development of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescent years
DESCRIPTION
Development of Antisocial Behavior in Childhood and Adolescent Years: How important is the Role of Family in the Character of Children and Adolescents?By Desiree Lei Ebuenga University of the Philippines- BaguioSome of the developmental psychologists consider that adolescents¶ behavior problems rooted from the early life experiences. The experiences of the child in his early life determine his future character when he reaches his adolescent years. In the childhood days, the way the family parTRANSCRIPT
Development of Antisocial Behavior in Childhood and Adolescent Years:
How important is the Role of Family in the Character of Children and
Adolescents?
By Desiree Lei Ebuenga
University of the Philippines- Baguio
Some of the developmental psychologists consider that adolescents’ behavior problems
rooted from the early life experiences. The experiences of the child in his early life determine
his future character when he reaches his adolescent years. In the childhood days, the way the
family particularly the parents shape the child is a critical factor in the growth of a child. Thus, it
is very important that the family relationships and other factor variables in the family like
parental supervisions are in harmony and is just right for the child to grow and decide on his own
but with right values that will guard him from the corrupt environmental influences.
Personally, the primary context for which the child develops is his family. This is where
a child learns his values and character mainly by the supervision and discipline of the elderly in
the family. Primarily, a parent should ask himself if he is doing his responsibility properly to his
child and if he is making a good example to what he is teaching to his child.
As a part of the society, in my view, it is our responsibility to not just be aware of what is
happening around us but be a critical observer. It is our social responsibility to be involved in
the “everyday issues” in the society. Thus, the gang-related violence that involved the youths of
Baguio is continuously alarming me. Whenever I heard news about it, I often ask myself why
the youths are so much involve with these violent crimes. Then it will come to my mind that
maybe the family of these youths is not doing their responsibility as moral bows of their child. It
is not strange to me that there might be other factors to these problems but I strongly believe that
the character of an individual is founded in the family.
There is an article in the Sun Star Network Online that certainly troubled me. It talks
about the parents’ comments about their children being killed in gang wars. There is one mother
that said she did not know that her son became a member of a gang. Another mother commented
that her son is not a member of a gang but just joins the group of gang members. One common
with the sons of these mothers is that they were members of gangs and they have vices. In a
forum held, it has been said that these kinds of violence is an indication of a dysfunctional
society, school and family. But these mothers believe that no one should be blame for these, not
even one sector of the society. They added, “As parents we should not be blamed.” This
particular statement greatly struck me. How could these parents say this? Then I came to a
conclusion that we really have a very big problem with our society because even the parents
refused to take responsibility for shaping the values and behaviors of their children.
Based on the observations above, this article aims to give an understanding of the critical
role of the family in the development of an individual specifically to the development of
antisocial behaviors through research studies that were conducted by many psychologists.
The following research studies are summarized in connection with the emphases of this
article.
On the Nature and Nurture of Antisocial Behavior and Violence
By Essi Viding
Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry,King’s College London, London SE5 8AF, UK
The role of “nature and nurture” has long been proved as both factors in the human
development. The only question now that many psychologists are finding out is “What is the
dominant contributor in human development between genetic and environment?” What could be
the principal factor from which antisocial and aggressive behaviors develop? Is it something that
is heritable or more of the influence of the environment?
This article tries to present the both sides from which antisocial behaviors develop.
Though, it tackled the two factors, it focused more on the behavioral genetic research and its
contribution in widening our knowledge on how antisocial and aggressive behaviors could
develop.
Early development of aggressive behaviors indicates the serious risks of antisocial
behaviors like violence in later years. Research studies have found that non-shared
environmental factors have the most significant influence in the development of antisocial
behaviors followed by genetic factors. But it should be noted that the difference of these two
factors is insignificant. The third factor that contributes the least is the shared environmental
factors. These findings were the common grounds among 51 studies that had used different
methods in their experiments. The results stated imply that generally, antisocial behavior and
violence are moderately heritable. It also indicates the continuity of aggressive behavior in
humans. There is a genetic predisposition to antisocial behaviors when the heritability for such
behavior is high especially when these behaviors are prevalent across different settings.
