International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume VI, Issue I, January 2022 | ISSN 2454–6186

Influence Of Peer Pressure And Parenting Styles On Criminal Thinking Among Secondary School Students In AMAC.

AMBROSE, Irene Ugochinyere¹, BAHIJJA, Tanko Kasim² & AJAYI, Oluwabunmi Hezekiah^3
1,2Department of Psychology, Federal University, Lafia, Nigeria
³Brains Specialist Hospital, Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This study examined influence of peer pressure and parenting style on criminal thinking among secondary school students in Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC). Using a cross-sectional survey design, 350 secondary school students in AMAC were systematically sampled as participants across Government Secondary School Gwarimpa Life Camp and Government Secondary School Jabi, (AMAC). Peer Pressure and Popularity Scale, Parental Care Scale (PCS) and Criminal Thinking Scale were used for data collection. Three hypotheses were formulated and tested using Simple Linear Regression and multiple linear regressions. Findings of the study revealed that peer pressure had significant influence on criminal thinking (R= .325, R2= .106, F (1,348) =41.200, P<.01) among secondary school students in AMAC. Result further reviewed that parenting style had significant influence on criminal thinking (R= .329, R2= .108, F (3,346) =14.032, P<.01) among secondary school students in AMAC. The result further revealed that permissive parenting style (β=.307, P<.01) had the most significant independent influence on criminal thinking followed by authoritarian parenting (β=.215, P<.01) while authoritative parenting (β=-.069, P>.01) had no significant independent influence on criminal thinking among secondary school students in Abuja Municipal Area Council AMAC. Finally, it was revealed that, there was significant joint influence of peer pressure and parenting styles on criminal thinking (R=.496, R2=.246, F (4,345) =28.127, P<.01) among secondary school students in Abuja Municipal Area Council. The researcher concluded that peer pressure and parenting styles independently and jointly influence criminal thinking among secondary school students in AMAC. The researcher therefore recommended that effort should be made by the school authority to encourage and educate students to understand people they interact with so that they will not be pressured by bad friends to think or indulge in criminal acts. Parents should be made to understand and maintain the styles they bring their children up that will help in relating with their children so as to free them from been criminally-minded.

Introduction

Crime can be seen as an infraction of both the basic principles of law and order and the norms of civilised behaviour. No society is immune from this thorny social problem but what differs is the frequency and magnitude of the situation and the response mechanisms to address same (Emeh, 2012). Moreover, crime is viewed as a conduct behaviour or an act which violates the criminal law or formal or written laws of a state for which a punishment is prescribed (Schmallenger, 2004; Terito, Halstaed, & Bromley, 2004; Adler, Mullier & Laufer, 2001). Behaviour that does not conform to the cultural norms or laws of a given society at a particular time and is often times negatively sanctioned, is referred to as criminal. This implies that non-conformity to a given set of laws or norms that are accepted by a significant number of people in a community, society or group is a criminal act. Society highly values conformity and expects it to be accepted and upheld by its members.
Criminal Thinking” is generally considered to be a way of thinking in which an individual finds the easiest solution to a problem. For instance, if a person is hungry and has no means of buying food “Criminal Thinking” would suggest said person take food to eat without paying for it. Furthermore, Criminal Thinking as defined is “Thought content and process conducive to the initiation and maintenance of habitual lawbreaking behaviour.” Attempting to understand and predict criminal behaviour has been an important and popular area of research for decades.
It is interesting to know that thousands of offenders or criminals would be released from prison only for them to return to crime. After being rearrested, they claim that they could not find employment, housing, and financial stability and perhaps social support. According to Clan and Shapiro (2007), many continue to struggle with legal difficulties as well as simple everyday processes which makes them to return to prison.
It is pertinent for researchers in forensic discipline to search for ways to redirect criminal behaviour and seek to minimise the impact crime has on the society, in view of this, this present study sought to explore what is actually responsible for criminal behaviour. Based on the study of Lemieux (2020), she indicated that criminal thinking processes in criminal offenders are responsible for their criminalities.
Closely related to dynamic risk factors is the notion of a pervasive criminal thinking style or pattern of maladaptive thinking errors. These errors have been empirically investigated in relation to predicting criminal behaviour and recidivism (Yochelson & Samenow, 1976; 1977; Walters, 1990; Mandracchia, Morgan, Garos, & Garland, 2007). The construct of criminal thinking includes both internal components and external factors, such as ingrained attitudes and experience with criminal associates, which may influence an individual’s behaviour.
Researchers have long investigated and theorised about maladaptive thinking patterns and styles that contribute to problematic behaviours. Beck (1976, 1999, 2004) proposed the notion that dysfunctional thinking processes are the product of spontaneous and unintentional, or automatic, thoughts that are believed to be present in all people. He maintained that such thinking processes affect emotions and behaviour, and are particularly associated with depression. Automatic thoughts (e.g., “I am dumb.”) stem from negative self-perceptions that remain subconsciously present until brought to the forefront by a therapist or outside source (Beck, 1976). Beck considered the thoughts to be naturally reflexive (i.e., not intentionally activated and hard to terminate). However, such maladaptive thoughts are likely to result in negative consequences or poor social interactions, and are more likely to be noticed by others that interact with the individual rather than by the actual individual. One’s current automatic thoughts are believed to be rational, even if understood to have been irrational in the past. Repetitive thoughts are taken at face value regardless of previous understanding (Beck 1976).