Journal of Education in Developing Areas (JEDA) Vol. 19, No. 1.

PEER INFLUENCE ON SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOPATHIC BEHAVIOUR BY DR. JONATHAN N. ONUKWUFOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT MOBILE 08066571169 E-mail: onukwuforjonathan@yahoo.com

Abstract The study was embarked upon to ascertain the influence of peer groups on secondary school students development of psychopathic behaviour. The study took place in Port Harcourt and Emohua Local Government Areas of Rivers State. The population for the study was made up of all the senior secondary class two students in the two local government areas and they were 30, 471 in number. The sample size was made up of 570 students. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select 10 secondary schools for the study. Two instruments were developed by the researcher and used for the study. The validity and reliability of the instruments were established. The construct validity of Students Psychopathic Behaviour Checklist (SPBC) was 0.85 while its reliability co-efficient was 0.60. The testretest reliability of Students Psychopathic Behaviour Development Questionnaire (SPBDQ) co-efficient was 0.85. Two research questions and two hypotheses were propounded for the study. The techniques for the data analysis were mean, Standard Deviation and t-test. The results were that peer groups significantly influence male Students Psychopathic Behaviour influenced the male students involvement in psychopathic behaviour than female students. Also, peer groups significantly influenced the rural students to engage in psychopathic behaviours than the urban students. Recommendations were made, among which was that parents are required to monitor their children very closely to ensure that they do not mingle with children who have psychopathic behaviours

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Introduction Peer group influence could affect an adolescent either positively or negatively. Peer rejection may cause some emotional problems to adolescents. According to Roff, (1961), Roff, Sells and Golden (1972), poor peer relations during children hood being rejected by many and accepted by few were a reliable predictor of severe emotional disturbances later in life. Children who had been actively shunned or rejected by their classmates were more likely to be delinquent as adolescents. This finding further suggests that peer rejection could lead to the development of delinquency in adolescents. The above postulation is in consonance with the result of longitudinal study by Cowen Pederson, Babiganm, Izzo and Triest (1973) they state that children who had been rejected by their peers in the third grade, were more likely than those with peer relations to be seeking treatment for emotional disturbance 11 years later as young adults. In their own contribution, Jacobson and Wille (1986) Lafreniere and Sroufe,(1985) observe that, since friendly and harmonious contacts with peers promote the development of adoptive social skills, it would seem that any child who fails to establish positive links to the peer group will run a far greater risk of displaying inappropriate and perhaps even pathological patterns of behaviour as an adolescent to young adult, this suggest that positive peer relations contribute towards the development of appropriate social skills while the absence of positive peer relationship contributes towards the development of inappropriate behaviour. Parental abuse may affect peer relations Hetheringion, (1981), Lewis, Feiring, Mcguffog, and Jaskir, (1984) assert, we know that children who are abused by their parents often attain very low status in the peer group, perhaps owing to their tendency to be highly and inappropriately aggressive with peers. Hetheringion (1981) and the others, tend to suggest that parental abuse leads to peer rejection and this causes the abused child to develop aggression towards peers. Intelligence also plays a role in peer acceptance. According to Hartup, (1983), there is also a positive relationship between intelligence and peer acceptance. Brighter children tend to be more popular members of many peer groups. The types of names people answer may also be related to peer acceptance people with attractive names tend to be more popular while those with strange names tend to be less popular. In this regard, McDavid and Harari (1966) found that children with attractive names (for example, between John, Susan or Kim) were rated as more popular by their peers than children with unusual and less attractive names of chastity. Physical characteristics such as facial attractiveness, may be a factor that could contribute towards an adolescents acceptance and popularity. Langcois, (1985) posits that Attractive youngster are often described in more favourable terms (for example, friendlier, more intelligent) than the less attractive play mate by both teachers and other children. Vaughn and Langlois (1983) however states although a pretty face seems to be more of an asset for girls than for boys. A longitudinal research conducted at the University of California suggests that early maturing males tend to be more poised and confident in social settings and to be over represented among pupils who have won athletic honours and or student elections. By contrast if parents, teachers and peers treat a boyish looking late mature as if he were somehow less worthy of privileges and responsibility, it is easy to know www.jeda-uniport.com Page 1