Researches also had shown that it is highly possible that children with high levels of
callous-unemotional traits are under tremendously high influences of the genes. Additionally
they also found out that in these researches, there are no influences of shared environment. In
the contrary, children without high levels of callous-unemotional traits are moderately influenced
by genetic factors and extensively influenced by environmental factors both shared and non-
shared. Another implication of it is that environmental influences of the family (not including
the genetic influence the family) plays an important role in the development of antisocial
behavior in this particular group of children. On the other hand, the case of children with high
levels of callous-unemotional traits entails the more importance of environmental influences
together with genotype and environmental influences unique to the child to the development of
antisocial behaviors.
It would be of great help of the behavioral genetic methods to determine the causal theory
behind the antisocial behavior development. The possibility of the environmental factors and the
reaction to these factors can be influence by the effects of genes. Therefore, it is a need for us to
study different environmental factors that are open to genetic influences where we can evaluate
the correlation and interaction between the genes and environment, as well as their effects. In
the genes and environment, there are three possible correlations between the two as identified by
behavioral geneticists. It is either of the three--passive, active or evocative. The passive
correlation indicates the exposure of genetic influence to the environment whereas the active and
evocative correlation indicates experiences that are interconnected with genetic tendencies. The
active gene-environment correlation could be germane in adolescents and children who are not
given enough attention and supervision by their parents. The gene-environment interaction, on
the other hand, was explained as genetic sensitivity or vulnerability to environments.
Caspi and colleagues used longitudinal study regarding the mother’s expressed emotion
in relation to the emergence of anti-social behavior among children. Results showed associations
between the mothers’ negative emotion toward their children and the children’s antisocial
behaviors. This particular situation shows the environmentally mediated risk factors as potential
basis of antisocial behavior.
Another study, the study of Jaffee and colleagues, made use of maltreatment as the
environmental risk factor. They found out that there is a direct positive relationship between
maltreatment and development of antisocial behavior. The degree or extent of maltreatment is
correlated to the level of antisocial behavior. Results also had shown that physical maltreatment
could be followed by the occurrence of a new antisocial behavior. This particular study showed
the passive gene-environment correlation.
Conclusion
The above examples are proofs that behavioral genetic methods are useful in studying
environmental risk factors. The studies cited in this article showed that there are in fact
environmental risk factors that can cause antisocial behavior.
In the “nature” side, there are genes that involve in the possible development of behaviors
that are antisocial only that the risk gene that is accompanied by environmental risk could result
to a significant outcome. One example of these genes is the serotonin. It was found out that
serotonin is responsible for impulsive antisocial, aggressive and violent behaviors.
As a conclusion, for children with genotype vulnerability, it is more likely that their
genotype will react to environmental risk factors. Moreover, the more there are at least one
parent who has the risk gene for antisocial behaviors, the more it is needed for them to contribute
to a less-than-optimal child-rearing environment.
Genetic, Environmental and Early Parenting Characteristics
HENRIK LARSSON ESSI VIDING ROBERT PLOMINInstitute of Psychiatry Institute of Psychiatry Institute of Psychiatry
University College London
In contemporary psychology, many research studies focused on the role of callous-
unemotional traits in the development of antisocial behavior. The results of the studies indicate
that children with such traits exhibits serious and stable pattern of antisocial behavior.
One of the purposes of this study was to be able to give a wider literature and observe
possible differences between the subtypes of callous-unemotional traits and children displaying
antisocial behaviors regarding the characteristics of early parenting. Another purpose was to
conduct analyses on genetic twins to be able to come up with lists of contributions that the
genetic and environmental can carry out to callous-unemotional traits on groups of children with
high levels of such traits only and children with both having high levels of callous-unemotional
traits and antisocial behaviors.
