1

TOPIC: FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY

CHAPTER ONE: PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The process by which individuals construct their

lives is a core issue for developmental researchers.

The behaviour of individuals is shape by the

environment in which they grow and by their interaction

with significant others in habitual ways. At the same

time, their actions are influenced by demands and

opportunities afforded by the social context. The

family is the primary and foremost socialization

setting which plays key role in the overall development

of a child. From the very first day of a child’s life,

the process of socialization begins, and parents are

the primary source of this process. According to Wright

and Wright (1994), the family is the foundation of

human society. The family is, therefore, the most

2

natural environment for human development (Ngale,

2009). The responsibility of raising up a child to

become a socially and psychologically well adjusted

adult is mainly that of the parents (Maccoby and

Martins, 1983). The family is a group of at least two

people in a household based on marriage, cohabitation,

blood relationships or adopting. Family behaviours,

particularly parental monitoring and disciplining,

influence association with deviant peers throughout the

adolescent stage (Cashwell & Vacc, 1996).

Every individual goes through a transition phase

from childhood into adulthood. This transition phase is

known as adolescence. The child during adolescence goes

through significant biological, physiological,

psychological and social changes. The period of

adolescence is that phase of life when strong parent-

child attachment and parental control is essential for

the normal development of adolescents. The adolescents’

3

way of thinking and behaving changes during this

period. They become closer to their friends and peers

and may turn to learn different ways of socialization

from them. This phase is a very significant part of a

person's development. The developmental stage of the

child possesses certain unique characteristics that

influence his/her behavioural patterns. Developmental

psychologists and researchers have identified

adolescence as a period of significant changes to the

body, self-concept, identity and social relationship

structure. The stage of adolescence may sometimes seem

difficult to understand when compared to the other

stages of life. Some of the characteristics that

defined adolescences for Hall included a higher level

of attention seeking, engaging in risky behaviours, and

a strong dependence on friendships (Arnett, 2006). 

Hall proposed that media and reading detective novels

encouraged the dangerous behaviors, which included an

4

increase in criminal activity, and risky behaviours in

regards to sex and alcohol use (Arnett, 2006). It puts

an enormous responsibility for parents on their

adolescents. This state of affairs requires responsible

and responsive parenting.

Many adolescents today, and perhaps increasing

numbers in upcoming years, are at risk for adverse

health outcomes stemming from their behaviour. It is

believed that this stage of development leaves many

adolescents in a sort-of limbo where they must seek to

define their identity and place in the world, and

delinquency may provide a way to do that. This is

supported by the fact that crime is committed

disproportionately by those aged between fifteen and

twenty-five.

In recent years, the average age for first arrest

has dropped significantly, with younger boys and girls

committing crimes. According to the statistical records

5

of the Bamenda Central Prison, 2013, between 10-20% of

offenders are adolescents; with 60–80 percent of the

adolescents are either street children, orphans or

children from disrupted homes. The percentage of teens

who offend is so high that it seems to be a cause for

worry. Adolescent crime has been studied using many

labels. The most common label that has been used is

delinquency. Delinquency encompasses a range of

norm-breaking behaviors for which adolescents are

criminally responsible. Drug use, violent offenses

against other persons and carrying weapon are just some

instances of delinquency. Adolescent delinquency is

a major problem in many societies as it causes

major distress and damage to victims,

perpetrators, and society at large. In 2006, for

example, there were 1,626,523 arrests of juveniles

reported in the United States of America (USA); this

number accounts for only about 16 percent of all

6

arrests (Shoemaker 2009). According to a report of the

Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 2001,

adolescents committed over 185,000 crimes, and

almost 19,000 adolescents were sentenced to prison

(Koposov et al, 2005 and Alboukordi S. et al., 2012).

The environment in which a child grows has

causative factors on their behaviours. The family

structure provides the organizational framework that

determines family membership and the functions and

hierarchical position of family members. A child from

the home where the father and the mother are present

have the chance to be well taken care of and socialized

in the best way possible. In this family model the

father acts as the economic support and sometimes

disciplinarian. If parental efforts affect children

directly, then the ways in which they try to manage

their children’s behaviour should have an immediate

7

impact on children’s adjustment especially among

adolescents.

The study of delinquency literature highlights the

role of some prominent factors, the most important of

which may be family-related and peers factors. Among

family process variables, parental monitoring has

been identified in the literature as one of the

proximal determinants of early development and

maintenance of antisocial and delinquent behaviour in

children and adolescents (Singer et al., 2004).

Given the fact that in developing countries, in

comparison with developed countries, adolescents form

remarkable portion of society, it demands to pay much

attention to the adolescents. The aim of the present

study was to investigate the role of family environment

(parenting styles and family structure) in predicting

delinquency in adolescents in secondary schools. In an

effort to fill this gap in the literature, this study

8

also contributed to the limited body of research

on the effects of family structure and parenting

styles on delinquent behaviours among Cameroonian

adolescents. Three theoretical orientations were used

in guiding the research was: Baumrind Theory of

Parenting, and Bowlby’s Attachment Theory.

This chapter entails of a general introduction of

the research work, the operational definition of key

concepts, statement of problem, purpose of the study,

research questions and hypotheses, justification of the

study, significance of the study, scope and

delimitations of the study and conclusion. In this

light, I will begin the chapter by operationalizing the

concepts in this study.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Family: this constitutes two or more persons living

together under the same roof and sharing resources.

9

Family environment: according to this study, family

environment will consist of factors in the family

like parenting styles and the structure of the

family.

Parenting styles: According to this study,

parenting styles are the different ways in which

parents feel and behave towards their children in

relation to how they bring up their children. These

feelings include feelings of love, attachment,

care, and concern; while their behaviours include

ways of supervising their children’s activities,

discipline, communicating or dialogue with them and

how attached they are to their children. These

behaviours and feelings shall be examined under the

following headings: permissive parenting,

authoritative, authoritarian and neglectful

parenting as described by Baumrind in her theories

of parenting.

10

Authoritative parenting: this is the type of

parenting where a parent(s) set rules and

regulations for children to follow but will also

react positively and quickly to their children’s

emotional and social needs.

Authoritarian parenting: This is a type of

parenting where parents are strict, hash, set rules

and directions, and expect their children to follow

and respect them strictly. These parents use

punishment on child who does not comply with their

rules and directions.

Permissive parenting: this is when parents are

lenient; they react positively to their children’s

needs and do not place restrictions on their

children’s behaviour.

Neglectful parenting: in this type of parenting,

parents do not care about their children’s needs or

the outcome of their behaviours.

11

Adolescents: This, according to this study will

include secondary school students between the ages

of 12 and 19years.

Delinquent behaviour: These refer to behaviours

that are not acceptable in the society. These

behaviours include stealing, procession of

dangerous weapons, alcohol and drug abuse, rape and

aggressive fighting, use of offensive language,

abusive, disrespectful and killing.

Family structure: this shall constitute some

factors in the family such as the number of persons

living in the home, parents’ marital status and

time parents spend with their children.

Demandingness: this is when the parent places some

strict rules for child to follow and have certain

expectations of their children.

Responsiveness: this is when parents provide the

needs of their child or children

12

Communication: this is when parents interact with

their children in ways of discussing their child’s

concerns and are also willing to listen to them.

Juvenile: a young person who cannot yet be

considered an adult.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Involvement of adolescents in delinquent

activities has been on the increase in most nations and

Cameroon is not excluded. The last few decades have

witnessed crimes ranging from minor stealing to major

robbery and killing perpetuated by adolescents. There

has been an increasing concern of the police and to the

public on the seriousness of adolescent crime and

conduct problems.

Bamenda is a metropolitan area and the center of

secondary education in Cameroon. It also has a variety

of clans and people from different cultural,

socioeconomic and educational background. The daily

13

influx of people from different part of the country and

even from neighbouring countries makes it culturally

diverse. This part of the country is also one of the

cities with highest number of adolescent population due

to its strong foundation in secondary education. Most

adolescents in this part of the country either live

with their biological parents, foster parents,

relative, or alone; some are orphans and others from

broken or single parent homes. All these are factors

within the family that may influence adolescents’

behaviour in one way or the other.

A normal healthy development of any

individual starts at home. The family constitutes the

backbone of any human being. There has been

considerable evidence that the family plays an

important role in the development of adolescents’

delinquent behaviour, by inappropriate parenting styles

and poor family structure. The family is the first

14

agency of a child’s socialization. It is the milieu

where the child first learns how to talk, and interact

with other members of the society. There are many

factors in the family that contributes to his/her

social, emotional and intellectual development. These

factors include different parenting styles, family

structure, socioeconomic status, parents’ marital

status and parents’ educational level. Many research

studies have emphasized on the importance of the

child’s relationship with the parent in decreasing the

likelihood of delinquency. It is worth noting that

parenting in Cameroonian society frequently occurs

within a family routine that involves both parents

working, thus creating additional stressors for

parenting. Despite changing family roles during

adolescence, the family environment and parents are

still important for the behaviours and choices of

adolescents. Past studies have shown that adolescents

15

who expose to higher level of warmth, induction, and

monitoring parenting would be less likely to be

delinquents. However, most of these studies present the

relationship between parenting and adolescent

delinquency statically. That is, researchers show

parenting measured at one time predicts adolescent

delinquency.

Furthermore, children at this stage of adolescence

seeks to establish a sense of identity and self-image.

They struggle to be people of their own rights, which

in some case may push them to either behave in ways

appropriate ways or engage in behaviours that are

conflicting with societal norm and are considered as

delinquent or inappropriate. Okorodudu in 2010 carried

out a study on the influence of parenting styles on

adolescents’ delinquency in the Delta Senatorial

District, Nigeria. She focused on the influence of

authoritarian and authoritative lassair-faire parenting

16

style, gender, location and age of students on

delinquency. In her study, she left out the neglectful

parenting and the influence of family structure on

delinquency. This study shall focus on relationship

between these other factors of the family and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviour.

Although many studies have found a link between

parenting behaviour and delinquency, but only few of

them have focused on parenting styles and family

structure; and delinquency. Apart from this, in most of

the studies only mother’s role in parenting has been

focused upon, without considering fathers influence. To

understand an adolescent behaviour it is very crucial

to consider both mother’s and father’s role in

parenting. To asses, whether there is any relationship

between family environment and probable link with

delinquency is, therefore worthy of research.

17

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Adolescence has been discovered to be a period of storm

and stress by G. Stanley Hall. In the history of our

society, adolescent delinquency has been reported as a

big problem, and increasingly is a topic of concern and

much needed attention. Daily, the media reports

problematic and socially unacceptable behaviours

demonstrated by adolescents in schools. These

behaviours include such things as drug abuse, stealing,

fighting with teachers, bullying, gang activity, and

murder. Having grown up in an environment with a purely

African culture which believes in large families, I

observed that most adolescents who come from such large

family, broken homes or homes without parents were

often involve involved in behaviours such as involve in

risky sexual activities, stealing, fights, alcohol and

18

substance abuse, have no respect for elders, destroy

school properties, bully junior students inflicting

wounds on other and even killing. This is probably due

to parental neglect, unequal attention or

inappropriate supervision from their parents. This

leaves the child to act and think without direction.

This prompted the researcher to pose the question of

“what is the cause of these behaviour problems in

adolescents most especially?

The purpose of this study was to examine how the

family environment of adolescents influences their

involvement in delinquent behaviour. The factors to be

examined were family structure, authoritarian,

authoritative, permissive and neglectful parenting.

These factors were reviewed to determine the

relationship of these factors to delinquency.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

General objective

19

The main objective of this study was to examine the

relationship that exist between the family environment

and adolescents’ involvement in delinquent behaviours

in some selected secondary schools in, Bamenda II Sub-

Division of North West, Cameroon.

Specific objectives

To examine the relationship between family structure

(that is, family size, marital status of parents and

single parenting) and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours.

To examine the relationship between authoritarian

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

To examine the relationship that exists between

authoritative parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours.

To examine the relationship between permissive

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours

20

To examine the relationship between neglectful

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours

Generally Research Question

What is the relationship between family environment

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours?

Specific Research Questions

What is the relationship between family structure

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours?

What is the relationship between parenting

authoritarian and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours?

What is the relationship between authoritative

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours?

What is the relationship between permissive

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours?

What is the relationship between neglectful

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours?

21

General Research Hypotheses

HA: there is a significant relationship between family

environment (parenting styles and family structure) and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

HO: there is no significant relationship between family

environment (parenting styles and family structure) and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

Specific Hypotheses

HA1: there is a significant relationship between family

structure and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours

HO1: there is no significant relationship between

family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

HA2: there is a significant relationship between

Authoritarian parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviors.

22

HO2: there is no significant relationship between

Authoritarian parenting and adolescent’ delinquent

behaviors.

HA3: there is a significant relationship between

Authoritative parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviors.

HO3: there is no significant relationship between

Authoritative parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviors.

HA4: there is a significant relationship between

Permissive parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours.

HO4: there is no significant relationship between

Permissive parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

HA5: there is a significant relationship between

neglectful parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

23

HO5: there is no significant relationship between

neglectful parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The researcher decided to carry out this study for

the following reasons:

a) The researcher has noticed that many adolescents in

schools today are found to be more involved in

delinquency as compared to the situation in the past

when she was in school. The researcher also noticed

that most parent discipline their children as before

given that most homes today have both parents working.

This has reduced the time they spend with their

children. With these experiences, the researcher

decided to carry out this research in order to help in

exposing parents to how family size, their marital

status and behaviours influences the behaviour of their

24

children and contribute in finding a solution to the

phenomena.

b) As a counselling student and someone who knows how

counselling can be helpful and remedial to a student’s

life, the researcher therefore wish to contribute from

the perspective of a counsellor in dealing with

students’ behaviour in school.

c) Lastly, another justification for carrying out this

study was that it is a prerequisite needed in the

department of guidance and counselling for obtaining a

diploma. Among the things needed to graduate from the

Higher Teacher Training College is a completed research

dissertation. Therefore, since the researcher is a

serious student who wishes to graduate on time, this

research work need to be carried out and submitted to

the department of guidance and counselling.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

25

The findings from this study will be useful to the

entire community especially parents, teacher and

counsellors.

The findings of this study shall aid these

stakeholders understand the behaviours of adolescents

and it roots. This will help them properly manage

students labeled as “delinquent” in school and in the

society. Counsellors will use the knowledge from the

findings to better orientate parents on better ways of

parenting their children.

In addition, these findings will be useful to

parents in that they will gain awareness on how their

behaviours either influence adolescents’ delinquency

positively or negatively. It will also help parents

know that the environment they create for children

especially adolescents is very important in either

shaping their behaviours or resulting to problem

behaviour as delinquency in adolescents. Its finding

26

will also add new knowledge to education, thereby

bringing advancement in knowledge.

DELIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

In this section, the researcher is going to examine

delimitation of the study geographically, conceptually,

theoretically and methodologically. Firstly, the

delimitation of the study geographically:

i) Geographical delimitation of the study

Geographically, the study would be limited to the

secondary schools in North West Region of Cameroon in

general and Bamenda II Municipality in particular. The

students in secondary schools in this area were the

target population in this study. This location was

chosen because the researcher recites there and has the

highest adolescent population in the North West Region.

i) Conceptual delimitation of the study

Conceptually, this work was related to concepts

such as family structure, parenting style, adolescence

27

and delinquency. The researcher limited this study to

the above concepts because there tie with the topic and

are relevant to the study.

ii) Theoretical delimitation of the study

Two theories were used to explain the relationship

between the variables. The theories used were the

Theory of Attachment by Bowlby and the theory of

Parenting by Diana Baumrind.

iii)Methodological scope of the study

The researcher used the correlation research design

and survey research method in carrying out her study.

The simple random sampling technique was used to select

the participants for the study.The sample for this

study was adolescents of the 12-19 years from some

selected schools in Bamenda II, Mezam Division, and

North West Region, Cameroon. Equally, a questionnaire

was used as instrument for data collection. Data was

28

collected and analysed using a suitable statistical

package (SPSS) with the help of a well-trained

statistician.

CONCLUSION

Chapter 1 was focused on the background of the

study, stated the problem, inserted it into the current

literature and has specified the different facets to be

investigated. The chapter also brought out the

objectives of the study clearly and the research

questions which would be answered in later chapters. It

also contained the delimitation of the study from

various perspectives. The next chapter would examine

relevant theories and concepts that have been found to

be suitable for this study.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

29

In this chapter, the researcher critically examined

some basic concepts in her study. The review of related

literature in context and the theories related to the

study was also examined. This chapter contains the

following sub-titles.

KEY CONCEPTS OF THE STUDY

Parenting Styles

Darling and Steinberg, (1993) defined parenting as

a constellation of attitudes towards the child that,

jointly considered, create an emotional environment

where parental behaviours are expressed. Baumrind

(1971) in her study of parenting views parenting styles

as a psychological construct which represent standard

strategies parents use in raising their children.

Parenting has been recognized as a major vehicle in

socializing the child (Utti 2006). Parenting according

to Utti, (2006) is the act of parenthood, the child

upbringing, training, and rearing or child education.

30

Parenting styles depends on the behaviour and attitude

of parents. The term is a complex activity that

includes many specific behaviours that work

individually and collectively to influence the child.

Baumrind (1971) identified two major variables, which

centered on parenting styles and child outcomes. One of

them was the responsiveness of parents to their child’s

needs in a reasonable, nurturing and supportive way,

and the other the demands parents place on their child.

Demandingness, according to Baumrind (1996, p. 411),

refers to “claims that parents make on children to

become integrated into the family and community by

their maturity expectations, supervision, disciplinary

efforts, and willingness to confront a disruptive

child.” Demandingness can be gauged based on the level

of direct confrontation, well-defined monitoring

techniques, and patterns of discipline that one

utilizes while parenting. The idea of demandingness is

31

comprised of direct confrontations between parent and

child, parental monitoring of the child, and consistent

parental discipline. The idea of responsiveness

consists of warmth, reciprocity, and clear

communication and person-centered discourse. The

convergence of demandingness and responsiveness results

in four different parenting styles: authoritarian,

authoritative, permissive, and neglecting/rejecting.

Parenting is a most challenging yet rewarding

experience. Baumrind, who studied parenting styles

during the early 1960s, concluded that they differ in

four important areas: parents' warmth/nurturance,

discipline strategy, communication skills, and

expectations of maturity. She then posited the

following types of parenting styles: authoritarian,

permissive, indulgent and authoritative. Research

indicates a significant link between parental or

caregiver involvement and an individual’s propensity to

32

engage in or delinquent behaviours. A lack of parental

interaction and involvement, a characteristic of the

indifferent parenting style, increases the risk for

violence, particularly among male juveniles (Hawkins et

al., 2000). Criminological research suggests that a

weak parent-child bond is a key determinant of juvenile

offending or delinquency (Steinberg, 2001; Patterson et

al., 1992) and contribute to adult offending. The

authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles, based on

their characteristics, are associated with drug use and

behavioral problems (Baumrind, 1978). The different

parenting styles are discussed below.

Authoritarian parenting

Authoritarian parenting, also termed dictatorial or

harsh, is low on warmth/nurturance, strict on

discipline, high in parent-to-child communication but

low in child-to-parent communication, and high on

expectation. This style has been predominant throughout

33

Western history. Authoritarian parents show little

affection and "seem aloof from their children". These

Parents instruct and give order, they do not consider

the children's opinion in the family, and discourage

verbal give-and-take. Authoritarian parents highly

value obedience, respect, and tradition. Baumrind,

(1966) accounts that an authoritarian parent will

attempt to preserve the order of a traditional family

structure by limiting the child’s autonomy,

discouraging verbal “give and take” between parent and

child, and demanding that the child accept what the

parent says without question. Their rules are non-

negotiable, the feel they are always right, and they

often punished disobedient children physically.

However, these parents may not cross the line to

physical abuse. As children obey their parents in order

to avoid punishment, they become passive. Authoritarian

parents expect a level of maturity higher than the norm

34

for their child's particular age group: The

authoritarian parents assign the child the same

responsibilities as adults. Responsiveness is low, as

the approach is parent-centered and stresses more on

the parent's needs.

This almost non-interactive style has serious

developmental drawback on the child (Daniel, Wassell,

and Gilligan 1999). Children are more susceptible to

antisocial peer pressure during adolescence, a time

when peer influence is the greatest (Collins et al.

2000); these children learn not to discuss issues with

their parents (and may ask themselves “why bother if

you are always wrong or ignored?”); and they are

influenced greatly by their peers. Often frustrated,

they distance themselves from their parents by

rebelling against their parents’ values and beliefs.

Here the parents make rigid rules and expect them to be

obeyed without questions asked. Harsh punishments are

35

given as consequences. Parents are authorities, they

are expected to be honored, obeyed and may be feared.

There is not much friendly communication or warmth in

this style.

The long run outcome of this style is- children who

can be sneaky, meek and subservient to authorities and

also bully and bossy to younger, weaker fellows. They

demand power like their parents and show the same

attitude. Because they want to exercise the same

authority as their parents, they turn to aggressive and

bully younger onse. Kids from authoritarian families

are relatively well behaved since they are less

advanced in moral reasoning and self-regulation. This

is true for drug and alcohol use, and it seems to be

the case for other risky behaviors, like driving

without a seat belt (Ginsburg et al 2004). They may not

involve in delinquent act for fear of punishment or

simply out of respect tor authority. In a research

36

carried out by Steinberg et al (1992), and Steinberg et

al (1994) on authoritarian parenting and children

outcome, they found out that widely-cited studies of

American adolescents have reported that teens with

authoritarian parents were the least likely to feel

socially accepted by their peers. They were also being

rated as less self-reliant. Zhou et al (2004) also

carried out one study of second graders in Beijing and

found out that, their teachers rated kids from

authoritarian families as less socially competent. They

were also more aggressive and less likely to be

accepted by their peers (Chen et al 1997). Other

Chinese researcher have linked the punitive aspects of

authoritarianism with poorer social functioning. In

Cyprus, Georgiou et al in 2013, questioned 231 young

adolescents about their cultural values and experiences

with peers, they found that kids from authoritarian

homes were more likely to have experienced bullying -

37

both as victims and perpetrators. Steinberg et al.

(1994) reveals that boys in this category have the

highest level of violence.

Furthermore, because the discipline of the

authoritarian parenting style is imposed on children,

these children rely on external controls rather than

self-regulation (Hoffman, 1998). This external

imposition of authority can increase the likelihood

that adolescents will rebel (Baumrind, 1978) and may

become delinquent. Authoritarian parents might see

themselves as champions of morality. However, as noted

above, studies suggest that kids with authoritarian

parents are actually less advanced when it comes to

self-regulation and moral reasoning (Dekovic and

Jannsens 1992; Jannsens and Dekovic 1997; Karreman et

al 2006; Piotrowski et al 2013). This may intern lead

to the child involving in delinquent behaviour in the

38

later stage of his/her development, especially during

adolescence.

Authoritative parenting

According to Baumrind (1971), the authoritative

parent attempts to direct the child’s activities in a

rational, issue-oriented manner. The authoritative

parent acts with both a high level of demandingness and

a high level of responsiveness. Authoritative parenting

is high on warmth, moderate on discipline, high in

communication, and moderate in expectations of

maturity. In addition, the authoritative parent

welcomes a verbal give and take with the child,

solicits objections from the child, explains the reason

for certain rules, and encourages the child to be

autonomous. Despite being quite open-minded, the

authoritative parent does not hesitate to exert firm

control and use power, yet one must keep in mind that

the parent does this in order to set standards for the

39

child’s future behaviour. Indeed, warm, loving and

responsive parenting contributes to strengthen parent-

adolescent bonds and reduces the likelihood of

delinquent involvement (Smith & Krohn, 1995). Children

raised in this style learn to follow directions, lead

properly when needed and respectful to their

subordinates. They are assertive, self-motivated,

resilient, and responsible and with high self esteem.

Authoritative parents establish and enforce

behaviour standards and stay in control. Parents use

reason, negotiation, and persuasion-not force-to gain

their children's cooperation (Marion 1999). Their

listening-demanding ratio is roughly equal. Children

are given alternatives, encouraged to decide, and

accept responsibility for their actions and decisions.

When the children's opinions are valued and respected,

both children and parents benefit (Marion 1999;

Gonzalez-Mena 1993). Authoritative parents set

40

developmentally appropriate limits and

standards for behaviour. Overall, this parenting style

is high on mutual understanding and based on

reciprocity.

Research shows that these children are less

influenced by negative peer pressure and develop

successful peer relationships (Collins et al. 2000). As

authoritative parenting provides a balance between

control and independence, produces competent, socially

responsible, self-assured, and independent children

(Gonzalez-Mena 1993). Children are more likely to

develop high self-esteem, positive self-concept,

greater self-worth, less rebellion, and generally are

more successful in life. Furthermore, they are the best

adjusted of all children. They also respect authority,

are accountable, and control their impulses. Steinberg

(1996) shows that they are more confident and

responsible, less likely to use or abuse drugs or

41

alcohol, and less likely to be involved in delinquency.

These children also reported less anxiety and

depression and the least amount of violence (Steinberg

et al. 1994).

Permissive parenting

According to Baumrind (1968, 1971), the permissive

parent attempts to behave in a nonpunitive, acceptant,

and affirmative manner toward the child’s impulses,

desires, and actions. Permissive parenting is high on

warmth, very low on discipline and structure, low in

parent-to-child communication but high in child-to-

parent communication, and low on expectation.

Permissive parents are nurturing, warm, and

accepting. Their main concerns are to let children

express their creativity and individuality and to make

them happy (Neal 2000), in the belief that this will

teach them right from wrong (Berger 2001). Permissive

parents find it hard to set clear limits, provide

42

structure, are inconsistent disciplinarians, and reward

bad behaviour regularly (Dworkin 1997). Children are

not pushed to obey guidelines or standards that, even

when they do exist, are not enforced (Barakat and Clark

1999). These parents have no rules or guidelines for

their children. Children are free to do whatever they

please. These parents are warm and too friendly to the

extent that their children walk all over them. Children

have no conception of following direction, respect for

the rights of others, or their own responsibilities.

With no limits, these children are confused and

spoiled.

Permissive parents take orders and instructions

from their children, are passive, endow children with

power (Gonzalez-Mena, 1993; Garbarino and Abramowitz,

1992), have low expectations, use minimal discipline,

and do not feel responsible for how their children turn

out. They are more likely to exhibit such psychological

43

problems as anxiety and depression (Steinberg 1996),

are most likely to commit violence and engage in

antisocial behaviour (Simons, Lin, and Gordon 1998).

Research links permissive parents with delinquency,

substance abuse, and sexual activity (Snyder and

Sickmund 2000; Jacobson and Crockett 2000].

In effect, parents teach their children that they

can get their way by manipulating others: Children may

learn a false sense of control over adults that

increases their manipulative behaviour. Later on, they

have higher rates of misbehavior in areas involving

adult authority. As they have not been taught how to

control or discipline themselves, they are less likely

to develop self-respect. This lack of discipline and

structure engenders a desire for some type of control,

and so they put "a lot of energy into controlling

parents and trying to get parents to control them"

(Gonzalez-Mena, 1993).

44

Neglectful or Uninvolved Parenting

Maccoby & Martin (1983) and Simons et al. (2004) in

their study identified neglectful parenting as not

being warm, reciprocal, confrontational, supervisory,

consistent in discipline, or clear in communication.

Uninvolved Parents are not warm and do not place any

demands on their teen. They minimize their interaction

time, and, in some cases, are uninvolved to the point

of being neglectful. Uninvolved parents are indifferent

to their adolescent’s needs, whereabouts, or

experiences at school or with peers. Uninvolved parents

invoke such phrases as, “I don’t care where you go,” or

“why should I care what you do?” Uninvolved parents

rarely consider their children’s input in decisions and

they generally do not want to be bothered by their

children. These parents may be overwhelmed by their

circumstances or they may be self-centered. These

parents establish no limits, no rules or guide lines.

45

Children from this style are unhappy, wild, confused,

can be extremely timid or very bully and aggressive.

They have very little self-control and low self esteem.

Research supports that adolescents of uninvolved

parents learn that parents tend to be interested in

their own lives and less likely to invest much time in

parenting. Baumrind (1991) found that children whose

parents have a neglectful parenting style have the

worst outcomes on a number of behavioral and

psychological measures. These children demonstrate high

rates of problem behaviors and drug use. The lack of

parental presence in the uninvolved parenting

environment and its adverse effects on children’s

development was consistent with other findings by

Mamari, Blum, & Tuefel-Shone in 2010. The majority of

the participants in that study felt that the lack of

parental presence was the major reason why American

India youth or juveniles get involve in drugs and

46

violence. The majority of these respondents also

reported the lack of parental discipline as another

major source of risk for delinquent behaviour.

Poor parental monitoring is believed to lead to an

adolescent’s involvement with delinquent and antisocial

peers (Patterson & Dishion, 1985). The persistence

aspects of parental rearing styles of children which

are strong discipline; parental disharmony; rejection

of the child and inadequate involvement in the child’s

activities cause delinquency among adolescents

(Okorodudu & Okorodudu, 2003). Otuadah (2006) noted

that when the relationship between the parents and the

adolescent is warm, it creates a healthy environment

for the development of the adolescent. Adolescents

exhibiting traits of friendliness, cheerfulness,

positive emotions and good maturity traits, show

evidently, that such adolescents come from homes where

they are accepted and loved. Okpako (2004) noted that

47

a child well brought up will remain a source of joy and

happiness for such family. The neglected adolescent

gradually becomes a drug addict, hardened criminal,

aggressive, restive, arm robber, cultist, ritualist,

rapist etc.

