University of Port Harcourt

CORRELATES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG IN-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN BAYELSA STATE.

Details: Published: 22 July 2021

CORRELATES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG IN-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN BAYELSA STATE.

INOH, ADIMABUA ANTHONY

Department of Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counselling

University of Port Harcourt.

AND

PROFESSOR T. A. JAMABO

Department of Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counselling

University of Port Harcourt.

AND

DR. I. R. ERNEST-EHIBUDU

Department of Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counselling

University of Port Harcourt.

Abstract

This study investigated some of the correlates of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. Three research questions and three hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. The designs for the study were ex-post-facto and correlation designs. Five hundred and seventy-eight (578) respondents were drawn from SS2 students of Government Senior Secondary Schools in Bayelsa State to form the sample size for the study. A structured questionnaire titled “Family Socio-economic Status, Peer Interaction and Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire” with reliability coefficient value of 0.68 and 0.72 respectively was used for data collection. Data generated were analyzed with mean and standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance and simple regression statistics. The study revealed that Family socio-economic status does not have any significant influence on antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents. The study also revealed that peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents. Also, the study established that peer interaction had more impact on female adolescents than on the males antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents. Based on the findings of this study, it was recommended that parents should help supervise and monitor the type of company their children keep especially the female children who are mostly influenced by their friends.

Keywords: Antisocial behaviour, Family socio-economic status, Peer interaction

Introduction

The trend of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State seem to be growing worse on a daily basis and the negative impact of this behaviour has become alarming as the society and the school watch helplessly. Behaviours such as substance abuse, cultism, lying, non-compliance to given rules, gambling, corruption, stealing, keeping of bad companies, confused moral values, destruction of property, killing of fellow students, robbery, examination malpractice, bullying are some of the prevalent antisocial behaviours among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State.

Antisocial Behaviour refers to illegal actions that violate social norms in ways that reflect disregard for others or that reflect the violation of others’ rights. These range from misuses of public space, such as fighting or drug use and dealing, to disregard for community safety, such as dangerous driving or drunk and disorderly behaviour. Antisocial behaviour according to Gale Encyclopedia of Children's Health (2018) is influenced by the child's temperament and irritability, cognitive ability, the level of involvement with deviant peers, exposure to violence, and deficit of cooperative problem-solving skills.

Adolescence is a unique stage of human development with specific characteristics, when individuals do not only strive to adapt to the environment and seek balance, but also to build significant relations outside the family as well as their identity and autonomy, while profound physical, cognitive, moral and socio-emotional changes take place (Steinberg, 2009). This period in human development can bring up issues of independence and self-identity; many adolescents face tough choices regarding school, sexuality, drugs, alcohol, and social life. Peer groups, romantic interests, and appearance tend to naturally increase in importance for some time during an adolescent's journey toward adulthood. Therefore, antisocial behaviours that are manifested at this stage cannot be dissociated from all the complexity and significance of such profound developmental events, which must be put in context if we fully wish to interpret and understand the phenomenon. This study focused primarily on substance abuse, stealing and lying as the dependent variables.

Substance abuse is an antisocial behavior that refers to the use of illegal drugs. Substance abuse according to the World Health Organization (2019) is the harmful or hazardous use of psychoactive substances, including alcohol and illicit drugs. Substance abuse could be common with those who display antisocial behaviour. Common reasons for substance use among adolescent students might include lack of social support from the parents or caregivers, psychological and emotional neglect. As a result of these trends, researchers increasingly have targeted adolescent substance abusers as well as those involved in stealing and lying behaviours.

Stealing refers to taking of someone's property without permission. Stealing is considered an antisocial behaviour simply because it undermines the normal societal norms and moral standard of both God and man as well as inflict psychological harm to the victims.

