March, 2008.
Dear Respondent, QUESTIONNAIRE I am a post graduate student of the Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. This questionnaire is for my academic research on “Parenting Styles and Gender as Predictors of disposition towards Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescents” Your kind cooperation in complying as well as returning the attached questionnaire will be highly appreciated. Your responses will be treated in confidence. Thank you. Ugwu Uche Pamela
61
SECTION A
Sex: …………………………………. Age:…………………………….
School:……………………………………………………………………
Class:……………………………………………………………………..
SECTION B
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE
The under listed words or phrases show a number of ways young people usually feel or react to situations. Kindly indicate by ticking on any of the options that best describe the way you feel.
Never Rarely Sometimes Always
1 It is certainly best to keep my mouth shut when I‟ m in trouble
2 When I was young, I stole things
3 It would be better if laws were thrown away
4 I think most people would lie to get ahead
5 I was suspended from school for bad behavior
6 People are honest chiefly because they are afraid of being caught
7 People use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it.
8 Criticism or scolding hurt me terribly
9 I blame a person for taking advantage of people who leave themselves open to it.
10 I have been so entertained by cleverness of some criminals that I have hoped they would get away with it.
11 People make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them
12 When people find themselves in trouble, the best thing for them to do is to agree upon a story and stick to it.
13 The person who provides temptation by leaving valuable properties unprotected is about as much as to blame for its theft as the one who steals it.
14 When I was young, I did not go to school when I should have
15 It is all right to get around the law if you don‟t actually break it.
16 I feel good when I cheat others and get away with it.
62
SECTION C
PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Instruction: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point scale (1 – Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) that best describes how that statement applies to you and your mother. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies to you and your mother during your years of growing up at home. There are no right or wrong answers, so don‟t spend a lot of time on any item.
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree of disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
1. While I was growing up, my parents felt that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do
1 2 3 4 5
2. Even if their children didn‟t agree with them, my parents felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what the thought right
1 2 3 4 5
3. Whenever my parents told me to do some thing as I was growing up, they expected me to do it immediately without asking questions
1 2 3 4 5
4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my parents discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family
1 2 3 4 5
5 My parents has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable
1 2 3 4 5
6 My parents has always felt that what their children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what they might want
1 2 3 4 5
7 As I was growing up, my parents did not allow me to question any decision day had made
1 2 3 4 5
8 As I was growing up, my parents directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline
1 2 3 4 5
9 My parents has always felt that more force should be used on the children in the family to behave the way they are supposed to
1 2 3 4 5
10 As I was growing up my parents did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them
1 2 3 4 5
11 As I was growing up, I knew what my parents expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with them when I felt that they were unreasonable.
1 2 3 4 5
12 My parents felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is the boss in the family
1 2 3 4 5
13 As I was growing up my parents seldom gave me expectation and guidance for my behavior
1 2 3 4 5
14 Most of the time as I was growing up, my parents did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions
1 2 3 4 5
15 As the children in my family were growing up, my parents consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways
1 2 3 4 5
16 As I was growing up, my parents would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her 1 2 3 4 5
17 My parents feel that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‟s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.
1 2 3 4 5
18 As I was growing up, my parents let me know what behaviour they expected of me, and if I didn‟t meet those expectations, they punished me.
1 2 3 4 5
19 As I was growing up, my parents allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from them.
1 2 3 4 5
20 As I was growing up, my parents took the children‟s opinion into consideration when making family decisions, but they would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it.
1 2 3 4 5
21 My parents did not view themselves as responsible for directing and guiding my behaviour as I was growing up
1 2 3 4 5
63
22 My parents had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but they were willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each individual child in the family
1 2 3 4 5
23 My parents gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up, and they expected me to follow their direction, but they were always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me
1 2 3 4 5
24 As I was growing up, my parents allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and they generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do
1 2 3 4 5
25 My parents has always felt that most problems in society would be solved, if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‟t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.
1 2 3 4 5
26 As I was growing up, my parents often told me exactly what they wanted me to do and how they expected me to do it
1 2 3 4 5
27 As I was growing up, my parents gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she they were also understanding when I disagree with them.
