FAMILY DYNAMICS AND PEER INTERACTION AS DETERMINANTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG IN-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN BAYELSA STATE.

FAMILY DYNAMICS AND PEER INTERACTION AS DETERMINANTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG IN-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN BAYELSA STATE.

FAMILY DYNAMICS AND PEER INTERACTION AS DETERMINANTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG IN-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN BAYELSA STATE.

BY

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 family dynamics and peer interaction as determinants 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 Dynamics, Peer Interaction and Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire” with reliability coefficient value of 0.89, 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 structure does not have any significant influence on antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents. The study also found that, there is a significant relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.  The study also revealed that peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents. Based on the findings of this study, it was recommended that parents should consciously create a conducive home environment that is emotionally-friendly to help checkmate the formation and influence of antisocial behaviour among adolescents.

 

Keywords: Antisocial behaviour, Family structure, Family emotional climate, Peer interaction

 

 

Introduction

Antisocial behaviour among adolescents is seriously becoming a problematic phenomena and a menace in Nigeria generally and Bayelsa in particular. 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 an act that violates the law and social norms of a given society.  There are illegal actions that violate social norms in ways that reflect disregard for others or that reflect the violation of others’ rights. Antisocial behaviour develops and is shaped in the context of coercive social interactions within the family, community, and educational environment. 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. Antisocial behavior is commonest in late adolescence but can progress to entrenched criminal behaviour in adulthood. 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. Fallu, Brière, Vitaro, Cantin, and Borge (2011) showed that adolescents start using substances from the ages 10-11 years through ages 14-15 years. Substance abuse could be common with those who display antisocial behaviour. People who are antisocial tend to seek out involvement in drugs or alcohol misuse. This is because they want to be involved in things that are considered criminal or wrong as a form of attention seeking, disruption and lack of concern for themselves and others. Criminal activities like assault, theft or even driving offenses may be linked to antisocial behaviors, especially when a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A number of factors are consistently found to be related to substance use among adolescents including the community, school environment, peer, family and personal factors (Brook, Morojele, Pahl and Brook, 2006; Morojele, 2009; Russell, Dryden, Liang, Friesen, O'Gorman, Durec, Wild and Klassen, 2008). Thus, 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. Stealing appears to start generally in childhood or adolescence, with approximately 66 percent of individuals reporting lifetime stealing beginning before they were 15 years of age. Despite the early age at onset of stealing, as well as the significant adult morbidity associated with this behaviour, stealing among adolescents has historically received relatively little attention from researchers. Limited research suggests that adolescents who steal have impairments in problem-solving skills and a cognitive bias toward inappropriate solutions to problems. Stealing among in-school adolescents’ ranges from pick pocketing, secret taking of people’s items, shoplifting and forceful taking of others’ belongings to other patterns which the culprits may choose. Stealing as a behaviour considered to be antisocial has a serious negative influence on the life of adolescents and if not handled may lead to serious crimes such as robbery, kidnapping and assassination later in life as adults.

Lying is another antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents. Lying is one behaviour that has become a serious problem and threat to the educational system, the adolescents and the society in general. What make lying behaviour a social problem is because the liar intends to deceive or at least to mislead others that they are lying to. The exhibition of lying behaviour is probably one of the most common acts that people carry out even among the 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. Lies and liars come in all shapes and what distinguishes the more extreme forms of lying is the degree of harm they cause and the extent to which the behaviour becomes habitual or uncontrollable.

There are many reasons why lying is bad and these include the fact that, lying diminishes trust among people in a given society. Lying treats those who are lied against as a means to achieve the liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves. Lying makes it difficult for the person being lied to, to make a free and informed decision about the matter concerned. Lying corrupts the liar. Telling lies may become a habit and if a person regularly indulges in one form of lie, they may as well become more comfortable with lying in general. Some religious people argue that Lying is bad because it abuses the God-given gift of human communication. God gave humanity speech so that, they could accurately share their thoughts but lying does the opposite. From the above scenario, it is obvious that lie is an evil wind that blows no one any good especially the in-school adolescents. It 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 dynamics and peer interaction may be determinants of substance abuse, stealing and lying behaviours among in-school adolescents.

Family dynamics are the patterns of relating, or interactions, between family members. The interaction between family members is at the core of family dynamics. Each family system and its dynamics are unique, although there are some common patterns. All families have some helpful and unhelpful dynamics. Family dynamics often have a strong influence on the way young people see themselves, others and the world, and influence their relationships, behaviours and their wellbeing. Two dimensions of family dynamics were studied in relation to antisocial behaviour – family structure and family emotional climate.

