See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/343532634

Parenting Styles and Peer Pressure as Predictors of Substance Abuse among

University Students. Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, 3 (2), 55-59

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 2,639

3 authors, including:

Gboyega E. Abikoye
University of Uyo
57 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gboyega E. Abikoye on 08 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
2014; 3(2): 55-59
Published online April 20, 2014 ([Link]
doi: 10.11648/[Link].20140302.14

Parenting styles and peer-pressure as predictors of

substance abuse among university students
Gboyega E. Abikoye1, *, Adeniyi M. Sholarin2, James A. Adekoya3
1
Department of Clinical Psychology, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
2
Department of Psychology, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria
3
Department of Psychology & Sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria

Email address:
ageabikoye@[Link] (G. E. Abikoye)

To cite this article:

Gboyega E. Abikoye, Adeniyi M. Sholarin, James A. Adekoya. Parenting Styles and Peer-Pressure as Predictors of Substance Abuse
among University Students. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014, pp. 55-59. doi: 10.11648/[Link].20140302.14

Abstract: The study investigated the prevalence of substance abuse and its prediction by parenting styles and peer
pressure among university students. Participants in this cross-sectional survey consisted of four hundred and fifty two
randomly selected undergraduates of Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU), Ago-Iwoye. The sample consisted of 221
(48.9%) males and 231 (51.1) females. Participants’ age ranges were as follow: 126 (27.9%) were aged between 18 and
than 20 years, 312 (69.0%) were aged between 20 and 25 years while 14 (3.1%) were aged between 25 and above. Students
who were younger than 18 years were excluded from participating in the study. Results indicated that about 47% of all
respondents reported current use while 58% reported lifetime use of one or more psychoactive substances. Prevalence rates
of use of all categories of drugs by respondents are presented in Table 1. Life time prevalence rate was highest for alcohol
(43.14%), followed by tobacco (37.61%), stimulants (22.57%), cannabis (18.14%), sedatives (17.92%) and heroin
(12.17%). parenting styles (permissive parenting, authoritarian parenting and authoritative parenting), peer pressure and sex
jointly predicted substance abuse among students (R = .48; F = 9.16; p<.01) by accounting for 23% of the variances in
substance abuse. The study highlighted the important roles of parenting styles (especially authoritative parenting), peer
pressure, age and gender in understanding students’ substance abuse problem. The study concluded that these variables
should be factored into intervention programmes aimed at stemming the tides of substance abuse among university students.
It is also important for relevant interventions to commence before students enter the university since many young people
come to the university or college with pre-existing perceptions and expectations concerning substance use, and often start
university with already established habits and orientations.
Keywords: Substance Abuse, Parenting, Peer Pressure, Students, Nigeria

At the individual level, substance abuse has been

1. Introduction implicated in many forms human morbidity and mortality,
Substance abuse is one of the most pervasive social and is a leading cause of preventable deaths in many
problems in the world. It is a behaviour that most societies countries of the world (3, 4). Substance abuse is a major
views as being detrimental to physical, social, cause of physical conditions such as liver, cardiovascular,
psychological and spiritual health due to its many and cranial problems. Other problems include some degree
deleterious effects. Substance abuse has been defined as an of tolerance and withdrawal syndrome, characterized by
excessive use of addictive substances, especially when such nervousness, irritability, drowsiness, energy loss, difficulty
consumption or misuse of a substance is not for therapeutic concentrating, impaired physical performance, headaches,
purposes but rather for the purpose of altering the normal fatigues, irregular bowels, insomnia, dizziness, cramps,
functioning of the mind and body (1). Substance abuse palpitation, tremors, seating and cravings (5 - 7).
among various populations and in virtually every country Additionally, substance abuse has been implicated in
of the world is assuming an increasingly alarming majority of the cases of vehicular fatalities worldwide, with
dimension, a tendency which if, left unchecked, could spell attendant effects of physical deformity, loss of property,
disasters of an unimaginable proportion (2). loss of jobs, loss of esteem and even loss of lives. In
56 Gboyega E. Abikoye et al.: Parenting Styles and Peer-Pressure as Predictors of Substance Abuse
among University Students