Lying is another antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents. A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, and it is intentional (Freitas-Magalhaes, 2013). Rundell (2007) defined lie as something that you say or write that is not true and that, you know is not true and is a deception. It is giving some information while, believing it to be untrue, intending to deceive by doing so. Lie is the opposite of truth. Lying is harmful both to the adolescent liar, the one lied to and the society in general. Thus, adolescents who indulge in lie-telling are termed antisocial. However, it might not be out of place to say that factors such as family socioeconomic status and peer interaction may be correlates of substance abuse, stealing and lying behaviours among in-school adolescents.

Family socioeconomic status refers to the generation of parent’s income, education, and occupation (Bradley and Corwyn 2002) because these indicators enable the estimation of the family’s financial, social, and human capital. Socioeconomic status is a concept that summarizes an individual’s social position in society. Socioeconomic status of a family has been found to have a high likelihood of interacting with other factors, mediating or moderating their influence on children’s development. For the purpose of this study, family socioeconomic status refers to the availability and non-availability of essential resources for meeting the needs of family members.

Peer interaction refers to the relationship among persons who are equal inability, qualification, age, background and social status. Williams (2007) viewed peers interaction as a platform for sharing of experiences and co-learning in adopting others’ perspectives, which is essential for both social and cognitive development. As children approach adolescence, they spend increasing amounts of time with their peers without adult supervision (Mounts and Steinberg, 1995) and peers become the most important reference group for adolescents (Hartup, 1999). An aspect of peer relations that has emerged as the most prominent predictor of several kinds of problem behaviours is the association with deviant peers. Thus, peer (age-grade) interaction might be a possible risk-factor in adolescents’ antisocial exhibition.

The exhibition of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents could be attributable to variety of factors such as family socioeconomic status, peer interaction and others. However, this present study seeks to examine whether family socioeconomic status and peer interaction play determining roles in the exhibition of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

In-school adolescents who engage in substance abuse, stealing and lying stand the risk of poor academic performance, expulsion from school and even disclamation from their families. Engaging in antisocial behaviour such as substance abuse poses great risk to an individual's mental and physical health. By placing individuals at risk, substance abuse is clearly associated with undesirable mental and physical health outcomes that may ultimately lead to loss of life. It is against this backdrop that this study seeks to investigate the relationship between family socioeconomic status, peer interaction and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents

Aim and Objectives of the study

The aim of this study is to examine the correlates of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State of Nigeria. In specific terms, the objectives of this study intend to:

examine the extent to which family socioeconomic status influences antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
investigate the extent to which peer interaction influences antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
ascertain the extent to which peer interaction influences antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:

To what extent does family socioeconomic status influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?
To what extent does peer interaction influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?
To what extent does peer interaction influence antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance guided the study:

Family socioeconomic status does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
Peer interaction does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
Peer interaction does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents.

Methodology

The study adopted expost-facto and correlational designs. The population of this study consisted of all the senior secondary school SS II students in Bayelsa State. Statistics available showed that the total population is 13,006 (Source: Bayelsa State Post Primary Schools Board Yenagoa, 2019).

A sample of 578 SSII students was used for the study. This sample was randomly drawn from a population of 13,006 students. The sample size was determined using proportionate sampling method.

The instrument for this study is a structured questionnaire titled “Family Socioeconomic Status, Peer Interaction and Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire” (FSSPIABQ). This instrument consists of Section A, B and C. Section A elicits information on Family Socioeconomic Status. Section B is on peer interaction scale (PIS) developed by the researcher to elicit information on peer interaction level. This section contains 10 items.

The Antisocial Behaviour Scale (ABS) is also developed by the researcher to elicit information on the dependent variable: This scale contains 20 items in all. The items in section B and C were placed on a four-point rating scale of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD). These points are weighted 4 points, 3 points, 2 points and 1 point for positively keyed items and 1 point, 2 points, 3 points and 4 points negatively keyed items respectively.

