FACTORS INFLUENCING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG SCHOOL GOING STUDENTS

ABSTRACT

This study focused on factors influencing anti-social behavior among school going students in. The study was guided by the following objectives: To establish how the presence of both parents in a family influences student’s antisocial behavior, to establish the extent to which single parenthood influence student’s antisocial behavior, to establish the extent to which family economic status influence student’s anti-social behavior and to determine the role school variables play on students antisocial behaviors. The study targeted the secondary school children all the 8 Public secondary schools were considered for the study, a total of 80 students were targeted by the study.

The methodology that was employed in this study was census where all the public secondary schools were included in the study and simple random sampling to select students from each of the 8 schools. The findings of this study revealed that presence of both parents contributes to the development of parent-child relationship, that parent involvement ascribe to a parent’s ability to seek out his or her children and manifest an interest in their behaviors. Love was revealed to be very important in the child behavioral development, parents who suffer from emotional adjustments manifests low self-esteem in them, consequently the study revealed that remarriage and step-parents have effects on delinquency as shown by 89% of the respondents. The study concludes that presence of both parents contributes greatly to the development of parent-child relationship, that children who come from families where both parents were presents were happy and reported having good relationship with their parents this was unlike for those children who come from families with only one of the parents. The study recommends that in order to control the delinquency development in children, school variables such as the role played by the teachers should be mended to provide wellbeing of the school children.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

A study by Farrington, (2006) revealed that most people are of the opinion that the main cause of delinquency among young adults is poor parenting methods, and especially poor parental discipline or control of children. For example, in 1988, the British news- paper Mail on Sunday reported the results of a survey of a quota sample of over 1,000 adults who were asked what they thought were the main causes of delinquency. The most popular cause (nominated by 53 percent) was lack of parental discipline, followed by poverty (20 percent), television violence (19 percent), lack of school discipline (15 percent), broken homes (13 percent), and alcohol or drugs (13 percent). Academic research confirms the importance of family factors as predictors of offending. Smith and Stern (2007) in their review concluded that: We know that children who grow up in homes characterized by lack of warmth and support, whose parents lack behaviour management skills, and whose lives are characterized by conflict or maltreatment will more likely be delinquent, whereas a supportive family can protect children even in a very hostile and damaging external environment.

Parental monitoring or supervision is the aspect of family management that is most consistently related to delinquency for decades criminologists have explored the relationship between delinquents and the parents who raise them. The beliefs about the nature of this relationship have been molded through a variety of different, and often conflicting criminological theories. Beginning with the early theories of social control and social learning and moving forward to the more recent general theory, life-course, and interactional theories it is clear that criminology has long been interested in exploring the relationship between the dynamics of family interactions and the development of antisocial behaviors in children. In the recent past there has been a growing interest in the role played by family the origin of behavioral problems among adolescents (Bronstein, 2003). In the field of criminology, Carlson (2005) argued that notions of ‘family influence’ appear in the criminological literature, although the research efforts have been dispersed among different theoretical approaches. As a result, Cohen (2005) proposed to integrate these diverse findings on social support into a coherent criminological paradigm to take a more comprehensive approach to the understanding of crime causation.

Bronstein, (2003) studied the predictors at age 6–11 years of serious or violent offending at age 15–25 years. Their findings revealed that the best explanatory predictors (i.e., predictors not measuring some aspect of the child’s antisocial behavior) were antisocial parents, male gender, low socioeconomic status of the family, and psychological factors (daring, impulsiveness, poor concentration, etc.). Other moderately strong predictors were minority race, poor parent-child relations (poor supervision, discipline, low parental involvement, low parental warmth), other family characteristics (parent stress, family size, parental discord), antisocial peers, low intelligence, and low school achievement. In contrast, abusive parents and broken homes were relatively weak predictors.

According to stern, (2007) opines that large family size (a large number of children in the family) is a relatively strong and highly replicable predictor of delinquency. Farrington & Loeber, (1999) affirmed the findings and indicated that it was similarly important in the Cambridge and Pittsburgh studies, even though families were on average smaller in Pittsburgh in the 1990s than in London in the 1960s. In the Cambridge Study, if a boy had four or more siblings by his tenth birthday, this doubled his risk of being convicted as a juvenile. Large family size predicted self-reported delinquency as well as convictions (Farrington, 2003). It was the most important independent predictor of convictions up to age 32 years in a logistic regression analysis; 58 percent of boys from large families were convicted up to this age (Farrington, 2003).

There are many possible reasons why a large number of siblings might increase the risk of a child’s delinquency. Generally, as the number of children in a family increases, the amount of parental attention that can be given to each child decreases. Also, as the number of children increases, the household tends to become more overcrowded, possibly leading to increases in frustration, irritation, and conflict. In the Cambridge Study, large family size did not predict delinquency for boys living in the least crowded conditions, with two or more rooms than there were children (Bronstein, 2003). This suggests that household overcrowding might be an important intervening factor between large family size and delinquency.

Wright (2003) reviewed several possible explanations for the link between large families and delinquency, including those focusing on features of the parents (e.g., criminal parents, teenage parents), those focusing on parenting (e.g., poor supervision, disrupted families), and those focusing on economic deprivation or family stress. Another interesting theory suggested that the key factor was birth order: large families include more later-born children who tend to be more delinquent. Based on an analysis of self-reported delinquency in a Seattle survey, they concluded that the most plausible intervening causal mechanism was exposure to delinquent siblings. Consistent with social learning theory, large families contained more antisocial models. It is clear that some family factors are at least as important in the prediction of offending as are gender and race. Reviewing these kinds of results reveals the bewildering variety of family constructs that have been studied, and also the variety of methods used to classify them into categories. In this study, family factors are grouped into six categories: (a) criminal and antisocial parents and siblings; (b) large family size; (c) child-rearing methods (poor supervision, poor discipline, coldness and rejection, low parental involvement with the child); (d) abuse (physical or sexual) or neglect; (e) parental conflict and disrupted families; and (f) other parental features (young age, substance abuse, stress or depression, working mothers).