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

he could feel unsure of himself and feel rejected. This feeling of rejection lowers his self esteem and may even affect his academic performance. It has also been found by researchers that there is a relationship between body build and peer group acceptance. In this regard, Clausen (1975), Lerner (1969) state that, the mesomorphs in the class turned out to be the most popular children whereas endomorphic classmates were the least popular. Later research with adolescents and adults points a similar picture- mesomorphs are generally popular individuals, who often rise to positions of leadership, whereas ectomorphs and particularly endomorphs tend to be much less popular. Behavioral characteristics also influence a childs acceptance among the peers. In this regard, Langlois and Styczynski (1979) posit. Although physical characteristics associated with attractiveness are meaningful contributors to peer acceptance even highly attractive children may be very unpopular if playmates consider their conduct inappropriate or antisocial. Thus a childs conduct appears to be one of the major determinants for his acceptance by peers. Shirley Moore (1967) found that popular preschoolers were perceived by their classmates as friendlier, more compliant and less aggressive than unpopular children. Studies of grade school children found the same outcome. Popular children are observed to be reasonably calm, outgoing, cooperative, and supportive, whereas neglected children tend to be less talkative and more with drawn, and extremely unpopular or rejected children can be describe as highly active and disruptive braggarts who tend to be snobbish, short tempered, and aggressive (Coie, Dodge and Coppotelli, 1982, Coie and Kupersmidt 1983, Dodge 1983; French and Wass, 1985) Adolescents can influence peers negatively Kandel (1973) studied a group of adolescent whose best friends either did or did not smoke marijuana and whose parents either did or did not smoke marijuana and whose parents either did or did not smoke marijuana and whose parents either did or did not use psychoactive drugs. Among those teenagers whose parents used drugs but whose friends did not, only 17% were marijuana users. When parents did not use drugs but best friends did, 56% of the adolescents were marijuana users, from these findings, one may conclude that the peer group is more influential than parents over the use of marijuana. Wentzel (1994), found that, young adolescents were more accepted by their peers when they helped each other in class, but less accepted when they abided by classroom rules. This means that some adolescents may not be willing to adhere to rules and regulations or adhere to parental desires but stick to peer group requirements in this regard, Steinber (1999) states, no longer are young people interested in the things their parents want for them, in fact, teenagers have become separated from adult society to such an extent that they have established their own society a separate youth culture that undermines parents efforts to encourage academic excellence and instead emphasizes sports, dating, and partying. This situation has created problems such as youth unemployment, teenage suicide, juvenile crime and delinquency, drug and alcohol use, and premarital pregnancy which can be attributed to the rise of peer groups and the isolation of adolescents from adults (Bronfen Brenner, 1974). Problematic peer relationships are associated with a range of serious psychological and behavioural problems during adolescence and adulthood. Individuals who are unpopular or who have poor peer relationship during adolescence are more likely than their socially accepted peers to be low achievers in school, to drop www.jeda-uniport.com Page 2

