INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5250 www.rsisinternational.org

Peer Culture, Conformity Pressure and Adolescent Aggression in
Some Public Secondary Schools in the North West and Center

Regions of Cameroon.
Youmbi Mbenowol Carene, Professor Nsagha Sarah Mboshi, Dr. Lum Bobga Jacqueline Achiri

The University of Bamenda, Faculty of Education, Department of Counselling Psychology

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000431

Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Adolescents in Cameroonian public secondary schools increasingly exhibit aggressive behaviours that deviate
from expected social norms. This study examined how peer culture, alongside psychosocial determinants
including shifts in parental role, quality of parental nurturing, peer influence, and conformity pressure shapes
the social learning of aggression among adolescents. The study was guided by Erikson’s psychosocial
development theory, Bandura’s social learning theory, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A concurrent mixed-
method research design was employed, collecting quantitative data from 435 Form Three and Four students
using questionnaires and qualitative data from 100 parents through structured interviews. Findings revealed that
58.0% of students displayed various aggressive behaviours, 60.8% were significantly influenced by peers, 68.0%
conformed to peer norms, 35.8% experienced shifts in parental roles, and 30.3% reported inadequate parental
nurturing. Regression analyses indicated that peer influence and conformity pressure significantly increased
adolescents’ aggressive behaviours, while improved parental nurturing decreased them. The study highlights
that peer culture plays a central role in socializing adolescents toward aggression, particularly when parental
support is limited. Recommendations include fostering positive peer interactions, strengthening parental
engagement, and restructuring school disciplinary systems to prevent and manage adolescent aggression
effectively.

Keywords: Adolescents, Aggression, Peer Culture, Social Learning, Conformity Pressure, Parental Influence,
Psychosocial Determinants, Cameroon

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Psychosocial determinants are developmental factors that influence an individual both psychologically and
socially, shaping their capacity to cope with life events (Carson, Butcher & Mineka, 2000). Adolescents interact
continually with their environments teachers, peers, and family members and negative experiences within these
relationships may trigger psychosocial responses that manifest as aggression in schools (Izuchi & Anetoh, 2014).

These determinants combine psychological and social influences, representing the interplay between behavior
and social context (Stansfeld & Rasul, 2007). Psychological determinants involve internal processes shaping
thought and emotion, while social determinants refer to broader societal conditions (Arnett, 2000; Smith, 1999;
Luckman, 2007). Together, they form the foundation of adolescent behavior, with variables such as age, gender,
peer pressure, parental care, and social conditions contributing significantly to aggression (Crick, 2006; Berk,
2007).

Adolescent aggression arises from multiple causes genetic, environmental, and socialization factors (Dodge et
al., 2006). Within families, parenting remains especially influential. Studies have explored harsh discipline and
coercive practices (Prinzie et al., 2006; Reid et al., 2000), yet less attention has been given to parental neglect
and role shifts when caregiving is delegated to others (Rubab et al., 2009; Kemper, 1978).

Aggressive behavior among adolescents manifests as fighting, bullying, vandalism, and verbal hostility (Izuchi
& Anetoh, 2014). In Cameroon, the move from extended to nuclear family systems has weakened traditional

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5251 www.rsisinternational.org

parenting structures, intensifying psychosocial challenges (Tchombe, 2001; Nsamenang, 1992). A shift in
parental roles where caregiving is outsourced reduces emotional availability and supervision, leaving adolescents
vulnerable to peer pressure, substance abuse, and aggression (Griffin et al., 2000; Baron & Richardson, 1994;
Bell & Baron, 1976). Inconsistent discipline and low parental warmth are linked to antisocial tendencies (Bamow
et al., 2005), while nurturing parenting fosters emotional stability and social adjustment (Arım et al., 2011;
Hassan et al., 2015; Hameed-ur-Rehman et al., 2012; Teoh, 2010).

Peer influence and conformity are equally powerful psychosocial forces. Peer pressure can shape either positive
or negative behavior depending on the nature of the influence (Moyer, 1976; Tiina et al., 1998). Adolescents
frequently imitate peers to gain social validation, which may lead to risk-taking or aggression (Berne, 1966).
Conformity the alignment of attitudes and behaviors with group norms reveals the pressure to belong and fit in
(Baumeister, 1998).

During adolescence, individuals undergo rapid psychological and social change, facing insecurity and conflict
in their quest for identity (Lohman & Jarvis, 2000; Jaworski, 2000; Polak, 2010). Tensions with peers, teachers,
and parents, coupled with competition for status, may trigger aggression whether physical (hitting, pushing) or
verbal (mockery, threats) (Espelage, 2013; Voisin & Neilands, 2010). Adolescents mirror peer behavior to
maintain social approval, a dynamic that, in contexts of aggression, encourages bullying and hostility (Tiina et
al., 1998; Baumeister, 1998).

In Cameroon, socio-economic stress, weakened family systems, and limited school support have pushed
adolescents toward peer groups for identity formation (Nsamenang, 1992; Tchombe, 2001). Overcrowded
schools and inadequate counseling amplify these effects (Zinkeng & Daru, 2018; Rami & Daru, 2020).
Aggression thus becomes a tool for asserting dominance or coping with frustration (Izuchi & Anetoh, 2014;
Stansfeld & Rasul, 2007).

Theoretical frameworks reinforce these findings. Social Learning Theory posits that aggression is acquired
through observation and imitation of peers (Bandura, 1973). Erikson’s psychosocial model emphasizes that weak
parental bonds and excessive peer reliance hinder identity formation, fostering maladaptive behavior such as
aggression (Erickson, 1959; Nyaga, 2019).

Peer pressure, defined as the influence compelling individuals to conform to group behavior (Moos & Trickett,
1973), intensifies during adolescence when belonging and social acceptance become paramount (Arnett, 2000).
Dishion and Dodge (2005) and Brown et al. (2008) found that fear of rejection often overrides moral reasoning,
increasing susceptibility to deviance.

In Cameroon, negative peer influence is particularly common in urban and semi-urban schools where weak
supervision normalizes aggression as dominance (Tchombe et al., 2014; Nkengasong, 2017). Gender
expectations further shape these dynamics: boys often display physical aggression, while girls express relational
aggression through exclusion or gossip (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

Conformity, the adoption of group norms for social acceptance (Cornell & Mayer, 2010), is rooted in
adolescents’ need for belonging and identity (Brown & Larson, 2009). When group norms reward aggression,
conformity promotes violence rather than prosocial behavior (Salmivalli et al., 2011). This often manifests as
bullying or physical fights reinforced by fear of rejection (Espelage et al., 2003). Cultural norms associating
masculinity with aggression heighten these pressures (Tchute, 2018; Nyaga, 2014).

