ROLE OF PARENTING STYLES IN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND BELIEFS ABOUT CONFLICT OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
by
DINEO DORINDA LUKUUGI
16092805
Disse1tation (article format) submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree in Masters of Social Sciences in Clinical Psychology at the North-West University (Mahikeng Campus).
Supervisor: Professor E.S. ldemudia
TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1 - 2 Table of contents 3-4 Declaration 5 Dedication 6 Acknowledgements 7-8 Summary 9 Preface 10 Letter of consent 11 Instructions to authors 12 - 13 Manuscript 14 - 15 Abstract 16
Introduction and problem statement 17 -23
Theoretical Background 24 - 32 Related studies 32 - 38 Hypotheses 39 Methodology 40 - 53 Results 54 - 60 Discussion 61 -65
Conclusion 65 - 67
References 68 - 81
DECLARATION
I, Lukuugi Dineo Dorinda, declare that this article for Masters Degree in Clinical Psychology, at the North-West University, hereby submitted, is my own work, and has not previously been submitted by me for a degree at this or any other University. The design and execution of this study is my own and all materials contained herein have been duly acknowledged.
Lukuugi, D.D
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my sons
Ontshegeditse and Mayega
And
In loving memory of my late father
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my God, the Almighty, and my Sabaoth, for His unconditional love, unmerited favour, strength, faithfulness, mercy and presence. Without God I would not have completed my studies. With God, I am.
• Professor E.S. Idemudia, I thank you for taking me under your wings when I needed it the most. I value your immense patience, kindness, support, guidance and understanding. Without your guidance this project would not have been possible. May the good Lord from whom all perfect gifts come, shower you and your family with only the best. May He cause His face to shine upon you and grant you peace all the days of your life.
• Ms Patricia Kolobe, my heartfelt gratitude for your patience and immeasurable support, guidance and prayers. You played a big role in assisting me with ensuring that this project is of acceptable quality and standard. May God bless you with prosperity and success in all your endeavours.
• I thank my husband, Senyonga Lukuugi, for according me the opportunity to resign from work and further my studies while taking care of our sons and the financial burden. You are simply the best. I thank God for you. Thank you for believing in me, for staying up with me when I had to write this dissertation. I truly value the tremendous support, words of encouragement and your love. May the Almighty bless you richly.
• Ontshegeditse and Mayega, my beloved sons, thank you for all the good luck wishes you showered upon me and for your understanding when I left you behind to go to do this project. I wouldn't have survived it. Mama adores you boys.
• To my mother, Maria Mochware and my siblings, thank you so much for your unconditional love and support. Most of all, your prayers really granted me strength. • My special gratitude goes to the following bursary schemes that made my academic
years financially simpler: Northern Cape Department of Health and North-West University Post Graduate Bursary.
SUMMARY
The aim of the study was to explore the role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviours and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in the Northern Cape Province. The study was anchored on four (4) objectives, (1) to review literature on the variables of interest and identify the research gaps; (2) to collect empirical data on the variables of interest among adolescent learners; (3) to provide guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the influence of parenting styles on disruptive behaviour among in-school adolescents; and (4) to give some recommendations regarding students' disruptive behaviour in classroom.
Data for the study were collected through a questionnaire measuring the variables of interest. A total of three hundred and fifty one adolescents within the age range of 13-20 with a mean of 16.35 years and a standard deviation of 1.39 randomly selected from grades 9 to 12 from schools in the Northern Cape of South Africa, participated in the study. One hundred and fifty (42.7.9%) of the participants were males while 201 (57.3%) were females.
The results indicated a significant joint and independent influence of age, gender and parenting styles on disruptive behaviour (anti-social and aggressive behaviour) and beliefs about conflict. Male adolescents reported more anti-social behaviour compared to females. Lastly, female adolescents reported more beliefs about conflict compared to males.
In conclusion, the findings imply that some parenting styles have influence on the adolescents' disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict. The study concludes that parenting styles, among other factors, contribute to disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict in adolescents. There is the need to develop secondary and tertiary programmes, not just primary prevention programmes. School districts need to revise their disruptive
PREFACE
Article format
For the purpose of this dissertation, which is part of the requirements for a master's degree in clinical psychology, the article format, as described by the General Regulation a.7.51.6 of the North-West University, was chosen.
Selected journal
The target journal for submission of the current manuscript is the Journal of Psychology. For the purpose of examination, tables are included in the text.
Letter of consent
The letter of consent from the co-author, in which permission is granted that the manuscript, "Role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in the Northern Cape Province", may be submitted for purposes of the dissertation, is attached.
Page Numbering
In the dissertation, page numbering is from the first page to the last. For submission to the above-mentioned journal, the manuscript is numbered according to the requirements of the Journal of Psychology. Therefore, numbering starts on the title page of the manuscript.
Referencing
In the dissertation, referencing 1s done according to the instructions of the Journal of Psychology.
LETTER OF CONSENT
I, the undersigned, hereby give consent that Dineo Dorinda Lukuugi may submit the manuscript entitled, "Role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviours and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in the Northern Cape Province'', for the purpose of a dissertation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a master's degree.
···*··
Prof E.S. Idemudia
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS: KRE JOURNALS ON-LINE. JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
AIM: The Journal of Psychology (J Psychology) is designed for the prompt publications of original and important articles related to contemporary society.
EDITORIAL POLICY: It contains original papers on current research and practical programmes, short notes, news items, book reviews, reports of meetings and professional announcements. Constructive critiques and discussion of published papers and letters, which are of relevance and of interest to the readership, are published at the discretion of the Editor. The journal is published in English; spelling and usage conforms to the Oxford English Dictionary; for consistency and simplicity in style because for many subscribers English is a second language. Place names should be spelled in the form officially used in the country under discussion, where thjs differs from the commonly known name of the English-language name, the other name should be written in parentheses. For practical purposes, accents may be omitted on non-English names.
SIZE: An article should not generally exceed twelve printed pages (18 double spaced typed pages of MS Word). The authors would be charged for additional pages, even if a longer article is accepted for publication. Reporting of frequency data may be accepted in the form of a small report. Such reports should generally not exceed four pages, including tables/figures.
TITLE: The paper title, author's name, affiliation, complete address, fax number, and e-mail address should appear on the first page of the article. When there is more than one author, the correspondence will be sent to the first author, unless otherwise requested.
RUNNING HEAD: Not more than 40 characters (including spaces) should be identified on the title page.
ABSTRACT: Not exceeding 250 words.
KEYWORDS: Not exceeding six should accompany the manuscript.
TABLE: Each table should be typed separately and marked in the text in numerical order.
LIST: A separate list of tables, figures and illustrations with captions should accompany the manuscript.