1 2 3 4 5
28 As I was growing up, my parents gave me clear direction for my behaviors, activities and desires of the children in the family
1 2 3 4 5
29 As I was growing up, I knew what my parents expected of me in the family and they insisted that I conform to those expectations, simply out of respect for their authority
1 2 3 4 5
30 As I was growing up, if my parents made a decision in the family that hurt me, they were willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if they had made a mistake.
1 2 3 4 5
64
APPENDIX B RELIABILITY
/ VARIABLES = item1 item2 item3 item4 item5 item6 item7 item8 item9 item10 item11 item12 item13 item14 item15 item16 item17 item18 item19 item20 item21 item22 / SCALE (‘ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SCALE’) ALL / MODEL = ALPHA / STATISTICS = DESCRIPTIVE SCALE / SUMMARY = TOTAL
RELIABILITY [Data Set 1) C:/Documents and Settings/ASIEDO/MY Documents / Onyeka.sav SCALE: ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SCALE
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
60
0
60
100.00
.0
100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach‟s Alpha
N of Items
.889 22
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
3.2500
3.7333
3.7667
2.6500
2.7500
3.2833
.87490
.66042
.67313
.89068
1.01889
.99305
60
60
60
60
60
60
65
Mean Std. Deviation N
Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22
1.9500 3.2500 3.4500 1.9500 1.9000 3.4500 3.4667 3.5000 3.5000 3.4833 1.7000 1.5833 3.4500 1.7167 3.2500 3.4500
.82572
.70410
.94645
.94645
.65613
.81146
.76947
.83362
.74788
.69624
.79173
.56122
.81146
.82527
.70410
.94645
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Item- Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item Total
Correlation
Cronbach‟s Alpha if Item
Deleted
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16
61.0000 60.5167 60.4833 61.6000 61.5000 60.9667 61.0000 60.8000 60.8000 60.7833 60.7500 60.7500 60.7667 60.8000 61.0000 60.8000
89.390 86.559 87.983 87.532 85.915 85.931 86.780 82.332 84.773 85.359 83.479 85.004 85.673 84.773 86.780 82.332
.345
.734
.601
.457
.480
.494
.667
.745
.709
.708
.778
.758
.663
.103
.667
.745
.888
.878
.881
.885
.884
.884
.880
.875
.878
.878
.875
.877
.879
.893
.880
.875
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
64.2500 96.021 9.79904 16
66
APPENDIX C
CONCURRENT VALIDITY FOR PAQ AND PARENTAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES = parent supp
/PRINT = TWOTALL NOSIG
/MISSING = PAIRWISE
CORRELATIONS
[Data Stel 1] C: / Program Files/SPSS Evaluation /dozie.sav
Correlations
Parent
Authority
Parent
Support
Parent authority Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
30
.855**
.000
30
Parent support Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.855**
.000
30
1
30
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
67
APPENDIX D
Univariate Analysis of Variance
[Data Set 2] C:/Documents and Settings/CHIEDOZIE/MY Documents/uche.sav
Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Anti Social Behaviour
Parenting Styles Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Permissive Style males Females Total
39.6000 36.5000 38.8846
11.55946 8.09321
10.79010
20 6
26
Authoritarian style males Females Total
41.9167 41.3000 41.5312
9.63200 9.73284 9.62300
24 40 64
Flexible/neglectful males Females Total
41.5286 41.5000 41.5182
9.89909 9.27362 9.63340
70 40
110
Total males Females Total
41.2719 41.0581 41.1800
10.09011 9.40007 9.77576
114 86
200
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behavior
Source
Type III Sum
of Square
df
Mean Square
F
Sig
Model
Parental style
Gender
Parental style* gender
Error
Total
339366.024a
203.231
43.478
36.993
18809.976
358176.000
6
2
1
2
194
200
56561.0004
101.615
43.478
18.497
96.959
583.352
1.048
448
191
.000
.353
.504
.826
A R Squared = 947 (Adjust R Squared = .946)
68
Univariate Analysis of Variance
[Data Set 2] C:/Documents and Settings/CHIEDOZIE/MY Documents/uche.sav
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Parenting Style 1
2 3
Gender 1
2
Permissive style Authoritarian
style
Authoritative
Males
Females
26
64