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) explains how adolescents internalize aggression by observing peers
who are rewarded for such behavior. Similarly, the Normative Influence Model (Gao & Fung, 2015) shows how
social acceptance pressures embed aggression into identity formation. Protective factors like parental
attachment, role modeling, and mentoring programs help counter conformity to deviant norms.

Empirical studies affirm this connection. Espelage and Holt (2001) found that adolescents in aggressive peer
groups were significantly more likely to engage in bullying and physical aggression (β = 0.47, p < 0.01). Wang
et al. (2016) reported similar correlations across cultural contexts. In Cameroon, Atanga and Fon (2019) revealed

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5252 www.rsisinternational.org

that adolescents in conflict-affected zones normalized aggression as a survival strategy (β = 0.39, p < 0.01).
Dishion et al. (1999) and Nwankwo & Akpan (2020) also confirmed that deviant peer clusters reinforce
aggression through social rewards.

Further, Nkeng and Tabe (2021) and Tchombe (2006) emphasized that adolescents conform to peer norms to
gain acceptance, often using aggression as a mark of maturity or power. Atanga and Tabe (2022) found that
conformity to aggressive peer norms predicted physical aggression among students in Bamenda and Buea (β =
0.41, p < 0.01). Agbor and Ndive (2021) observed similar patterns among adolescents in groups that condoned
violence (β = 0.58, p < 0.05). Qualitative studies (Tchombe, 2011; Nkeng & Fon, 2021) show that Cameroonian
peer cultures often glamorize aggression particularly among boys where physical dominance equates to status.
Nsamenang (2004) observed that peer conformity can reinforce either prosocial or antisocial behavior,
depending on cultural expectations.

Cameroon’s socio-political instability and economic strain intensify adolescents’ dependence on peers for
belonging (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015; Tchombe, 2011). However, interventions like Peace Clubs (Njim
& Tchente, 2018) and the Ministry of Secondary Education’s School Safety Campaign have demonstrated
success in reducing aggression through empathy-building and non-violence. Community-based initiatives and
extracurricular programs (Mahoney et al., 2005) also provide constructive outlets that encourage positive peer
identification.

Overall, peer culture and conformity pressures are powerful determinants of adolescent aggression in Cameroon.
Addressing these influences through strengthened parental involvement, mentoring systems, and school-based
psychosocial programs can foster healthier peer norms and reduce aggression among secondary school students.

METHODS

This study adopted a concurrent mixed-method design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to
capture both measurable patterns and lived experiences of aggression among adolescents. Quantitative data were
collected through structured questionnaires, while qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews. The
dual approach provided comprehensive insights into how peer pressure and conformity foster aggression within
schools.

The study was carried out in selected public secondary schools in Mezam Division (North West Region) and
Mfoundi Division (Centre Region), representing both conflict-affected and urban environments. The population
comprised students in Forms Three and Four, representing middle adolescence a stage characterized by
heightened conformity and peer influence. Ten schools were selected five each from Bamenda I and III, and
Yaoundé I and III subdivisions.

A total of 441 students were sampled using Epi-Info 7.0 (95% confidence, design effect 1.2), alongside 100
purposively selected parents for qualitative interviews. Probability and non-probability sampling techniques
were used to ensure representativeness and depth. Questionnaires contained 36 items across six sections, rated
on a four-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree). The semi-structured interview guide had seven
open-ended questions exploring parental views on peer influence and aggression. Instruments were bilingual
(English/French) and validated for face, content, and construct validity. Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.70)
confirmed internal consistency.

Data were collected using the Direct Delivery Technique (DDT) with authorization from the University of
Bamenda. Ethical principles of consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation were strictly followed.
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 27, with descriptive and inferential statistics (Pearson’s correlation,
linear regression, Gamma tests), while qualitative data were thematically analyzed to identify patterns of peer
conformity, family environment, and social learning.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5253 www.rsisinternational.org

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The presentation of findings began with the dependent variable before presentation of the independent variables
that constitute the different research questions. The reason behind this approach was avoid presentation of
hypotheses results between the independent and dependent variable while descriptive result of the dependent
variable is at the end of the chapter. Therefore, it was logical to present descriptive findings for both variables
before inferential findings (hypotheses) and finally findings derived from the qualitative data.

Table 1: Appraisal of Aggressive Behaviours by Students

Items Stretched Collapsed Mean Std.
Dev

SA A D SD SA/A D/SD

I often bully my mates 8

(1.8%)

(13.8%)

(7.6%)

334

(76.8%)

(15.6%)

367

(84.4%)

1.41 .793

It is okay for me to pinch
my friends

(10.1%)

143

(32.9%)

224

(51.5%)

(5.5%)

187

(43.0%)

248

(57.0%)

2.48 .751

I often attack people for
no specific reasons

(3.7%)

230

(52.9%)

(17.2%)

114

(26.2%)

246

(56.6%)

189

(43.4%)

2.54 .908

I often team up with
friends against others

373

(85.7%)

(8.5%)

(3.9%)

(1.8%)

410

(94.3%)

(5.7%)

3.78 .600

I often carry along
weapons (knife, nails,
bottles, guns, blade etc.)
to school

(4.1%)

(2.1%)

385

(88.5%)

(5.3%)

(6.2%)

408

(93.8%)

2.05 .487

I often use abusive
language on people

(6.0%)

394

(90.6%)

(1.6%)

(1.8%)

420

(96.6%)

(3.4%)

3.81 .387

I often intimidate my
mates

(4.8%)

387

(89.0%)

(4.4%)

(1.8%)

408

(93.8%)

(6.2%)

3.72 .406

MRS and overall mean 506

(16.6%)

1260

(41.4%)

760

(25.0%)

519

(17.0%)

1766

(58.0%)

1279

(42.0%)

2.83 .619

Key: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, D=Disagree and SD= Strongly Disagree.

Std. Dev; Standard Deviation

Findings showed that majority of students 96.6% (420) agreed to often use abusive language on people while
3.4% (15) disagreed. Similarly, 94.3% (410) of students accepted to often team up with friends against others
while 5.7% (25) do not. More so, 93.8% (408) of students accepted to often intimidate mates while 6.2% (27)
disagreed. Furthermore, 56.6% (246) of students agreed to often attack people for no specific reasons while
43.4% (248) disagreed.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5254 www.rsisinternational.org

To elucidate, 43.0% (187) of students finds it normal to pinch friends while 57.0% (248) disagreed. More so,
15.6% (68) of students agreed to often bully mates while 84.4% (367) do not. Finally, 6.2% (27) of students
accepted to often carry weapons to school while 93.8% (408) do not.

In summary, 58.0% of students display several aggressive behaviours toward others while 42.0% do not and the
overall mean of 2.83 above 2.5 confirm the significant presence of aggressive behaviours among students. This
overall finding is also presented on figure below.