Family structure according to Mosby's Medical Dictionary (2009) is the composition and membership of the family and the organization and patterning of relationships among individual family members. It is the way in which a family is organized according to roles, rules, power, and hierarchies. Family structure can play a role in child development partly by affecting family dynamics, such as how family members behave and interact. Family structures can facilitate families in providing basic economic and resource support and love, feelings of value and competence, companionship, and shared values. Families can connect their children to the community and teach children how to get along in the world and to cope with adversity.

Family emotional climate is a psychological factor that may influence adolescents’ behaviour. Family climate according to Emerson, Fear, Fox and Sanders (2012), includes family common interaction and communication patterns such as feeling of confidence and security, encouragement, confirmation, love and joint experience between husband and wife, between parents and children and between children themselves. Family members must be emotionally involved with each other and able to influence each other’s behaviour as it relates to the functioning of the family (Moss, Lynch, Hardie and Baron, 2002). In the substance affected families, functional family roles are often distorted or missing. For example, children of alcoholic parents may take on parenting and adult responsibilities that may preclude them from age appropriate activities or peer group socialization experiences (Haber, 2000). In the context of this study, family emotional climate refers to the nature and quality of relationship or interactive atmosphere that exists between parents and their children in a home.

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.

Operationally, peer interaction was used in this study to describe the relationship that exist among adolescent friends (group) and the pressure exerted by such relationship on a person in encouraging him or her to change his or her attitude, behaviour, morals and or values to conform to the group’s actions, taste, fashion sense or general outlook on life.

The exhibition of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents could be attributable to variety of factors such as family structure, family socioeconomic status, family emotional climate, peer interaction and others. Research findings up to now seem to support the model of family and peer influence presuming that a negative, conflictual parent–adolescent relationship contributes to adolescents’ problem behaviour directly as well as indirectly through deviant peer associations (Kim, Hetherington  and Reiss, 1999). However, this present study seeks to examine whether family dynamics and peers interaction play determining roles in the exhibition of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

 

Statement of the problem

The increasing rate of moral decadence that is bedeviling our society today is rooted in antisocial behaviour. Lying, stealing, assaulting others, cruelty, substance usage, cheating, sexual promiscuity, kidnapping, armed robbery, corruption and other forms of vices are all examples of antisocial behaviour. 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. 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. Substance abuse, stealing and lying as societal ills and disruptive traits may retard the moral and spiritual development of adolescents and the society. Adolescent students who engage in Substance abuse, stealing and lying will suffer loss of integrity because no one will take them serious. It is against this backdrop that this study seeks to determine the relationship between family dynamics, peer interaction and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

 Aim and Objectives of the study

The aim of this study is to examine family dynamics and peer interaction as determinants of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State of Nigeria. In specific terms, the objectives of this study intend to:

1. ascertain the extent to which family structure influences antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
2. examine the extent to which family emotional climate relate to antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
3. investigate the extent to which peer interaction influences antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.

Research Questions

In order to achieve the set objectives, the following research questions guided the study:

1. To what extent does family structure influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?
2. To what extent does family emotional climate relate to antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?
3. To what extent does peer interaction influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

1. Family structure does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
2. Family emotional climate do not significantly relate to antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.
3. Peer interaction does not significantly influence antisocial behaviour among 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 Dynamics, Peer Interaction and Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire” (FDPIABQ). This instrument consists of Section A, B, C and D. Section A elicits information on Family Dynamic such as Family Structure. Section B is a family emotional climate scale (FECS) adapted by the researcher from the Family Climate Scales (FCS) by Björnberg and Nicholson (2007) on The Family Climate Scales—Development of a New Measure for Use in Family Business Research. This section elicits information on respondents’ family emotional climate and it contains 15 items which were negatively (1, 2 & 5) and positively keyed. Section C is on peer interaction scale (PIS) developed by the researcher to elicit information on peer interaction level. This section contains 10 items.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Scale (ASBS) is also developed by the researcher to elicit information on the dependent variable:  Anti-social Behaviours. This scale contains 20 items in all. The items in section B, C and D 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 initial draft of the instrument was subjected to content and face validation. It was done by three experts in Educational Psychology, Guidance and Counselling department of University of Port-Harcourt. These experts critically examined the instrument in terms of relevance of the content and clarity of the statement. Based on the experts’ vetting, the final modification of the instrument was done with its validity established.

The reliability of the instrument was determined by the researcher by trial testing the instrument. 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 0.89, 0.68 and 0.72 respectively for section B, C and D of the instrument. Based on these moderately high coefficient values, the instrument was considered reliable to be used for the study.

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 educated the research assistants on the purpose of the study and how to administer the questionnaire. 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 linear regression. Hypothesis 1 was tested with one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) while Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested with simple linear regression at 0.05 level of significance. The Statistical Procedure for Social Sciences (SPSS) 12.0 was used in analysis.

