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