Figure 1: Distribution of Students by Display of Aggressive Behaviours

Table 2: Comparing Students’ Aggressive Behaviour by Marital Status, Level of Education and Economic Status
of Parents

Parents demographic data Students’ aggressive behaviour Total
based on
MRS

Gamma Test of
Association

Strongly Agree/

Agree

Disagree/

Strongly
Disagree

Marital Status of
Parents

Married n 789 618 1407 G=0.091

p-value= 0.875 % 56.1% 43.9%

Single n 926 628 1554

% 59.6% 40.4%

Divorced n 51 33 84

% 60.7% 39.3%

Level of parent's
Education

FSLC n 440 337 777 G=0.101

p-value= 0.491 % 56.6% 43.4%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5255 www.rsisinternational.org

GCE O/L n 611 432 1043

% 58.6% 41.4%

GCE A/L n 445 311 756

% 58.9% 41.1%

Universit
y Degree

n 248 186 434

% 57.1% 42.9%

Others n 22 13 35

% 62.9% 37.1%

Economic Status
of Parents

Working n 976 725 1701 G=0.124

p-value= 0.317 % 57.4% 42.6%

Jobless n 688 488 1176

% 58.5% 41.5%

Retired n 65 40 105

% 61.9% 38.1%

Others n 37 26 63

% 58.7% 41.3%

Furthermore, when students’ display of aggressive behaviour was examine by marital status, level of education,
and economic status of parents, findings showed that in as much there were no significant differences (p-values
> 0.05), by marital status, students from divorced home display aggressive behaviours more 60.7%, followed by
those from single parents 59.6%. And by economic status of parents, more students from retired parents 61.9%
display several aggressive behaviours followed by jobless parents 58.5%.

Research Question 1: How does peer influence, affects adolescents’ aggressive behaviour?

Table 3: Appraisal of Peer Influence

Items Stretched Collapsed Mean Std.
Dev

SA A D SD SA/A D/SD

My friends want me
to agree to what they
say.

(8.9%)

376

(86.4%)

(3.9%)

(0.7%)

415

(95.4%)

(4.6%)

3.89 .394

I believe strongly in
what my friends say
to me.

378

(86.9%)

(6.4%)

(3.9%)

(2.8%)

406

(93.3%)

(6.7%)

3.87 .647

My friends expect me
to join them in

60 94 233 48 154 281 2.41 .857

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5256 www.rsisinternational.org

leaving school before
time.

(13.8%) (21.6%) (53.6%) (11.0%) (35.4%) (64.6%)

I always agree with
my friends even if
they are wrong.

(9.0%)

378

(86.9%)

(3.0%)

(1.1%)

417

(95.9%)

(4.1%)

3.84 .406

I prefer taking advise
from my friends than
my parents.

(0.0%)

(0.5%)

399

(91.7%)

(7.6%)

(0.5%)

433

(99.5%)

1.93 .278

My friends are more
important to me than
family members.

(3.9%)

(7.6%)

372

(85.5%)

(3.0%)

(11.5%)

385

(88.5%)

2.12 .497

I often do things with
my friends that are
socially unacceptable

(5.3%)

383

(88.0%)

(3.4%)

(3.2%)

406

(93.3%)

(6.7%)

3.75 .463

MRS and overall
mean

556

(18.3%)

1294

(42.5%)

1066

(35.0%)

129

(4.2%)

1850

(60.8%
)

1195

(39.2%)

3.16 .506

Key: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, D=Disagree and SD= Strongly Disagree.

Std. Dev; Standard Deviation

Findings showed that majority of students 95.9% (417) accepted of always aligning with friends even when they
are wrong while 4.1% (18) do not. Similarly, 95.4% (415) of students accepted that they friends always want
them to agree with that they say while 4.6% (20) disagreed. More so, 93.3% (406) of students of equal proportion
agreed to strongly believe in that they friends say and often do things with friends that are socially unacceptable
while 6.7% (29) do not.

Again, 35.4% (154) of students accepted that their friends expect them to join them in leaving school before
time while 64.6% (281) disagreed. Moreover, 11.5% (50) of students see their friends more important to them
than family members while 88.5% (385) disagreed. Finally, majority of students 99.5% (433) disagreed to prefer
taking advice from their friends than their parents.

In summary, 60.8% of students are influence by peers in many ways while 39.2% are not and the overall mean
of 3.16 above 3.0 on 4 implies that peer influence is highly visible among the students. This overall finding is
also presented on the figure below.

Figure 2: Distribution of Students by Peer Influence

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5257 www.rsisinternational.org

Table 4: Comparing Students’ Fall to Peer Influence by Marital Status, Level of Education and Economic Status
of Parents

Parents demographic data Peer influence Total based
on MRS

Gamma Test of
Association

Strongly
Agree/

Agree

Disagree/

Strongly
Disagree

Marital Status of
Parents

Married n 867 540 1407 G=0.092

p-value=0.864 % 61.6% 38.4%

Single n 931 623 1554

% 59.9% 40.1%

Divorced n 52 32 84

% 61.9% 38.1%

Level of parent's
Education

FSLC n 465 312 777 G=0.98

p-value=0.811 % 59.8% 40.2%

GCE O/L n 645 398 1043

% 61.8% 38.2%

GCE A/L n 454 302 756

% 60.1% 39.9%

Universit
y Degree

n 263 171 434

% 60.6% 39.4%

Others n 23 12 35

% 65.7% 34.3%

Economic Status
of Parents

Working n 1031 670 1701 G=0.186

p-value=0.392 % 60.6% 39.4%

Jobless n 710 466 1176

% 60.4% 39.6%

Retired n 69 36 105

% 65.7% 34.3%

Others n 40 23 63

% 63.5% 36.5%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5258 www.rsisinternational.org

Comparatively, when students’ fall for peer influence was examined by marital status of parents, their level of
education, and economic status, no significant differences were observed (p-values > 0.05). In fact, our findings
showed that majority of students ranging from 59.9% to 65.7% irrespective of whether their parents are married,
single, divorced, high or low level of education, rich or poor were more prey to peer influence.

Testing of Hypothesis 1

Ho3: Peer influence does not influence adolescents’aggressive behaviours.

Ha3: Peer influence influences adolescents’aggressive behaviours

Table 5: Predictive Influence of Peer Influence and Adolescents Aggressive Behaviours

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

t p-value

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 18.544 1.253 14.794 .000

Peer influence .427 .065 .420 5.911 .003

Zero-order correlation .420

Model Summary

R .420a

R Square .400

Std. Error of the Estimate 1.949

ANOVAa

F 5.169

p-value .003b

n 434

Dependent Variable: Aggressive behaviour

Statistically, the findings showed that peer influence does has a significant influence on the adolescents’
aggressive behaviour (Zero order correlation value = 0.420, p-value < 0.05). The coefficient value revealed that
for every unit of peer influence, adolescents’ aggressive behaviours is more likely to increase by 0.420,
significant at 1% level. In other words, the adolescents were predicted more likely to develop unhealthy
behaviours by 40.0% (R Square = 0.400) when peer influence significantly increases negatively. Therefore, the
hypothesis that states peer influence influences adolescents’ aggressive behaviours was accepted.