RESULTS

Research Question One: To what extent does family structure influence antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypothesis One: Family structure does not significantly influence antisocial behaviou

r among in-school adolescents.

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

 

Family Structure	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Maximum
Both Parents	302	47.26	10.49	71.00
Single Parents	233	48.75	9.88	73.00
Extended/Relatives	43	49.95	9.97	71.00
Total	578	48.06	10.23	73.00

From the result as shown in Table 1 on the influence of family structure on antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents, it was shown that adolescents living with both parents had a mean value of 47.26 with SD of 10.49, those living with single parents had a mean of 48.75 and SD of 9.88, while those living with extended family members and relatives had a mean value of 49.95 with an SD of 9.97. On the basis of the reported mean values of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents, it therefore suggests that those living with extended family members and relatives had the highest reported anti-social behaviour followed by those living with single parents and lastly those living with both parents. To further confirm the obtained results, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted as shown in Table 1 below

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

	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	456.354	2	228.177	2.187	.113
Within Groups	59996.277	575	104.341
Total	60452.631	577

 

According to the result shown in Table 2 on the influence of family structure on in-school adolescents’ antisocial behaviour, an F-value of 2.187 was obtained with a corresponding p-value of 0.113 at 2 and 575 degrees of freedom. Since the p-value obtained (0.113) was greater than the chosen alpha of 0.05, it therefore indicates that there is no significant influence on the anti-social behaviour of in-school adolescents living with both parents, single parents, extended families and relatives. The null hypothesis was therefore retained.

Research Question Two: To what extent does family emotional climate relate to anti-social behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa state?

Hypothesis Two: Family emotional climate do not significantly relate to anti-social behaviour among in-school adolescents.

Table.3: Simple regression coefficient of the relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents

R = 0.127	R2= 0.016			Adj R2= 0.014
Model	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig
Regression	978.801	1	978.801	9.480	0.002
Residual	59473.830	576	103.253
Total	60452.631	577

From the result displayed in Table 3 on the relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour, the result revealed that an R-value of 0.127 was obtained with an associated R²value of 0.016 and an adjusted R2 value of 0.014. On the basis of this result, it therefore indicates that family emotional climate accounted for only 1.4% in the antisocial behaviour of in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. This showed that there is a low positive relationship between family emotional climate and anti-social behaviour of adolescents in Bayelsa State. Furthermore, when this value was subjected to testing using ANOVA associated with linear regression, an F-value of 9.480 was obtained with a corresponding p-value of 0.002 which was significant at 0.05 level of significance. This result therefore indicates that there is a significant relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected.

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

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

 

 

Table 4: 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

From the result displayed in Table 4 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.

Discussion of Findings

From the result and findings one, it is revealed that there is no significant influence on the anti-social behaviour of in-school adolescents living with both parents, single parents, extended families and relatives. This finding means that the composition of the family which adolescents belong does not determine their engagement or non-engagement in antisocial behaviour. The findings of this study is in line with that of Leiber, Mack and Featherstone, (2009) whose result indicated that family structure was not a determinant of delinquent behaviour. Thus, family structure may not have a major role in the development of antisocial behaviour among adolescents. Similarly, Mack, (2007) also reported finding that collaborates the findings of the present study.

This finding however, contradicts the report of the research study conducted by Abdu-Raheem (2013) which revealed that family structure has a significant influence on secondary school students’ antisocial behaviour in Ekiti and Ondo States. Also, Kimani (2010) reported in the same line, that family structure has a significant influence on Juvenile Deliquency in Nakuru Children’s Remand Home.

From research findings two as displayed in Table.3 on the relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour, the result revealed that there is a significant relationship between family emotional climate and antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents in Bayelsa State. The result of this findings implies that family common interaction and communication patterns such as feeling of confidence and security, encouragement, confirmation, love and joint experience among family members has influences on adolescents behaviours either positively or negatively.

However, this finding is not shocking to the researcher because of his awareness of the pressure which family relationship can mount on the behaviour of members of the family especially adolescents. This findings is in collaboration with that of  Abdulraheem, Raimi and Edet (2018) whose result revealed that social interaction between parents and adolescents has a significant influence on adolescent’s predisposition to antisocial behaviour in Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. Similarly, Odigie (2012) and Kemjika and Achumba (2015) also reported findings earlier in collaboration with the present finding.

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

The findings of this study is in agreement with that of Foo, Tam and Lee (2012) whose result revealed that peer influence has a significant relationship with antisocial behahiour among adolescents. In the same vein, the findings of Onukwufor and Echendu (2016) also collaborated the fact that peer interaction has a significant relationship with antisocial behaviour among adolescents. Similarly, the study conducted by Inoh (2015) indicated that peer group has a significant influence on lying trait among senior secondary school adolescents in Okrika Local Government Area of Rivers State.