METRIC SYSTEM: The metric system should conform to the International System of Units (S.I.).
REFERENCES: These should be at the end of the article, arranged alphabetically according to the surnames of the authors and then chronologically. Following the examples of the proper reference style of various sources:
REFERENCES IN THE TEXT: References citations in the text should be in parentheses and include author name(s) and year of publication. Text citations of two or more works at the time should be given in chronological order. When citing a paper written by three or more authors, write the name of the first author plus "et al". (However, all authors must be given in the Reference section). Where there are two or more papers by the same author in one year, distinguishing letter (a, b, c .... ) should be added to year. All references should be carefully crosschecked; it is the author's responsibility to ensure that references are correct.
MANUSCRIPT
ROLE OF PARENTING STYLES IN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND BELIEFS ABOUT CONFLICT OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
ROLE OF PARENTING STYLES IN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND BELIEFS ABOUT CONFLICT OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
Lukuugi, Dineo Dorinda*, Idemudia, Sunday Erhabor
Correspondence to:
Ms D.D Lukuugi
Professor E.S. Idemudia
School of Social Sciences,
North-West University ( Mahikeng Campus)
Private Bag x 2046, Mmabatho, 2735
South Africa
dlukuugi@gmail.com
Erhabor.Idemudia@nwu.ac.za
Cell: 072 795 3933
ROLE OF PARENTING STYLES IN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND BELIEFS ABOUT CONFLICT OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
Abstract
Aim: The paper sought to investigate the role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviour (anti-social and aggressive behaviour) and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in the Northern Cape Province.
Method: A cross-sectional design was adopted for the study. N=351 participants were randomly selected from Kuruman and Upington communities in the Northern Cape. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. Four hypotheses were tested using simple linear multiple regression and t-test for independent sample.
Results: The findings indicated a significant joint and independent influence of age, gender, and parenting styles on disruptive behaviour (anti-social and aggressive behaviour) and beliefs about conflict. Male adolescents reported more anti-social behaviour compared to females. Lastly, female adolescents reported more beliefs about conflict compared to males.
Conclusion: The findings imply that some parenting styles have influence on the adolescents' disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict. The study concludes that parenting styles, among others, contribute to disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict in adolescents. Parents could benefit from parent management skills lessons.
Keywords: Parenting styles, disruptive behaviour, beliefs about conflict, adolescents, Northern Cape Province.
Introduction and Problem Statement
Disruptive behaviour is defined as a vast range of problem behaviours like aggression and anti-social behaviour amongst others, which cluster together (Neary & Eyberg, 2002). Aggressive and anti-social behaviours are considered as specific forms of disruptive behaviour among in-school adolescents (Marais & Meier, 20 I 0); and co-occur to a large extent. These conducts are proving to be won-isome in South African schools because of the rates that they are spreading at, and their consequences may be devastating (Masitsa, 2008; Mestry & Khumalo, 2012; Moyo et.al., 2014). Their consequences are not confined to teachers who need to cope with problem students (Marais & Meier, 2010), but have increasingly become the concern of the society at large (Naong, 2007). Therefore, research focusing on disruptive behaviour is crucial to understand the antecedents of these behaviours. Investigating risk factors for anti-social and aggressive behaviours is relevant in South Africa, where disruptive behaviour is still a point that is mostly deliberated on in schools (Marais & Meier, 2010), since a moratorium on physical punishment in schools was passed (Republic of South Africa, 1996a, l 996b). Similarly, the South African Council of Educators (2011) concludes that what is mostly experienced in the South African community is that brutality is a worrisome issue in both the Foundation and Senior Phases, across a range of biographical factors.
Anti-social behaviour refers to conducts that violate social rules and rights of others, or behaviour that does not conform to acceptable social values and norms (Oxford American Dictionary, 1999; Rutter, Giller & Hagell, 1998). It includes a disregard for relationships, including teachers, and personal relationships contravening set school regulations (Van't Westende, 1998). In schools, anti-social behavioms could be overt or covert aggression directed at fellow learners or staff, sexual assaults and disruptive behaviours. At another level, anti-social behaviour includes crimes including intentional damage to property and
theft (Goldenstein, Apter, & Harootunian, 1984; National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2013).
Antisocial behaviour also characterises conduct disorder that is, amongst others, a prevalent psychiatric problem in developing people (Bongers, Koot, van der Ende & Verhulst, 2004; Scott et.al, 200 I). Moreover, antisocial behaviour is one of the principal features noted in most referrals concerning psychiatric patients. It is mostly linked to impairment of executive functioning. Antisocial behaviour has proved to be a significant and worrisome burden (Loeber, Burke, Lahey, Winters & Zera 2000; Vermeiren, 2003).
Aggression is referred to as violent deeds meant to cause pain to other people (Loeber, 1998). Coie (1998) emphasized Parke's ( 1983) definition that upholds the conscious decision to hurt. Intent is subject to how a particular society perceives this conduct (Bandura, I 973; Walters, 1964). In this study, aggressive behaviours refer to those behaviours (e.g., verbal, nonverbal, or physical) that harm others and bring joy to the aggressor. Examples of aggressive behaviour include malicious injury to property and assault with grievous bodily harm, intimidation and destructive behaviour.
Adolescents may have different beliefs about conflict and how their families deal with issues of violence and carrying weapons. How each person deals with conflict is different to the next. Their behaviour towards conflict can be shaped by their beliefs. Some adolescents may consider conflict to be positive while others may view it as negative. Their understanding of conflict and how to handle or manage it may be different. Some adolescents may choose not to be involved in the conflict and avoid it, and others may choose to confront it. McDonough ( 1995) suggested, "what people believe they are doing, what they pay attention to, what they think is important, how they choose to behave, how they prefer to solve problems, form the basis for their personal decisions as to how to proceed".
Children's behaviour and development are determined by various conditions that work together or separately, and family structure plays a prominent role (Ezeh, 2013). In agreement with the above, Nwankwo et al. (2010) contended that antisocial behaviour is influenced by a range of factors and family relationships are also considered to play a role, among others, like biological and physical changes, social expectations, pride, and rebellion against parents. The quality of how parents and children relate to each other has been indicated to play a role on children's behaviour and attitudes. According to Baumrind ( 1978), parents influence the outcome of their children's personalities. Arendel I ( 1997) concurred that parenting has a remarkable impact on child development. In support of the above assumption, Bornstein and Bornstein (2007) argued that when parents balance maturity and disciplinary demands on children when integrating them into families and social systems; it usually results in the best possible outcomes in children's quality of life.