Parenting characteristics, as many theories assume, could greatly contribute to antisocial
behaviors in children. There is a recent study that explained antisocial youth with callous-
unemotional traits have more negative parental discipline than youths without such traits.
The present study used twin genetic analysis since it focused on the study of causes
behind callous unemotional traits in children. It also dealt with differences in early parenting
characteristics between children in controlled condition, children with callous-unemotional traits,
with antisocial behaviors and those with both callous traits and antisocial behavior.
Cohort births listed in the Twins Early Development Study in the year 1994 and 1995
were the ones used in the experimental longitudinal study.
Callous traits and antisocial behavior were determined among children through teacher
ratings of them when they were 7 years old. The parenting characteristics were measured
through letting the parents answer the Parent Feelings Questionnaire at the age 3 and 4 of their
children. At age 3 and 4, the harsh discipline of parents were assessed. There were two different
parental discipline methods that were included in the questionnaires. The first one is either to
smack or to slap, and the other one is telling of or shouting.
Through parents’ reports of their children at age 3, the conduct problems and
hyperactivity of the children were obtained. This process was again assesses at age 4.
Conclusion
The findings of the study included the significant main effects of gender at age 4 and 7
but not at age 3. It indicates higher degree of negative parental characteristics in boys. On the
other hand, at the age of 7, they found out that there is no relevant interaction effect between
group membership as well as the gender and parental characteristics. Hence, gender does not
affect parental characteristics for all the groups studied in the experiment. The results showed
that for the group with both antisocial behavior and callous-unemotional traits compared with the
group with callous-unemotional trait only, there is a greater negative parental feelings and harsh
parental discipline than the latter group. This particular condition was said to remain until 7
years of the children (at least for this particular study). Aside from this, higher degree of
negative parental feelings was found in the parents of children with antisocial behavior than
those in the control children. However, lower degree of negative parental feelings was found in
the parents of callous-unemotional children than children with both antisocial behavior and
callous-unemotional trait at age 4 and 7. The parents of callous-unemotional children compared
to the parents of children exhibiting antisocial behavior had lower degree of negative parental
feelings. Between the antisocial behavior group and the control group, the former had a higher
degree of negative parental discipline. Another finding was the callous-unemotional trait group
had higher degree of negative parental discipline than the control group at ages 4 and 7. One
further analysis that we can deduce from the results obtained is that children with antisocial
behavior and with both antisocial behavior and callous-unemotional traits have higher degree of
behavior problems and hyperactivity than children with callous-unemotional traits only.
Generally, almost all the results can be attributed to genetic influence
and only minimal attribution by shared environmental influences.
Specifically, children with antisocial behavior and callous-unemotional traits,
heredity have a significant influence and no shared environmental influence.
Experiences of negative parenting characteristics in the early age
particularly negative parental feelings can be closely associated with high
intensity of antisocial behaviors. The child’s susceptibility to genetic
influences stimulates responses including punitive discipline which then
contributes to the development of callous-unemotional traits and antisocial
behaviors. This is where we could observe the gene-environment
correlations. Children who exhibit antisocial behavior with callous-
unemotional traits can only be related to parental practices slightly. High
degree of callous unemotional traits is influenced strongly by genes even to
those children with this kind of trait and at the same time exhibits antisocial
behavior. Genes influence the children with antisocial behavior but with
moderate callous-unemotional trait only moderately. With regards to
intensity of the influence of genes to callous-unemotional traits, results
showed that this trait can be strongly heritable. Thus, this means that the
influence of shared environment is little.
High degree of negative parenting characteristics, however, has a
strong influence in the development of antisocial behaviors with callous-
unemotional traits and with only antisocial behavior in children.