110
114 86
Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Parenting Styles Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Permissive style males
Females
Total
39.6000
36.5000
38.8846
11.55946
8.09321
10.79010
20
6
26
Authoritarian style males
Females
Total
41.9167
41.3000
41.5312
9.63200
9.73284
9.62300
24
40
64
Authoritative males
Females
Total
41.5286
41.5000
41.5182
9.89909
9.27362
9.63340
70
40
110
Total males
Females
Total
41.2719
41.0581
41.1800
10.09011
9.40007
9.77576
114
86
200
Test of Between-Subject Effects
Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Source
Type III Sum Of Square
df
Mean Square
F
Sig
Model
Parentalstyle
Gender
Parentalstyle * gender
339366.024a
203.231
43.478
36.993
6
2
1
2
56561.004
101.615
43.478
18.497
583.352
1.048
.448
.191
.000
.353
.504
.826
a. R Squared = .947 (Adjusted R Squared = .946)
69
Tests of Between-Square Effects
Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Source Type III Sum of Square
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Error
Total
18809.976
358176.000
194
200
96.959
a. R Squared = .947 (Adjusted R Square = .946)
Estimated Marginal Means 1. Parenting Style Estimates Dependent Variable: Antisocial Behaviour
Parenting Style
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Permissive style Authoritarian style Authoritative
38.050 41.608 41.514
2.292 1.271 .976
33.530 39.101 39.590
42.570 44.116 43.439
Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variance: AntiSocial Behaviour (1) Parenting Styles (J) Parental Styles
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Permissive Style Authoritarian Style
Authoritative
-3.558
-3.464
2.621
2.491
.176
.166
-8.727
-8.377
1.610
1.448
Authoritarian style permissive style
Authoritative
2.621
1.603
2.621
1.603
.176
.953
-1.610
-3.067
8.727
3.255
Authoritative permissive style
Authoritarian style
3.464
-094
2.491
1.603
.166
.953
-1.448
-3.255
8.377
3.067
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
70
Univariate Tests Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig
Contrast
Error
203.231
18809.976
2
194
101.615
96.959
1.048 .353
The F tests the effect of Parental Styles. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. 2. Gender Estimates Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Gender
Mean
Std. Erro
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Males
Females
41.015
39.767
1.068
1.528
38.908
36.753
43.122
42.780
Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variance: AntiSocial Behaviour
(I) (J) Gender Gender
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig a 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Males females 1.248 1.864 .504 -2.428 4.925
Females males -1.248 1.864 .504 -4.925 2.428
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Different (equivalent to no adjustments). Univeriate Tests Dependent Variable: AntiSocial Behaviour
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square F Sig.
Contrast Error
43.478 18809.976
1 194
43.478 96.959
.448 .504
The F tests the effect to Gender. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
71
3. Gender * Parental Styles Dependent Variance: AntiSocial Behaviour
Gender Parenting Styles
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Males permissive style
Authoritarian style
Authoritative
39.600
41.917
41.529
2.202
2.010
1.177
35.257
37.952
39.207
43.943
45.881
43.850
Female permissive style
Authoritarian style
Authoritative
36.500
41.300
41.500
4.020
1.557
1.557
28.572
38.229
38.429
44.428
44.371
44.571
Profile Plots Estimated Marginal Means of AntiSocial Behaviour
42.00
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
37.00
36.00
Permissive style Authoritarian style Authoritative
Gender
males
females
Parental Styles
72
APPENDIX E
Parenting style gender antisociab… 1.00 1.00 34.00 1.00 1.00 32.00 1.00 1.00 56.00 1.00 1.00 23.00 1.00 1.00 34.00 1.00 1.00 27.00 1.00 1.00 50.00 1.00 1.00 45.00 1.00 1.00 56.00 1.00 1.00 59.00 1.00 1.00 34.00 1.00 1.00 45.00 1.00 1.00 42.00 1.00 1.00 36.00 1.00 1.00 33.00 1.00 1.00 23.00 1.00 1.00 44.00 1.00 1.00 55.00 1.00 1.00 41.00 1.00 2.00 23.00 1.00 2.00 36.00 1.00 2.00 34.00 1.00 2.00 34.00 1.00 2.00 52.00 1.00 2.00 28.00 2.00 1.00 35.00 2.00 1.00 44.00 2.00 1.00 34.00 2.00 1.00 45.00 2.00 1.00 36.00 2.00 1.00 49.00 2.00 1.00 38.00 2.00 1.00 47.00 2.00 1.00 44.00 2.00 1.00 45.00