The instrument was content and face validated. It was done by three experts in Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counselling department of University of Port-Harcourt. The reliability of the instrument was determined by the researcher by using test–retest method. Cronbach Alpha Statistical analysis was used to determine the internal consistency coefficient of the instrument. Result of the data analysis gave Alpha coefficient value of 0.68 and 0.72 respectively. Direct delivery method was used by the researcher to administer the questionnaire to the students with the assistance of two trained research assistants. The researcher and research assistants administered the questionnaire to the respondents and collected it back immediately on completion.

Research question 1 was answered with mean and standard deviation statistics. Research questions 2 and 3 were answered with simple regression. Hypothesis 1 was tested with one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) while Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested with simple regression at 0.05 level of significance. The Statistical Procedure for Social Sciences (SPSS) 12.0 was used in analysis.

Results

Research Question 1: To what extent does family socioeconomic status influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypothesis 1: Family socioeconomic status does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.

Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of the influence of family socioeconomic status on antisocial behaviour of adolescents

Family SES	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Family SES	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
High	51	46.6863	11.02087
Middle	329	48.1185	10.17805
Low	198	48.3283	10.14856
Total	578	48.0640	10.23575

From the result as shown in Table 1 on the influence of family socioeconomic status on anti-social behaviour of in-school adolescents, it was shown that adolescents from high family socioeconomic status had a mean value of 46.69 with SD of 11.02, those who are from a middle family socioeconomic had a mean of 48.11 and SD of 11.02, while those who indicated low family socioeconomic status had a mean value of 48.32 with an SD of 10.14. On the basis of the reported mean values of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents based on their family socioeconomic status. It therefore suggests that those from low family socioeconomic status had the highest reported antisocial behaviour followed by those from families with middle socioeconomic status and lastly those from high family socioeconomic status.

Table 2: One way ANOVA of the influence of family socioeconomic status on in-school adolescents’ antisocial behaviour

	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	111.613	2	55.806	.532	.588
Within Groups	60341.019	575	104.941
Total	60452.631	577

According to the result shown in Table 2 on the influence of family socioeconomic status on in-school adolescents’ antisocial behaviour, an F-value of 0.53 was obtained with a corresponding p-value of 0.58 at 2 and 575 degrees of freedom. Since the p-value obtained (0.588) was greater than the chosen alpha of 0.05, it therefore indicates that there is no significant influence on the antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents based on their family socioeconomic status. The null hypothesis was therefore retained.

Research Question 2: To what extent does peer interaction influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypothesis 2: Peer interaction does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.

Table 3: Simple regression coefficient of the relationship between peer interaction and anti-social behaviour among in-school adolescents

R = 0.192	R²= 0.037			Adj R²= 0.035
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig
Regression	2231.101	1	2231.101	22.073	0.0005
Residual	58221.531	576	101.079
Total	60452.631	577	101.079

From the result displayed in Table 3 on the relationship between peer interaction and anti-social behaviour, the result revealed that an R-value of 0.192 was obtained with an associated R²value of 0.037 and an adjusted R² value of 0.035. On the basis of these results, it therefore indicates that peer interaction accounted for only 3.5% in the antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. This showed that there is a moderate positive relationship between peer interaction and antisocial behaviour of adolescents in Bayelsa State. Furthermore, when this value was subjected to testing using ANOVA associated with linear regression, an F-value of 22.073 was obtained with a corresponding p-value of 0.0005 which was significant at 0.05 level of significance. This result therefore indicates that there is a significant relationship between peer interaction and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected.

Research Question 3: To what extent does peer interaction influence antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypothesis 3: Peer interaction does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents.