However, factors which constitute negative

parenting (poor parenting) were equally identified as:

parental harshness, aggression; lack of love, lack of

affection, lack of care, adequate monitoring and

supervision, and lack of control to mention but a

few. These and a host of other conditions may prong

the adolescents into delinquent behaviours and increase

in crime rate.

Adolescence

Adolescence (from Latin: adolescere meaning "to grow

up") is a transitional stage of physical and

psychological human development that generally occurs

during the period from puberty to legal adulthood (age

48

of majority). Physical growth, as distinct from puberty

(particularly in males), and cognitive development

generally seen in adolescence, can extend into the

early twenties. Thus, chronological age provides only a

rough marker of adolescence, and scholars have found it

difficult to agree upon a precise definition of

adolescence. A thorough understanding of adolescence in

society depends on information from various

perspectives, most importantly from the areas of

psychology, biology, history, sociology, education, and

anthropology. Within all of these perspectives,

adolescence is viewed as a transitional period between

childhood and adulthood, whose cultural purpose is the

preparation of children for adult roles. Adolescence is

usually accompanied by an increased independence

allowed by the parents or legal guardians and less

supervision as compared to preadolescence.

49

Adolescence is also a time for rapid cognitive

development. Adolescents tern to have many questions

about sexuality and gender. Most injuries sustained by

adolescents are related to risky behaviour like

aggression, alcohol, and unprotected sex. Much research

has been done on adolescent risk-taking, particularly

on whether and why adolescents are more likely to take

risks or are more delinquent than adults. The

behavioural decision-making theory proposes that

adolescents and adults both weigh the potential rewards

and consequences of an action. However, research has

shown that adolescents seem to give more weight to

rewards, particularly social rewards, than do adults.

Adolescents who have a good relationship with their

parents are less likely to engage in various delinquent

behaviours, such as smoking, drinking, fighting, and/or

unprotected sexual intercourse.

50

During adolescence, there is an extremely high

emphasis on approval of peers as a reward due to

adolescents' increased self-consciousness. Some

qualities of adolescents' lives that are often

correlated with risky sexual behaviour include higher

rates of experienced abuse, lower rates of parental

support and monitoring. Adolescence is a sensitive

period in the development process of an individual, and

exposure to the wrong things at that time can have a

major affect on future decisions. Adolescence, is also

a period of development characterized by a dramatic

increase in time spent with peers and a decrease in

adult supervision. Adolescents also associate with

friends of the opposite sex much more than in childhood

and tend to identify with larger groups of peers based

on shared characteristics. It is also common for

adolescents to use friends as coping devices in

different situations. Drinking, drugs, smoking, and

51

sexual experimentation are often of the highest

interest at this developmental stage. Possible first

intercourse or first pregnancy occurs, strong need to

strive for independence and autonomy, frequent

conflicts with parents and confrontation become very

common with adolescents. Sexuality also becomes a major

preoccupation which if not properly handled through

dialogue, the adolescent might engage in risky sexual

activities. Adolescents also start experiencing

unpredictable urges in sexual drive accompanied by

unavoidable sexual fantasies and impulses. Boys at this

stage of development become more sexually active than

girls because: females are less likely to discover

sexual responses spontaneously because their sexual

organs are less prominent and subject to manipulation

and testosterone increases are much more abundant in

boys. High male testosterone may result in greater

aggressiveness and more purely physical drives for

52

gratification. Girls tend to view sexual gratification

as secondary to fulfillment of other needs, like love,

affection, self-esteem, and reassurance. Girls, thus,

are less likely to abstain from sex in a relationship.

Motivation to participate in sexual activity then

arises from need to: gratify true sexual impulses,

gratify nonsexual needs (achieve sense of closeness to

someone, bolster self-esteem, to consolidate gender

identity, or to act out against authority).

Adolescence between the ages of 17 and 19 become

rebellious, concerned with personal appearance, moody,

interested in opposite sex, need parental respect for

opinion and acceptance of maturity. Adolescents are

likely to engage in delinquent behaviours if these

issue related to their development are not properly

managed by parents. Patterson and Moffitt both

developed theories of two types of delinquents to

describe the heterogeneity in the offender population

53

over the life course. Patterson and his colleagues used

early and late starters, while Moffitt used life-

course-persistent and adolescent-limited delinquents.

Patterson and his colleagues proposed a sequence of

causal relationships (a coercive model) among child’s

antisocial behaviour, parenting practices and peer

variables. Late starters start their delinquent

behaviours during mid- to late adolescence. Most of

these behaviours are considered to be the consequence

of peer encouragement or peer pressure as well as inept

parenting. Moffitt used adolescent-limited delinquents

to describe the late starters. For Moffitt, the

delinquent behaviours are the result of psychological

tensions and social mimicry. Because of modernization,

young people reach physical maturation during their

adolescence. Adolescents want to be treated as adults

and be autonomous, since they feel they are “adults”.

However, social norms do not give them the rights they

54

want and consequently adolescents experience the

tensions between the desire for autonomy and lack of

power. The desire to reduce this tension leads some

adolescents to mimic the behaviour of their delinquent

peers.

In a coercive model by, Patterson et al. (1992)

they indicated that early starters tend to experience

ineffective parenting in childhood and peer rejection

during adolescence. The dynamic interaction between

parents and children is the key to the coercive model.

The coercive process shows that if parents use

ineffective parenting, such as lack of monitoring and

warmth, harsh parenting, or inconsistent parenting,

their difficult children would react with more

delinquent behaviours. The failure in parenting impairs

parental psychological functioning, which in turn

induces even less effective parenting. Early starters

face peer rejection when they enter adolescence due to

55

their antisocial behaviour. This encourages them, if

they do not want to be isolated, to make friends with

other delinquent kids. Therefore, during adolescence,

early starters become isolated from conventional

associations and tend to relate to delinquent peers.

Moffitt (1993) used life-course-persistent

delinquents to describe early starters. In her theory,

there exists a small group of people who show their

delinquent behaviours early and maintain them over

time. With this defiant physiology, children may be

clumsy and awkward, overactive, inattentive, irritable,

impulsive, hard to keep on schedule, poor at verbal

comprehension, deficient at expressing themselves, or

slow at learning new things. These handicaps result in

poor social skills. When interacting with social and

family environment (such as poor parenting practice,

family break-down, and poverty), these characteristics

induce antisocial behaviors. Therefore, as Nagin and

56

Tremblay (1999) showed those who are physical

aggressive, oppositional, or hyperactive may follow the

pathway into a delinquent career. Due to a lack of

social skills, they find it difficult to do well in

school, find a good job, and keep conventional

relationships with others.

Hoeve et al.(2008), reporting on their research

findings identified that, based on self-reported and

official delinquency seriousness, delinquency can be

classified into five distinct delinquency trajectories

differing in both level and change in seriousness over

time: a nondelinquent, minor persisting, moderate

desisting, serious persisting, and serious desisting

trajectory. Eke (2004) notes that there are two main

categories of delinquent behaviours adolescents are

engaged in: criminal and status offences. The criminal

offences include stealing, arson, rape, drug offences

and murder, burglary, pickpocket, and armed robbery.

57

However, she listed status offences to include: running

away from home, malingering, truancy etc. Onyehalu

(2003) asserted that the existence of stable and normal

societies is based on acceptable ethical principles,

norms and healthy values. He also claims that, any

departure from the accepted norms by people who are not

yet adult is delinquency. However, Bingham et al (2006)

refers to such behaviours which are socially

proscribed/prohibited as problem behaviours. Any

behaviour that falls short of societal norms, values,

beliefs and expectations are undesirable behaviours.

Several social factors contribute to the etiology of

juvenile delinquency. One of the major factors

contributing to the risk of delinquent behavior may be

the family environment of the adolescent.

Family Structure

The family has traditionally provided a set of

values and an environment where young people can

58

observe and learn adult behaviours. The development and

behaviour of one family member is inextricably

interconnected with others in the family (Corey, 2009).

Therefore, one cannot accurately understand an

individual without reference to their family.

The family can be viewed as the problem and the

solution to delinquency. In reviewing the research for

this study, there appears to be no exact origin of

juvenile delinquency; however, all of the research

references the family of origin as influencing

delinquency (Klein, Forehand, Armistead, & Long, 1997).

Many family characteristics and family environments

influence adolescents’ delinquent behaviour such as the

number of people in a family, inconsistent parenting,

family problems, child neglect and children’s

attachment to parents.

Although there are several influential variables,

there are three main categories on which I will be

59

focusing that encompass all of these variables. These

categories are two-parent versus single parent

households, family size and marital status. All of

these aspects of family are very crucial to the

upbringing of a child and could ultimately lead to

delinquent behaviours if the family is not functioning

“properly.” According to Wright and Wright (1994), the

family is the foundation of human society.

Children who are rejected by their parents, who

grow up in homes with considerable conflict, or who are

inadequately supervised because of large family size

are at the greatest risk of becoming delinquent. If

anything would play a large part in delinquency, it

would be a family. Understanding how the family and

how the juvenile within the family works get to the

core of delinquency.

Families are one of the strongest socializing

forces in life. They teach children to control

60

unacceptable behaviour, to delay gratification, and to

respect the rights of others. Conversely, families can

teach children to be aggressive, antisocial, and

violent behaviour (Wright & Wright 1994). This

statement alone could easily explain how the juvenile

may end up becoming a delinquent. Among social

circumstances, which have a hand in determining the

future of the individual, it is enough for our present

purpose to recognize that family is central (Wright &

Wright 1994).

Large family size (a large number of children in

the family) is a relatively strong and highly

replicable predictor of delinquency (Ellis, 1988;

Fischer, 1984). 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 (Farrington & Loeber, 1999). In

the Cambridge Study, if a boy had four or more siblings

61

by his tenth birthday, this doubled his risk of being

convicted as a juvenile. It is important to note that

as the number of children in a family increases, the

amount of attention paid on each child decreases. As a

result, supervision, control, and attachment to each

child may also be affected giving way for some children

to engage in undesired behaviours knowingly or

unknowingly. Child neglect may also be promoted

especially as the child reaches adolescence. During

this period, the child is considered responsible and

left to take care of his/herself while the parents

concentrate on the younger children. Parents become

inconsistent in supervision, control of adolescents’

behaviour and attachment to the adolescent reduces.

This may lead the adolescent to continually engage in

an undesirable behaviour making this him/her

delinquent. The parent-adolescent relationships

significantly influence children psychosocial

62

adjustment, when it comes to negotiate the main

adolescent tasks such as identity and autonomy

acquisition, and can consolidate the necessary bases

for the development of important cognitive and social

abilities. Lack of cohesion and parental support has a

substantial and negative effect on the development of

behavioural problems in the adolescent period. As

parents go closer to their children, they get to know

them better and this gives their children the chance to

open up and discuss their concerns with their parents

thereby reducing the chance of their children engaging

in delinquent behaviours.

Another major area within adolescents’ delinquency

and families is single parent households versus two

parent households. In modern industrial societies,

however, the nuclear family has become relatively

unstable as divorce is common and a single parent

raises many children. For family disruption and

63

delinquency, the composition of families, that is the

parent’s marital status, is one aspect of family life

that is consistently associated with delinquency. A

number of studies have been undertaken, which show a

very real connection between delinquent and /or

criminal behaviour, and single parent families. Wright

and Wright’s (1994) research shows that single parent

families, and in particular mother-only families,

produce more delinquent children than two parent

families. Popenoe (1997) stated that fatherlessness is

a major force behind many disturbing United States

social problems. The institution of marriage acts as

culture’s chief vehicle to bind men to their children.

The absence of fathers or mothers from children’s lives

is one of the most important causes related to

children’s well being such as increasing rates of

juvenile crime, depression, teen suicide, and substance

abuse. The father most at times acts as a

64

disciplinarian while the presence of a mother acts like

the guardian to children in the family. Two parent

households provide increased supervision and

surveillance of property, while single parenthood

increases likelihood of delinquency and victimization

simply by the fact that there is one less person to

supervise adolescent behaviour (Wright & Wright 1994).

With single parenting the issue of monitoring is

hardly effective. The absence of a father in the family

also reduces the total income of that family, thereby

living the mother to work harder in order to meet the

material needs of the children. As the mother goes out

to fend for her children, her attention and supervision

of the adolescents’ behaviours and activities may be

affected. This affects their children and in turn the

children may be delinquent. A lack of monitoring is

reflected in the parent often not knowing where the

child is, whom the child is with, what the child is

65

doing or when the child will be home. Monitoring

becomes increasingly important as children move into

adolescence and spend less time under the direct

supervision of parents or other adults and more time

with peers. Communication also plays a big role in how

the family functions. Clark and Shields (1997) also

stated that the importance of positive communication

for optimal family functioning has major implications

for delinquent behaviour. The psychological

explanations emphasize that the probability of the

adolescent implicating him/herself in antisocial

behaviours increases when the family socialization

process is altered by factors such as an erratic

discipline, frequent conflicts or the lack of parental

support.

Children who live in homes with only one parent

or in which marital relationships have been disrupted

by divorce or separation are more likely to display a

66

range of behavioural problems including delinquency,

than children who are from two parent families

(Thornberry, et al. 1999). You will bear with me that

it is not easy to raise children alone especially when

you were the children were raised by both parents and

out of a sudden the burden is left on a single parent

due to death, separation or divorce. Individual

adolescents can be expected to react differently to

parental divorce. Adjustment to a parents divorce may

depend upon the adolescent’s personality, the

socioeconomic status, the ability to cope, and the

nature of the relationship between parent and child.

Juby and Farrington (2001) claim that there are

three major classes that explain the relationship

between disrupted families and delinquency: trauma

theories, life course theories, and selection theories.

The trauma theories suggest that the loss of a parent

has a damaging effect on children, most commonly

67

because of the effect on attachment to the parent. For

a child who was more attached to a parent more the

other, separation tries to break the bond between the

parent and the child. When children are unable to be

close to the parent as before, this make the child

depressed, anxious and traumatized. This may also lead

to truant and runaway children. Certain types of

delinquency are related to broken homes (e.g. runaway,

truancy and fighting). Juveniles from broken homes are

more likely to run away from their family to look for

the other parent, than children living in intact homes

where both parents are present. The core belief is that

a broken home is imbalance and as a result is

detrimental to a child’s socialization and personality

adjustment. As a result, a child may be more

susceptible to negative peer pressure and may

ultimately commit acts of delinquency not committed by

children from intact homes where there is a balanced

68

structure of man and women who act as good role models

in child acquiring proper roles.

