Influence Of Loss Of Social Clubs In Schools On Students Involvement In Anti-Social Group

Click Here to Download Now.

Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic

Influence Of Loss Of Social Clubs In Schools On Students Involvement In Anti-Social Group

CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

A study by Farrington, (2006) revealed that most people are of the opinion that the main cause of
delinquency among young adults is poor parenting methods, and especially poor parental
discipline or control of children. For example, in 1988, the British news- paper Mail on Sunday
reported the results of a survey of a quota sample of over 1,000 adults who were asked what they
thought were the main causes of delinquency.

The most popular cause (nominated by 53 percent)
was lack of parental discipline, followed by poverty (20 percent), television violence (19
percent), lack of school discipline (15 percent), broken homes (13 percent), and alcohol or drugs
(13 percent). Academic research confirms the importance of family factors as predictors of
offending.

Smith and Stern (2007) in their review concluded that: We know that children who
grow up in homes characterized by lack of warmth and support, whose parents lack behaviour
management skills, and whose lives are characterized by conflict or maltreatment will more
likely be delinquent, whereas a supportive family can protect children even in a very hostile and
damaging external environment.

Parental monitoring or supervision is the aspect of family management that is most consistently
related to delinquency for decades criminologists have explored the relationship between
delinquents and the parents who raise them. The beliefs about the nature of this relationship have
been molded through a variety of different, and often conflicting criminological theories.
Beginning with the early theories of social control and social learning and moving forward to the
more recent general theory, life-course, and interactional theories it is clear that criminology has
2
long been interested in exploring the relationship between the dynamics of family interactions
and the development of antisocial behaviors in children. In the recent past there has been a
growing interest in the role played by family the origin of behavioral problems among
adolescents (Bronstein, 2003).

In the field of criminology, Carlson (2005) argued that notions of
‘family influence’ appear in the criminological literature, although the research efforts have been
dispersed among different theoretical approaches. As a result, Cohen (2005) proposed to
integrate these diverse findings on social support into a coherent criminological paradigm to take
a more comprehensive approach to the understanding of crime causation.
Bronstein, (2003) studied the predictors at age 6–11 years of serious or violent offending at age
15–25 years.

Their findings revealed that the best explanatory predictors (i.e., predictors not
measuring some aspect of the child’s antisocial behavior) were antisocial parents, male gender,
low socioeconomic status of the family, and psychological factors (daring, impulsiveness, poor
concentration, etc.).

Other moderately strong predictors were minority race, poor parent-child
relations (poor supervision, discipline, low parental involvement, low parental warmth), other
family characteristics (parent stress, family size, parental discord), antisocial peers, low
intelligence, and low school achievement. In contrast, abusive parents and broken homes were
relatively weak predictors.

According to stern, (2007) opines that large family size (a large number of children in the
family) is a relatively strong and highly replicable predictor of delinquency. Farrington &
Loeber, (1999) affirmed the findings and indicated that it was similarly important in the
Cambridge and Pittsburgh studies, even though families were on average smaller in Pittsburgh in
3
the 1990s than in London in the 1960s. In the Cambridge Study, if a boy had four or more
siblings by his tenth birthday, this doubled his risk of being convicted as a juvenile. Large family
size predicted self-reported delinquency as well as convictions (Farrington, 2003). It was the
most important independent predictor of convictions up to age 32 years in a logistic regression
analysis; 58 percent of boys from large families were convicted up to this age (Farrington, 2003).

There are many possible reasons why a large number of siblings might increase the risk of a
child’s delinquency. Generally, as the number of children in a family increases, the amount of
parental attention that can be given to each child decreases. Also, as the number of children
increases, the household tends to become more overcrowded, possibly leading to increases in
frustration, irritation, and conflict.

In the Cambridge Study, large family size did not predict
delinquency for boys living in the least crowded conditions, with two or more rooms than there
were children (Bronstein, 2003). This suggests that household overcrowding might be an
important intervening factor between large family size and delinquency.

Wright (2003) reviewed several possible explanations for the link between large families and
delinquency, including those focusing on features of the parents (e.g., criminal parents, teenage
parents), those focusing on parenting (e.g., poor supervision, disrupted families), and those
focusing on economic deprivation or family stress. Another interesting theory suggested that the
key factor was birth order: large families include more later-born children who tend to be more
delinquent.

Based on an analysis of self-reported delinquency in a Seattle survey, they concluded
that the most plausible intervening causal mechanism was exposure to delinquent siblings.
Consistent with social learning theory, large families contained more antisocial models.