Role of Empathy and Parenting Style in the Development of
Antisocial Behaviors
Megan SchafferStephanie Clark
Elizabeth L. JeglicJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York
Development of antisocial behaviors has been related to different
factors like empathy and parental styles. As for decreased empathy,
antisocial behaviors increase. Antisocial behaviors in relation to parental
care have been significant in adolescence. It had been evident that the
development of antisocial behavior in relation to authoritarian and
permissive parenting is positive. This means that the likelihood of the
antisocial behavior to increase is attributable to parenting styles particularly
authoritarian and permissive.
How the interaction of parenting style and empathy develops antisocial
behavior is the objective of this study.
Conclusion
A significant relationship was found between empathy and permissive
parenting. The relationship too is the same with empathy and antisocial
behavior. Since all paths in the model showed significant results, the
possibility of mediating relationship to occur between the predictor and the
third variable is impeded.
As discussed earlier, the results supported the assumption that low
levels of empathy for both cognitive and emotional have significant effect on
the development of antisocial behavior. In addition, the obtained outcome of
the study supported the assumption that permissive style of parenting
contributes to low levels of empathy and thus, influencing the emergence of
behaviors that are antisocial. But it did not show significant relationship
between authoritarian maternal style of parenting and development of
antisocial behaviors. It has been said that lax parenting prevents the
development of empathic tendencies. Thus, there is no increase in the levels
of empathy aside from it contributes to behavioral tendencies.
Generally, it is more likely that the parenting styles that is detached
and is unconcerned have more reliable effects in the development of
antisocial behaviors than parenting styles that are punitive.
Aggressive and Antisocial Behaviors among Secondary School
Students in Botswana
The Influence of Family and School Based Factors
By Leapetswe Malete
University of Botswana
This study of Leapetswe Malete from the University of Alabama is
concerned with the correlation between influences of the family and the
antisocial behaviors of the antisocial behaviors and aggressiveness of the
secondary school students in Botswana.
Like what I’ve said earlier in my observation in Baguio City, there has
been an increase in the violent acts among the youths and children
nowadays. It has also been observed by many researchers. Thus, it means
that this particular observation is not just true here in Baguio City or in the
Philippines but also in the other countries. Then we can further state that
this problem about increased violence and aggression especially among the
youths is a global problem that should be taken seriously.
Social Learning Theory of Albert Bandura is one of the main
background theories of the study. This theory states that children learned
through imitating the behaviors that they observed in their environment.
Therefore prolonged exposure of children and youths to violent acts and
antisocial behavior will more likely cause them to imitate the behaviors.
Another factor that we can add here is the presence of models and who is
the person being modeled.
In the case of the youths and children in Botswana, it was assumed
that one of the factos for their antisocial behaviors is the change in
economic, demographic and socio-cultural situations in their country.
The purpose of this particular study is to investigate and analyze the
influence of the family to the development of antisocial behaviors in the
secondary students in Botswana. The study also tried to answer questions
relating to age group differences in aggressive and antisocial behaviors. One
of its assumptions is that family factors have significant effect on the
development of antisocial behaviors and aggression. They also assumed
that there is a positive significant relationship between antisocial behaviors
and aggression.
Conclusion
The results supported the assumption that family factors have
influence on development of antisocial behaviors and aggression. Probably
the reason for this is that the families in Botswana don’t make much
involvement in disciplining their children. It can be supported by reports of
low parental monitoring in the subjects used. Poor parental monitoring was
more likely to create higher mean scores of aggression and antisocial
behaviors in the youths. This just means that there is a negative relationship
between parental monitoring and aggression and antisocial behaviors among
youths. Low parental monitoring increases the exhibiting of the youths of
antisocial behaviors as well as aggressiveness. Based on the results, it can
also cause the youths to use alcohol, weapons and drugs. But contrary to
what is expected, family structure did not show significant effects in the
development of behaviors that are anti-normative. Notwithstanding, family
structure as a factor to antisocial behavior development still needs further
study since it can be a potential contributor. The peer influence is also likely
to increase the aggression and carrying of weapons of the youths.