One of the obligation of parenting is the socialization of their children. Bringing up of children is a difficult undertaking, and involves various activities aimed at influencing children's behaviour and expectation (Ezeh, 2013). This parenting can be expressed in different styles. Parents' style of caregiving has been documented to have short and long-term impact on social development of their children (Bornstein & Bornstein, 2007). This suggests that parenting styles may influence disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict among in-school adolescents. Because research findings attest to the impact of family factors on children's behaviour and attitudes, the present study focuses on the role of parenting style, gender, and age on disruptive behaviour and belief about conflict among adolescents in Northern Cape Province of South Africa.
Parenting styles are general patterns of parent behaviour that build an environment that allows for expression of emotions; these patterns of behaviour are the result of underlying attitudes and beliefs (Darling, 1999). Child rearing practices comprise "warmth and control"
(Grolnick & Gurland, 2002). "Warmth" involves positive reinforcement and understanding. Studies on parenting styles and its theory have put put emphasis on the two kinds of control: behavioural and psychological control (Pomerantz, 2009). Behavioural control concentrates on monitoring children's behaviour while psychological control is more focused on
monitoring how children think and how they feel (Vansteenkiste, 2010). Parents who employ psychological control may manipulate their children by using emotional blackmail (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004).
Baurnrind (1971) suggested three mostly practised parenting styles as authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. The styles were categorised based on parental control and warmth (Baumrind, 1991 ). Parental control is the degree to which children's behaviour is managed. This geniality advances parents' unconditional acceptance and support to their children's behaviour rather than non-responsiveness (Kopko, 2007). Those with an
authoritative style have warmth and firm control. In this style of parenting, expectations are clearly outlined, and parents are receptive of children's questions pertaining to the reasons behind rules set. Each party is allowed an opportunity to participate freely, and the
relationships are harmonious (Baumrind, 1991 ). Authoritarian parents, commonly known as autocrats, place many demands on children, and they don't establish a reciprocal relationship. These parents are, usually, very strict and simply give instructions and rules that must be adhered without asking qusetions (Ezeh, 2013). A permissive style of parenting has less parental restrictions or limits on children, leading children being expected to manage themselves and their interactive environment (Kordi & Baharudin, 20 I 0).
Although studies exist that link parenting styles to child disruptive behaviour problems, not much research has been undertaken among in-school adolescents in South Africa, which is often characterized by high rates of violence and disruptive behaviour. Most studies have concentrated on the relationships of parenting practices and the criterion of child disruptive
behaviour. Furthermore, review of the literature revealed no empirical studies on the
relatioship between parenting styles and beliefs about conflict among in-school adolescents in South Africa. The goal of this study was to examine the relation between specific parenting practices, disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict.
Problem Statement
Disruptive behaviour in schools is a universal concern. Disruptive behaviour is also rife in South African schools, and has become a serious problem for teachers, administrators and parents (Marais & Meier, 2010). A study by Maree (2000) indicated that some schools in South Africa are increasingly beginning to resemble war zones. Educators have expressed concerns about learners' behaviour in classrooms (Marais & Meier, 2010). According to Andrews and Taylor ( 1998), learners from disruptive environment are deprived of quality education and therefore perform below acceptable standards.
The societal costs of disruptive behaviour in schools are high, and efforts to understand how to predict and prevent such behaviour became significant for researchers (Tompsett & Toro, 2010). There is a major body of research supporting the fact that the relationship between parenting styles and disruptive behaviour became a major concern for psychologists, criminologists, and the society, and links were made between poor parenting and juvenile delinquency (Malayi et al., 2013; Marais & Meier, 20 I 0). Suleiman (2013) also stated that family factors such as marital breakdowns, inconsistent discipline and harsh parenting are some of the factors influencing the development of antisocial behaviour. South Africa is one of the countries experiencing a high rate of broken famjly systems, out of wedlock births and single parent homes and decreased rates of marriage (Amoateng, 2008; Pose!, Rudwick & Casale, 20 I I). This raises the question of whether the high rate of antisocial behaviour is mostly due to parenting styles adopted in raising the children or something else.
Research to support these assumptions among adolescents in Northern Cape of South Africa is notably absent. Very little is known about the joint influence of parenting styles
(authoritative, pennissive, and authoritarian) on aggressive behaviour, anti-social behaviour, and belief about conflict, respectively. Equally scant, is information about the independent influence of parenting styles (authoritative, permissive, and authoritarian) on aggressive behaviour, anti-social behaviour, and belief about conflict, respectively. These gaps in the literature lead to the present research.
Purpose of the study
The general purpose of this study was to investigate the role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa. The specific aims are as follows:
To investigate whether the three parenting styles namely authoritative, authororitarian and permissive will have significant joint and independent influence on aggressive behaviour.
To examine whether the three parenting styles namely authoritative, authororitarian and permissive will have significant joint and independent influence on anti-social behaviour.
To find out whether the three parenting styles namely authoritative, authororitarian and permissive will have significant joint and independent influence on belief about conflict.
To investigate gender differences in aggressive behaviour, anti-social behaviour, and belief about conflict.
Objectives of the study
This research aims to examine the role of parenting styles in disruptive behaviour and beliefs about conflict of adolescents in some selected schools in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa.
Significance of the Study
Findings from this study will hopefully help to understand better, the influence of parenting styles and gender on adolescents' disruptive behaviour. This will, in tum, facilitate effective policies and practices to reduce adolescents' disruptive behaviour, and possibly facilitate the development of intervention strategies. The findings will add to existing body of literature on the subject matter.
Theoretical Background
Theories of Disruptive Behaviour in Adolescence
This study adopts the socio-ecological model and the Process-Person-Context- Time (PPCT) model by Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) as a conceptual framework. In the socio-ecological model, development is framed as continuity and change in the bio-psychological features unique to people, both at the individual level and the environmental level
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). One of the principal characteristics of the socio-ecological theory stresses the inter-dependent relationship between people and their surroundings. It is comprised of four major properties of the socio-ecological model, which are process, person, context, and time. They are the hallmark of the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model.
Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Social Ecology
The theory of social ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) seeks to explain the inter-dependent relationshjp between the individual and the environment. This theory has since been renamed
"bioecological systems theory" (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), to emphasise how a child's biology influences his development as a primary environment. The growing child's
development is shaped by all the facets that the child is exposed to, including the child's evolving biology, the immediate background and the infrastructure that the child relates to. Developmental challenges or conflict in any stage may have ripple effects throughout other stages of development. In other words, to understand a chjld's disruptive behaviour, it is important for researchers to explore the child's background in totality extending to the larger environment too.
The theory attempts to elucidate how the different levels of the environment (i.e.