Table 4: Simple regression coefficient of the relationship between peer interaction and anti-social behaviour among male and female in-school adolescents

Male	R = 0.179	R²= 0.039			Adj R²= 0.029
	Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig
	Regression	1201.544	1	1201.544	11.275	0.001
	Residual	36231.497	340	106.563
	Total	37433.041	341	106.563
Female	R = 0.212	R²= 0.045			Adj R²= 0.041
	Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig
	Regression	1024.110	1	1024.110	11.009	0.001
	Residual	21768.310	234	93.027
	Total	22792.419	235	93.027

According to the result displayed in Table 4 on the extent to which peer interaction relates with antisocial behaviour of male and female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State, it was shown that for male students, an R-value of 0.179 was obtained with an associated R²value of 0.039 and an adjusted R² value of 0.029. This result indicates that peer interaction accounted for 2.9% of the antisocial behaviour of male in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. Similarly, for female students, the result showed that an R-value of 0.212 was obtained with an associated R²value of 0.045 and an adjusted R² value of 0.041. This result indicates that peer interaction accounted for 4.1% of the antisocial behaviour of female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. This result therefore suggests that peer interaction had more impact on antisocial behaviour of female than male in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State.

Furthermore, when this result was tested using ANOVA associated with linear regression, an F-value of 11.275 was obtained for male in-school adolescents with a p-value of 0.001 at 1 and 341 degrees of freedom. Similarly for female in-school adolescents, an F-value of 11.009 was obtained with a corresponding p-value of 0.001 at 1 and 234 degrees of freedom. Based on the p-values of 0.001 for both male and female in-school adolescents, it therefore suggests that peer interaction has a significant relationship to antisocial behaviour between male and female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected.

Discussion

From research findings one, the result in Table 1 on the influence of family socioeconomic status on in-school adolescents’ antisocial behaviour, indicated that there is no significant influence on the antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents based on their family socioeconomic status. This finding implies that the financial position of the family which adolescents belongs to does not determine their display of antisocial behaviour in any way. This is however a surprise to the researcher because lots of research findings and literature reviewed reported that family socioeconomic position has a significant influence on antisocial behaviour among adolescents.

From research findings two, it is shown that peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. This finding implies that the type of friends, association and company which children hang-out with can determine their exhibition of antisocial behaviour or not. This finding is not a surprise to the researcher because before now, social scientists such as McCord, Widom and Crowell (2001) and Savnecki (2004), have identified a correlate between peer influence and the development of antisocial behaviour.

From research findings three, it is revealed that peer interaction accounted for 2.9% of the anti-social behaviour of male in-school adolescents while the result showed that peer interactions accounted for 4.1% of the antisocial behaviour of female in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. This finding showed that peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour between male and female among in-school adolescents. This finding therefore implies that peer interaction had more impact on antisocial behaviour of female than male in-school adolescents.

Summary of Findings

There is no significant influence in the antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents based in their family socioeconomic status.
Peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
Peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour between male and female among in-school adolescents with more impact on female than male in-school adolescents.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made:

Efforts should be intensified by counselling psychologists and other educators in educating the in-school adolescents on the influence of peer interaction on their behaviour.
Parents should also help supervise and monitor the type of company their children keep especially the female children who are mostly influenced by their friends.
Adolescents should also be selective in their choice of friends and should desist from any friend who exhibit deviant behaviour.

REFERENCES

Bradley R.H. & Corwyn R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development: Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (2002), pp. 371-399,10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233.

Freitas-Magalhães, A. (2013). The Face of Lies. Porto: FEEL ab Science Books. ISBN 978-989-98524-0-2.

Gale Encyclopedia of Children's Health (2018).“Antisocial behavior”. Infancy through Adolescence. Encyclopedia.com. retrieved 15^th Jan. 2019 from https://www.encyclopedia.com.

Hartup, W. W. (1999). Constraints on peer socialization: let me count the ways. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 172-183.

McCord, J., Widom, C.S. & Crowell, N.A. (2001). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adolescent grade point average and drug use. Developmental Psychology 31, 915-922.

Rundell, M. (2007). Macmillan English dictionary. (eight edition).

Sarnecki, J. (2004). “Girls and Boys in Delinquent Networks‟. In International Annuals of Criminology 42: 29 – 57.

Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 459 485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603.