Conclusion

Based on the findings from this study, it was concluded that family structure had no significant influence on antisocial behaviourt while family emotional climate and peer interaction are major determinants or predictors of antisocial behaviour among in-school adolescents.

Recommendations

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

1. School authorities should organize seminars and workshops for parents on family dynamics and good family relationships. This would enable them understand how the family environment which they create influence their children’s behaviour.
2. Parents should consciously create a conducive home environment that is emotionally-friendly to help checkmate the formation and influence of antisocial behaviour among adolescents.
3. 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.
4. Parents should also help supervise and monitor the type of company their children keep and adolescents themselves should also be selective in their choice of friends and should desist from any friend who exhibit deviant behaviour.

 

REFERENCES

Abdulraheem, A. F. O,, Olalekan, R. M. & Abasiekong, E. M. (2018). Mother and father adolescent relationships and substance use in the Niger delta: a case study of twenty-five (25) communities in Yenagoa local government of Bayelsa state, Nigeria.  Social Int J. 2018;2(6):541‒548. DOI: 10.15406/sij.2018.02.00097. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334961.

Abdu-Raheem, B. O. (2013). Sociological Factors To Drug Abuse And The Effects On Secondary School Students’ Academic Performance In Ekiti And Ondo States, Nigeria. Contemporary Issues In Education Research. Volume 6, Number 2. http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ (Retrieved 25 June, 2020).

Björnberg, A. & Nicholson, N. (2007).The Family Climate Scales—Development of a New Measure for Use in Family Business Research.(Retrieved 16th January 2019).

Brook, J.S., Morojele, N.K., Pahl, K., & Brook, D.W. (2006).Predictors of drug use among South African adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 26-34.

Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. A report by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) for the Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau: Canberra.

Fallu, J. P., Brière, F., Vitaro, F., Cantin, S., & Borge, A.I.H. (2011). The influence of close

friends on adolescent substance use: does popularity matter? Available online:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-531-93116-6_9?LI=true

(Retrieved 30 April 2019).

Foo YC, Tam CL &  Lee TH. (2012). Family Factors and Peer Influence in Drug Abuse:

A Study in Rehabilitation Centre. International Journal of Collaborative Research on

Internal Medicine & Public Health. 2012; 4(3):190-201.

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.

Inoh, A. A. (2017). Influence of psychological social factors on lying traits among senior secondary school adolescents in Okirika local government area, Rivers state. Nigerian journal of empirical studies in psychology and education (NJESPE), 19 (1), 203-220.

 

Kamani, k.A. (2010).Influence of Family Structure on Juvenile Delinquency in Nakuru Children’s Remand Home. http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/ Family_ Structure_   Juvenile_ Delinquency (Retrieved July 4, 2011).

Kemjika, O. G. & Achumba, B. O. (2015). Influence of family dysfunction on drug abuse of adolescent students of unity schools in south - south zone Nigeria. European journal of psychological research.vol. 2 no. 2, ISSN 2057-4794.Retrieved  April 14, 2020 fromwww.idpublications.org.

Kim, J, E., Mavis H. & David R. (1999). “Associations among Family Relationships, Antisocial Peers, and Adolescents’ Externalizing Behaviors: Gender and Family Type Differences.” Child Development. 70:1209-30.

Leiber, M. J., Mack, K. Y., & Featherstone, R. A. (2009). Family structure, family processes, economic factors, and delinquency: Similarities and differences by race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(2), 79-99.

Mack, K. Y. (2007). Reassessing the family-delinquency association: Do family type, family processes, and economic factors make a difference? Science Direct Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35, Issue 1. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.calpoly.edu:2048/science.

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.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Moss, H.B., Lynch, K.G., Hardie, T.L., & Baron, D.A. (2002). Family functioning and peer affiliation in children of fathers with antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence: Associations with problem behaviors. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 607-614.

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. 

Odigie, J. I. (2012). Engendering family stability with adolescent stress counselling

Intervention. A paper presented at an International Association of Nigeria (CASSON)

OAU, Ile-Ife 27th-31st August pg 1-7.

Onukwufor, J. N. & Echendu, I. O. (2016).Relationship between Parent’s Drug Use,      Peer Group Influence and Adolescents’ Addictive Behaviour. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE) Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2016, PP 1-8 ISSN 2349-0373 (Print) & ISSN 2349-0381 (Online) http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0305001 www.arcjournals.org

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

Russell, K., Dryden, D. M., Liang, Y., Friesen, C., O'Gorman, K., Durec, T., Wild, T. C., &

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.

WHO (2019), health topic- Substance abuse. Retrieved 18^th Jan. 2019 from

www.who.int › Health topics.

Williams, P. (2007). Children teaching children. Early Child Development and Care, 177:1,

43– 70.

• Prev
• Next