(Brofenbrenner, 1979). Microsystem is defined as the immediate small environment that a child inhabits and interacts with. The child's environment is characterized by physical interaction with significant people who possess peculiar personalities and temperaments. The environment includes, primary caregivers, parents and the parenting styles, cultural beliefs and different activities. The quality and kind of relationships this immediate environment offers a growing child has an influence on the child's developmental outcomes. Tfthe relationships are encouraging and supportive, the child will have a better growth outcome. The growing child's attitude towards his immediate environment contributes significantly to how the environment treats him/her in return. In their 2006 study, Brofenbrenner and Morris identified several variables in the microsystem, at home: parental educational level; their religion affiliation, ethnic affiliation, home environment, exposure to domestic violence,
family conflict and parenting styles.
Bronfenbrenner's (1979) other level is the mesosystem, which sets out how several aspects of the child's microsystem work together for the child's sake. For example, like in the case where the child's parents are actively involved and physically support him in his school activities, for example, attending a child's school athletics game. Brofenbrenner (1979) contented that the growing child's roles change as he is consequently faced with different situations. These changes or transitions represent "ecological transitions" (White & Klein, 2008). Presumptions concerning the mesosystem, have highlighted the harmonious relationship required in different settings and a smooth transition thereof. Child-rearing practices and the relationship between parents and the child's teacher could be beneficial to children as it could assist them to transit smoothly between the two systems.
The next level the exosystem, extends the child's environment to other people and places that the child himself may not interact with personally but still affect the child indirectly. This extended environment includes the parents' workplace, the neighbourhood and the extended
relatives (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). An example of this is Chae if a child's father is the
breadwinner and gees retrenched from work and has difficulties providing for the family, this may impact negatively on the child.
The final dimension is the macrosyscem, which is the farthest grouping of elements and people to a child, who still have great potential to affect the child indirectly through parenting styles among other things. The macrosystem is the largest dimension of all, and it is
characterized by the consistent belief systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Cultural beliefs and traditions are examples of macrosystem. Parenting styles are more likely to vary from culture to culture.
Social information processing theory of beliefs about conflict
Social information processing theory emphasizes how general knowledge about social behaviour info1ms how individuals make sense of information, and based on this processing, subsequently react in circumstances that are community-based and recreational (Dodge,
1994). Diverse kinds of knowledge structures considering relationships that the youth may have with their peers, were explored. These included youths' learned, acceptable and standard norms of beliefs concerning aggression (Guerra, 1997), social rejection beliefs (Rincon et al., 1998), emotional intelligence (Lochman et al., 2002), and their views
concerning peers (Laird et al., 1999). For example, the findings of studies by Lochman et al. (2002), Guerra (1997), Grych and Kinsfogel(2004), Werner (2005) indicated that personality contrasts in how the youth perceived their learned and socially acceptable beliefs on
aggression affects the manner in which they handle aggression concurrently and in future within their social circles. The intervening effects of the standardized, acceptable and learned beliefs on social information processing contribute to these effects via partial mediation.
The current study builds on the literature by exploring the relationship between parenting styles and beliefs about conflict. When adolescents reach a later stage of development, it is expected that they should have extensive insight pertaining to conflict and its meaning. In advanced adolescence, peer interaction proves to be pivotal in relationships that adolescents build, conflict may also be recurrent. The developmental changes in peer relationships are expected to parallel the changes in acquired knowledge and understanding concerning conflict and its meaning. In the later stages of adolescence, adolescents are expected to know that conflict is inevitable and understand that it may have consequences that could make or break relationships.
Individuals' beliefs concerning conflict will likely differ indirectly according to parenting styles. Hence, there will be differences in how individual behave in community-based situations, and this is based on their social knowledge structures (Lochman et al., 2002; Guerra, 1997). Accordingly, it is expected that parenting styles would be associated with beliefs about the constructive value of conflict (e.g., negotiation and compromise) or destructive value of conflicts, such as aggression or excessive compliance.
Parenting Styles' Theory
Studies of child abuse compelled Belsky ( 1984) to develop a model of determinants. The model explored aspects that play a role in parenting and the results thereof and further on attempted to answer the question, "why do parents parent the way they do?". Belsky(l 984) advocated that how a child develops and how children are brought up are dependent on parenting.
This model is made up of three dimensions i.e. "1) the parents' psychological resources (2) the child's unique features; and (3) the parents' stressors and their structures of support" (Belsky, 1984, pg 86). Recent research identified and emphasized the importance of how a
parent's personality coordinates with the child's characteristics, be it positive or negative (Bogenschneider, Small & Tsay, 1997). This concept of "goodness-of-fit" was introduced as a fourth aspect in Belsky's original model.
According to Belsky, Robins and Gamble (1984), the evolution of a fully self-actualized and competent human being is shaped by efficient and capable parenting which prepares and teaches the developing person to learn and be able to apply effective skills to handle environmental life challenges that he or she will be faced with throughout their upbringing and stages of life (Bogenschneider et al., 1997). Aligned to this competent parenting is "warmer, more accepting and more helpful" styles of parenting. Authoritative parenting is perceived to be democratic, respectful, responsibility oriented and considerate. It is viewed as parenting that gives children space and respects their ability to make mistakes and learn from their mistakes. It also promotes autonomy and communicates respect. Boundaries are clearly drawn and communicated, and it is also mindful of developmental tasks (Belsky et. al.,
1984).
In the current study, Belsky's (1984) model informs the direction of this study on the basis that the determinants of parents' resources, children's unique features, and stressors and structures of support impact on the child's disruptive behaviour. Considering this theory,
Belsky's model provides a structure of the current study that seeks to investigate the link between parenting styles and adolescents' disruptive behaviour (i.e. aggressive behaviour, anti-social behaviour, and belief about conflict). Belsky's model suggests a direct connection between parenting styles and child behaviour.
Parenting Styles
There is an overabundance of studies done in a bid to explore parenting styles. Mize and Pettit (cited in McNeilly-Choque, 1998) referred to child rearing practices as a summation of
behaviours that report the interactions between a parent and a child in different situations and that are supposed to cause a climate that is pervasively interactional. Psychologist, Diana Baumrind conducted research on about I 00 preschoolers (Baumrind, 1967) and identified four factors that are vital in parenting; i.e. (1) how parents discipline their children; (2) how parents form attachments and how they take care of their children; (3) how they
communicate; and (4) what parents expect of their children concerning maturity and control.
Depending on the four factors that are vital in parenting, Baumrind(J 967) concluded and implied that most parents exert three distinct child rearing practices whjch are authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. As a result, Baumrind's ( 1978) theory has been used in a lot of studies that sought to understand how parents impact on child development looking at school performance, self-concept and disruptive and destructive behaviours (Cramer, 2002). These parenting styles were further validated in other parts of the world like Australia, China, and Russia as these parenting styles were initially perceived as more indicative of Western society (McNeilly-Choque et al., 1998; Leung et al., 1998). Researchers have ultimately uncovered convincing links between parenting styles and their impact on children.