Selections theories argue that disrupted families

are associated with delinquency because of pre-existing

differences in family income or child rearing methods.

The incidence of parental separation may result in

adolescents embarrassment, depression (Boroffice 2004,

Hyssong, 2000) and even make them miss school and

participate in delinquent behaviours like use of drugs

and alcohol abuse to stabilize their moods (Atkinson,

2004; Boroffice, 2004; Okorodudu, 2006).

THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVE

In this part of the research work, the researcher

tried to bring out all sections of theories used in the

study. Many theories guide research and understanding

of human development. In this light, the Theory of

Parenting by Diana Baumrind (1961) and the Theory of

69

Attachment by John Bowlby (1969) were used in this

study.

Theory of Parenting by Diana Baumrind

The most pervasive theory of parenting used today

is Baumrind’s theory of authoritative parenting. She

believed that parents fall into one of four categories:

authoritarian (telling their children exactly what to

do), indulgent (allowing their children to do whatever

they wish), authoritative (providing rules and guidance

without being overbearing) or negligent parents

(disregarding the children, and focusing on other

interests). She then proposed four types of parenting

styles based upon two dimensions: demandingness and

responsiveness. Baumrind defined these dimensions of

parenting styles as:

Responsiveness refers to the extent to which

parents intentionally foster individuality and

self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and

acquiescent to children’s needs and demands.

70

Demandingness refers to the claims parents make

on children to become integrated into the family

and community by their maturity expectations,

supervision, disciplinary efforts, and

willingness to confront a disputative child,

(Baumrind, 1996).

She identified the important facets of

responsiveness to include warmth, reciprocity, clear

communication, person-centered discourse, and

attachment. Warmth in parents motivates children to

participate in cooperative strategies and is

associated with the development of an internalized

moral orientation in children. Person-centered

parental communication legitimizes parental authority

by persuasion and, therefore, tends to be better

accepted by the child. Parents who provide

explanations will help children, especially

adolescents, to internalize values more effectively.

71

The second major factor of parenting,

demandingness, includes direct confrontations,

monitoring, and consistent, contingent discipline.

Ineffective monitoring has been related to children’s

conduct problems (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984;

Sampson & Laub, 1994). The contingent use of positive

or negative reinforcers immediately following desired

or prohibited child behaviour is a crucial factor in

behaviour management. A non-contingent use of

discipline tends to be related to deficit in children.

The following are the types of parenting styles

identified by Baumrind and their effect on children’s

behaviour.

Authoritative parenting: Authoritative parenting is the

most democratic of the four main parenting strategies.

These parents are attentive, express warmth, and teach

children appropriate behaviour via rules, rewards and

non-violent punishments. When parents are attentive to

72

their children, they can discover inappropriate

behaviours in them and correct them before they become

delinquent. As parent also set rules and explain them

to the child, this makes the child to understand the

reasons for these rules and is able to distinguish

right from wrong, and so the child is able to control

his/her behaviour even in the absence of the parent.

All these reduce the probability of adolescents

engaging in delinquent behaviours. This parenting style

incorporates nurturing the child, respecting the child

by using appropriate discipline, and giving teens some

degree of psychological autonomy. This parenting

strategy is most likely to produce psychologically

well-adjusted adults. Baumrind refers to parents who

are demanding and responsive as authoritative parents.

Their children are expected to perform better in social

competence than are children whose parents are

authoritarian (demanding but not responsive),

73

permissive (responsive but not demanding), or

rejecting-neglecting (neither demanding nor

responsive).

Authoritarian parenting: The authoritarian parent tends

to set rigid rules, demand obedience and use strategies

such as the withdrawal of love or approval to force a

child to conform to their rules. These parents are more

likely to use physical punishment or verbal insults to

elicit the desired behaviour. They lack the warmth and

may seem aloof to their children. Children with

authoritarian parents may be well-behaved, but they are

also likely to be moody and anxious. There is no room

for negotiation, and these parents often display little

warmth or affection toward their children.

Permissive parenting: Permissive parents are more like

"friends" rather than parents because instead of

setting rules, they allow children to make their own

choices. Warmth and affection may be present, but

74

little rules, boundaries, rewards or punishments for

misbehaviour. Because children learn that there are

often no consequences for their behaviour, they may

engage in certain bad behaviours and become delinquent.

Adolescents of permissive parents often have problems

with controlling their impulses since they have grown

in an environment were they are free to make their

choices without boundaries. As such they are unable to

respect authority; they are rude, and unable to follow

rules, making them delinquent.

Neglectful parenting: Neglectful parents are

indifferent. They fail to set rules and boundaries and

fail to develop a relationship with their children.

They are not involved in their children's lives. Even

though the physical need of the child may be barely

met, the emotional need is never met. This careless

attitude of the parents makes children unhappy, wild,

confused, can be extremely timid or very bully and

75

aggressive. They also have very little self-control

because they have not been taught to regulate their

emotions. These children may also engage in stealing

and robbery in order to meet their unmet needs.

Attachment Theory by John Bowlby

Attachment theory emerged from Bowlby’s interest in

childhood behaviour problems. Bowlby (1969), in his

theory opposed the dominant thinking that childhood

problems were due to internal drive conflicts, and

believed family experience to be the basic cause of

disturbance in children. Bowlby theorized that early

attachment relationship as an instinctual process with

a primary goal of maintaining proximity to the

caregiver. Through dynamic interaction with the

caregiver, mediated by behavioural systems and

feedback, an attachment bond is established. The early

parent-child attachment relationship necessitates

proximity of the caregiver to serve as both a safe

76

retreat during times of stress and a secure base from

which the child can explore the environment. Security

is felt, and exploration is facilitated, to the extent,

the caregiver is available and responsive to the

child’s needs. Based on this proximal relationship, the

child forms a cognitive schema that serves as a

prototype for future relationships and exploration

(Bowlby, 1973).

In adolescence, the attachment relationship remains

similar in meaning to the earlier relationship, but is

expressed by cognitive components such as perceived

trust, communication and alienation. Trust is a measure

of perceived security that the parent is responsive to

the adolescent’s emotional needs. Communication refers

to the quality of verbal communication between the

adolescent and parent, and alienation is a measure of

insecure attachment (Rice, 1990). Attachment theory

points to relational bonds within the family context as

77

a primary factor in adolescents’ development. Secure

attachment relations are associated with positive

development and insecure attachments are related to an

increased risk of negative outcomes. According to an

attachment paradigm, adolescence is a major transition

for integration of personality. Earlier attachment

difficulties may be especially problematic during this

critical transition leading to an increased risk of

developing negative self-concept, peer relations and

delinquent behaviours. Communication is a significant

facet of parent adolescent attachment. For example, if

parent adolescent communication is indifferent or

negative, children are likely to encounter greater

difficulties when growing up. It is through this

process of communication that a child develops his or

her patterns of cognition, knowledge, attitude toward

the external world. It has been assumed that a child

learns to regulate his or her emotions through specific

78

cognitions, which in turn are developed on the basis of

healthy parent child interactions. Clark & Shields

(1997) found that adolescents who lack open parental

communication are more prone towards serious

delinquency. They become lonely, anxious and depressed.

To overcome these, boys usually engage in alcohol and

drug consumption while girls start seeking for love

from the opposite sex and then engage in risky sexual

activities which make them delinquent. So, overall an

open communication between parent and adolescent may

serve as a protective factor for children against the

development of depression and anxiety and engagement in

antisocial activities

Hirschi believed parental attachment serves as the

most important form of social control for children and

adolescents. Hirschi (1969) observed that the

development of respect for authority could not occur

when a child lacked attachment to his/her parents.

79

Without this basic necessity for social life,

adolescents become unable to develop into healthy, law

abiding citizens. Hirschi also believed that a lack of

parent-child attachment results in higher levels of

juvenile delinquent behaviour. Parents who are warm,

loving and responsive to their children’s emotional

needs contribute to strengthen parent-adolescent bonds

and reduces the likelihood of delinquent involvement.

From all the theories presented, one can deduce

that the duties of a parent do not only end at

providing the adolescent with formal education, shelter

and feeding. Parents also need to be responsive to

their children’s emotional needs and monitor their

behaviour in order to control them.

EMPERICAL PERSPECTIVE

This part is concerned with a critical review of

similar studies carried out by other researchers and

published. The student researcher articulated the main

80

ideas of literature she came across vis-à-vis the

present study.

The risk of developing delinquent behaviours is

often attributed to family or parenting factors. Both

authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles have been

demonstrated to have a link with negative outcomes in

children, particularly, the neglectful parenting style.

Baumrind (1991) found that children whose parents have

an indifferent parenting style have the worst outcomes

on a number of behavioral and psychological measures.

These children demonstrate high rates of problem

behaviors and drug use (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al.,

1991; Slicker, 1998). The findings by Asher (2006)

point to the significant role of parenting styles in

predicting behavioral outcomes in juveniles. The study

involved parents and legal guardians of juveniles

incarcerated for felony offenses, and the largest

percentage (46%) of parents/guardians identified most

81

closely with an authoritarian style of parenting

(Asher, 2006).

In 1996, Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli and Huesman

conducted a study based on the data drawn from the

Chicago Youth Development Study. In this study they

examined the parenting practices and family

relationships among violent offenders. They noted that

poorer discipline practices, less cohesion, and less

family involvement were reported in the group self

identified as violent offenders. Across ethnic and

socioeconomic groups for this study, poor parental

monitoring, poor discipline, and lack of family

cohesion were general risk variables for serious

delinquency. A parent’s awareness and supervision of an

adolescent’s activities and peers or lack there of has

consistently been a predictor of adolescent behaviour

(Dishion & McMahon, 1998).

82

In another study conducted by Stouthamer-Loeber, it

was determined, in longitudinal studies that

socialization factors such as lack of

supervision, parental rejection of the child,

child rejection of the parent and lack of

parent/child involvement were found to be the

strongest indicators of delinquency. The importance

of effective parental discipline was higher in the

comparative studies than in the longitudinal studies.

The overall effect of these risk factors appeared to be

the same for both boys and girls. What needs to be

addressed in this case is the parental rejection

of their children rather than children's

rejection of their parents as the one of the

family causes of delinquency. Poor parental

disciplining for example beating instead of

punishing and poor child-parental ties predict a

child's future behavior for these lose a child's vigor

83

with their parents; in the end they happen to live as

enemies under the same. The children living under the

fear and the aggressiveness from their parents

make them migrate away from their homes to

solicit for places of comfort.

Okorodudu, G. N. (2010) carried an investigation on

the influence of parenting styles on adolescents’

delinquency in Delta Central Senatorial District,

Nigeria where she used 404 adolescents as her sample

size. Irrespective of gender, location and age, her

findings showed that neglectful-parenting style

effectively predicts adolescents’ delinquency while

authoritarian and authoritative did not. She also found

out that parents who exerted control and monitored

adolescent activities and promoted self-autonomy were

found to have the most positive effects on adolescents’

behavior. Uninvolving parents and non-responsive to

84

adolescents needs had negative impacts on their

behavior.

Raymond et al (2006) in a three-wave

longitudinal study investigated the main and

interaction effects of parenting dimensions (i.e.,

support, monitoring, and psychological control) and

best friend delinquency on adolescent delinquent

behavior. Their sample consists of 433 Dutch

adolescents who had reciprocal friendships within the

first year of secondary education. Their findings

reveal that higher levels of parental support and

monitoring, as well as lower levels of psychological

control, are associated with decreased levels of

adolescent delinquency.

Laird, Pettit, Bates and Dodge (2003) reported in

their longitudinal study of 396 adolescents living in

the Midwestern portion of the United States, that an

adolescent’s behavior might be influenced by the

85

adolescent’s perception of their parents’ monitoring

level, suggesting that if an adolescent perceived his

parents’ monitoring to be high, they would be less

likely to engage in delinquent behavior. This finding

was based on the self-report of adolescent and parents

in regards to parental knowledge and delinquent

behavior. Their finding suggests that parental

knowledge (monitoring) appeared to inhibit an

adolescent’s future involvement in delinquent

activities. Smetana, Crean, and Daddis (2002), studied

socio-demographic factors, parental monitoring, family

decision making, ratings of rules, parent-adolescent

conflict intensity, attachment to parents, observer

ratings of mother-adolescent communication, and problem

behaviors in 86 African American adolescent.

CONCEPTAUL FRAME WORK OF THE PRESENT STUDY

This section of the research study consists of

articulating the researchers’ views vis-à-vis the ideas

86

in the literature reviewed. As perceived from the

literature, and from a critical review of the above-

mentioned theories and the empirical study, we see that

the family environment has a great to play in

influencing on adolescent delinquency. The relationship

between these variable can then be represented as

follows:

Family structure

Adolescent delinquency

Neglectful parenting

Permissive parenting

Family environment

Authoritarian parenting

87

Figure. 1: conceptual model on the relationship between

variables

The above figure was drawn from Baumrind’s theory

of parenting and Bowlby’s theory of Attachment. The

independent variable (family environment) was

hypothesized to influence the dependent variable

(adolescents’ delinquent behaviour). The figure shows

the some factors in the family like different parenting

styles and family structure. These factors act directly

or indirectly on the adolescent and these may lead to

adolescents involving in delinquent behaviour.

CONCLUSION

There is no way one could give meaning to this study

without placing it within framework theories and

reviewing the necessary literature. This chapter

Adolescent delinquency

88

presented the key concepts in relation to the study,

theories from which this research work was based, the

empirical framework, and the conceptual perspectives of

the various variables used in the study. Chapter three,

which is the next chapter, shall present the

methodology used for the study.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is concerned with the methods used by

the researcher in the investigation the relationship

between parenting styles and family structure; and

adolescents’ delinquent bahaviour. To facilitate

understanding of this chapter, it is divided into some

sub-headings as research design, area of study,

population, sample size and sample technique, research

instrument, validation of the instrument, reliability

of the instrument, plan of data collection, plan of

data analysis, budget estimate and time budget. The

89

presentation of this work will follow the respective

order above.

RESEARCH DESIGN

To investigate the relationship between parenting

styles, family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours, the researcher used the correlational

survey research design. This design helped the

researcher describe the strength of the relationship

between her variables.

AREA OF STUDY

The research was conducted in Bamenda, the capital

of the North West Region of Cameroon. It has a total

surface area of 22.9 km² with a population of 269, 530

inhabitants, according to the 2005 population census.