Table 6: Parents’ Opinion on Whom their Children Listen More to and Why

Who the children
listens more to and
why

Justifications

Themes Quotations

Parents Well-disciplined/ “They listen more to me. This is can observed from the level of
discipline they portray. Also, seldom do violate my orders or

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5259 www.rsisinternational.org

respect
instructions

instructions, but there are instances they are overwhelmed by
peer pressure though.”

“I think they listen more to me because I told them no one comes
home after 5pm. So, they should make sure when they close from
school, they hurry up. I also told them to carry drinking water
every morning before going to school and all these instructions
have always been followed.”

“Yes, because they listen to my instructions.”

“My children listen to me more because when I am not around, I
give them instructions and they always obey them.”

“I think they pay more attention to the trainings I give them
because I don’t allow them to interact very closely with friends.”

“I have the impression that they listen to me more because
whenever I give instructions, they follow and strictly respect
them.”

Build trust “They listen to me because I have created them to confide and
trust me only.”

“They listens more to me because I have make them to have trust
in me during our interactions.”

“Yes, we are more like friends and they trust me with their
problems.”

“They listen to me more because I have made them to have
complete trust in my words and actions.”

Advice “My children listens more to me than their friends because most
at times, they bring relevant friends for me to advise them and
so, as a parent, I treat my children friends like mine.”

“They listen to me more as a parent because I always advise them
on the disadvantages of disobeying.”

“They listen to me more reason being that I give them advised.”

Good care and
concern

“They listen more to their parents because of the good care and
concern I show to them more than their friends.”

“My children listen to me more because despite that I close late
from work, I still create time to give them the care they deserves
and listen to them.”

Control
friendship

“Yes, they do because we don’t allow them to associate with bad
friends.”

“Yes, my children spend more time with me because I always
create a friendly atmosphere with them while communicating.”

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5260 www.rsisinternational.org

Listen to children “They listen to me more because I give them listening ear at all
times and when we are home from our ends, I discuss with them
on the disadvantages of listening to friends who are of bad
influence.”

“They listen to me more as their parent.”

Friends Occupy more
with work

“My children listen to me but sometimes influence by peers
especially as they are adolescent.”

“Friends because I am often busy with work and spend less time
with the children.”

“They listen more from their friends than me because I spend less
time with them.”

Hardly be around “I think they listen more to their friends because I am never there
to spend time with them.”

“The listen to me but sometimes as children because of
stubbornness, they listen to friends.”

Influence by
peers

“Yes, they listen to me but sometimes influence by their peers.”

Furthermore, assessing peer influence from the perspective of some parents in their children, many said their
children listen more to them (their parents) while few said their children instead listen more to friends over their
parents.

Among the parents that said their children listen more them and not their friends, their dominant reason is that
their children are well-disciplined and respect their instructions as narrated in some of their statements “..They
listen more to me. This is can observed from the level of discipline they portray. Also, seldom do violate my
orders or instructions, but there are instances they are overwhelmed by peer pressure though….”, “…I have the
impression that they listen to me more because whenever I give instructions, they follow and strictly respect
them...”

Another reason is that they have made their children to have trust in them as explained in the statements “…Yes,
we are more like friends and they trust me with their problems….”, “…They listen to me more because I have
made them to have complete trust in my words and actions…”

Another reason put forward is that they advise their children as explained “..My children listens more to me than
their friends because most at times, they bring relevant friends for me to advise them and so, as a parent, I treat
my children friends like mine...”

Moreover, some parents opined that they take good care and show concern to their children as depicted in the
statement “…They listen more to their parents because of the good care and concern I show to them more than
their friends…”

Furthermore, some parents justified that their children listen to them because they control their friendship as
narrated “…Yes, they do because we don’t allow them to associate with bad friends...”

Finally, some children listen to the parents and not their friends because their parents listen to them as children
as explained “…They listen to me more because I give them listening ear at all times and when we are home
from our ends, I discuss with them on the disadvantages of listening to friends who are of bad influence...”

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5261 www.rsisinternational.org

On the other hand, for children that do listen more from their friends and not their parents, one of the reason was
that their parents are too occupy with work and spend less time with them as explained “…They listen more
from their friends than me because I spend less time with them because of my work schedule…”

Another reason is that their parents are hardly around /home to spend time with their children as explained “…I
think they listen more to their friends because I am never there to spend time with them…”

The last reason is that the children listen more from their friends because of peer influence as narrated “…Yes,
they listen to me but sometimes influence by their peers…”

In conclusion, children who listen more to the parents over friends was because they are well-discipline, their
parents listen to their problems, control their friendship, advise them, build trust with them, and receive good
care and concern from parents while for children who listen more from friends over their parents, their reasons
were that their parents were too occupy with work, spend less time with them, are hardly present at home because
of work, and are influence by peers. Thus, we could see that some parents who spend less time with their children
has caused their children to listen more to their friends resulting to peer influence as reported.

Table 7: Parents’ Opinion if their Children Spend More Time with Family Members or Friends and Why

Themes Quotations

Friends “They spend more time with friends. This is because they are always in school.”

“They spend much time with friends because I and other family members are hardly at
home when they need us.”

“Out of home, my children spend more time with friends since they are always with them
in the school.”

“Friends because school takes more of their time and as such, they have more time with
their friends.”

“Since I am here with the children and close late most of the time, they spend more time
with friends.”

“My children spend more time with friends in the school and even when they are back
home and spend little time with family members.”

“My children do not spend more time with family members, rather, they spend more time
with classmates who are their friends.”

“They spend more time with friends because they are always in school.’

“My children spend more time with the nanny and sometimes with friends given that
family members are not around.”

Family members “Family members living with us and they have opportunity to go for holidays.”

‘Aside school period, the rest of the time, they are home with family members, but they
might once a while visit their friends.”

“They spend much time with family.”

“Family members leaving in the house because they are always ready to assist in their
school work. Their needs and expectations are even frequently expressed to the family
members.”

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5262 www.rsisinternational.org

“My children spend much time with the family because we don’t have neighbours.”

“They spend more time with family members. They seldom go out to visit friends.”

“My children spend more time with family members than friends.”

“Family members because of the short time they have around friends which is when they
are in school.”

“They spend more time with family members than friends.”

Furthermore, when parents were asked between family members and friends, who do their children spend more
time with, many of them said friends and some said family members.