addition, substance misuse is known have a causal that majority of their sample of college students cited for
relationship with many psychological disorders including substance abuse, especially excessive drinking, was peer
mental and behavioural disorders. Substance abuse is a pressure (13). The influence of the peer group becomes
leading cause of violence among individuals is a major particularly pervasive for the youth from a weak family
cause of premature deaths (3, 8, 9). setting, such as from permissive parents. The university
Apart from the various effects of substance abuse for the system, which epitomizes independence and freedom
general population, its negative impacts for the youths (hitherto mismanaged, restricted, or unavailable for many
(especially students) are far-reaching. Students who abuse youths) therefore provides a veritable environment for peer
drugs persistently face an array of possible consequences influence to wax strong on individuals. In such a situation,
raging from lowered commitment to education, declining peer influence could play a big role in students’ substance
grades, increased potential for dropout and high truancy abuse.
rate (3-5, 8). Suicides, homicides, and accidental injuries Several studies have reported alarming rates of substance
have all been linked to substance abuse among students (3, abuse in student populations (14-22). The university
8). Other researchers have found a high prevalence of experience is unique as it provides students with the first
depression, development lag, apathy and withdrawal among opportunity to be part of a larger group of peers without
substance-abusing students (10), coupled with the fact that parental supervision. It also represents the perceived (by
siblings and parents are affected profoundly by students) last period of freedom before taking on the
undergraduate involvement in substance abuse as this may responsibilities of adulthood. This makes them more
drain family financial and emotional resources (10). vulnerable to try novel, previously prohibited and
One factor that researchers have figured as playing a key sometimes illicit experiences (23, 24). Furthermore, it has
role in students substance abuse but which has not received been suspected that the use of substances like cannabis,
adequate research attention in Nigeria is parenting styles. heroin, cocaine and to some extent alcohol may have to do
Parenting style is a complex activity that includes much with the spreading of secret cults among university students
specific behaviour that works individually and together to (25, 26).
influence child’s life form. Parenting style captures two Given the serious effects that substance use portends for
important elements of parenting: parental responsiveness the students, their families and the society at large, and the
and parental demandingness (11). Parenting responsiveness limited empirical research in this area in Nigeria, it is
(also referred to as parental warmth or supportiveness) important to empirically examine the extent of the problem
refers to the extent to which parents intentionally foster substance abuse among students with a view to throwing
individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being more light on the issue, and making relevant
attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special recommendations to stakeholders, towards ameliorating the
needs and demands (12). Parental demandingness (also situation. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was
referred to as behavioural control) refers to the claims to empirically examine substance abuse among
parents make on children to become integrated into the undergraduate students of a non-residential Nigerian
family as a whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, university. Also, the study was aimed at examining the
disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child influence of parenting styles and peer pressure as well as
who disobeys (12). However when parental responsiveness some demographic variables on substance use. We
and parental demandingness is crossed, it yields three hypothesized that authoritative parenting style and less peer
parenting styles. These parenting styles are: authoritative pressure would be associated with less substance abuse. We
parenting style, which is responsive and demanding; also hypothesized that males would be report more
authoritarian parenting style, which is demanding but not substance abuse than female students. Finally, we tested the
responsive; and permissive or indulgent parenting style, hypothesis that age would have a significant influence on
which is responsive but not demanding (12). substance abuse.
In buttressing the importance of parenting styles on
children’s behavioural outcomes, (12) correlated parenting 2. Method
styles with school achievement and with adolescent
psychological maturity which involves drug involvement 2.1. Design/Participants
largely which they defined as their sense of self-reliance
and identify. They found that adolescents from authoritative The study was a cross-sectional survey, utilizing the ex
homes reported significantly higher levels of more positive post facto design in which variables were not actively
outcomes such as self conceptualizations, greater well manipulated by the researchers. Participants consisted of
being, and fever behavioral problems, including drug four hundred and fifty two randomly selected
involvement and failure to thrive. undergraduates of Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU),
Many researchers have also consistently placed the Ago-Iwoye. The sample consisted of 221 (48.9%) males
explanation of many forms of negative behaviour among and 231 (51.1) females. Participants’ age ranges were as
youths in the social domain, especially on the influence of follow: 126 (27.9%) were aged between 18 and than 20
peer groups. For instance, (13) found that the main reasons years, 312 (69.0%) were aged between 20 and 25 years
 Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2014; 3(2): 55-59 57