It is located at a cross route, linking cities in

neighbouring Nigeria (such as Calabar and Enugu) to the

economic and capital cities of Douala and Yaoundé

respectively (Nyambod, 2010). Bamenda is an interesting

90

case study because it is the heartbeat of the nation in

terms of education. Bamenda is a very hospitable town,

which welcomes people from different ethnic groups and

background. The city is made up of three municipalities

namely; Bamenda I, Bamenda II and Bamenda III

municipality with the city council headed by government

delegate.

Every family in this town makes an environment that

may influence a child’s behaviour in one way or the

other. Bamenda II, which is the larges municipality in

terms of school population and adolescent’s population,

was therefore chosen for the area of study.

POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The population of this study was 1460 adolescents

in the selected schools. The target population

comprised of all the form four and lower-sixth students

within the ages of 12 and 19 years of age in Bamenda

II.

91

The accessible population was comprised of all the

form four and lower-sixth students within the ages of

12 and 19 years of age in one lay private school, one

government school and one confessional school in

Bamenda II. These schools were Government Bilingual

High School (GBHS) Down Town, Presbyterian Secondary

School Mankon (PSS) and Longla Comprehensive College

(LCC) Mankon. The total number of form four and lower-

sixth students in these schools that constituted the

population for this study is presented in the table

below:

Table 1: Population of study

Number(#)

Schools Population inform four

Population inlower- sixth

Total

1 GBHS DownTown

450 267 717

2 LCC Mankon 125 318 4433 PSS Mankon 182 118 300

92

Total 757 703 1460

SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Sample size

Overall, 1460 students comprised the population

used for the study. 25% of the total population was

calculated and used as the sample size for the study.

The sample size then comprised of 370 adolescents of

age in between 12years and 19years. The results

obtained were as seen in table 2 below.

Table 2: Distribution of Sample Size per School

Number School Population

Sample Proportionof sample in

% 1 GBHS Down Town 717 182 25% 2 LCC Mankon 443 112 25% 3 PSS Mankon 300 76 25%Total 1460 370 25%

Sampling Technique

To get the school used in the study, the simple

random sampling technique was used. Out of the 28

93

authorized secondary schools in Bamenda II, three of

these schools were selected for the study. The schools

were divided into three distinct groups, that is,

government schools, lay-private schools and

confessional schools. After that, the simple random

sampling was used to draw one school out of each

cluster of schools. Here, the names of the schools were

written in each slip of paper, folded, put into three

separate containers, reshuffled and one slip of paper

picked from each container.

The researcher used the proportionate stratified

random sampling technique to obtaining the sample per

school while the Simple Random sampling was also used

to select the respondents for the study since not all

the population was sampled. The students were randomly

selected to answer the inventory.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

94

For the purpose of this study, the researcher

adapted a Family Environment and Adolescents’

Delinquent Behaviour Questionnaire (FEADBQ), which was

used for collecting data. The instrument was divided

into 3 sections, which were sections A, B and C. The

first section solicited information on participants’

family structure and had 6 items. The items include;

with whom participants live, their number of siblings,

their parents’ marital status, attention they receive

from parents, who among the parents is working outside

the home and whether parents occupation influent the

time spent with them.

The second section is on parenting styles and is

divided into 4 parenting measures, that is,

authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and neglectful

parenting. First, authoritarian parenting styles

consisting of 6 items, ranging from parental harshness,

critical, aggression, unhealthy relationship with the

95

child, hard discipline and rigid rules. The second,

authoritative parenting style consisting of 6 items;

parents/adolescent healthy relationship, friendliness,

positive responses, supervision activities, encourage

development of social skills, monitor activities

The third is permissive parenting style consisting of 6

items: parental passiveness, lack of supervision, lack

of monitoring, no demanding, lack of active

participation in child’s activities and caring. The

forth is neglectful parenting which consist of 6 items:

lack of rules, self centeredness, lack of provision of

school materials, parental negligence, unhealthy

relationship with the child and lack of parental

assistance in home work.

The section C consists of Adolescents’ behaviour

inventory adapted by researcher to measure the

behaviour of delinquent students. The adolescents'

delinquency measure consisted of 20 items meant to

96

elicit right responses from the participants ranging

from truancy, beating junior students, disobedient to

school authority, easily irritated, sexual abuse,

fighting, rude to teachers, disobedience to parents,

breaking school properties, disobedient to teachers,

smoking cigarette or Indian hemp, drug abuse,

gambling, stealing, cheating, enjoy drinking of

alcohol, stealing, bullying, absenteeism, loitering

around school, no regard for truth, breaking of school

laws, inconsistent in assignment and lying. The items

were measured based on the Likert three point scale

measurement ranging Always, Sometimes and Never. The

options of the items were weighted in the Likert

format.

Validation of the Instrument

97

After the instrument was constructed, it was given

to some classmate for face validation. It was corrected

and later on given to the project supervisor who

examined each item making relevant criticism and

suggestions to improve on its quality. This was to

ensure face validity of the instrument. In order to

ensure content validity of the instrument, the

researcher did a pilot study of the instrument by

administering it on some students with same

characteristics as the target population.

Reliability of the instrument

A pilot study was conducted in Cameroon College of

Arts, Science and Technology (CCAST) Bambili with 10

students. During the pilot study, The Cronbach alpha

method was used to establish the internal consistency

of the instrument. The reliability index of α = .79,

P<0.05 was obtained. The Cronbach alpha index was

98

suggestive of high internal consistency measure of the

instrument.

Cronbach'salpha Internal consistency

α ≥ 0.9 Excellent (High-Stakes testing)

0.7 ≤ α < 0.9Good (Low-Stakes testing)0.6 ≤ α < 0.7Acceptable0.5 ≤ α < 0.6Poorα < 0.5 UnacceptableThis implies the instrument was good for data

collection.

PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION

To facilitate the collection of data for this

study, the researcher followed the steps outlined

below:

Constructed items for the instruments taking note

of ethical considerations.

Submitted the items for validation by the project

supervisor.

99

Collected a research permit from the department to

help the researcher carry out the study.

Went into the field and collected statistics

concerning the number of schools and population in

Bamenda II.

Did a pilot test study to ensure reliability and

validity of the instrument.

Used different sampling techniques to get the

schools to work with and the sample size of the

study.

Administered the questionnaire to some form four

and lower sixth students of the selected schools,

which they filled and the questionnaire returned to

the researcher. After this step the student

researcher assembled the questionnaire, read

through each copy, organized them and then

submitted for statistical analysis of data.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH VARIABLES

100

The variables in this study included the dependent

variable which was adolescent delinquent behaviour, and

independent variables which were family structure and

parenting styles.

Table 3: Table showing operationalization of research

variables

Generalhypothe

sis

Specifichypothesis

Variables Indicators Modalities

Instruments used

Ther

e is

a s

igni

ficant

rela

tion

ship

bet

ween f

amily

envi

ronm

ent

and

adoles

cents’

Thereis arelationshipbetweenfamilystructure andadolescents’delinquentbehaviour

-Dependentadolescentdelinquentbehaviour

-IndependentFamilystructure

-Bullying,stealing,truancy,fighting,absenteeism, etc

-familysize andparents’maritalstatus

AlwaysSometimesnever

LikertScalequestionnaire

101

deli

nque

nt beh

aviour

.Thereis arelationshipbetweenAuthoritarianparenting andadolescents’delinquentbehaviour

-Dependentadolescentdelinquentbehaviour

-IndependentAuthoritarianparenting

-Aggressiveness,smooking,usesdrugs,bullying.

-Strict,punitive,violent,control,parentcentered

AlwaysSometimesnever

LikertScalequestionnaire

Thereis arelationshipbetweenAuthoritativeparenting andadolescents’delinquentbehaviour

-Dependentadolescentdelinquentbehaviour

-IndependentAuthoritativeparenting

-Disobedience,cheating,rude

-control,monitor,communicates,explainrules,dialogue

AlwaysSometimesnever

LikertScalequestionnaire

There is a relationship betweenpermiss

-Dependentadolescentdelinquentbehaviour

-Disobedience,cheating,rude

AlwaysSometimesNever

LikertScalequestionnaire

102

ive parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviour

-IndependentPermissive parenting

-lackscontrol,lacksmonitoring,communicates, fewrules andnoexpectations

There is a relationship betweenneglectful parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviour

-Dependentadolescentdelinquentbehaviour

-IndependentNeglectful parenting

-Disobedience,cheating,rude,truancy,smoking,

-nocontrol,nomonitoring, lesscommunicates, lacksrules, noexpectation,carelessattitude

AlwaysSometimesnever

LikertScalequestionnaire

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

103

With an authorization from the Higher Teachers

Training College Bambili-Bamenda, and the DDSE, the

student researcher moved to the various schools, talked

with the principals about the study. From here the

researcher asked when the schools could permit her

administer the questionnaires. She then with permission

from the various school authorities pleaded to visit

the classes concerned. At the various classes, the

researcher briefed them on the issue of confidentiality

and that there is no respond which was going to be

considered wrong but rather they should feel free to

respond and pose question when need arises.

The researcher also ensured that she did not bring

up questions that could be abusive to student’s life or

religion. Finally, the activity was done with so much

respect accorded to the various school authorities and

students. This was done by the researcher appealing for

the full participation of the respondents, meaning they

104

were not obliged to participate in the study thereby

respecting their right to participate or not.

PLAN OF DATA ANALYSIS

After having collected the data, the researcher used

the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 20.0 as a tool for analyzing the data

collected. The data was analysed using descriptive and

inferential statistical methods. Descriptively, tables

and charts with frequencies and percentages were used.

Inferentially, the Pearson chi-square test of

independence was seen as the most appropriate

statistical technique to test the hypotheses at 0.05

level of significance and to measure the relationship

between variables. Research questions were also

answered using frequency distribution tables. The scale

of measurement was the Likert scale. The correlation

technique was also used to establish the relationship

between the variables.

105

CONCLUSION

This chapter elaborately outlined the research

design, target population, sample and sampling

technique used for the study. It equally examined

instrument for data collection, the method of analysis,

and the operationalization of the dependent and

independent variables. Chapter four was concerned with

the presentation of results or findings of the study in

forms of tables, graphs and in literature form with

respect to the objectives of the study.

106

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the analysis of data

collected from the field using questionnaire addressed

to students of public, private and confessional schools

selected from general secondary schools in Bamenda II

Municipality. The data was analysed using descriptive

and inferential statistical methods. Descriptively,

tables and charts with frequencies and percentages were

107

used. Inferentially, the Pearson chi-square test of

independence was seen as the most appropriate

statistical technique to test the hypotheses at 0.05

level of significance and to measure the relationship

between variables.

Table 4: Return rate of questionnaire

School No.administered

No.returned

Percentage(%)

GBHS Down town 182 182 100

LCC Mankon 112 112 100

PSS Mankon 76 76 100

Total 370 370 100The above table reveals that the return rate for

all the three schools (GBHS Down Town, LCC Mankon and

PSS Mankon) that constituted the sample was 100%. This

successful return rate was due to the collaborative

nature of participants and the accessible nature of the

road network in Bamenda II Municipality.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEACH SAMPLE

108

This section shows the representation of findings using

descriptive statistics.

Table 5: Distribution of respondents by school

School Frequency Percentage (%)

GBHS down town 182 49.2Longla Comprehensive

High School Mankon

112 30.3

PSS Mankon 76 20.5

Total 370 100

0

20

40

60

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by school

The table and figure above depicts that most of the

participants (49.2%) came from GBHS Down Town, 30.3%

from LCC Mankon while 20.5% came from PSS Mankon.

109

Table 6: distribution of respondents according to age

range

Age range frequency Percentage (%)12-14 180 48.615-17 170 45.918-20 20 5.5Total 370 100

Figure 3:

distribution of respondents according to age range

From table and figure above, 48.6% of the respondents

were within the age range of 12-14 years, 45.9% of them

were within 15-17years while 5.5% felt between 18-20

years. This implies that majority of students sampled

were adolescence and considering the problem of study,

48.6%45.9%

5.5%

12-14years15-17years18-20years

110

this was the right population to provide relevant

information as per the problem.

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by sex

sex frequency Percentage (%)male 180 48.6female 190 51.4Total 370 100

48.6%51.4% MalesFemales

Figure 4: Distribution of respondents by sex

Based on table and figure above, 48.6% of the

respondents were males while 51.4% of the respondents

were female. This depicts that the sample population

was representative gender wise.

ANSWERS TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS

111

This section answers each research question by

describing the responses of the respondents for each

variable.

Research Question One: What is the relationship between

family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours?

Table 8: Distribution of respondents according to whom

the respondents live with

Whom do you live

with?

frequency Percentage (%)

Mother 76 20.5Father 94 25.4

Both parents 124 33.5Other relatives 76 20.5

Total 370 100

112

Mother

Father

Both parents

Other relatives

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

20.5%

25.4%

33.5%

20.5%

Figure 5: distribution of respondents according to whom

the respondents live with

From table and figure above, 20.5% of the respondents

live with their mothers, 25.4% of them live with their

fathers while 33.5% of them live with both parents and

20.5% again live with other relatives.

Table 9: Distribution of respondents according to the

number of siblings

How many siblings do youhave?

frequency Percentage(%)

1-3 178 48.1

4-6 166 44.8

7-10 20 5.5

11plus 6 1.6

Total 370 100

113

From the table above, 48.1% of the respondents said the

have less than three siblings, 44.8% of them have 4-6

siblings, 5.5% of them said they have seven to ten

siblings while 1.6% of the respondents said they have

eleven and above siblings. From the statistics above,

if we consider from four and above siblings as a large

family size, then majority of the respondents come from

large families.

Table 10: Distribution of respondents according to

whether they are given equal attention and well taken

care of

You are all given equalattention

frequency Percentage (%)

Always 170 45.9

Sometimes 166 44.8

Never 34 9.2

total 370 100

114

Always

Sometimes

Never

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

45.9%

44.8%

9.2%

Figure 6: Distribution of respondents according to

whether they are given equal attention and well taken

care of

The table and figure above depicts that, 45.9% of the

respondents said they are always given equal attention

and well taken care of, 44.8% of them said they are

sometimes given equal attention and well taken care of

while 9.2% of the respondents asserts that they are

never given equal attention and well taken care of.

From table 9 and 10, we see that the greatest

proportion of respondents (48.1%) had a small family

size and were always given equal attention and well

taken care of, while only 7.1% of the respondent had a

115

large family size and were never given equal attention

and well taken care of. His inplies that the larger the

family size, the lesser the attention given to the

children and the less the children will be given proper

care.

Table 11: Distribution of respondents according to

parents’ marital status

Parent(s) maritalstatus

frequency Percentage (%)

Married 306 82.7

Married butseparated

26 7.1

Divorce 12 3.2

Unmarried 26 7.1

total 370 100

In a bit to find out the marital status of respondent’s

parents, 82.7% of them said their parents are married,

7.1% of them said their parents are married but

separated, 3.2% of them said their parents have divorce

while 7.1% of them said their parents are unmarried.