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

out of high school, to have a range of learning disabilities, to show higher rates of delinquent behaviour and to suffer from an array of emotional and mental health problems as adults (Savin-Willians and Berndt, 1990). Peer groups may provide the sorts of models and feedback that adolescents cannot get from adults. Hill and Holmbeck, (1986) observe that the peer group provides a context for adolescents to test out decision making skills in an arena where there are no adults present to monitor and control their choices, intimacy and sexual relationships may also be more provided by peers in this regard Sullivan (1953) posits, it is therefore the adolescents peer group that generally plays the central role in socializing youngsters in appropriate sexual behaviour and in developing the capacity for intimate friendship. The term psychopathic is synonymous with antisocial, sociopathatic and moral insanity. According to Bernstein et al (2006 p 614) in the 1800s, the antisocial personality disorder was called moral insanity, because the people displaying it appear to have no morals or common decency later, these people came to be called psychopathic or sociopaths. People exhibiting psychopathic behaviour are nuisance to the society. They are charming intelligent, fast talkers, they borrow money and fail to return it. Psychopaths are arrogant and self-centred and can manipulate people into doing things for them. They do this through lying and taking undue advantage of peoples decency and trust. The psychopaths lack anxiety, remorse, remorse, or feeling of guilt whether they have wrecked a borrowed car or killed an innocent person (Gray et al, 2003, Hare 1993). No method has yet been found for permanently altering their behaviour (Rice, 1997), however, research suggests that identification of antisocial personalities prior to the development of their more treatment resistant may offer the best hope for dealing with the problem (Cranwford, Cohen, and Brooks, 2001; Lynam 1996) some of the causes of psychopathic behaviour include genetic predisposition (Slutake et al, 2001); broken homes, rejection by parental models lack of attachment to early caregivers conflict-filled childhoods and poverty (Lahey et al; 1995; Raine Brennan, and Mednick, 1994). Port Harcourt Local Government Area is the capital of Rivers State of Nigeria. It is an urban area and plays host to nationals of various countries due to the production and exportation of petroleum products in Rivers State. Emohua Local Government Area on the other hand is a rural area and constitutes part of Ikwerre ethnic group of Rivers State. They speak Ikwerre language and are mainly farmers, traders and civil servants. This study therefore intends to ascertain the extent peer group influences the development of psychopathic behaviour based on gender and location of the secondary school students. Statement of the Problem The prevalence of psychopathic behaviour and its devastating consequences in the society has become a source of serious concern to all and sundry. The peer groups are known to play invaluable role in terms of socialization and security to members. This makes it imperative for every adolescent to belong. However, peer groups may influence their members into unduce conformity in order to be accepted and accommodated in the group. Fantana (1988) posits, an aspect of conformity, particularly evident at school level is the pressure placed upon www.jeda-uniport.com Page 3

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

individuals by their peer groups. Especially in adolescence, but even in the junior and infant schools, children are very influenced by what other children of their age are doing. Their desire to be admitted and to be a part of the group is very strong and may appear irresistible. Often the group may develop distinctive behaviour which must be followed as a badge of group membership. Negative influences from peer members may push innocent ones among them into psychopathic behaviour. According to Brown, Clasen, and Eicher (1986), Adolescents do, however report a good deal of pressure to drink alcohol and this pressure increases during the adolescent years. This pressure may extend to other areas such as stealing, kidnapping arson and assault. Purpose of the Study The major purpose of this study is to determine the extent peer groups influence the development of psychopathic behaviour among secondary school students. The specific objectives of the study are as follows: 1. To ascertain the extent of difference in male and female students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour. 2. To find out the extent of difference between urban and rural students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour.

Research Questions The research questions for this study are as follows:1. What is the difference between male and female students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour? 2. What is the locational difference in students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour? Hypotheses Ho1 Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their gender. Ho2: Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their location. Method The research design adopted for this study was descriptive survey. The population of this study included all the senior secondary class two (SS 11) students in all the state owned secondary schools in Port Harcourt and Emohua Local Government Areas of Rivers State. The total population of SS II students in the two local government areas was 30, 471 students made up of 16,779 male and 13, 692 female students. In terms of location, the population comprised 16,589 urban and 13,882 rural students. Stratified random sampling was used to select 10 schools from the two mentioned local government areas for study. The schools were selected on the basis of gender and location. A total of 1000 SS II students were randomly selected and administered with a test to determine those with psychopathic characteristics. One hundred SS II students were randomly selected from each of the 10 schools. Out of the students tested, 570 were identified to have psychopathic characteristics and they constituted the sample www.jeda-uniport.com Page 4