Further research suggested the addition of a fourth parenting style, called neglectful, and was identified as low warmth and control (Gerris, 1992; Glasgow et.al., 1997; Mounts &
Steinberg., 1991). Martin (1983) named thjs parenting style Indifferent-Uninvolved. Parents
using this style do not have minimal demands from their children and exhibit limited communication with their children. Although they seem to attend to their children's basic needs, they are absent from their child's life. Not much research has been carried out in this population of parents, who are perceived as Indifferent-Uninvolved, as they are non-responsive to anything that involves their children and do not show any interest in
volunteering to being studied. However, Mounts and Steinberg (1991) managed to conduct a study with the adolescent children from neglectful parenting background by obtaining
consent from the school to include all children unless their parents made contact with the researchers to withdraw their children. The findings of this study indicated that unlike children from authoritative background, those from the background of parents employing the neglectful parenting style, obtained the lowest scores on psychosocial competence measures but obtained elevated scores on measures of psychological and behavioural dysfunctions. Due to the difficulty of finding participants from this parenting style group, the current study examines only the three previously mentioned parenting styles.
Authoritarian
According to Baumrind(l 991 ), these parents are "obedience and status driven" and do not allow space for explanation. Whatever they say goes, no questions asked. These parents believe in controlling and making sure that their children do not go astray. Otherwise, children will be punished with force or punitively, should they be viewed as disobedient. Authoritarian parents are viewed as strict, and they fail to explain the reasoning behind rules. They have high expectations of their children, yet they are non-responsive. The likelihood of these parents using rational methods, like intimidating and threatening their children is less. However, their discipline measures are consistent in discipline (Baumrind, 1973). Other findings into research undertaken in the population using this type of parenting and the child outcomes thereof have indicated a negative impact on children's performance and
independence (Cramer, 2002; Vandell & Posner, 1998). Although children brought by parents who use authoritarian parenting style have been perceived as respectful, they have also been found to have difficulties with adjustment at school (Vandell & Posner, 1998) and have a poor sense of self (Cramer, 2002). The Putanical belief promoted "unquestioning belief', which influenced the authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, 1973).
Permissive
Permissive parents make very few demands on their children, and they are more open to communication with their children. They typically show signifant amount of warmth but poor amount of control in their relationships. They have low expectations of maturity and self-control from their children and thus hardly ever reprimand them. However, if these parent ever have to dicipline their children they use withdrawal of love as their means. These parents allow their children leeway in doing things but Jack to train and prepare their children to handle the responsibility. However, when these parents reach their limit of tolerance, they are prone to having anger outbursts. These parents are viewed as too lenient or indulgent. These parents often take the status of more of a friend than parents (Baumrind, 1991 ). This style of parenting had its roots in the eighteenth century through Rousseau and was adopted and fostered by the Children's movement in the I 970's (Baumrind, 1978). Results of research done have indicated that children who are reared in this type of environment possess positive sense of self but are likely to show destructive behaviour problems and may not show any interest in school when they are adolescents (Lamborn et al., 1991 ).
Authoritative
Authoritative is typically characterized by a democratic relationship between the two systems in the family, being parents and children. The boundaries are clearly set out. The parents are open to communication and rules that children are expected to follow. Communication in this relationship is highly encouraged, and parents are willing to explain their reasoning behind the rules and are also willing to answer questions that children may ask. These parents are more nurturing and willing to forgive when children fail to meet expectations. Discipline is more directed at supporting and understanding rather than punitive as is the case with authoritarian parent. This parenting style prides itself in promoting emotional intelligence
(Baumrind, 1991 ). According to Maccoby and Martin ( 1992), this parenting style tends to produce happy, capable and successful children. Other researchers have agreed with
Maccoby and Martin (1992) in associating authoritative parenting with a significant amount of good and positive outcomes, such as positive social adjustments and low psychological and behavioural dysfunction (Cramer, 2002). Hill (1995) (cited in Cramer, 2002), concluded that authoritative parenting plays an important role in children's intellect and performance. Deslandes (2000) found that children brought up in this type of environment show high levels of independence and individualization.
Related studies
Disruptive behaviour in South African schools.
Looking at provincial prevalence, Kruger (2011) reports that various surveys conducted in the Western Cape amongst learners and teachers found that bullying and fighting, as well as intimidation of teachers by learners, and learners by teachers were reported at most of the schools. In Bloemfontein, Greef (2004) (cited in Chabalala, 2011) found that 56.4% of learners had been victims of bullying. Meanwhile in Gauteng, according to Protogerou, Flisher and Morojele (2012), bullying has been reported to be 61 % in a sample of high-school students in Tshwane. Also, Eliasov and Frank (2000) in the Western Cape survey found that criminal behaviour and brutality were prevalentendemic in both primary and high schools. Incidents of damage to properties, verbal and physical intimidation and assault with a weapon were reported population.
Parenting styles, disruptive behaviour, and beliefs about conflict.
The review of literature indicated that several studies have explored parenting styles' role on how children turn out to be, with more emphasis on the advantages of an authoritative
parenting style in contrast to the unfavourable results that are caused by authoritarian and permissive parenting (Demo, 2000). For example, in a cross-cultural study, Barber (2005) reported a negative relationship between parent warmth and adolescents' bad behaviour in some countries like India, China, Bosnia, Gaza in the Middle East, the United States and South Africa with the exception of countries like Germany, Bangladesh, and Columbia. They also found that behavioural control negatively predicts misconduct in South Africa,
Bangladesh, China, India, Bosnia, Germany, Gaza, Columbia, and the United States. Studies involving Chinese families, concluded that adolescents' perfomiance was based on good relationships with their parents (Chen, Liu & Li, 2000) and behavioural problems were the product of poor relationships with parents (Chen, Wu, Chen, Wang & Cen, 2001).
Baumrind (1967) studied parenting styles vastly and how they affect a child's behaviour. One of the key findings in her studies was that authoritative parenting is related to more optimal psychosocial wellbeing in children than other styles of parenting that are non-authoritative. An extension of Baurnrind's findings was carried out in a study that investigated how parenting is responsible for inter-individual differences in the developmental trajectories of different child behaviours in childhood and adolescence. Similar to Baumrind's ( 1967) argument, multi-group analyses demonstrated that authoritative parenting led to the most optimal long-term development. The findings further suggested that the more adolescents of authoritative parents demand independence in making their decisions, the more their parents give up their monitoring. The same can be said for authoritarian parents, even though theirs declines a lot more across adolescence. This could mean that authoritarian parents do not opt for less monitoring but are left with no other choice as their offspring spend less time at home without supervision (Tildesley et.al., 2011).