1.2 Problem statement

In the search for the causes and correlates of juvenile antisocial behaviour, delinquency in children is as a result of various factors namely: poverty, broken homes, and lack of education and employment opportunities, migration, drug or substance misuse, peer pressure, lack of parental guidance, violence, abuse and exploitation. This study while recognizing these causes, only seeks to focus on familial influence as a contributing or inhibiting factors to Children’s antisocial behaviors.

All too often throughout the history of criminology, crime and delinquency has been studied as a male phenomenon. In an effort to expand the discipline, many studies have begun to explore the similarities and differences in the causes and correlates of male and female rates of crime and delinquency. Additionally, theory and research have begun to explore how gender itself may interact with other variables to influence the propensity towards antisocial and/or criminal behaviors.

Antisocial behaviour has been one of the top problems confronting the nation today especially among the youth (Kipkeboi, 2013). Incidences of drug and alcohol abuse and related anti-social behaviour have tremendously increased in Kiambaa constituency in recent years (Kipkeboi, 2013). This has become a matter of concern to the government, parents, teachers, Non-governmental organizations and all other relevant agencies. It is more prevalent than parents suspect. Parents do not recognize the extent of these behaviors and as a result, some young people think they can go ahead with impunity on these acts (Kipkeboi, 2013). Most parents believe that it is the responsibility of teachers to check antisocial behaviour among school going children and still most of them delude themselves that their children are safe and secure. Antisocial behaviour is not confined to young people in certain geographical areas or from particular social-economic backgrounds only but its menace that cuts across.

However, few studies have examined the mediating effects of social learning mechanisms in the influence of familial constructs on antisocial behavior (Darling, 2003). Conger (2005) also emphasized that researchers of family support must avoid what Widom (2007) called the fallacy of autonomy”. Some family factors are at least as important in the prediction of offending as are gender and race. Whereas, studies have been done to suggest the factors that influence anti-social behaviors in children, there seems to be no study on the factors influencing antisocial behavior among school going students in Kenya. This therefore attempted to contribute to such efforts by analyzing the relationship between specific familial constructs, the factors this study seeks to explore include: (a) presence of both parents (b) school environment; (c) single parenthood; (d) economic situations of families; (e) parental conflict and disrupted families.

1.3 Research questions

1. Does the presence of both parents in a family influence student’s antisocial behavior?
2. What is the extent to which single parenthood influence student’s antisocial behavior?
3. Does economic status of families influence student’s antisocial behavior?
4. Do school variables influence student’s antisocial behavior?

1.4 Specific Objectives

1. To establish how the presence of both parents in a family influence student’s antisocial behaviour
2. To establish the extent to which single parenthood influence student’s antisocial behavior.
3. To establish the extent to which family economic status influence student’s antisocial behavior
4. To determine the role school variables play on student’s antisocial behaviors

1.5 Justification of the Study

Familial constructs has historically been recognized as one of the primary contributing or inhibiting factors to Children’s antisocial behaviors. As indicated in the background above few studies have examined the mediating effects of social learning mechanisms in the influence of familial constructs on antisocial behavior. For example, youngsters are likely to find support in school settings; adolescents may receive additional support from participation in sports programs or community organizations. The current study will therefore add to the body of knowledge by demonstrating how the specific familial construct influence children’s antisocial behavior.

1.6 Limitation of the study

The influence of family on antisocial behavior changes in different contexts and it is shaped by contextual sources of social support. This study did not consider all the aspects family influences but instead was restricted to presence of parents, single parenthood, economic status and broken families influences to development of antisocial behaviours on school going children. The study only considered behaviours of children within Kiamba constituency and none from neighbouring constituencies.

1.7 Definition of terms

Antisocial Behaviour: Anti-social behaviour is any sort of behaviour that goes against the norms that society has placed. Many different types of extreme anti-social behaviours have been documented and observed among school children including aggression to those around them, cruelty, violence, scam, theft, arson and vandalism. Other lesser traits that could be considered anti-social are noncompliance, lying, intimidating, manipulation, and other activities such as drug and alcohol abuse (Bor, Najman, 1997)

School children: are children of school going ages that are more volatile to character/behaviour change due to environmental factors, this study focuses on the parental influence, economic status and the role of school on school children anti social behaviours (Conger, 1995)

School environment: refers to the surrounding of the school that can contribute in influencing the behaviour of the students, the nature of school environment can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour in children (Farrington, 2003)

Socialization: Socialization is the process by which children and adults learn from others. Children begin learning from others during the early days of life; and most people continue their social learning all through life unless some mental or physical disability slows or stops the learning process (Lipsey, 1998)

Punishment: punishment is any change in a human surroundings that occurs after a given behaviour or response which reduces the likelihood of that behaviour occurring again in the future. Whether a change is or is not punishing is only known by its effect on the rate of the behaviour, not by any hostile or aversive features of the change (Robins, 2004)

Economic status: is an economic and sociological combined total measure of a person’s work experience and of an individual’s or family’s economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation (pogarsky, 2003)

Drug abuse; is continued misuse of drugs even when faced with drug-related job, legal, health, or family difficulties. Drug addiction is long-term, compulsive drug use. The person may attempt to stop using drugs, but repeatedly return to drug use despite physical, emotional, or social harm. Drug dependence means that the body has begun to require the drug in higher doses to have the same effect and to avoid withdrawal symptoms

Related Project Topics :