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

size for this study. The sample size therefore was made up of 330 male and 240 female students locationally, the sample size comprised 276 urban and 294 rural students. Two instruments were used for the study these are the students Psychopathic Behaviour Checklist (SPBC) and the students psychopathic Behaviour Development questionnaire (SPBDQ) the SPBC contained 36 items and the items were to be ticked yes or No On the other hand SPBDQ contained 48 items and is a four point likert type questionnaire (strongly agree, agree disagree and strongly disagree The two instruments were developed by the researcher. Four experts in the area of Education psychology, measurement and Evaluation validated the instruments their suggestions and recommendations were duly implemented. The SPBC internal consistency evidence of the construct validity was established using internal consistency method called item-total correlation method with Kuder-Richardsons estimates Kuder-Richardsons formula 20 showed that the instrument has 0.85 construct validity, while Kuder-Richardsons formula 21 showed construct validity of the instrument as 0.82. The test- retest technique was used to determine reliability of the SPBDQ and SPBC. The test-retest determined the internal consistency of the instruments and their stability. Random sampling was used to draw 40 students for SPBDQ and 30 for SPBC in two schools where the study did not take place and were administered with the instruments. Two weeks later, the two instruments were read ministered to the students by the researcher. Statistical method used for the computation of the reliability was Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. The reliability coefficient obtained for SPBDQ was 0.83 while that of SPBC was 0.60

RESULTS The results of the research questions and hypothesis stated for the study are hereby presented. Research Questions 1 What is the difference between male and female students peer group influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour? Hypothesis 1 Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their sex Table 1: A Mean and t-test Analysis of Male and Female Students Peer Influence on the Development of Psychopathic Behaviour Gender N SD df t cal t erit. Result x Male 330 26.0424 8.384 568 2.41 1.960 Rejected Female 240 24.2625 8.919 Table 1 shows that the mean and standard deviation of male and female students peer influence on development of psychopathic behaviour. The mean for male and female students were 26.0424 and 24.2625 respectively, while their corresponding standard deviation were 8.3835 and 8.9186. The male students mean www.jeda-uniport.com Page 5

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

is greater than that of female students; with a mean difference of 1.7799. This result suggests that peer groups influence male students to engage in psychopathic behaviour more than female students. Table 1: shows that the calculated t value of 2.41 is higher than the critical value of 1.96 at .05 level of significance. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This means that there is a significant difference between male and female students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour. Research Questions 2 What is the locational difference in students peer groups influence on the development of psychopathic behaviours? Hypothesis 2 Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their location. Table 2: A Mean and t-test Analysis for Locational Peer Influence on Students Development of Psychopathic Behaviour. Location N SD df t cal t erit. Result x Urban 276 23.5688 7.693 568 -4.70 1.960 Rejected Rural 294 26.9116 9.183 Table 2 shows that urban students obtained a mean of 23.5688 and a standard deviation of 76929 while the rural students got a mean of 26.9116 and standard deviation of 9.1833. The mean difference between urban and rural students is 3.3428. The rural students mean is higher than that of the urban students. The result of this research question therefore is that rural peer groups influence on psychopathic/antisocial behaviour is more than the urban peers groups. Table 2 shows that the computed t value of -4.70 is higher than the critical value of 1.96 at .05 level of significance. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference between urban and rural students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behavior. Summary of Results Ho1: There was significant difference between male and female students peer influence on development of psychopathic behaviour. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho2: There was significant locational difference in students peer influence on development of psychopathic behaviour. The null hypothesis was rejected. Discussion Hypothesis 1: Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their sex. This null hypothesis is rejected. Its rejection is based on the outcome of t-test analysis as contain in Table 4.14. The calculated t-value of 2.41 is higher than the www.jeda-uniport.com Page 6