116

Table 12: distribution of respondents according to

which of the parents has a job outside the home that

makes him or her so busy that he/she barely spend time

with the child

Who among your parent(s) has a job

outside the home that makes him or

her so busy that he/she barely

spend time with child

Frequenc

y

Percentag

e (%)

My mother 50 13.5

My father 250 67.6

Both parents 34 9.2

None of them 36 9.7

Total 370 100

117

13.5%

67.6%

9.2%9.7%

My mother My fatherBoth parentsNone of them

Figure 7: distribution of respondents according to

which of the parents has a job outside the home that

makes him or her so busy barely spend time with the

child

From the above table and figure, 67.6% of the

respondents said their father was so busy that he

barely spends time with them, 13.5% of them said their

mothers was so busy that she barely spends time with

them, and 9.2% of them said both parents were so busy

that they barely spends time with them. This analysis

reveals that majority of parents that work outside the

home are fathers and this make them loose sight of the

fact that they have to spend time with their children

and attend to economically but psychological as well.

118

Table 13: Distribution of respondents according to

whether their parents working hours affect their

interaction with them and the way they supervise their

activities.

My parents working hours affect

the amount of time they spent with

me and their interaction with me

and they way they supervise my

activities.

frequency Percentage

(%)

Always 49 13.2

Sometimes 155 41.9

Never 166 44.8

total 370 100

The table above disclose that 13.2% of the respondents

said their parents working hours always affect their

parents interaction with them and they way they

supervise their activities., 41.9% of them said this

sometimes affect them while 44.8% of the respondents

said their parents working hours has never affected

their interaction with their parents.

119

Comparing table 12 and 13, the lowest proportion of

respondents who indicated that both parents were so

busy that they barely spend time with their children,

also indicated that this always affected their

interaction with their children and they way they

supervise their activities. This therefore proves that

the lesser the time parents spend at home, the lesser

their interaction with their children and the

supervision of their activities, the more the children

become loose and engage in delinquency.

Research Question Two: what is the relationship between

authoritarian parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours?

Table 14: distribution of responses on authoritarian

parenting

Item always

% sometimes

% Never

% Total

Total%

7 128 34.6 148 40 94 25.4

370 100

8 102 27.5 242 65.4 26 7.1 370 100

120

9 62 16.7 276 74.6 32 8.6 370 100

10 102 27.5 198 53.5 70 18.9

370 100

11 54 14.6 268 72.4 48 12.9

370 100

12 100 27.1 180 48.6 90 24.3

370 100

Av.%

24.7 59.1 16.2

100

Based on the table 14 above, 59.1% of the respondents

indicated that their parents were sometimes

authoritarian while 24.7% of the respondents indicated

that their parents were always authoritarian in their

parenting. A good number of them (53.5%) said their

parents sometimes supervise and monitor their

activities and those they hangout with and this made

them not to join bad company while 18.9% of them said

their parents never supervise and monitor their

activities and those they hangout with. This therefore

means that 83.8% of the respondents were brought up by

121

authoritarian parents. This made them less involved in

delinquent behavior disrespect for authority (7.1%) and

bully (24.3%)

Research Question Three: What is the relationship

between authoritative parenting and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours?

Table 15: distribution of responses on authoritative

parenting

Item Always

% Sometimes

% Never

% Total

Total%

13 96 25.9 146 39.5 128 34.6 370 100

14 138 37.3 186 50.3 46 12.4 370 100

15 188 50.8 138 37.3 44 11.9 370 100

16 76 20.5 196 52.9 98 26.5 370 100

17 166 44.8 166 44.8 38 10.3 370 100

18 76 20.5 198 53.5 96 25.9 370 100

Av.%

33.3%

46.4%

20.3%

100

122

Based on table 15 above, 46.4% of the respondents

indicated that their parents were sometimes

authoritative while 33.3% of them indicated that their

parents were always authoritative. This therefore means

that 79.9% of the students’ parents authoritative. As

such, 87.6% of them are able to control their emotions

and behaviours and 74% of them take their studies and

attend their classes. Therefore, children from

authoritative parenting are able to control their

emotions and behaviours and do not stay away from their

classes because they can differentiate between good and

bad behavior.

Research Question Four: What is the relationship

between permissive parenting and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours?

Table 16: distribution of responses on permissive

parenting

Item Always

% Sometimes

% Never

% Total

Total%

123

19 66 17.8 208 56.2

96 25.9 370 100

20 64 17.3 180 48.6

126 34.1 370 100

21 106 28.6 130 35.1

134 36.2 370 100

22 26 7.1 94 25.4

250 67.5 370 100

23 26 7.1 56 15.1

288 77.8 370 100

24 230 62.2 108 29.2

32 8.6 370 100

Av.%

28.7%

35% 36.3%

100

From the above table, 28.7% of the respondent indicated

that their parents always permissive, 35% said that

their parents were sometime permissive while 36.3% said

that their parents were never permissive. Only 7.1% of

them indicated that their parents allow them to do

whatever they want and ignore their bad behaviour. As a

result, a small proportion of the respondents were

124

found to engage in delinquent behaviours like drinking

and smoking. A greater proportion of them (63.7%) were

disrespectful due to their parents’ permissive

attitude.

Research Question Five: What is the relationship

between Neglectful parenting and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours?

Table 17: distribution of responses on Neglectful

parenting

Item Always

% Sometimes

% Never

% Total

%total

25 38 10.3 96 25.9 236 63.8 370 100

26 36 9.7 174 47.1 160 43.2 370 100

27 38 10.3 88 23.8 244 65.9 370 100

28 30 8.1 36 9.7 304 82.2 370 100

29 30 8.1 78 21.1 262 70.8 370 100

30 48 12.9 118 31.9 204 55.2 370 100

Av.% 10% 26.6%

63.4%

100

125

Based on the table above, 10% of the respondents said

their parents were always neglectful while 63.4% of

them said their parents were never neglectful. This

implies the least number of respondent were from

neglectful parental background. The minority of the

respondents will do whatever they want because nobody

will question them and their parents do not care about

their activities. 10.3% of them were always stole to

meet their need, stay away from home, engage in

fighting , consume alcohol and other substances.

Table 18: Adolescence behaviour

Item Always

% Sometimes

% Never

% Total

%total

31 20 5.4 112 30.3 238 64.3 370 100

32 20 5.4 24 6.5 326 88.1 370 100

33 26 7.1 140 37.8 204 55.1 370 100

34 30 8.1 16 4.3 324 87.6 370 100

35 10 2.7 124 33.5 236 63.8 370 100

36 20 5.4 74 20 276 74.6 370 100

37 10 2.7 34 9.2 326 88.1 370 100

126

38 34 9.2 138 37.3 198 53.5 370 100

39 34 9.2 120 32.4 216 58.4 370 100

40 28 7.6 30 8.1 312 84.3 370 100

41 6 1.6 286 77.3 78 21.1 370 100

42 20 5.4 114 30.8 236 63.8 370 100

43 42 11.4 96 25.9 232 62.7 370 100

44 34 9.2 140 37.8 196 52.9 370 100

45 34 9.2 72 19.4 264 71.4 370 100

46 94 25.5 48 12.9 228 61.6 370 100

47 32 8.7 158 42.7 180 48.6 370 100

48 34 9.2 114 30.8 222 60 370 100

49 36 9.7 136 36.7 198 53.6 370 100

50 54 14.6 258 69.7 58 15.7 370 100

Av.%

8.4% 30.1%

61.5%

100

Based on table 18 above, 8.4% of the respondents said

they always involved in delinquent behaviours,

especially stealing, fighting, broken school property,

cheating, stealing, and making noise in class. The

remaining 30.1% of them said they were sometimes

involved in delinquent behaviours while 61.5% of them

said they were never involved in delinquent behaviours.

127

The delinquent ones were mostly involved in delinquent

behaviours such as stealing, absenteeism from school,

stealing, procession of dangerous weapons, gambling,

bullying, lying, cheating, rude, disobedience to

authority and parents, write on walls of classroom and

make noise in class.

TEST OF RESEARCH HYPOTHERSIS

All the hypotheses were tested with the use of Chi-

Square test of independence and only items considered

very pertinent for each hypothesis were used to verify

the hypothesis.

Verification of Hypothesis 1

Null hypothesis (Ho1): there is no relationship between

family structure and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours

Alternate hypothesis (Ha1): there is a relationship

between family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

Table 19: Contingency table for the hypothesis one

128

Question Always Sometimes Never Total

3 170 (109.5) 166 (160.5) 34 (100) 370

6 49 (109.5) 155 (160.5) 166 (100) 370

Total 219 321 200 740

In table above, we have two values in every cell.

The values in bracket represent expected frequencies

and the other ones represent the observed frequencies.

The expected frequencies are obtained by multiplying

the vertical total by the horizontal total and dividing

it by the grand total.

Table 20: Calculation of chi-square for hypothesis one

Observedfrequency(O)

Expectedfrequency(E)

O – E (O – E)2 (O – E)2

E

170 109.5 60.5 3660.3 33.4

166 160.5 5.5 30.3 0.2

34 100 -66 4356 43.5

49 109.5 -60.5 3660.3 33.4

155 160.5 -5.5 30.3 0.2

166 100 66 4356 43.5

129

TOTAL 154.2

Formula:

chi−square (x2)=∑ (O−E )2E

= 154.2

Where,

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

= sum of ∑

Level of significance or alpha (α) = 0.05 (5%)

Degree of freedom (D f) = (C-1) x (R-1)

= (2-1) x (3-1)

= 2

130

Decision Rule

This rule is meant to help in either the rejection or

retention of the null hypothesis. It is important to

note that in research, it is the null hypothesis that

is tested and not the alternative hypothesis. The rule

states that:

1.Accept the null hypothesis (Ho) and reject the

alternate (Ha) hypothesis if the calculated Chi-

Square is less than (<) the critical value of Chi-

Square on the Chi-Square statistical table.

2.Accept the alternate hypothesis (Ha) and reject the

null hypothesis (Ho) if the calculated Chi-Square

is greater than or equal to (≥) the critical value

of Chi-Square on the Chi-Square statistical table.

131

At 2 degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of

significance, the calculated value of X2 (154.2) is far

greater than (>) the critical value of X2 (5.991) on the

Chi Square (X2) statistical table. Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained.

Therefore, statistically, there is a significant

relationship between family structure and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours.

correlationcoefficient(cc)=√ x2(N+x2)

=√ 154.2370+154.2

= 0.54

The correlation coefficient between family structure

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is 0.54 as

calculated above. This implies that there is a strong

positive association between the independent variable

132

(family structure) and the dependent variable

(adolescence delinquent behaviour).

Verification of Hypothesis 2

Null hypothesis (Ho2): there is no significant

relationship between Authoritarian parenting and

adolescent’ delinquent behaviours.

Alternate hypothesis (Ha2): there is a significant

relationship between Authoritarian parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

Table 21: Contingency table for hypothesis two

Item Always Sometimes Never Total

7 128 (86.5) 148(233.5)

94 (50) 370

8 102 (86.5) 242(233.5)

26 (50) 370

9 62 (86.5) 276(233.5)

32 (50) 370

133

11 54 (86.5) 268(233.5)

48 (50) 370

total 346 934 200 1480

In table above, we have two values in every cell.

The values in bracket represent expected frequencies

and the other ones represent the observed frequencies.

The expected frequencies are obtained by multiplying

the vertical total by the horizontal total and dividing

it by the grand total.

134

Table 22: Calculation of chi-square for hypothesis two

Observed

frequency

(O)

Expected

frequency

(E)

O – E (O – E)2 (O – E)2

E

128 86.5 41.5 1722.3 19.9148 233.5 -85.5 7310.3 31.394 50 44 1936 38.7102 86.5 15.5 240.3 2.7242 233.5 8.5 72.3 0.326 50 -24 576 11.562 86.5 -24.5 600.3 6.9276 233.5 42.5 1806.3 7.732 50 -18 324 6.554 86.5 -32.5 1056.3 12.2268 233.5 34.5 1190.3 5.0948 50 -2 4 0.1TOTAL 142.8

Formula:

chi−square (x2)=∑ (O−E )2E

= 142.8

Where,

135

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

= sum of ∑

Level of significance or alpha (α) = 0.05 (5%)

Degree of freedom (D f) = (C-1) x (R-1)

= (4-1) x (3-1)

= 6

At 6 degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of

significance, the calculated value of X2 (142.8) is far

greater than (>) the critical value of X2 (12.592) on

the Chi Square (X2) statistical table. Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained.

136

Therefore, statistically, there is a significant

relationship between Authoritarian parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

correlationcoefficient(cc)=√ x2(N+x2)

=√ 142.8370+142.8

= 0.52

The correlation coefficient between Authoritarian

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is

0.52 as calculated above. This implies that there is an

association between the independent variable

(authoritarian parenting) and the dependent variable

(adolescent delinquent behaviour).

Verification of Hypothesis 3

Null hypothesis (Ho3): there is no relationship between

Authoritative parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours.

137

Alternate hypothesis (Ha3): there is a significant

relationship between Authoritative parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

Table 23: Contingency table for hypothesis three

Item Always Sometimes Never Total14 138 (119.5) 186 (179.5) 46 (71) 37015 188 (119.5) 138 (179.5) 44 (71) 37016 76 (119.5) 196 (179.5) 98 (71) 37018 76 (119.5) 198 (179.5) 96 (71) 370total 478 718 284 1480In table above, we have two values in every cell. The

values in bracket represent expected frequencies and

the other ones represent the observed frequencies. The

expected frequencies are obtained by multiplying the

vertical total by the horizontal total and dividing it

by the grand total.

138

Table 24: Calculation of chi-square for hypothesis

three

Observedfrequency(O)

Expectedfrequency(E)

O – E (O – E)2 (O – E)2

E

138 119.5 18.5 342.3 2.8

186 179.5 6.5 42.3 0.2

46 71 -25 625 8.8

188 119.5 68.5 4692.3 39.2

138 179.5 -41.5 1722.3 9.6

44 71 -27 729 10.3

76 119.5 -43.5 1892.3 15.8

196 179.5 16.5 272.3 1.5

98 71 27 729 10.3

76 119.5 -43.5 1892.3 15.8

198 179.5 18.5 342.3 1.9

96 71 25 625 8.8

TOTAL 125

Formula:

139

chi−square (x2)=∑ (O−E )2E

= 125

Where,

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

= sum of ∑

Level of significance or alpha (α) = 0.05 (5%)

Degree of freedom (D f) = (C-1) x (R-1)

= (4-1) x (3-1)

= 6

At 6 degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of

significance, the calculated value of X2 (125) is far

greater than (>) the critical value of X2 (12.592) on

140

the Chi Square (X2) statistical table. Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained.