Jn studies linking parenting styles to child outcomes, Baum rind (1971 ), Mounts &
positive results in terms of petformance at school and self-confidence in developing people and the exact opposite for those from the authoritarian background. In addition to poor perfomrnnce and poor self -image, these adolescents may also present aggressive behaviours.
The three parenting styles identified as authoritative, authoritarian and permissive were distinguished and investigated by applying latent class analysis to the interaction of parents and teenagers obtained in the Youth Panel of the British Household Panel Survey. The analysis of this study revealed that in the UK, social class does not play a role in the
parenting styles but how the family is structured. There were also substantial and significant links between parenting style and outcomes of the youth, including how they perceive their lives in all spheres (Chan & Koo, 20 I 0).
Marais and Meier (2010) argue that should a developing person witness violent altercations between adults, he or she is most likely to carry these experiences with them into the school. There is a high rate of domestic and street violence in South Africa; it is thus comprehensible that there is also a high rate of antisocial behaviour (Marais & Meier, 20 I 0).
Okorodudu (2010) investigated the effect of parentjng styles on the delinquent behaviour in adolescents. Results from the regression analysis indicated that irrespective of gender, laissez-faire parenting style predicted delinquent behaviour in adolescents unlike
authoritarian and authoritative parenting that did not. The results further implied that parents who were positive in their lifestyles and in tem1s of demanding and being responsive would make their children socially competent and goal-directed. Parents who were uninvolving and non-responsive to their adolescents' needs impacted their children's behaviour negatively.
Williams et al. (2009) suggested an association between parenting style and behaviour problems. Participants were assessed for behavioural inhibition from the age of 14 to 24 months. The study involved how mother's perceived their child rearing practices at the age of
seven and their perceptions of their children's internalizing and externalizing behaviour issues at four, seven, and fifteen years of age. Internalising problems at age 4 were found to be greater among behaviourally inhibited children who also were exposed to a permissive style of parenting. Furthermore, the authoritative style of parenting was associated with mimimal increase in internalizing behaviour issues during the course of time and a decline in
externalising behaviours was linked to larger autho1itarian parenting.
Another study by Malayi et al., (2013) on parenting styles and deviant behaviour was conducted with 185 children aged 8 to 18 years. The findings indicated that a remarkable number of the respondents had parents comprising restrictive, authoritarian, and permissive styles while only a few reported having authoritative parents. Results showed that 38.38% of the participants were respectful to authority; 24.32% were obedient, whereas 16.76%
criticized authority, and 7 .03% displayed deviant behaviour.
Henry (2010) studied the relationship between perceived parenting styles and substance use in South Africa. About 239 adolescents were drawn from 3 schools in the Western Cape and the study aimed to examine if any of the parenting styles increased or decreased substance use by adolescents. The results indicated that adolescents who perceived their parents' style as authoritative had reduced substance use behaviour, but other parenting styles could not be significantly associated with substance use. There was a significant difference in the results obtained for boys and girls with boys more likely to use more substances. The conclusion of the study was that perceived authoritative parenting plays a remarkable role in preventing substance use among adolescents.
Birbo (2010) conducted a study with a sample of227 male and 140 female students from the University of Limpopo in South Africa. The investigation explored the relationship between parenting styles, parental punitiveness and family structure and how they influenced
antisocial behaviour. Respondents' age fell within the range of 17 to 24 years. The study categorized parenting styles into four groups being the authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful. The results revealed no statistical significance among the four groups of parenting styles on antisocial behaviour. The relationship of family structure and antisocial behaviour was also not statistically significant. There was, however, a considerable and positive relationship between parental punitiveness and antisocial behaviour. Parental warmth and supervision were also significantly and negatively associated with the participants' antisocial behaviour.
Italian middle school adolescents and their parents were used as a sample to investigate the relationship between parenting, self-disclosure and antisocial behaviour. Results indicated that parenting practices such as monitoring and control were directly related to knowledge of parents about their children's behaviour and antisocial behaviour. Parenting styles e.g. parent-child closeness were also found to have a direct effect on adolescents' self- disclosure which positively influenced parental knowledge and had a negative relationship with antisocial behaviour (Vieno, Nation, Pastore & Santinello, 2009).These results are in line with the aim of the present study, but culture may have a significant role in the relationship hence the results cannot be readily accepted in a South African context.
Parenting was also explored with neighbourhood social capital and safety concerns to find out whether these factors have an influence on antisocial behaviour. The sample consisted of 588 boys and 559 girls from five middle schools from a midsize Italian city and their parents as well. Safety concerns were positively correlated with parental support and socialisation. Social capital and safety concerns were found to have an indirect influence on adolescents' antisocial behaviour through their effects on parenting (Vieno, Nation, Perkins, Pastore & Santinello, 20 l 0).
Evidence abound in the literature that the child's aggressive activity at school could be traced back to parental practices, attitudes and behaviour at home. Peters and Konarski (1998)
advanced a model that explained how family characteristics influence peer aggression. They reported that the aggressive behaviour like bullying could indirectly be attributed to the environment that the child inhabits including parenting. Snyder et al., (2005) tested a model
that sought to examine the early development of child conduct problems that incorporated the
role of child behaviour on parenting and the subsequent nature of parenting on child
behaviour. They concluded that children's behaviour influences their relationship with their parents, and their personality characteristics unjquely influence this relationship.
Looking at the association between specific parenting style and child aggressive behaviour, Baldry and Farrington (2000), reported that permissiveness style is the best predictor of exploitation experience by the child while authoritarianism best predicts bullying conduct. Miller et al., (2002) contended that children who have difficulties controlling or restricting their impetuous aggression were mostly like brought up in a permissive environment.
Bosworth et.al., (2000) have also reported that children who bully their peers are more likely to come from families where parents use dictator-like mechanisms in bringing their children
up. Bullies view their home environment as harsh, chaotic and violent. On the other hand, those that experience their parents as being accommodating, supportive, warm and nurturing have shown little likelihood of showing bullying behaviour. Weak parental supervision and detachment from children have been found to promote peer violence (Cernkovich, 1987). McCarthy (l 997) thinks that close monitoring and parents' involvement in their children's life, can go a long way in curbing and reducing aggressive behaviour, in and outside the
farilll y respectively.
Aggression has been studied in relation to parental influences in a longitudinal study of children between the ages of 5 and 17 and their parents in Germany. Parental temperaments,
family status and parenting styles corresponded with children's aggressiveness as hypothesised by the researchers (Wahl & Metzner, 2012). Previous studies advised that approaches that children use in socializing with their peers may be infom1ed by their own relationships with their parents (Crockenberg & Lourie, 1996; Russell, Pettit & Mize, 1998). In the same breath, in another study by Crockenberg and Lourie (1996), it was revealed that the way children resolve conflicts with their peers was the same way that their parents resolved conflicts.