It is clear that some family factors are at least as important in the prediction of offending as are
gender and race. Reviewing these kinds of results reveals the bewildering variety of family
constructs that have been studied, and also the variety of methods used to classify them into
categories. In this study, family factors are grouped into six categories: (a) criminal and
antisocial parents and siblings; (b) large family size; (c) child-rearing methods (poor supervision,
poor discipline, coldness and rejection, low parental involvement with the child); (d) abuse
(physical or sexual) or neglect; (e) parental conflict and disrupted families; and (f) other parental
features (young age, substance abuse, stress or depression, working mothers).

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

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

behaviors.
Antisocial behaviour has been one of the top problems confronting the nation today especially
among the youth (Kipkeboi, 2013). Incidences of drug and alcohol abuse and related anti-social
behaviour have tremendously increased in Kiambaa constituency in recent years (Kipkeboi,
2013). This has become a matter of concern to the government, parents, teachers, Nongovernmental organizations and all other relevant agencies. It is more prevalent than parents
suspect.

Parents do not recognize the extent of these behaviors and as a result, some young
people think they can go ahead with impunity on these acts (Kipkeboi, 2013). Most parents
believe that it is the responsibility of teachers to check antisocial behaviour among school going
children and still most of them delude themselves that their children are safe and secure.
Antisocial behaviour is not confined to young people in certain geographical areas or from
particular social-economic backgrounds only but its menace that cuts across.

However, few studies have examined the mediating effects of social learning mechanisms in the
influence of familial constructs on antisocial behavior (Darling, 2003). Conger (2005) also
emphasized that researchers of family support must avoid what Widom (2007) called the fallacy
of autonomy”.

Some family factors are at least as important in the prediction of offending as are
gender and race. Whereas, studies have been done to suggest the factors that influence antisocial behaviors in children, there seems to be no study on the factors influencing antisocial
behavior among school going students in Kenya.

This therefore attempted to contribute to such
efforts by analyzing the relationship between specific familial constructs, the factors this study
seeks to explore include: (a) presence of both parents (b) school environment; (c) single
parenthood; (d) economic situations of families; (e) parental conflict and disrupted families.

1.3 Research questions
i. Does the presence of both parents in a family influence student’s antisocial behavior?
ii. What is the extent to which single parenthood influence student’s antisocial behavior?
iii. Does economic status of families influence student’s antisocial behavior?
iv. Do school variables influence student’s antisocial behavior?
1.4 Specific Objectives
i. To establish how the presence of both parents in a family influence student’s antisocial
behaviour
ii. To establish the extent to which single parenthood influence student’s antisocial
behavior.
iii. To establish the extent to which family economic status influence student’s antisocial
behavior.
iv. To determine the role school variables play on student’s antisocial behaviors
1.5 Justification of the Study

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

The current study will therefore add to the body of knowledge by
demonstrating how the specific familial construct influence children’s antisocial behavior.
1.6 Limitation of the study
The influence of family on antisocial behavior changes in different contexts and it is shaped by
7
contextual sources of social support. This study did not consider all the aspects family influences
but instead was restricted to presence of parents, single parenthood, economic status and broken
families influences to development of antisocial behaviors on school going children. The study
only considered behaviors of children within Kiamba constituency and none from neighbouring
constituencies.

1.7 Definition of terms

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

School children: are children of school going ages that are more volatile to character/behaviour
change due to environmental factors, this study focuses on the parental influence, economic
status and the role of school on school children anti social behaviours (Conger, 1995)
School environment: refers to the surrounding of the school that can contribute in influencing
the behaviour of the students, the nature of school environment can contribute to the
development of antisocial behaviour in children (Farrington, 2003)

Socialization: Socialization is the process by which children and adults learn from others.
Children begin learning from others during the early days of life; and most people continue their
social learning all through life unless some mental or physical disability slows or stops the
learning process (Lipsey, 1998)
Punishment: punishment is any change in a human surroundings that occurs after a given
8
behaviour or response which reduces the likelihood of that behaviour occurring again in the
future. Whether a change is or is not punishing is only known by its effect on the rate of the
behaviour, not by any hostile or aversive features of the change (Robins, 2004)

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

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

Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic 

Not What You Were Looking For? Send Us Your Topic

Click Here to Download Now.

INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT

• 1.Your Full name
• 2. Your Active Email Address
• 3. Your Phone Number
• 4. Amount Paid
• 5. Project Topic
• 6. Location you made payment from