On the issue of age differences, senior secondary students are more
engaged in the use of alcohol and drugs while the junior secondary students
are more engaged in carrying weapons and aggression. On the other hand,
on gender differences, girls are less likely to engage in antisocial behaviors
and aggression than boys. This is probably because there is more control
exercised by girls than do boys have.
Mother’s and father’s parental adjustment: Links to externalizing behavior problems in sons
and daughters
Pierrette Verlaan Alex E. SchwartzmanSherbrooke University, Quebec, Canada Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Links between parental adjustments and behavior problems of children were examined in
this study. The main objective of this research was to scrutinize two alternative pathways that
connect parental adjustment and children’s expressed behavior problems. The first assumption is
that antisocial behavior of parents and marital hostility influence children’s antisocial behavior
through the effect of dysfunctional parenting. The second assumption is the same as the first
except that the effect of dysfunctional parenting is not fully mediated.
Conclusion
Maternal adjustment affects the behavior problems of the children directly and indirectly.
Contrary to past research studies, the link between adolescent antisocial behaviors and marital
discord on adolescent girls is not strong. However, results supported the assumption in the
beginning of the study that marital hostility that was fully mediated by dysfunctional parenting
influences the behavior problems of the children. In addition, there is a significant impact of
maternal antisocial behavior to children’s adjustment difficulties.
What this study can add to already established findings on the past researches is that
maternal patterns of adjustment are the same with both boys and girls.
The early onset of behavior problems and negative marital conflict is mediated by critical
parenting. It supports the theory of Patterson that marital conflict could disrupt the way mothers
raise their children. Contrary to the effect of mother’s dysfunctional parenting, father’s
dysfunctional parenting did not turn up to be a relevant mediator of the effect of paternal
antisocial behavior and marital hostility on the behavior problems of daughters. These findings
implies that the critical role of the development of behavior problems in children are played by
parental modeling and the possibility of transfer of antisocial behavior. One proof is that results
found in the previous studies show that children who have behavior problems were more likely
to have parents that exhibit delinquent activities.
Furthermore, father’s coercive parenting style affects the development of antisocial
behaviors more on boys than girl children. We can observe here that there is a strong gender-
related pattern.
Childhood predictors of adult criminality: are all risk factors reflected in childhood
aggressiveness?
L. ROWELL HUESMANN1, LEONARD D. ERON1 AND ERIC F. DUBOW,Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, USA;
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, USA
One of the bases of the study is the notion that early aggressive behavior is one of the
predictors of adult criminality.
The proponents of this study aimed to measure the degree to which family, parental
principles and behaviors and child intelligence influence child aggression and potential for adult
criminality.
Conclusion
The analyses that they have made with regards to the predictors of childhood criminality
were based on the assessment of physical and violent aggression, as well as verbal, acquisitive
and indirect aggression of the participants in the experiment. The best predictor, as an analysis
on the results obtained, is the aggressive behavior of the child at the age of eight. It will
determine how the child would be like in the next 22 years. So far, the strongest predictor of
adult criminality is childhood aggression. Specifically, what the parents believe regarding
punishments in aggression contributes to adult criminality. If the parents strongly believe in the
punishment of crimes whether severe or mild punishment, the child would be more likely at
stake to engage in criminal behaviors than whose parents don’t have such belief. This is
probably because those children whose parents believe in punishment were already disaffected to
punishments since they often receive them from their parents. Thus, the relationship between the
child and his parents will be in discord. Another possible reason for this is imitation and
modeling. The child will likely to imitate the punitive behaviors of his parents toward him.
However, for those boys whose parents are religious, they are less likely to engage in
criminal behaviors in their later years. The reason for this is the parents are more attentive with
their children’s problems. Thus, it increases the closeness of the parents to their child.