73
Parenting style gender antisociab…
2.00 1.00 58.00 2.00 1.00 27.00 2.00 1.00 26.00 2.00 1.00 26.00 2.00 1.00 26.00 2.00 1.00 44.00 2.00 1.00 55.00 2.00 1.00 40.00 2.00 1.00 30.00 2.00 1.00 51.00 2.00 1.00 48.00 2.00 1.00 52.00 2.00 1.00 43.00 2.00 1.00 47.00 2.00 1.00 38.00 2.00 2.00 48.00 2.00 2.00 49.00 2.00 2.00 38.00 2.00 2.00 47.00 2.00 2.00 44.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 2.00 2.00 58.00 2.00 2.00 27.00 2.00 2.00 26.00 2.00 2.00 26.00 2.00 2.00 26.00 2.00 2.00 44.00 2.00 2.00 55.00 2.00 2.00 40.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 2.00 2.00 53.00 2.00 2.00 51.00
74
Parenting style gender antisociab…
2.00 2.00 48.00 2.00 2.00 52.00 2.00 2.00 43.00 2.00 2.00 47.00 2.00 2.00 38.00 2.00 2.00 48.00 2.00 2.00 59.00 2.00 2.00 34.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 2.00 2.00 42.00 2.00 2.00 36.00 2.00 2.00 33.00 2.00 2.00 23.00 2.00 2.00 44.00 2.00 2.00 55.00 2.00 2.00 41.00 2.00 2.00 23.00 2.00 2.00 36.00 2.00 2.00 34.00 2.00 2.00 34.00 3.00 1.00 52.00 3.00 1.00 28.00 3.00 1.00 35.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 34.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 36.00 3.00 1.00 49.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 58.00 3.00 1.00 27.00 3.00 1.00 26.00
75
Parenting style gender antisociab…
3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 55.00 3.00 1.00 40.00 3.00 1.00 30.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 53.00 3.00 1.00 51.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 52.00 3.00 1.00 43.00 3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 49.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 58.00 3.00 1.00 27.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 55.00 3.00 1.00 40.00 3.00 1.00 30.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 53.00 3.00 1.00 51.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 52.00 3.00 1.00 43.00
76
Parenting style gender antisociab…
3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 55.00 3.00 1.00 40.00 3.00 1.00 30.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 53.00 3.00 1.00 51.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 52.00 3.00 1.00 43.00 3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 49.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 58.00 3.00 1.00 27.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 26.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 1.00 55.00 3.00 1.00 40.00 3.00 1.00 30.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 53.00 3.00 1.00 51.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 52.00 3.00 1.00 43.00
77
Parenting style gender antisociab…
3.00 1.00 47.00 3.00 1.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 48.00 3.00 1.00 34.00 3.00 1.00 32.00 3.00 1.00 56.00 3.00 1.00 23.00 3.00 1.00 34.00 3.00 1.00 27.00 3.00 1.00 50.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 56.00 3.00 1.00 59.00 3.00 1.00 34.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 3.00 1.00 42.00 3.00 1.00 36.00 3.00 1.00 33.00 3.00 1.00 23.00 3.00 1.00 44.00 3.00 2.00 55.00 3.00 2.00 41.00 3.00 2.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 36.00 3.00 2.00 34.00 3.00 2.00 34.00 3.00 2.00 52.00 3.00 2.00 28.00 3.00 2.00 35.00 3.00 2.00 44.00 3.00 2.00 34.00 3.00 2.00 45.00 3.00 2.00 36.00 3.00 2.00 49.00 3.00 2.00 38.00
78
Parenting style gender antisociab…
3.00 2.00 47.00 3.00 2.00 44.00 3.00 2.00 55.00 3.00 2.00 40.00 3.00 2.00 30.00 3.00 2.00 45.00 3.00 2.00 53.00 3.00 2.00 51.00 3.00 2.00 48.00 3.00 2.00 52.00 3.00 2.00 43.00 3.00 2.00 47.00 3.00 2.00 38.00 3.00 2.00 48.00 3.00 2.00 59.00 3.00 2.00 34.00 3.00 2.00 45.00 3.00 2.00 42.00 3.00 2.00 36.00 3.00 2.00 33.00 3.00 2.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 44.00 3.00 2.00 55.00 3.00 2.00 41.00 3.00 2.00 23.00
Top Related