Therefore, statistically, there is a significant

relationship between Authoritative parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

correlationcoefficient(cc)=√ x2(N+x2)

=√ 125370+125

= 0.50

The correlation coefficient between Authoritative

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is

0.50 as calculated above. This implies that there is a

strong positive effect (association) between the

independent variable (authoritative parenting) and the

dependent variable (adolescent delinquent behaviour).

Verification of Hypothesis 4

141

Null hypothesis (Ho4): there is no significant

relationship between Permissive parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

Alternate hypothesis (Ha4): there is a significant

relationship between Permissive parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

Table 25: Contingency table for hypothesis four

Item Always Sometimes Never Total

19 66 (45.5) 208(134.5)

96(190)

370

20 64 (45.5) 180(134.5)

126(190)

370

22 26 (45.5) 94(134.5)

250(190)

370

23 26 (45.5) 56(134.5)

288(190)

370

total 182 538 760 1480

In table above, we have two values in every cell. The

values in bracket represent expected frequencies and

142

the other ones represent the observed frequencies. The

expected frequencies are obtained by multiplying the

vertical total by the horizontal total and dividing it

by the grand total.

Table 26: Calculation of chi-square for hypothesis four

Observedfrequency(O)

Expectedfrequency(E)

O – E (O – E)2 (O – E)2

E

66 45.5 20.5 420.3 9.2

208 134.5 73.5 5402.5 40

96 190 -94 8836 46.5

64 45.5 18.5 342.3 7.5

180 134.5 45.5 2070.3 15.4

126 190 -64 4096 21.5

26 45.5 -19.5 380.3 8.4

94 134.5 -40.5 1640.3 12.2

250 190 60 3600 18.9

26 45.5 -19.5 380.3 8.4

56 134.5 -78.5 6162.3 45.8

288 190 98 9604 50.5

TOTAL 284.3

143

Formula:

chi−square (x2)=∑ (O−E )2E

= 284.3

Where,

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

= sum of ∑

Level of significance or alpha (α) = 0.05 (5%)

Degree of freedom (D f) = (C-1) x (R-1)

= (4-1) x (3-1)

= 6

144

At 6 degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of

significance, the calculated value of X2 (284.3) is far

greater than (>) the critical value of X2 (12.592) on

the Chi Square (X2) statistical table. Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained.

Hence, statistically, there is a significant

relationship between Permissive parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

correlationcoefficient(cc)=√ x2(N+x2)

=√ 284.3370+284.3

= 0.65

The correlation coefficient between Permissive

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is

0.65 as calculated above. This implies that there is a

strong positive effect (association) between the

145

independent variable (permissive parenting) and the

dependent variable (adolescent delinquent behaviour).

Verification of Hypothesis 5

Null hypothesis (Ho5): there is no relationship between

neglectful parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours

Alternate hypothesis (Ha5): there is a relationship

between neglectful parenting and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours.

Table 27: Contingency table for hypothesis five

Item Always Sometimes Never Total

25 38 (34) 96 (74.5) 236

(261.5)

370

27 38 (34) 88

(74.5)

244

(261.5)

370

28 30(34) 36

(74.5)

304(261.5

)

370

29 30 (34) 78 (74.5) 262 370

146

(261.5)

total 136 298 1046 1480

In table above, we have two values in every cell. The

values in bracket represent expected frequencies and

the other ones represent the observed frequencies. The

expected frequencies are obtained by multiplying the

vertical total by the horizontal total and dividing it

by the grand total.

Table 28: Calculation of chi-square for hypothesis five

Observedfrequency(O)

Expectedfrequency(E)

O – E (O – E)2 (O – E)2

E

38 34 4 16 0.5

96 74.5 21.5 462.3 6.2

236 261.5 -25.5 650.3 2.5

38 34 4 16 0.5

88 74.5 13.5 182.3 2.4

244 261.5 -17.5 306.3 1.2

30 34 -4 16 0.5

147

36 74.5 -38.5 1482.3 19.8

304 261.5 42.5 1806.3 6.9

30 34 -4 16 0.5

78 74.5 3.5 12.3 0.2

262 261.5 0.5 0.25 0.01

TOTAL 41.2

Formula:

chi−square (x2)=∑ (O−E )2E

= 284.3

Where,

O = Observed frequency

E = Expected frequency

= sum of ∑

Level of significance or alpha (α) = 0.05 (5%)

Degree of freedom (D f) = (C-1) x (R-1)

148

= (4-1) x (3-1)

= 6

At 6 degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of

significance, the calculated value of X2 (41.2) is far

greater than (>) the critical value of X2 (12.592) on

the Chi Square (X2) statistical table. Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained.

Hence, statistically, there is a significant

relationship between neglectful parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

correlationcoefficient(cc)=√ x2(N+x2)

=√ 41.2370+41.2

= 0.32

149

The correlation coefficient between neglectful

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is

0.65 as calculated above. This implies that there is a

moderate association between the independent variable

(neglectful parenting) and the dependent variable

(adolescent delinquent behaviour).

SUMMARY OF MAJOUR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

After analyzing and interpreting the data collected

from the field, it was thus observed that at 0.05 level

of significance, and 2 and 6 degrees of freedom

respectively, all the alternate hypotheses were

retained while the null hypotheses were rejected.

- These results confirmed that there is a positive

relationship between the independent variables

(parenting styles and family structure) and the

dependent variable (adolescent delinquent

behaviour).

150

- As the size of the family increases, attention on

each adolescent reduces, as a result, adolescents’

involvement in delinquent behaviour increases.

- Adolescent involvement in delinquent behaviour

increases as parenting shift from authoritative to

neglectful parenting. The more parents were

authoritative the lesser their adolescents involve

in delinquent behaviour.

- Most of the delinquent behaviour the respondents

were involved in were associated with neglectful

and permissive parenting.

- In addition, most of the respondents who live with

both parents were found to be less involved in

delinquent behaviours.

CONCLUTION

To conclude, chapter four used frequency distribution

tables and charts to answer the research questions,

while the chi Square was used to the test hypotheses.

151

Tables were used to calculate and present figures while

charts such as the bar and pie charts were used to

present information of the findings diagrammatically.

The analyses of the research question revealed that

there is a strong positive relationship between the

independent variables (family environment) and the

dependent variable (adolescent delinquent behaviour).

Concerning the hypotheses, all the null hypotheses were

rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis. The

next chapter is going to focus on the discussion of the

findings.

152

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

This is the last chapter, which focuses on the

discussion of the main findings done per research

question and hypothesis. This is closely followed by

the limitations of the study as well as practical and

theoretical implications of the findings. Some

recommendations and suggestions for further study were

equally made and the chapter ends with a general

conclusion.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed at investigating the relationship

that exists between family environment and adolescents’

involvement in delinquent behaviour. After the analysis

of data, the following results were obtained.

Research Questions

153

The first question that this research aimed at

answering was whether there is a relationship between

family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours. The analysis of data collected in line with

this question showed that the greatest number of

students, (33.5%) lives with both parents, 48.1% have

less than four siblings, 81.7% of their parents are

married, and 45.9% of them are always given equal

attention. Since most of the respondents lived in

families with both parents, most of them were given

equal attention due to the averagely small size of

their families. This also made them less involved in

delinquency with only 38.5% of them involved in

delinquent behaviours. This shows that the majority of

students who live with both married parents, have fewer

siblings and are given equal attention are less

involved in delinquent behaviours. This corresponds

with Thornberry, et al. (1999) who said that children

154

who live in homes with only one parent or in which

marital relationships have been disrupted by divorce or

separation are more likely to display a range of

behavioral problems including delinquency, than

children who are from two parent families. Mullens A.

(2006) also says that juveniles from broken homes are

2.7 times more likely to run away from their family

than children living in intact homes. Farrington, in

1992 also found out that large family size predicts

self-reported delinquency as well as convictions.

The second question that this research aimed at

answering was whether there is a relationship between

authoritarian parenting and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours. The analysis of data collected in line with

this question showed that 24.7% of the respondents

scored highest in authoritarian parenting. The highest

proportion of these respondent indicated that their

parents placed very strict rules on them, did not

155

dialogue with them, always had the final say and

supervised their activities. The majority of them were

involved in delinquent behaviours such as bullying and

fighting. This is in line with Georgiou et al work in

2013, where they questioned 231 young adolescents about

their cultural values and experiences with peers. They

found that kids from authoritarian homes were more

likely to have experienced bullying both as victims and

perpetrators. According to Baumrind, (1978) the

external imposition of authority can increase the

likelihood that adolescents will rebel and may become

delinquent.

The third question that was whether there is a

relationship between authoritative parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. The analysis of

data collected in line with this question showed that

there is a relationship between authoritative parenting

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. This could be

156

seen from the high percentage (33.3%) of the respondent

had authoritative parent and the highest proportion of

them were never involved in delinquent behaviours. This

is in line with Steinberg work in 1996 which showed

that adolescence from authoritative parenting were more

confident and responsible, less likely to use or abuse

drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be involved in

delinquency. They also respect authority, are

accountable, and control their impulses. They also

respect authority, are accountable, and control their

impulses since parents use reason, negotiation, and

persuasion, not force to gain their children's

cooperation

The forth question was whether there is a

relationship between permissive parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. The analysis of

data collected in line with this question showed that

there is a relationship between permissive parenting

157

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours where 28.7% of

the respondent who were raised by permissive parent

were found to be engaged in delinquent behaviours such

as cheating, absenteeism from school, disobedience to

parent and authority and gambling. Because their

parents have les expectations for their behaviours,

ignore their bad behaviours and allow them to have

their way in whatever they want, this makes them

wayward and out of control, thereby leading to

delinquency. This is justified by Dworkin, 1997;

Barakat and Clark, 1999, who said that permissive

parents find it hard to set clear limits, provide

structure, are inconsistent disciplinarians, and reward

bad behaviour regularly. As such, children are not

pushed to obey guidelines or standards that, even when

they do exist, are not enforced

The fifth and last question that this research

aimed at answering was whether there is a relationship

158

between neglectful parenting and adolescents’

involvement in delinquent behaviours. Based on analysis

of data collected, 10% (lowest) of the respondents

scored highest in neglectful parenting and just 8.4%

(lowest) had the highest score in delinquency

measurement. The feelings and needs of these

adolescents were not met, their parents never cared

about who they interact with or what they do. They were

free to do what they wish and so they could be found

engage in behaviours like stealing, gambling, rude

fighting because they were unaware of their parents’

expectations. This type of parenting has the worst

outcome on adolescents. This is in line with the

findings from Huver et al. (2007) who supports that

children of neglecting parents are more likely to

engage in tobacco use than other children. This

indicates a great relationship between the two

variables.

159

Research Hypothesis

The first research hypothesis stated that there is

no there is no significant relationship between family

structure and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. At 2

degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the

calculated value of X2 (154.2) is far greater than (>)

the critical value of X2 (5.991) on the Chi Square (X2)

statistical table. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho) was

rejected while the alternate hypothesis (Ha) was

retained. The correlation coefficient between family

structure and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours was as

calculated to obtain 0.54. This implies that there is a

strong positive association between family structure

and adolescence delinquent behaviour. Therefore,

statistically, there is a significant relationship

160

between family structure and adolescents’ delinquent

behaviours.

The second research hypothesis stated that there is

no significant relationship between authoritarian

parenting and adolescent’ delinquent behaviors. At 6

degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the

calculated value of X2 (142.8) was far greater than (>)

the critical value of X2 (12.592). Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) was rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained. The correlation

coefficient between authoritarian parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours was calculated to be

0.52, implying that there is a strong positive

association between authoritarian parenting adolescent

delinquent behaviour. Therefore, there is a significant

relationship between authoritarian parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

161

The third research hypothesis stated that there is

no significant relationship between authoritative

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. At 6

degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the

calculated value of X2 (125) was far greater than (>)

the critical value of X2 (12.592). Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) was rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is retained. In addition, the

correlation coefficient between authoritative parenting

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours is 0.50 as

calculated in chapter four. This implies that there is

a strong positive association between authoritative

parenting and adolescent delinquent behaviour. Hence,

statistically, there is a significant relationship

between authoritative parenting and adolescents’

delinquent behaviours.

The forth research hypothesis stated that there is

no significant relationship between permissive

162

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. At 6

degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the

calculated value of X2 (284.3) is far greater than (>)

the critical value of X2 (12.592). Hence, the null

hypothesis (Ho) was rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) was 0.65retained. The correlation

coefficient was calculated and 0.65 obtained, implying

that there is a strong positive association between

permissive parenting and adolescent delinquent

behaviour. Therefore, statistically, there is a

significant relationship between Permissive parenting

and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

The fifth research hypothesis stated that there is

no significant relationship between neglectful

parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviours. At 6

degrees of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the

calculated value of X2 (41.2) is far greater than (>)

the critical value of X2 (12.592). Hence, the null

163

hypothesis (Ho) was rejected while the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) was retained. The calculated

correlation coefficient between the two variables was

0.65, implying that there is a positive association

between neglectful parenting and adolescent delinquent

behaviour. Statistically, there is a significant

relationship between neglectful parenting and

adolescents’ delinquent behaviours.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study relied solely on self-reports from the

adolescents for independent and dependent variables and

did not assess other family members. Thus, these data

reflect internal perspectives of the adolescents and

not family relationships.

The design’s drawback is that the respondents of

each cohort (group) turn to give subject responses

which may not be universal. In addition, the sample

size was relatively small (370) as compared to the

164

total population of the studied area, hence making it

difficult to generalize results.

The present study was also limited to finding out

whether there exist any relationship between family

environment and adolescent delinquency.

The limited existence of Cameroonian documentations

on adolescents’ delinquency in Cameroon was also an

impediment to the realization of this work.

Due to time and financial constraint, the

convenience sampling technique was used which did not

give equal chances for all institutions to take part in

the study.

PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study has great implications to counsellors,

and especially parents. The study has many practical

and theoretical implications on parental counselling

and parenting practices. Neglectful parenting

influences adolescent delinquency. Parental demandness

165

and responsiveness play crucial role in adequate

parenting of adolescent. Sufficient time must be

created by parents to spend time with their children at

home. Adequate monitoring, control, supervision

irrespective of the family structure are paramount

factors in positive and effective parenting.

Adequate parental love, warmth, care, attention are

factors for effective parenting. Dialogue,

communication, explanations and establishment of good

and cordial relationships between parents and

adolescents creates a good environment for the social

and psychosocial development of the adolescent.