If the child did not feel guilty for his transgressions in his early age, he will likely to
involve in adult criminality.
A Child Effects Explanation for the Association between Family Risk and Involvement in an
Antisocial Lifestyle
Kevin M. Beaver John Paul WrightFlorida State University University of Cincinnati
The purpose of the study is to assess reciprocal effects between family risk and antisocial
lifestyle of males.
Conclusion
Children develop to what they are now relied to what they experience in their own
homes. This is the findings of other research studies. On the other hand, another research study
found out that the relationship between experiences with the family and being what they are is
spurious if we partialled out the effect of “child effects”. The study I am discussing now aimed
to test the value of these two opposite perspective.
The results obtained in this study supported the second assumption more. Family risk did
not show significant effect on determining whether the boy would be embedded in an antisocial
lifestyle or not. This is true for both longitudinal study and cross-sectional study that displayed
reciprocal effects.
Their findings also showed that there is stability in antisocial lifestyle starting in
childhood years to adolescent years. It then implies that antisocial behaviors are rooted to the
early life experiences.
Family Relationship Quality and Contact with Deviant Peers as Predictors of Adolescent
Problem Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender
Nicole E. Werner Rainer K. SilbereisenWashington State University University of Jena
Many researches had focused on studying the relationship between
family factor variables and the development of antisocial behaviors. In this
study, the primary aim was to examine gender differences between German
adolescents’ quality of family relationship and substance use and
delinquency. In childhood psychopathology, it has been concluded that
males are more vulnerable to influences of family conflicts and disorders
than females are. Contrary to this, adolescent studies showed that females
are the more vulnerable ones in the effects of family conflicts and disputes.
Conclusion
Findings imply that experiences involving family and relationship with
peers are associated in the occurrence of delinquent behaviors and
substance use. Additionally, adolescents are less likely to be involved with
peers that used substance and engaged in antisocial behaviors if they have
good relationship with their family particularly with their parents. The
gender intensification theory, in connection with this study, states that it is
stressful for adolescent girls if they have discordance with their relationship
with their family. This just further means that if there is conflict in the
family, they would more likely join peers that engaged in deviant and
delinquent activities. With this situation, it is undoubtedly that they will
exhibit behavior problems. Another finding of the study regarding the
influence of the parents to adolescents can be connected to gender. Fathers
are more likely to have influence with their daughters than their son. If the
daughter has conflict with his father, she will more likely join deviant peers.
Mothers, on the other hand have influence in both daughters and sons.
Social Disadvantage and Neglectful Parenting as Precursors to the Development of Antisocial
and Aggressive Child Behavior: Testing a Theoretical Model
John F. Knutson David S. DeGarmo John B. Reid
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IowaOregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, Oregon
One of the observations of the researchers is that neglectful parenting implicitly causes
the children to engage in antisocial behaviors. Thus, the purpose of Knutson and colleagues in
this study is to examine the indirect effects of neglectful parenting as well as social disadvantage
and punitive parenting in the development of antisocial and aggressive behaviors among
children.
Conclusion
Neglectful parenting as well as punitive parenting indeed has reliable and specific effects
on the development of the antisocial and aggressive behaviors of children. Generally, discipline
and negligence in parenting that takes place at the locus of development are one of the possible
grounds from which growth development, delineation and what an individual will become in the
future. The suggested probable reason for this is neglectful parenting impedes the child’s
development of social competence and constructive relationship with peers.
The links between antisocial behavior as well as positive change in antisocial behavior
for the next five years and punitive discipline are true for younger children. In terms of
concomitant antisocial behavior in connection to punitive discipline for older children, the links
are accurate but not with positive change in antisocial behavior. To sum up, punitive discipline
is indeed is a factor to which young children develop aggression.