For parents that said their children spend more time with friends over family members, their dominant reason is
because their children spend more time with friends at school as narrated in the statements “…Out of home, my
children spend more time with friends since they are always with them in the school...”, “…Friends because
school takes more of their time and as such, they have more time with their friends…”

Another reason is that because they as parents close late from work most often which makes it difficult to spend
more time with their children as explained “…Since I am here with the children and close late most of the time,
they spend more time with friends….”

On the other hand, for parents that said their children spend more time with family members over friends, their
reason was that their children spend time more with family members at home as narrated in the statements
‘…Aside school period, the rest of the time, they are home with family members, but they might once a while
visit their friends...”, “…Family members leaving in the house because they are always ready to assist in their
school work. Their needs and expectations are even frequently expressed to the family members…”

In conclusion, findings showed that between family members and friends, the children spend more time with
friends with reasons been that they spend more time with friends in school and their parents are rarely available
at home due to work for them to spend quality time them and family members.

Research Question 2: How does conformity pressure influences adolescents’ aggressive behavior in
adolescents?

Table 8: Appraisal of Conformity Pressure

Items Stretched Collapsed Mean Std.
Dev

SA A D SD SA/A D/SD

I agree with my friends to
take cigarettes

(0.9%)

(1.4%)

3393

(90.3%)

(7.4%)

(2.3%)

425

(97.7%)

1.96 .350

I accept to drink alcohol
to please my friends

(6.2%)

380

(87.4%)

(3.0%)

(3.4%)

407

(93.6%)

(6.4%)

3.80 .479

The first time I took a
drug is when my friends
introduced me to.

(2.1%)

377

(86.7%)

(5.3%)

(6.0%)

386

(88.7%)

(11.3%)

3.55 .539

I will not entertain
anyone who opposes my
relationship with my

(2.8%)

(3.2%)

(4.8%)

388

(89.2%)

(6.0%)

409

(94.0%)

1.20 .623

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5263 www.rsisinternational.org

friends even they did
something very harmful
to others.

I always agree with my
friends even if everyone
thinks they are wrong

(3.4%)

401

(92.2%)

(3.9%)

(0.5%)

416

(95.6%)

(4.4%)

3.90 .303

I always feel bad when
prevented from seeing
my friends.

(4.8%)

390

(89.7%)

(3.2%)

(2.3%)

411

(94.5%)

(5.5%)

3.87 .415

To maintain my status in
my group of friends, I
pressurize my parents to
buy me things.

386

(88.7%)

(6.7%)

(1.6%)

(3.0%)

415

(95.4%)

(4.6%)

3.88 .604

MRS and overall mean 474

(15.6%)

1597

(52.4%)

488

(16.0%)

486

(16.0%)

2071

(68.0%)

974

(32.0%)

3.17 .473

Key: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, D=Disagree and SD= Strongly Disagree.

Std. Dev; Standard Deviation

Findings showed that majority of students 95.6% (416) accepted to always agree with friends even when others
think they are wrong while 4.4% (19) disagreed. Similarly, 95.4% (415) of students agreed to maintain status in
their group of friends by pressurizing their parents to buy them things while 4.6% (20) do not. More so, 93.6%
(407) of students accepted to drink alcohol to please friends while 6.4% (28) do not. In a similar trend, 94.5%
(411) of students accepted to feel bad when prevented from seeing friends while 5.5% (24) disagreed.

Furthermore, 88.7% (386) of students accepted that their first time they take drug was due to introduction from
friends while 11.3% (49) disagreed. On the contrary, 94.0% (409) indicated that they will entertain anyone who
opposes their friends for doing something very harmful to others while 6.0% (26) did not. Finally, 2.3% (10) of
students agreed to smoke cigarettes because of friends while 97.7% (425) denied of smoking.

In overall, 68.0% of students conform to pressure from others in many aspects while 32.0% do not and the overall
mean of 3.17 implies that conformity to pressure is significant among the students. This overall finding is also
presented on the figure below.

Figure 3: Distribution of Students by Conformity to Pressure

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5264 www.rsisinternational.org

Table 9: Comparing Students’ Fall to Conformity Pressure by Marital Status, Level of Education and Economic
Status of Parents

Parents demographic data Conformity pressure Total based
on MRS

Gamma Test of
Association

Strongly Agree/

Agree

Disagree/

Strongly
Disagree

Marital
Status of
Parents

Married n 953 454 1407 G= 0.094

p-value=0.873 % 67.7% 32.3%

Single n 1062 492 1554

% 68.3% 31.7%

Divorced n 56 28 84

% 66.7% 33.3%

Level of
parent's
Education

FSLC n 533 244 777 G=0.095

p-value=0.879 % 68.6% 31.4%

GCE O/L n 713 330 1043

% 68.4% 31.6%

GCE A/L n 510 246 756

% 67.5% 32.5%

University
Degree

n 292 142 434

% 67.3% 32.7%

Others n 23 12 35

% 65.7% 34.3%

Economic
Status of
Parents

Working n 1152 549 1701 G=0.162

p-value=0.365 % 67.7% 32.3%

Jobless n 801 375 1176

% 68.1% 31.9%

Retired n 71 34 105

% 67.6% 32.4%

Others n 47 16 63

% 74.6% 25.4%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5265 www.rsisinternational.org

Comparatively, when students’ conformity to pressure was examined by marital status of parents, their level of
education, and economic status, no significant differences were observed (p-values > 0.05). In fact, our findings
showed that majority of students ranging from 65.7% to 74.6% irrespective of whether their parents are married,
single, divorced, high or low level of education, rich or poor were more exposed to conformity to pressure from
mates.

Testing of Hypothesis 2:

Ho4: Conformity pressure does not influence adolescents’aggressive behaviours

Ha4: Conformity influences adolescents’ aggressive behaviours

Table 10: Predictive Influence of Conformity Pressure and Adolescents Aggressive Behaviours

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

t p-value

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 16.878 1.361 12.404 .000

Conformity pressure .461 .072 .441 7.949 .002

Zero-order correlation .441

Model Summary

R .441a

R Square .402

Std. Error of the Estimate 1.948

ANOVAa

F 7.120

p-value .002b

n 434

Dependent Variable: Aggressive behaviour

Statistically, the findings showed that conformity pressure does has a significant influence on the adolescents’
aggressive behaviour (Zero order correlation value = 0.441, p-value < 0.05). The coefficient value revealed that
for every unit of conformity pressure, adolescents’ aggressive behaviours is more likely to increase by 0.441,
significant at 1% level. In other words, the adolescents were predicted more likely to develop unhealthy
behaviours by 40.2% (R Square = 0.402) when conformity pressure significantly increases negatively. Therefore,
the hypothesis that states conformity pressure influences adolescents’ aggressive behaviours was accepted.