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

critical value of 1.96 at the alpha level of .05. The mean difference between male and female students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour has been found to be statistically significant. This implies that peer groups significantly influenced the male students involvement in psychopathic behaviour than the female students. This finding is in agreement with Berndt, (1979) and Hartup (1983) cited in Ma, et al (2002). They state that the influence of peers and adolescent behaviour has been found to be quite significant. The outcome is also in accord with Adiogu (2000) who found that there was significant difference between male and female students peer influence on students delinquent activities. Adolescents peer influence may depend to some extent on the ability of parents to control and monitor their children. Forgatch and Stool Miller (1992 p 2117) posited that during adolescent when peer groups solidify their parents are less able to monitor them or exercise behavioural control over them and they are more apt to wander off into deviant peer groups. This is a major source of peer influence on students behaviour. It has implication for parents to monitor the type of peer groups their children associate with. The level of monitoring and control would depend on the nature of the childrens peer group. In this regard, Forgatch and Miller (1992) state that when the peer group is more negative a higher level of control would be needed to protect a child from the negative effects of such influences. The SPBDQ items analysis showed that 21.8% of male and 32% of female students reported that they like to stay idle discussing with school mates. In addition, 25% of boys and 7.5% of girls reported that they learnt to have many sex partners from their friends. Concerning first sex experience 15.4% of male students and 19.1% of female students reported that a friend introduced them to the person they had their first sexual experience with. About drinking and smoking 27.2% of male and 17% of female students reported that their friends do not like to associate with any body who does not smoke and drink alcohol. All these are instance of negative peer influences. Hypothesis 2: Peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour of students is not significantly dependent on their location. Based on the analyzed t-test data in table 4.17, this null, hypothesis is rejected. This is because the calculated t value of -4.70 is higher than the critical value of 1.96 at .05 level of significance. The rejection of the null hypothesis indicates that there is a significant locational difference in students peer influence on the development of psychopathic behaviour. Since the rural students mean is higher than the urban students mean, the implication is that peer groups significantly influenced the rural students to engage in psychopathic behaviour more than the urban students. The finding of this aspect of the research is in consonance with Adiogu (2000) who found that peer groups significantly influenced rural students delinquent activities. This finding also agreed with Eisenberg and Cabes, (1998) cited in Ma et al (2002) that the influence of peers on adolescents behaviour has been found to be significant. Peers are able to influence each other more because they spend much time together. According to Harson and Prescett, (1977) American teenagers spend more time talking to their friends each day than on any other single activity. This situation may also be applicable to Nigeria. During the discussions, young people are influenced under intense pressure from their peers to participate in criminal or other antisocial activities in order to feel that they belong. Teenage is a very delicate age bracket for such influence especially because teenagers feel ashamed to be called names for their www.jeda-uniport.com Page 7

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

inability to co-operate in the performance of illegal or antisocial activities Dembazua (1999). Item analysis of SPBC showed that 87.6% of urban and 71.4% of rural students tell their parent lies some times. Recommendations 1. Sequel to the finding that there was no significant difference between peer group influence on students development of psychopathic behaviour and family, it is recommended that parents should monitor their children very closely to ensure that they do not mingle with children who have psychopathic behaviour. 2. The other result that peer groups significantly influence male students to engage in psychopathic behaviour than female students. to this effect, it is recommended that government should sponsor television and radio gingles that highlights the dangers inherent in adolescents association with people of psychopathic behavior, it is further recommended that moral instruction should be reintroduced in secondary schools. Another result was that peer groups significantly influenced rural students psychopathic behaviour more than the urban students. It is recommended that parents should encourage their children to participate more in religious activities like being members of choir and youth fellowships.

3.

REFERENCE Adiogu, G.C (2000). Factors that influence juvenile delinquency among secondary school. Students in Abia State. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Port Harcourt, Port- Harcourt. Bernstein, A.A. Penner, L.A. Clarke-Stewart A. & Ray E.J. (2006) Psychology New York: Hollghton Mifflin Company. Clausen, J. A. (1975). The Social meaning of differential physical maturation. In D. Drugastin & G. H. Elder (Eds) Adolescence in the life cycle. New York: Halsted Press. Coie, J. D. Drodge, K.A., & Coppotelli. H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status; A cross age perspective. Developmental Psychology. 18, 557 570. Coie, J.D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioural analysis of emerging social status in boys groups. Child Development. 54, 1400 1416. Coier, J, Terry, R Lenox, K, Lochamn, J., and Hyman, C (1995). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Journal of Development and Psychopathology, 7,697-713. Cowen, E. L. Pederson, A. Babigan, H., Izzo, L.D. & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long term fellow-up of early-detected vulnerable children. Journal of consultancy and Clinical Psychology. 41, 438 446. www.jeda-uniport.com Page 8