The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A
Developmental Perspective
J. Mark Eddy and John B. Reid,Oregon Social Learning Center
Eddy and Reid, the researchers for this particular study believe that the adolescent
children of incarcerated parents are the ones who can negatively contribute to the society through
antisocial behaviors on account of their developmental stage. It is the one of the strongest
prognosticator of violence and crime among adolescents. An adolescent with parents who
exhibit anti-normative behaviors most likely exhibit the same behaviors as his parents since he
will imitate and modeled his parents. But with proper parenting, the adolescent children of
incarcerated parents will less likely to engage in violent acts and delinquent activities.
The theory of coercion can be related with this particular issue. It suggests that
socialization as well as parenting is considered as a very interactive and shared process between
the child and his family, peers and others that are important to him who give him various chances
for attaining success if not failure. Yet, in the United States, only few of the incarcerated parents
have a regular interaction with their children. Others interact with their children only through
mail and phone. Still, it is very important that the incarcerated parents interact with their
children, shaping them, doing their responsibilities as parents are not within the prison walls or
any media-related communication but outside prison walls where they can offer a personal
guidance and supervision for their children. In addition, it is also important to note the behaviors
and certain parenting manners of the parents throughout the four stages of development namely
before birth, during preschool years, during elementary school years and during adolescence.
Integration and Application
Family is indeed a critical factor from which an individual develops, learn his values and
shape his character. From my own point of view, based on the research studies cite in this
article, there are several reasons why family is of much importance in the development of an
individual. First, the family is where the child primarily achieves his first years of interaction
and learning. These first years of a child’s life is crucial since in these years starts the molding
of his character as an individual and as a part of the society. The bottom of all of this is that the
family should have the highest standards when it comes to disciplining and shaping their child
because as the child grows up, he will not just interact with his family but his world will
widened. He will soon interact with other people in the society. In his elementary school years,
he will then interact with his classmates and teachers. Then later with his secondary school
years, his interaction does not only revolve around his classmates and teachers but also with
other friends within an organization. His world will further widen when he reaches his tertiary
school years when he will interact with more peers within classes and organizations. Until he
will become an adult that he will as well interact with his colleagues and the rest of the world as
soon as he will find a job. Therefore, his impact is not just centered in the family or in his peers
but also with the whole society. Thus, if his character and values are founded strongly which
starts in the family, he will create a beneficial influence and contribution in his country and
probably in the whole world.
Another reason, this individual will create an influence with his peers and other people
whatever values he may have. If he has an upright character, the influence he will create to
others and pass unto them is also upright. But if he always into fights, gang wars and other
antisocial and violent behaviors, in broader terms, his values are not moral virtuous, then he will
just be a bad influence to others. If it happens, then it will create a whole batch of bad influences
in the community and later on in the society. Then what happens next is a country that has a
majority of a corrupt society since it is compose of a whole lot of corrupt individuals.
The third reason is that if it happens that this individual doesn’t have a strong foundation
on moral and upright values, he will pass on his corrupt ways to his children. Later on, his
children might pass his bad values to his children and so on.
To sum it all, the society that we are into is just undergoing into an interactive process in
which each one and another affects each other both directly and indirectly. It is a society that
continues on and on over the generations that will still come.
Dodge’s Social Information-Processing Model includes the notion that youths that are
aggressive act imprudently. They act without thinking much and respond automatically past
experiences as their bases. These youths often experienced rejection, cruelty, oppression and
other invective abuse that causes them to think that the world is an unfriendly and a harsh world
(Sigelman et al., 2009). This model of Dodge can be connected to the research study made by
Knutson and colleagues about social disadvantage and neglectful parenting as factors to the
development of antisocial behaviors as well as the study of Eddy and colleagues regarding the
antisocial behavior of the adolescent children of incarcerated parents. They all had the same
conclusion that neglectful parenting is indeed a contributor on the antisocial behavior
development in an individual.