Table 11: Parents’ Opinion if their Children Take Side with Friends even When Wrong and Why

Children taking friends
side even when wrong

Justifications

Themes Quotations

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5266 www.rsisinternational.org

Yes Friends to ensure
protection

“My children always speak good about their friends and
will always want to hide and protect their friends.”

“In the school setting, they will site with their friends, but
back home, I have not observed a situation where they
deliberately site with friends.”

“Yes, my children prefer to take side with their friends even
when they know that their friends are wrong because they
are afraid that their friend will be punished and because
they wanted their friends to also hide them when they do
wrong.”

No Instil good morals “No, they don’t. I have schooled them against telling lies.”

“No, they can’t take side with their friends when they are
wrong because the little time I spend with them, I make
sure I instil in them to know what is wrong from what is
good.”

“They don’t because I give them good home trainings”.

“No. My children have been trained to do morally upright
and would not accept wrong.”

“No, they will hardly take side with their friends. They use
their discretion to judge and by blame where is due.”

“Not at all because I have brought them up morally.”

“I don’t think so because I have made them to put family
first.”

“They don’t take side with bad friends because of the good
training I try to give them.’

Listen by parents “My children cannot team up with friends against me
because I always give them a listening ear.”

“I listen to what they share with friends and try to advise
them on what is good and bad.”

“No because they have been always groom to listen to their
parents.”

Report bad friend “I don’t think so because they report friends to me when
they do something wrong and also because I bring them in
a Godly way so that they have a healthy conscience.”

Seek advice “I don’t think so because I noticed they change always.
They ask my opinion before doing anything.”

Not sure Don’t know “I do not know.”

“I can’t give a concrete answer to that because I am not
with them when they are with friends.”

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5267 www.rsisinternational.org

With reference to conformity pressure, when parents were asked if their children take side with friends even
when they are wrong, some accepted while many denied and some undecided. Among the parents that accepted,
they said their children sometimes take side with friends even when their friends have done wrong because they
want to protect them and themselves as narrated in the statements “…My children always speak good about their
friends and will always want to hide and protect their friends...”, “…In the school setting, they will site with
their friends, but back home, I have not observed a situation where they deliberately site with friends….”

On the other hand, for parents that deny their children of siding with friends even when they are wrong, one of
their reason is because they have instill good moral in their children as explained “…No, they don’t. I have
schooled them against telling lies…”,“…No, they can’t take side with their friends when they are wrong because
the little time I spend with them, I make sure I instil in them to know what is wrong from what is good…”

Another reason is that their children listen to them as their parents and their friends as explained “..I listen to
what they share with friends and try to advise them on what is good and bad…” Another reason is that their
children even report bad friends to them as and seek parental advise as explained “…I don’t think so because
they report friends to me when they do something wrong and also because I bring them in a Godly way so that
they have a healthy conscience…”

In conclusion, there were parents who reported that their children take side with friends even when they know
they have done wrong while some parents uncertain and others completely deny that their children do not have
such behaviours because they are well trained, take advise, and listen to their parents.

Table 12: Parents’ Opinion if their Children are Under Pressure to Team up Against Them

Themes Quotations

No “No. I am a good parent.”

“No, I have also made my children to know that they should never be put under pressure by
anyone.”

“Never.”

“No.”

“My children are not any under kind of pressure because they are well trained.”

“No.”

“No, I have not observed any trend of that name.”

“No, they give me the preference over their friends and love me and will never team up.”

“Capital no.”

“Not at all. This is because I advise them, pray with them, and culture them properly. I also
listen to them to better know their problems or difficulties.”

“No. I sometimes talk with my children friends to know who they are, their behaviour and
mind set.”

Don’t know “Not sure.”

“I don’t think.”

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5268 www.rsisinternational.org

Finally, when the parents were asked if their children are under pressure by friends to fight against them, their
parents, many said so as depicted in the statements “…No, they give me the preference over their friends and
love me and will never team up….”, “…Not at all. This is because I advise them, pray with them, and culture
them properly. I also listen to them to better know their problems or difficulties….” On the other hand, some
parents were uncertain about their children and friends.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The study revealed that peer influence has a significant impact on adolescents’ aggressive behaviour.
Adolescents exposed to strong negative peer influences were more likely to develop unhealthy and aggressive
behaviours. While a few students benefited positively from supportive peers, the majority were affected
negatively. This supports the idea that since adolescents spend considerable time with peers, especially in
schools, peer influence becomes a major determinant of behaviour.

Some adolescents reported listening more to their parents than to their friends, particularly those from homes
where parents were emotionally available, attentive, and disciplined. Such parents provided guidance and open
communication, fostering trust and emotional security. Conversely, adolescents whose parents were frequently
absent or preoccupied with work were more susceptible to peer pressure. In these cases, peers often substituted
parental presence, sometimes leading to undesirable behaviours.

These findings echo Tiina et al. (1998), who noted that peer influence can be either positive or negative,
depending on its strength and direction. Adolescents, in their quest for acceptance, often compromise
individuality to fit in (Berne, 1966). Steinberg (1990) described peer pressure as one of the most challenging
aspects of adolescence, urging parents to adopt friendly and understanding communication. The effects of peer
pressure are intensified when adolescents already exhibit behavioural issues such as Oppositional Defiant
Disorder (ODD) or Conduct Disorder (Berkowitz, 1993).

As adolescents seek independence from parents, their identification with peers strengthens (Szyndrowski, 1999).
They often conform to group norms to gain self-esteem and identity, even when these norms contradict personal
values (Brown et al., 1986). However, as identity develops, dependence on peer approval typically decreases.
Sutcliffe (1996) further noted that peer relationships combine personal traits, attitudes, and family influences to
shape adolescent behaviour.

Although peer influence is frequently viewed negatively, research also highlights its positive aspects. Peer
groups can foster empathy, communication skills, and self-awareness (Cava, Musitu & Murgui, 2007; Estévez,
2013). Supportive friendships improve self-esteem and encourage healthy coping mechanisms (Olweus, 1993).
Thus, peer influence is not inherently harmful but requires proper guidance and balance.

Individual traits also determine how adolescents respond to peer pressure. Those with anxiety or low self-esteem
are more likely to yield to negative influences to avoid rejection (Marshall, 1992; Mestre, 2012). Family
characteristics further shape this dynamic: adolescents from homes with low parental monitoring or inconsistent
discipline are more vulnerable to antisocial peer pressure (Steinberg, 1987; Moos & Trickett, 1973).

Neurological studies show that adolescents exhibit heightened sensitivity to peer-related stimuli, which increases
the likelihood of risky or aggressive behaviour (Burnett et al., 2011; Pfeifer et al., 2011). Arnett (2000) found
that social exclusion heightens aggressive responses, while loneliness aggravates them. Similarly, Wakoli (2016)
demonstrated that adolescents’ desire for peer approval strongly predicts conformity to aggressive norms.