Creation of suitable environment for the child and

providing his/her needs may prevent adolescents’

delinquency.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and discussion, the following

recommendations are made:

166

Since the family structure and parenting styles

adopted by the parents of adolescents have a

significant relationship with their delinquent

behaviours, there is the need for the parents to adopt

authoritative parenting style along side with

authoritarian parenting. This will enhance optimal

parenting environment for proper socialization of

adolescents. Parents should design an environment that

will demonstrate warmth, acceptance, emotional support

and involvement in the upbringing of their children.

There is also the need for training that will serve

as parent training intervention to equip parents with

the skills and dispensation required for being both

responsive and demanding. Structures such as Parents

Teachers Association (PTA) should be strengthened to

discuss such issues.

Enlightening programmes on good parenting should be

organized for parents and guidance to expose them to

167

different parenting styles and how they can contributed

or influenced the behaviour of adolescents at home, in

school and in the society at large.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Given that the all areas connected to this study

could not really be explored, the following suggestions

guide further research in the same area of studied.

Future studies could be carried out using Interview

and observational research data to help researchers

understand the connections of adolescent delinquency

and its connected variables in greater depth. Future

research will add new prove to the multiple

perspectives and observations of families to further

substantiate the impact of these factors on adolescent

delinquency.

Given that this area of study is very broad,

research in the other areas will help in exploring

pertinent facts in line to the present study.

168

Given that this study was limited to 3 schools

within the Bamenda II of the West Region of Cameroon, a

more comprehensive study could be carried out the

entire region so as to get a comparative results.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the findings of the present study

implied that parents play a significant role in

determining adolescents’ delinquency. Thus, it is

essential that parents are equipped with appropriate

knowledge and skills so that they can provide better

guidance for their adolescents’ positive development,

especially in their socialization. The current research

therefore contributes to our understanding of the role

of family environment particularly, the family

structure and parenting styles in forging adolescent

behaviour. These variables, from the study, form

predictive factors towards behaviour outcomes of

adolescents. A negative climate in the family may lead

169

to maladaptive behaviour patterns like delinquency, but

also an adolescent’s delinquent behaviour may itself

worsen the environment in these contexts (Estevez, et

al, 2005).

References

Akinson, K. (2004); Family Influences on Peer Relationships Divorce

and Teens: A Disruptive Tale. Retrieved from

http/inside.Bard.edu/academic/

specialproj/clarliog/bullying/group5 divorce.htm?

Arbona, C., & Power, T. (2003). Parental Attachment,

Self-Esteem, and Antisocial Behaviors among African

American, European American, and Mexican American

170

Adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 40.

Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Arnett, J. J. (2006). G. Stanley Hall’s Adolescence:

Brilliance and nonsense. History of Psychology, Vol. 9,

No. 3, 186-197.

Asher, A. J. (2006). Exploring the Relationship between Parenting

Style and Juvenile Delinquency. Department of Social

Studies and Family Work. Faculty of Miami

University.

Asika, N. (2008). Research Methodology in the Behavioural

Sciences. Lagos: Longman Nigeria Plc.

Barakat, I. S. and Clark, J. A. (1999)."Positive Discipline

and Child Guidance." Online at:

http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/huma

nrel/ gh6119.htm

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current Patterns of Parental

Authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1–

171

103. Retrieve from http://parentfurther.com in

January 2014.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The Influence of Parenting Style

on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use. Journal of

Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. Retrieve from

http://parentfurther.com in January 2014.

Baumrind, Diana (1989). The Influence of Parenting

Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Abuse,

Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95. Retrieve from

http://parentfurther.com in January 2014.

Berger. K. (2000). The Developing Person Through the Life Span.

New York: Worth Publishing, Inc.

Bingham, Raymond C, Shope, Jean T & Raghunathan T.

(2006) Patterns of Traffic Offenses from Adolescent Licensure into

Early Young Adulthood. 39, 35 –42.

Boroffice, O. B. (2003) Recreation and Health Behaviour of

Adolescents. In Contemporary Issues and Researches on Adolescents.

Edited by I. A. Nwanuoke, O. Bampgbose & O. A.

172

Moronkola. Ibadan (Omoade) Printing Press, pp 110 –

126.

Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1 Attachment.

New York: Basic Books

Bowlby, J. (1973). Sadness and Depression. Journal of

Attachment and loss. Vol , New York: Basic Books.

Cashwell, Craig S. and Niccholas A. Vacc. (1996).

“Family Functioning and Risk Behaviors: Influences

on adolescent delinquency.” School Counselor. 44: 105-

15.

Chin-Yau, L. and Cindy Lin, (2003). “A

Comparison of Child-Rearing Practices

amongChinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-

American Parents”, Journal of Child Development, Volume

61, Issue 2, pages 429–433.

Clark, Richard D. and Glenn Shields. 1997. “Family

Communication and Delinquency.” Adolescence. 32:

81-91.

173

Collins, A. W. et al. (2000). "Contemporary Research on

Parenting," American Psychologist 55, no. 2 218-32.

Daniel B, Wassell S, and Gilligan R. (1999). Child

Development for Child Care and Protection Workers. London

DiClemente, R. J, Wingood, G.M, and Crosby, R. (2001).

Parental Monitoring: Association with Adolescents’ Risk Behaviors.

Pediatrics 107(6): 1363-68.

Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent

Marijuana and Alcohol Use: The Role of Parents and

Peers. American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11-25.

Dworkin, P. (1997). "Permissive Parenting May Be

Hurting Kids' Sleep." Science Daily Magazine. Retieved on

9 Oct 2014 at: www.sciencedaily.com.hlm.

Eke, E. (2004) Facing New Challenges in Adolescence, Enugu, E.

L. Demak (Publishers).

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An

Approach to Motivation and Achievement. Esman, A.H.

(editor). The Psychology of Adolescence. New York:

174

International University Press, Inc., 1975. G.W.

Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkages (pp.

77-106).

Estefanía .E, Jiménez T.I and Musitu G. (2008).

Violence and Victimization at School in

Adolescence: School Psychology. Editor: David H.

Molina, pp. 79-115 © 2008 Nova Science

Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-60456-521-8

Estevez, E., Musitu, G. and Herrero, J. (2005). The

Influence of Violent Behaviourand Victimization at School on

Psychological Distress: The Role of Parents and Teachers.

Adolescence, 40, 183 – 195.

Farrington, D. P., Barnes, G. C., and Lambert, S.

(1996), ‘The concentration of offending in

families’, Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 1, pp

47–63

175

Garbarino J, and Abramowitz, R. (1992). "Socio-cultural

Risk and Opportunity." In Children and Families in the Social

Environment. New York

Ginsburg K.R, Durbin D.R, García-España J.F, Kalicka

E.A, and Winston FK. (2009). Associations between

Parenting Styles and Teen Driving, Safety-Related Behaviors and

Attitudes. Pediatrics. 124(4):1040-51.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (1993). The Child in the Family and the

Community. New York

Gordon, C. (1971). Social Characteristics of Early Adolescence.

Daedal us, 100.

Gorman-Smith, Deborah and Patrick H. T. (1998).

Relation of Family Problems to Patterns of

Delinquent Involvement among Urban Youth. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology. 26: 319-34.

Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to

Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and

Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

176

Hirschi, T. (1969). The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley

University of California Press.

Ho, R. (2001). A Comparison of Child-Rearing Practices

among Chinese, Immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-

American Parents. Child Development, 61, 429-433.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J.S., Eichelsheim, V.I., van der Laan,

P.H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J.R.M. (2009). The

Relationship between Parenting and Delinquency: A

Meta-Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37,

749-775.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Johnson, R. A. (1998). A National

Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug

Use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 633 -645.

Hyssong, A. (2000): Perceived Peer Context and

Adolescent Adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescent

(10) 211 - 291.

Ingersoll, G. M. (1989). Adolescents. Englewood Cliffs

177

Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental

Monitoring and Adolescent Adjustment: An Ecological

Perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65-97.

Janssens J. and Dekovic M. (1997). Child Rearing,

Prosocial Moral Reasoning, and Prosocial Behaviour.

International Journal of Behavioral Development 20(3): 509-

527.

Juby, H. and Farrington D. (2001), ‘Disentangling the

Link between Disrupted Families and Delinquency’,

British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 41, pp 22-40.

Karreman A, Tuiji C, Aken M. A. G, and Dekovic M.

(2006). Parenting and Self-Regulation in

Preschoolers: A Meta-Analysis. Infant and Child

Development. 15: 562-579.

Kimani, A.K. (2010), ‘Influence of Family Structure on

Juvenile Delinquency’, retrieved from

http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/family-

structure-juvenile191 in December 2013.

178

Klein, Karla and Forehand, R. (1997). “Delinquency

during the transition to early adulthood: Family

and parenting predictors from early…” Adolescence.

32: 61-81.

Koposov RP, Rushkin VV, Eisemann M, Sidorov PI. (2005).

Alcohol Abuse in Russian Delinquent Adolescents:

Associations with Comorbid Psychopathology,

Personality and Parenting. European Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry, 14(5): 254–61.

Laird RD, Pettit GS, Bates JE, and Dodge KA. (2003).

Parents’ Monitoring-Relevant Knowledge and

Adolescents’ Delinquent Behavior: Evidence of

Correlated Developmental Changes and Reciprocal

Influences. Child Development, 74(3): 752–68.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch,

S. (1991). Patterns of Competence and Adjustment

among Adolescents from Authoritative,

179

Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Homes.

Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Liu, Y. L. (2003). Parent-Child Interaction and

Children’s Depression: The Relationships between

Parent-Child Interaction and Children’s Depressive

Symptoms in Taiwan. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 447–457.

Maccoby, E.E. and Martin, J.A. (1983) ‘Socialization in

the Context of the Family Parent–Child

Interaction’. E.M. Hetherington (ed.) Mussen Manual

of Child Psychology, Vol. 4. New York: John Wiley

Magda S. (1999). “Family Disruption and Delinquency.”

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 1-7.

Marion, M. (1999). Guidance of Young Children. 5th ed.

Englewood Cliffs

McCoy, K. and Wibbelsman, C. (1986). Growing and Changing:

A Handbook for Preteens. New York: The Putnam Publishing

Company, motivational orientation and academic

performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1474.policies.

180

Mmari, N.K., Blum, W.R., & Teufel-Shone, N. (2010).

What Increase Risk and Protection for Delinquent

Behaviors among American India Youth? Findings from

Three Tribal Communities. Youth & Society, 41, 382-413.

Moffitt, E. (1997). Adolescence-limited and Life-

Course-Persistent Offending: A Complementary Pair

of Developmental Theories. In Developmental Theories of

Crime and Delinquency, ed. Terence P. Thornberry, New

Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Moitra, T. and Mukherjee, I. (2011). Parent –

Adolescent Communication and Delinquency: A

Comparative Study in Kolkata, India. Europe’s Journal of

Psychology, 8(1), pp. 74-94. Retrieved from

http://www.ejop.org on April 2014

Muehlenberg, B. (2002). “The Case for Two-Parent

Family Part II.” National Agency of Science (2000).

Development of Delinquency. Retrieved from

181

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record-

id=9747&page=66html

Nagin, D.S. (1999): Analyzing Developmental

Trajectories: A Semi-Parametric,

National Center for Juvenile Justice. Source book of

the juvenile offenders and victim’s national

support. Available from

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/index.html

Neal, K. ( 2000)."Parenting Styles/Children's

Temperaments; the Mutch." About our kids. Online at:

www.aboutourkids.org/parenting/p_styles.html

Ngale, I. F. (2009). Family Structure and Juvenile

Delinquency: Correctional Centre Betamba, Centre

Province of Cameroon. Internet Journal of Criminology.

Observer. 53: 49-58. Retrieve from

www.internetjournalofcriminology.com on February

3rd, 20014.

182

Okorodudu, G. (2010), ‘Influence of Parenting Styles on

Adolescent Delinquency in Delta Central Senatorial

District’, retrieved from

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ejc/article/viewfile

/52682/41286

Okorodudu, G. N (2006) Efficacy of Recreational

Exercises and Rational Emotive Behavioural

Therapies for Adolescent Stress Management.

Perspective in Education; international Research and Development.

22 (3); pp 172 – 185.

Okorodudu, R. I. and Okorodudu G. N (2003) Causes of

Behaviour Problems among Adolescents. The Nigerian

Educational Psychologist. Journal of Nigerian Society for

Educational Psychologists (NISEP) 2 (1) 73 – 81

Okpako, J. E. F (2004) Parenting the Nigerian

Adolescents Towards Smooth Transition to Adulthood.

In Contemporary Issue and Research in Adolescents (I. A.

183

Nwazuoke; O. Bamgbose & O. A. Morokola (Ed) Ibadan

Omoade Printing Press pp 275 – 288.

Onyehalu, A. S. (2003). Juvenile Delinquency: Trend, Causes and

Control Measures, The Behaviour Problem of the Nigerian Child: A

Publication of The Nigerian Society for Educational

Psychologists (NISEP), 12 – 19.

Osarenren, N. (2002). Child Development and

Personality. Lagos: Derate Nig. Ltd.

Otuadah, C. E. (2006) Parental Behaviour and Peer Group Influence

as Correlates of Delinquent Behaviour among Secondary School

Students in Warri Metropolis. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis of

Delsu, Abraka

Piotrowski JT, Lapierre MA, Linebarger DL. (2013).

Investigating Correlates of Self-Regulation in

Early Childhood with a Representative Sample of

English-Speaking American Families. 22(3):423-436

184

Popenoe, D. (1997). Life without Father. New Jersey, US:

Annual Conference of the NCFR Fatherhood and

Motherhood in a Diverse and ChangingWorld.

Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A

narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence,19, 511-538.

Sanni K., Udoh, N., Okediji, A., Modo F., and Ezeh, L.

(2010), ‘Family Types and Juvenile Delinquency

Issues among Secondary School Students in Akwa Ibom

State, Nigeria: Counseling Implications’, Journal of

Social Sciences, Vol. 23, No.1.

Shoemaker DJ. (2009). Juvenile Delinquency. Maryland: Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers, 1st Ed.

Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal Relation between

Parent-Child Distance and Pubertal Maturation.

Developmental Psychology, 24, 122–128.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.122

185

Stevens, V., De Bourdeadjuij, I. and Van Oost, P.

(2002). Relationship of the Family Environment to

Children’s Involvement in Bully/Victim Problems at

School. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 419 – 428.

Utti, Alice (2006) Relationship Between Parenting

Styles and Students’ Academic Achievement in

Secondary Schools in Ethiope East L. G. A of Delta

State. Unpublished M. Ed Thesis of Delta State

University, Abraka.

Wikipedia (2013). Child Rearing Practice. The Free

Encyclopaedia. Retrieved from www.google.com on

18th June, 2013.

Wright K.N. and Wright K.E. (1994), ‘Family Life, Delinquency,

and Crime: A Policymakers Guide’, Research Summary,

OJJDP, Washington DC.

186