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Crawford, T.N. Cohen, P & Brooks, J.S. (2001). Dramatic errantic personality disorder symptoms: 11 Developmental pathways from early adolescence to adulthood. Journal of personality Disorders 15, 336-350. Dambazau , A B. (1999). Criminology and Criminal Justice. Kaduna: Nigerian Defence Academy Press. Dishio, T., Patherson,. G, Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M, (1991) family, school, and behaviour antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 172-180. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioural antecedents of peer social status. Child Development. 54, 1486 1399. Fontana, D. (1988), Psychology for Teachers. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Forgatch, M.S & Stoolmiller, M (1992). Affective Processes and adolescent delinquency. Paper presented at an NIMH sponsored conference on Affective Process in Adolescence Washington D.C. French, D. C., & Wass, G. A. (1985). Behavioural problems of peer neglected and peer rejected elementary age children. Parent and teacher perspectives. Child Development, 56, 246 252. Gray, J.R. Chabris, C.F. & Braver, T.S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 316-322. Hare, R.D. (1993) Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed). Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol 4). New York: Wiley. Hetherington, E. M. (1981). Children and Divorce in R.W. Henderson (Ed). Parent Child Interaction: Theory, Research and Prospects. Orlando; FL: Academic Press. Hill, J, & Holmbeck, G (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In G. Whitehurst (Ed), Annals of Child Development. Greenwich, C.T: JAI Press. Jacobson, J. L. & Wille, D. N. (1986). The influence of attachment pattern on developmental changes in peer interaction from the trodller to the preschool period. Child Development, 57, 338 347. Kandel, D. (1973), Adolescent marijuana use: Role of parents and peers. Science, 181, 1067 1070. Kupersmidt, J., & Coie, J. (1990). Pre-adolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment of externalizing problems in adolescents. Journal of Child Development, 61, 1350-1362. Lahey, B.B. Loeber, R., Hart, E.L. Frick, P.J. & Applegate, B. (1995). Four-year longitudinal study of conduct disorder in boys: patterns and predictors of persistence Journal of Abnormal psychology, 104, 83-93. Langlois, J. H. (1985). From the eye of the beholder to behavioural reality. The development of social behaviours and social relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman (Ed) Physical Appearance, stigma and social behaviour. Hillsdale, N.J.; Erlbaum. Lerner, R. M. (1969). The development of stereotyped expectancies of body build www.jeda-uniport.com Page 9

March , 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

relations. Child Development, 40, 137 141. Lewis, C. (1931). The effects of parental firm control. Psychological Bulletin 90, 547563. Lynam, D.R. (1996). The early identification of cronic offenders: who is the fledgling psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234. Ma, H. K., Shek, D.T., Cheung, P.C. & Tam, K. K. (2002). A longitudinal study of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. Social Behaviour and Personality. McDavid, J. W., & Harari, H. (1966). Stereotyping of names and popularity in grade school children. Child Development, 37, 453 459. Morison, P., & Masten, A. (1991). Peer reputation in middle childhood as a predictor of adaptation in adolescence. A seven year follow-up. Child Development. 62, 991 1007. Raine, A., Brennan, P., & Menick, S. (1994). Birth complications combined with early material rejection at age 1 year predisposed to violent crime at age 18 years Archives of General psychiatry, 51, 984-988. Rice, M.E. (1997). Violent offender research and implications for the criminal justice system. American Psychologist. 52, 414-423. Roff, M. E. (1961). Childhood Social interactions and adult bad conduct. Journal of Abnormal and social psychology. 63, 333 337. Roff, M. F., Sells, S. B. & Golden. M. M. (1977). Social adjustment and personality development in children. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Savin-Williams, R., & Berndt, T. (1990). Friendship and peer relations in S Feldman and G Ellioh (Eds), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Slutske, W, Eisen, S. Xian, H., True W., Lyons, M.J., Goldberg, J. et al (2001). A twin study of the association between pathological gambling and antisocial personality disorder Journal of Abnormal Psychology, No, 297308. Steinberg, B. (1999). Adolescence (5th ed) New York: McGraw Hill College. Sullivan, N. S. (1953). The Interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Vauhn, B.E., & Langlois, J.H. (1983). Physical attractiveness as a correlate of peer status and social competence in pre-school children. Developmental Psychology. 19, 561 567.

www.jeda-uniport.com

Page 10