Casas et al., (2006) reported that parents who partook in their study and admitted to practising any of the three parenting styles, seemed to have young children who were in preschool that presented relational aggressive behaviour. Sandstrom (2007) undertook a study that aimed to explore the connection of how mother's discipline their children and how it is related to relational aggression in children. He concluded that children's relational aggression within the age range of 9 to 11 years was associated with their mothers' permissive and authoritarian parenting styles.
Gender and disruptive behaviour
Several studies have indicated that boys showed more aggressive behaviour than girls
throughout the developmental stages (Barth et.al., 2004; Stucky & Little, 2008; Colder, Mott, Levy & Flay, 2000; Stacks et al., 2009). The likelihood of boys being in "high increaser" affiliation to being physically more aggressive than their female counterparts has been assumed for trajectory studies (Cote, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin & Tremblay, 2006; Underwood, Beron & Rosen, 2009). The influence of both society and development was contemplated to be a contributing factor to the gender difference. Girls' problem behaviour was primarily channelled to internalising behaviour due to socialization, whereas boys' aggression was more accepted in the socialization process (Keenan & Shaw, 1997).
Hypotheses
In the light of this literature review, the study hypothesised the following:
1. There will be a significant independent and joint influence of the three parenting styles, age and gender on antisocial behaviour.
2. There will be a significant independent and joint influence of the three parenting styles, age and gender on aggressive behaviour.
3. There will be a significant independent and joint influence of the three parenting styles, age and gender on beliefs about conflict.
4. There will be a significant difference on antisocial behaviour, beliefs about conflict and aggressive behaviour between male and female adolescents.
Methodology
Research Design: The study uses a cross-sectional survey research design. The independent variables are types of parenting style, age and gender. The dependent variables of the study are disruptive behaviours (aggressive and anti-social behaviour) and beliefs about conflicts.
Participants: A total of three hundred and fifty-one (n
=
351) adolescents from orthem Cape of South Africa participated in the study. Participants' ages range between 13 to 20 years with a mean of 16.35 years and a standard deviation of 1.39. Table 1 below presents the demographic characteristics of the participants.Table 1: Characteristics of participants (n = 351)
I
GenderI
Frequency % Male 150 42.7 Female 201 57.3 School Level Grade 8 111 31.6 Grade 9 94 26.8 Grade 10 47 13.4 Grade 11 47 13.4 Grade 12 52 14.4Repeating grade
Yes 189 53.8
No 162 46.2
Home language
Setswana 217 61.8 English 15 4.3 Afrikaans 85 24.2 Pedi 0.3 Sesotho 4 1.1 Xhosa 23 6.6 Others 6 1.7
Marital status of parents
Married 120 34.2 Single 97 27.6 Cohabiting 45 12.8 Widower 36 10.3 Separated/Divorced 38 10.8 Others 14 4
Living arrangement
With mother 105 29.9
With father 26 7.4
With both parents L29 36.8
With grandparents 29 8.3
With family member 54 15.4
With others 6 1.7
Number of people in the household
One 5 1.4 Two 18 5.1 Three 35 10 Four 59 16.8 Five 82 23.4 Six 58 16.5 Seven 36 10.3 Eight 17 4.8 Nine 15 4.3 Ten 11 3.1
Eleven 10 2.8
Twelve 1 0.3
Thi1teen 0.3
Head of the household
Mother 128 36.5 Father 167 47.6 Self 4 1.1 Sibling 7 2 Grandparent 32 9.1 Others 11 3.1
Education level of father
No schooling 12 3.4 Grade I 4 I. I Grade 2 3 0.9 Grade 3 8 2.3 Grade 4 7 2 Grade 5 JO 2.8 Grade 6 8 2.3
Grade 7 11 3.1 Grade 8 8 2.3 Grade 9 17 4.8 Grade 10 53 15. l Grade 11 44 12.5 Grade 12 68 19.4 Diploma/Degree 36 10.3 Honours 11 3.1 Master/Doctorate 6 1.7
Education level of mother
No schooling 19 5.4 Grade 1 1 0.3 Grade 2 6 1.7 Grade 3 7 2 Grade 4 8 2.3 Grade 5 13 3.7 Grade 6 7 2 Grade 7 15 4.3
Grade 8 12 3.4 Grade 9 29 8.3 Grade 10 54 15.4 Grade 11 34 9.7 Grade 12 67 19.1 Diploma/Degree 36 10.3 Honours 8 2.3 Master/Doctorate 7 2 Occupation of father Employed 236 67.2 Unemployed 41 11.7 Self-employed 3 0.9 Pensioner 12 3.4 Occupation of mother Employed 180 51.3 Unemployed 127 36.2 Set f-employed 2 0.6 Pensioner 10 2.8
GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF
PARTICIPANTS
• Male • Female ~ 0 N FREQUENCYII
•
SCHOOL LEVEL OF PARTICIPANTS
I
GRADE B • Frequency • % N ~ ~ ~I
I
i
I
i
I
i
GRADE 9 GRADE lO GRADE 11 GRADE 12
PARTICIPANTS REPEATED
A
GRADE
• Yes • No
Home Language of Participants
250 200 150 100 so 0Setswana English Afrikaans Pedi Sesotho Xhosa Others
0
:::
<;,'V «:-' ":-«:-~ 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 - Frequency - %MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS
• Frequency • %r--"'
N Lf'l""'
I
.
.,,. M " co NI
,._;I
I
•
-...;""
0:0 M "" CV:"'
I
cI
c ,..,•
•
•
'(, G .v ,~ '-' .,'ic'"'
':> 'O V:-":-c.,()Living Arrangements of Participants
129 105
6 1.7
Number in the Household 90 Vl 80 :2 0 70 r_ 60 Cl!
I
.
I
.
"' 50 ::::> 0 40 I 30I
.
I
.
... 0 20I
~ 10I
.
I
.
I
.
Cl!•
-..c 0•
-E Thre Seve Eight Nine
::::> One Two Four Five Six Ten
z e n
•
-
-Elev Twel Thirten ve een • Frequency 5 18 35 59 82 58 36 17 15 11 10 1 • % 1.4 5.1 10 16.8 23.4 16.5 10.3 4.8 4.3 3.1 2.8 0.3 0.3 180 160 14-0 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 1 Mother
Number of people per household
• Frequency • %
Head of household
Father Self Sibling Grandparent Others
- -Frequency - -%
Educational Level of Father
80 70 60
so
40 30 20 10 250 200 150 100 50 0 0Educational Level of Mother
- -Frequency - -%
Em pl oym en
t Status:----
--
--
-
-
---
-
-
---FATHER
-
---
-
--
-
--- ---MOTHER
0 rz,C."'c.