Overall, these findings support the results of the current study, confirming that peer influence plays a dominant
role in shaping adolescents’ aggressive behaviour especially where parental guidance and supervision are weak.

The study also revealed that conformity pressure significantly influences adolescent aggression. Many
adolescents were found to align with peer expectations and group norms even when such norms encouraged
aggression or misconduct. A substantial number reported siding with friends despite recognizing their
wrongdoing, while only a few resisted.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5269 www.rsisinternational.org

These findings align with Aluede (2011) and Ang & Goh (2006), who observed that individuals under social
pressure tend to conform to group expectations to gain approval. Adolescents, being at a stage where social
acceptance is crucial, often prioritize belongingness over moral judgment. Conformity serves as a psychological
adjustment that modifies behaviour to align with group expectations (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). The
degree of conformity depends on group size, cohesion, and familiarity (Lively et al., 2006; Leets & Sunwolf,
2005).

In this study, conformity emerged both as a social survival strategy and a behavioural vulnerability. Adolescents
fearing isolation or bullying often conformed to avoid exclusion, even when it resulted in aggression. Gao, Zhang
& Fung (2015) describe this as an internal conflict between personal values and collective norms. Adolescents
unable to assert independence often experience stress, anxiety, or depression conditions that may heighten
aggression.

Teresa Jiménez and Moreno (2018), in a cross-cultural study, found that opportunities and peer support for
aggression significantly predicted adolescent aggression across contexts. Similarly, Adelmann (1987)
demonstrated that family cohesion and parental monitoring reduce such tendencies, indicating that strong family
bonds can buffer conformity pressure.

Erikson’s (1959) psychosocial theory helps explain this pattern. During the stage of identity versus role
confusion, adolescents strive to define themselves amidst competing social influences. When parental or
community guidance is weak, they rely heavily on peers for validation, which heightens conformity and
aggressive tendencies.

The findings of this study corroborate these theories and empirical results, confirming that conformity pressure
especially when coupled with poor parental supervision and limited emotional support significantly increases
aggressive behaviour among adolescents.

From both peer influence and conformity, a clear pattern emerges: the quality of social relationships and parental
involvement determines whether adolescents channel their experiences positively or negatively. Those with
strong parental guidance, emotional support, and positive peer networks exhibit lower aggression, while those
lacking these supports are more vulnerable to peer and conformity pressures.

These results highlight the need for parental engagement, peer education, and school-based programs that
promote emotional intelligence, assertiveness, and positive socialization. Such interventions can help
adolescents resist negative social pressures and develop healthier behavioural patterns.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that peer culture plays a decisive role in the social learning of aggression among
adolescents in Cameroon. The need for belonging and group identity often predisposes them to imitate the
behaviours and attitudes of peers. When social environments normalize aggression through teasing, dominance,
or competition, adolescents internalize these behaviours as acceptable coping or survival mechanisms.

Conformity itself is not inherently negative but becomes problematic when it compels adolescents to act against
personal values. In many Cameroonian schools, limited mentorship, weak moral guidance, and poor parental
supervision reinforce peer conformity, making aggression a socially accepted and rewarded behaviour.

The findings reinforce Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977), which posits that behaviour is learned through
observation and imitation of social models. In this case, peers act as powerful models shaping daily interactions
and behavioural scripts.

In conclusion, aggression among adolescents in Cameroonian secondary schools is not just an individual issue
but a socially conditioned outcome a reflection of the learning that occurs within peer networks and family
systems. Addressing it requires strengthening both individual competencies and the wider social environment
influencing adolescent behaviour.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5270 www.rsisinternational.org

Contribution to Knowledge and Counselling

This study contributes to existing knowledge by offering a context-specific understanding of how peer influence
and conformity pressure operate within Cameroonian schools to shape adolescents’ aggressive behaviour. Unlike
most studies that generalize Western theories of adolescent aggression, this research situates social learning
within a localized socio-cultural framework, where peer approval, communal identity, and family structure play
distinct roles.

The study provides the following specific contributions:

Contextual Insight:

It expands the literature by empirically demonstrating that peer culture in Cameroon is a dominant context for
the transmission of aggressive norms, influenced by socio-economic conditions and weak parental presence.

Integrated Framework for Counselling:

The findings highlight the need for school counsellors to adopt a social systems approach addressing not just
individual students but also their peer groups, classroom dynamics, and family background.

Evidence-Based Guidance for Practitioners:

Counsellors and educators can use the findings to design peer mentoring programmes, assertiveness training,
and behaviour modification strategies that help adolescents resist negative social pressures.

Policy Relevance:

The study informs policymakers and school administrators about the need to strengthen guidance and
counselling units in schools, incorporating peer mediation and socio-emotional learning into the curriculum.

From a counselling perspective, the study underlines the importance of group counselling interventions that
address conformity tendencies and social identity development. Counsellors should help adolescents:

Build self-awareness and self-esteem,

Develop critical thinking and decision-making skills, and

Learn non-aggressive ways of asserting individuality and coping with peer pressure.

By fostering these skills, counselling can transform peer culture from a breeding ground of aggression into a
supportive environment for healthy social learning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:

For Parents:

Strengthen parental supervision and communication to reduce adolescents’ overdependence on peer influence.

Create emotionally supportive home environments where adolescents can express their challenges freely.

For Schools and Educators:

Establish and equip functional guidance and counselling units to address behavioural and emotional issues
among students.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5271 www.rsisinternational.org

Integrate peer education and life skills training into the curriculum to promote prosocial behaviours.

Encourage teachers to serve as role models and mentors, promoting positive peer interactions and conflict
resolution.

For Counsellors:

Implement group counselling and peer mentorship programmes to counteract conformity pressures.

Use behavioural modification and cognitive restructuring techniques to help students understand the
consequences of aggression and develop alternative responses.

For Policymakers:

Develop national frameworks for school-based mental health and psychosocial support, emphasizing adolescent
development.

Promote awareness campaigns on peer influence and aggression prevention through partnerships between
ministries, NGOs, and community leaders.

For Future Research:

Conduct longitudinal studies to explore how peer relationships evolve over time and their long-term impact on
aggression.

Examine the intersection of social media, peer identity, and aggression, given the growing digital interaction
among adolescents.

Adolescents are not inherently aggressive; rather, they learn aggression as a social response to environmental
pressures. The challenge, therefore, lies in transforming those environments homes, schools, and peer networks
into spaces that cultivate empathy, respect, and non-violence. When guided effectively, peer culture can become
not a source of chaos, but a channel for character building, resilience, and positive social learning in Cameroon.

REFERENCE LIST

1. Akum, F. (2019). Youth peer networks and aggression in Cameroon: Protective and risk factors.
Bamenda University Press.

2. Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2018). The influence of media violence on youth.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(3), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618807003

3. Arım, R., Hassan, A., Hameed-ur-Rehman, M., & Teoh, K. (2011). Parental nurturance and adolescent
aggression: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Child Psychology, 15(2), 45–60.

4. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

5. Atanga, D., & Fon, P. (2019). Peer influence and aggression among adolescents in conflict-affected zones
of Cameroon. African Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 23–38.

6. Atanga, D., & Tabe, L. (2022). Conformity to peer culture and adolescent aggression in Bamenda and
Buea. Cameroon Journal of Social Studies, 8(2), 55–70.

7. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
10. Bamow, C., Griffin, R., & Cohn, L. (2005). Parenting styles and adolescent aggression: An empirical

review. Journal of Family Studies, 12(4), 201–220.
11. Berne, E. (1966). Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. New York, NY: Grove

Press.
12. Berk, L. E. (2007). Development through the lifespan (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5272 www.rsisinternational.org

13. Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding
peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x

14. Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg
(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 74–103). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

15. Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity, and
conformity to aggressive norms. Child Development, 57(5), 1427–1438.

16. Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Parenting practices and peer group
affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 79(3), 964–981.

17. Cohn, L. D. (1990). Parenting and adolescent aggression: Longitudinal trends. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 5(3), 345–361.

18. Cornell, D., & Mayer, M. (2010). Conformity, peer influence, and aggression. Educational Psychologist,
45(3), 167–180.

19. Crick, N. R. (2006). Developmental perspectives on aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 185–193.
20. Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for youth: Promises and pitfalls.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 255–268.
21. Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1999). Deviant peer influences on

adolescent antisocial behavior: An experimental test. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 190–203.
22. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. Handbook

of Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719–788). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
23. Espelage, D. L. (2013). Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and

practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and peer victimization in middle school: Perceptions

and correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 123–142.
25. Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on

aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1), 205–220.
26. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton.
27. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
28. Faczek, J. (1992). Psychosocial determinants of aggression in adolescence. Polish Journal of Psychology,

26(2), 45–58.
29. Fon, P., & Mbah, J. (2019). Adolescent aggression in conflict-affected zones in Cameroon. Cameroon

Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 12–28.
30. Gao, L., & Fung, H. (2015). Normative influence and adolescent aggression. Journal of Adolescence, 42,

1–10.
31. Griffin, R., Cohn, L., & Bamow, C. (2000). Parental guidance and adolescent aggression: A

developmental perspective. Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 175–192.
32. Hameed-ur-Rehman, M., Arım, R., & Hassan, A. (2012). Parenting and adolescent behavior: A cross-

national study. International Journal of Child Psychology, 3(2), 89–102.
33. Jaworski, J. (2000). Adolescence, stress, and social adjustment. Polish Journal of Child and Adolescent

Psychology, 14(3), 55–69.
34. Kemmer, K. (1978). Effects of parental role shift on adolescent development. Family Studies Journal,

6(2), 33–47.
35. Lohman, B. J., & Jarvis, P. (2000). Adolescent psychosocial stress and coping strategies. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 15(1), 55–77.
36. Luckman, T. (2007). Social determinants of adolescent behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4),

201–219.
37. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.
38. Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology

(pp. 159–187). New York, NY: Wiley.
40. Miłkowska, D. (2012). Peer pressure and adolescent social adjustment. Polish Journal of Psychology,

44(1), 45–58.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 5273 www.rsisinternational.org

41. Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1973). Peer pressure and conformity in adolescence. Journal of Social
Issues, 29(1), 97–115.

42. Moyer, J. (1976). Peer pressure and adolescent aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5(1), 21–
35.

43. Nsamenang, A. B. (1992). Human development in cultural context: A third world perspective. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

44. Nsamenang, A. B. (2004). Adolescence in Sub-Saharan Africa: An image constructed from Africa-
centered perspectives. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 11(1), 5–29.

45. Nwankwo, E., & Akpan, E. (2020). Deviant peer influence on adolescent aggression. African Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 89–105.

46. Nkeng, F., & Tabe, L. (2021). Peer norms and adolescent conformity in Cameroonian secondary schools.
Cameroon Journal of Education, 9(2), 12–29.

47. Nkengasong, J. (2017). Urban adolescent aggression in Cameroon: Peer and school factors. Bamenda
Educational Studies, 5(1), 44–60.

48. Njim, T., & Tchente, D. (2018). Peace clubs and peer-led interventions in Cameroonian schools. African
Journal of School Psychology, 4(2), 18–35.

49. Polak, E. (2010). Adolescent stress and peer interaction. Polish Journal of Social Studies, 19(3), 33–50.
50. Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents.

Guilford Press.
51. Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2006). Parenting and child aggression: Meta-analytic review.

Journal of Child Psychology, 47(3–4), 341–361.
52. Rabub, S., Zubair, M., & Khan, A. (2009). Parental neglect and adolescent aggression. Journal of Family

Issues, 30(1), 65–84.
53. Rami, M., & Daru, P. (2020). Peer culture and aggression in Cameroonian urban schools. International

Journal of Child Studies, 14(2), 11–25.
54. Reid, J., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (2000). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. American

Psychological Association.
55. Różańska-Kowal, B. (2004). Peer conflict and adolescent behavior. Polish Journal of Psychology, 38(2),

57–71.
56. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2011). Aggression and peer norms: Bullying in

schools. Aggressive Behavior, 37(5), 465–476.
57. Smith, P. K. (1999). Violence in schools: The response in psychological research. Journal of School

Psychology, 37(1), 21–34.
58. Stansfeld, S., & Rasul, F. (2007). Psychosocial determinants of adolescent health. Social Psychiatry and

Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42(2), 101–107.
59. Teoh, K. (2010). Parenting and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Family Research, 12(1),

55–67.
60. Tchombe, T. (2001). The adolescent in Cameroonian society: Social influences and challenges. Yaoundé

University Press.
61. Tchombe, T. (2006). Aggression and peer conformity in Cameroon. Journal of African Youth Studies,

3(1), 20–35.
62. Tchombe, T. (2011). Peer culture and adolescent socialization. Bamenda Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2),

15–32.
63. Tchute, S. (2018). Masculinity and aggression among Cameroonian adolescents. Journal of African

Gender Studies, 5(1), 30–45.
64. Voisin, D. R., & Neilands, T. B. (2010). Peer influence on adolescent aggression and risk behavior.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(1), 38–43.
65. Wang, M., Liu, J., & Lau, C. (2016). Peer influence and adolescent aggression across cultures: A

comparative study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(5), 435–445.
66. Zinkeng, J., & Daru, P. (2018). School violence and peer culture in Cameroon. African Journal of

Education Research, 6(2), 12–26.