With the view point of Patterson and colleagues, in their study of coercive family
environments, in this kind of family structure, members of the family are struggling for power
and each are trying to rule one another through forcible tactics. As the parents lose their control
over their children, the punishments only have just little effect on the children. These children in
turn are easy for them to use force against other persons. In Patterson’s over all conclusions,
ineffective parenting definitely influences to problems in behavior as well as rejection of peers,
association with antisocial peers and adolescents’ antisocial behavior (Sigelman et al., 2009).
These are just few of the theories and models that support the notion that family is a very
critical factor in the growth and development of an individual and therefore should be given so
much attention.
Our society doesn’t pay much attention to these problems. Even though, in simplest
terms, it seems that there is no problem with the families in our society, yet it is one big problem
that we must face. That’s why here in Baguio there are so much crimes and gang wars that
involve youths. Parents don’t take enough and proper responsibility for their children who then
seek attention in joining gangs. One reason I analyzed why the gang-related crimes in Baguio
City is simultaneous and unending is because the incidents in the environment that they imitate
and model unconsciously are antisocial and violent since there are many past incidents of gang
wars and gang-related violence. Another reason is that the police and government authorities
don’t seem to pay much attention to these crimes. Because it seems that there are no
punishments to these crimes, the gang members are not afraid to commit violence and other
crimes.
It is the time to be more critical at these kinds of issues. Every parent should be educated
with the proper parenting techniques in order for us to have a society that is respectable. Now is
the time to create and shape individuals that our country would be proud of.
References:
Beaver, K.M., & Wright, J.P. (2007). A Child Effects Explanation for the Association between Family Risk and Involvement in Antisocial Lifestyle. Journal of Adolescent Research, vol. 22. No.6.
Eddy, J.M., & Reid, J.B. (2002). The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Developmental Perspective, 1-23.
Huesmann, R.L., et al (2002). Childhood Predictors of Adult Criminality: Are All Risk Factors Reflected in Childhood Aggressiveness? Journal on Criminal Behavior and Mental Health. Vol.12, 185-208.
Knutson, J.F. et al, (2004). Social Disadvantage and Neglectful Parenting as Precursors to the Development of Antisocial and Aggressive Child Behavior: Testing a Theoretical Model. Journal on Aggressive Behavior. Vol. 30, 187-205.
Malete, L., (2007). Aggressive and Antisocial Behaviors Among Secondary School Students in Botswana: The Influence of Family and School-based Factors. Journal on School Psychology International. Vol. 28, 90-109.
Larsson, H., et al, (2008). Callous-unemotional Traits and Antisocial Behavior: Genetic, Environmental and Early Parenting Characteristics. Journal on Criminal Justice and Behavior. Vol. 35, no. 2.
Opina, R. (2009). Mothers Speak Their Hearts on Gang Wars. Sun Star Network Online. (www.sunstar.com.ph/baguio/mothers-speak-their-hearts-gang-wars)
Schaffer, M., et al, (2009). The Role of Empathy and Parenting Style in the Development of Antisocial Behaviors. Journal on Crime and Delinquency. 586-599.
Sigelman, C.K., & Rider, E.A. (2009). Lifespan Human Development. California:Wadsworth.
Werner, N.E., & Silbereisen, R.K., (2003). Family Relationship Quality and Contact with Deviant Peers as Predictors of Adolescent Problem Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender. Journal of Adolescent Research. Vol. 18, no. 5.
Verlaan P., & Schwartzman, A.E. (2002). Mother’s and Father’s Parental Adjsutment: Links to Externalizing Behavior Problems in Sons and Daughters. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Vol. 26, 214-224.
Viding, E. (2004). On the Nature and Nurture of Antisocial Behavior and Violence. 267-277.
Development of Antisocial Behavior in Childhood and
Adolescent Years:
How important is the Role of Family in the Character of
Children and Adolescents?
Desiree Lei P. Ebuenga
College of Social Sciences
University of the Philippines- Baguio
October 21, 2009
EDFD 110
Prof. Nancy Florendo