0"'"
l
>
"'o '(;~ ::1."' c~O· ~o"', ~o"', :,o«' ~o"', ~o"', ~o"', :,0~
"~ ~~ ($>~ "'.., ~~ c;:.~ ~~ "'..,
<;}
'0""
"'
c,"'~"'"'
~"' <;}'0""
"'"
c,"'~"'"'
~"'- Frequency - %
Instrument
In a bid to elicit information for this study, a structured questionnaire in the English language
and consisting of five sections was administered.
Section A: This consists of (Personal Demographic data) such as age, gender, home
language, grade or level at school, marital status and educational qualification of the parents.
Section B: This instrument measured perceptions of the parenting styles on the parental
the parental authority. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5) was used, leading to responses to each of these items. The PAQ normally yields
three separate scores for each participant: parental permissiveness, parental authoritarianism,
and the parental authoritativeness. The scores on each of these variables can range from 10 to
50; the higher the score, the greater the participant's perceived presence of the parental
prototype measured. Buri ( 1989) reported alpha coefficients ranging from r = .81 to .77 for
permissiveness, r = .86 to .85 for authoritarianism, and r = .78 to .92 for authoritativeness. An
alpha of .45 was reported for the scale among the present sample.
Section C: This measured anti-social behaviour using the Youth-Self-Report (YSR,
Achenbach & Eidelbrock, 1987). The cmTent study used the nine-item delinquent subscale to
measure antisocial behaviour. The responses to the items of the YSR were on a 3-point Likert
scale which ranged from I =not true to 3=true. Sample items include, "I destroy my own
things", and, "I use alcohol or drugs for non-medicinal purposes". The scores were added for
each participant and a score of 13-27 assumed a greater degree of antisocial behaviour.
Lower scores of 1-12 indicated a lesser degree of anti-social behaviour. An alpha of .74 was
reported for the scale among the present sample.
Section D: This measured the beliefs about conflict using the 9 item Beliefs about
Conflict-NYC Youth Violence Survey developed by the Division of Adolescent and School Health
(DASH, 1993). The scale measures adolescents' beliefs about conflict and perceptions of
familial beliefs on fighting and weapon carrying. Each respondent is asked to select the
response that best corresponds to his or her own beliefs. Items can be considered separately
or as an index of beliefs about conflict resolution. If considered separately, point values are
assigned to correspond to the response categories. To create an index using items 2-9, point
values were assigned as Yes= 3, don't know= 2, No= I whereby Items 3 and 5 were reverse
score of 24 points whereby high scores indicating poor conflict resolution beliefs were chosen. An alpha of .42 was reported for the scale among the present sample, it is a low score.
Section E: Thjs measured aggressive behaviour using the six items Aggressive Behavio
ur-Joyce Foundation Youth Survey (LH Research, Inc., 1993). The scale is designed to be used
among Middle school students, grades 6-8; adults 18 years and older, measuring as to
whether the respondent or anyone within the respondent's household has been a victim or
perpetrator of violence in a month prior to the measure. Items 1 to 4 each had Yes or No
response format, whjle items 5 and 6 were on a 5-point Likert format of "l =Never, 2 =once
or twice, 3 = 3-4 times, 4 = 5-9 times and 5 = 10 or more times". Ttems 1 to 6 constitute a
single scale. In order to score, the point value of the responses are added together, and the
total divided by the number of responses (mean score). All the blank items were not counted
in the number of responses. The higher mean scores indicate higher levels of exposure to
violence or participation in any aggressive behaviour while the lower mean scores indicate
lower levels of exposure to violence or participation in any aggressive behaviour and vice
versa. LH Research, Inc., ( 1993) reported an internal consistency of .72.0 for the scale. An alpha of .25 was reported for the scale among the present sample. This is too low a score and
is not valid for the present sample.
Procedure for data collection
A total number of three hundred and fifty-one (351) participants from Kuruman and
Upington were included in this study. The Ethics Committee of the North-WestUniversity
evaluated the questionnaire and approved it for use in the study. During this study, it was a
requirement that participants should consent prior to partaking in the research, this
which data would be collected. Participants from grades 9 to 12 were randomnly selected to participate, on the agreed dates. Administration of the questionnaire took place between
I 2h00 & I 3h30, at the different venues an-anged, under the supervision of the student psychologist considering that the research subject was of a sensitive nature. The questionnaires that were voluntarily completed by the participants had initially been explained to them in detail by the researcher. No personal names were used on the
questionnaires. The student psychologist was available to help with translation whenever it was needed. All participants were of a legal age to give consent to participate in the study by themselves, therefore there was no need to obtain consent from their parents or guardians.
Data analysis
The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences- SPSS (Version 22). Pearson r moment con-elation was used to test the relationship between variables of the study. This is to test for the strength and direction of the relationship between the variables of the study. Multiple regression analysis was used to test hypotheses one to three. This is to find an independent and joint influence of age, gender and the three types of parenting styles on destructive behaviour and beliefs about conflict. Lastly, hypothesis four was tested using a t-test for independent sample. This is to find the gender differences in anti-social behaviour, aggressive behaviour and beliefs about conflict.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was granted by the North-West University, Mahikeng Campus. After obtaining informed consent from the participants, they were informed of the nature, purpose and objectives of the study and were allowed to ask questions. Participants were assured of anonymity, confidentiality, voluntary participation, protection from harm and they were free to disengage from participating in the study if they so wished. All participants were of a legal
age to give consent to participate in the study by themselves, therefore there was no need to
obtain consent from their parents or guardians.
Participants were debriefed at the end of the data collection period in order to deal with any emotional reactions that might have arisen during the process of data collection.
Results
The first analysis was to establish the relationships between the variables of the study using Pearson r correlational analysis. The result is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Correlation Showing the Relationship among the Variables of Study (n=351)
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 Mean S.D l. PAS 14.82 3.73 2.APS -.022 16.47 3.59 3. APS3 .195** .233** 17.74 3.19 4. Antisocial behaviour -.142** -.165** -.214** 12.17 3.04
5. Beliefs about conflict .137* .118* . I 09* -.295** 17.58 2.15
6. Aggressive behaviour -.071 -.112* -.126* .285** -.080 10.77 2.18
** p< .001, *p< .05 Key: PAS
=
pennissive parenting style, APS=
authoritarian parenting style, APS° = authoritative parenting styleThe results showed a significant negative relationship between permissive parenting style and anti-social behaviour (r = -.142; p< .0 l ). This means that adolescents who are scoring higher on permissive parenting style are more likely to score lower on anti-social behaviour. There is a significant positive relationship between permissive parenting style and beliefs about conflict (r = .137; p< .05), suggesting that adolescents who score high on permissive parenting style are also scoring high on beliefs about conflict. There is no significant
relationship between permissive parenting style and aggressive behaviour (r