while 14 (3.1%) were aged between 25 and above. Students Life time prevalence rate was highest for alcohol (43.14%),
who were younger than 18 years were excluded from followed by tobacco (37.61%), stimulants (22.57%),
participating in the study. cannabis (18.14%), sedatives (17.92%) and heroin
(12.17%). The least were inhalants and anabolic steroids
2.2. Measures with 0.66% and 0.44% respectively. The previous 30 days
Data was collected with the use of a structured and and current use prevalence rates followed similar patterns
validated questionnaire. Background variables were, such but with lower rates than the life time use.
as age, sex, and level of study, were assessed in the first Table 1. Prevalence rates of substance use among respondents (N=452).
part of the questionnaire. Parenting styles were assessed
with the Parenting Care Scale (12). The scale was designed Previous 30
Drug Lifetime Use Current use
days use
to identify the dominant child rearing style that is exhibited
n % n % n %
by children’s parents or care takers. Scores that are higher Alcohol 195 43.14 163 36.06 129 28.54
than the norms indicate the dominance of the particular Tobacco 170 37.61 128 28.32 115 25.44
parenting style (authoritative, authoritarian or permissive) Stimulant 102 22.57 74 16.37 64 14.16
by respondents’ parents. The scale has been widely used Cannabis 82 18.14 71 15.71 68 15.04
Sedatives 81 17.92 42 9.92 38 8.41
and is reputed for its robust psychometric properties (27).
Heroin 55 12.17 23 5.09 23 5.09
In the present study, an alpha coefficient of 0.69 was Cocaine 43 9.51 20 4.42 18 3.98
obtained for the scale in this study. Opium 27 6.00 18 3.98 12 2.65
Substance use was assessed in this study with modified Hallucinogens 08 1.77 - - - -
Montgomery Substance Abuse Questionnaire (28). The Inhalants 03 0.66 - - - -
Anabolic
questionnaire has two parts. In the first part, a list of 02 0.44
Steroids
substances are provided (including alcohol, nicotine,
anabolic steroids, inhalants, sedatives, stimulants, We tested the hypothesis that parenting styles
dissociative anaesthetics, opioids, etc.) and respondents (permissive parenting, authoritarian parenting and
were asked to indicate any of the substances that they had authoritative parenting), peer pressure and sex would be
ever used, had used in the last 30 days or were using significantly associated with substance use, using a
currently. The second part consists of 12 items assessing multiple regression analysis (see Table 2). Results indicated
respondents’ substance abuse in the last 12 months, by that parenting styles (permissive parenting, authoritarian
ticking either “Yes” or “No” for each item (scored 1 and 0 parenting and authoritative parenting), peer pressure and
respectively). Respondents’ composite scores are used to sex jointly predicted substance abuse among students (R
determine the presence and degrees of substance use /abuse. = .48; F = 9.16; p<.01) by accounting for 23% of the
A Cronbach alpha of 0.83 was obtained for the instrument variances in substance abuse. In terms of independent
in the present study. prediction, all the predictor variables were significantly
2.3. Procedure associated with substance abuse. Specifically, more
permissive parenting was significantly associated with
A multi-stage sampling technique was used to select more substance abuse (β = .28; t = 5.86; p<.05).
departments, courses and students who took part in the
Table 2. A summary table of multiple regression showing the independent
study. Random (balloting) sampling technique was used to
and joint prediction of adolescent drug use by parenting styles and peer
select participants from the five departments from the Main pressure.
Campus of OOU. Twenty-five students offering
VARIABLES β t F R R2
compulsory courses were randomly selected from the four
Permissive parenting .28* 5.86*
levels of each department (using systematic sampling Authoritarian
technique), totaling 100 students per department. .27* 5.21*
parenting
9.16 .48** .23
Questionnaires were administered during lectures, with the Authoritative
-.19* -4.37*
prior consent of lecturers in charge of the courses. Informed parenting
consent was obtained by participants’ signing of the Peer pressure .22* 4.95*
Sex -.33** -8.53*
“Informed Consent” form attached to the questionnaire. Of
the 500 questionnaire administered, 452 were returned with Authoritarian parenting was also significantly associated
usable data, representing a 90.4% return rate. with more substance abuse (β = .27; t = 5.21; p<.05).
Similarly, more peer pressure was significantly associated
3. Results with more substance abuse (β = .22; t = 4.95; p<.05).
However, authoritative parenting was associated with less
Overall, about 47% of all respondents reported current substance abuse (β =.-19; t = -4.37; p<.05). Finally, being a
use while 58% reported lifetime use of one or more male was significantly associated with more substance
psychoactive substances. Prevalence rates of use of all abuse (β =.-33; t = -8.53; p<.05). The influence of age on
categories of drugs by respondents are presented in Table 1. substance abuse was examined using a one-way ANOVA
58 Gboyega E. Abikoye et al.: Parenting Styles and Peer-Pressure as Predictors of Substance Abuse
among University Students

(Table 3). Age was divided into three levels: Less than 20, inclusive) is viewed as a masculine trait and is even tacitly
20-24, and 25 and above, results indicated that there was a encouraged among male children by some parents. Such
significant influence of age on substance abuse {F (2, 449) culturally backed behaviours may find more ready and
= 15.04; p<.01}, with the students aged less than 20 years unbridled expression when a boy finds himself in a
reporting the highest level of substance abuse (M = 28.71± university, where he now enjoys more liberty.
8.73) relative to those aged 20 to 24 (M = 27.22± 8.88) and Relatively younger students reported more substance
those aged 25 years and above (M = 22.93± 7.61). abuse than their older counterparts. As noted by (14),
younger students may not be as capable of exerting control
Table 3. Analysis of variance of the influence of age on substance abuse. over their substance use behaviours as their colleagues who
are “more mature”. Moreover, it is quite possible that the
Sources SS df MS F P
excitement of leaving home/parents for a “freer
Between Groups 1932.03 2 966.02 15.04 < .01 environment” might be too much for the younger students
Within Groups 28840.22 449 64.23 to control. Many young students feel caged by their parents
(especially children of overprotective parents) and they
Total 30772.25 451
yearn for opportunities to be “freed”. When freedom
eventually comes by way of admission into the university,
4. Discussion knowing how to enjoy such freedom in a healthy, safe and
purposeful manner is, more often than not, a big problem.
We investigated the psychoactive substances commonly
abused by students in the present study. Findings indicated 5. Conclusions
high prevalence of substance use among the respondents.
About 58% of the respondents reported having used at least In conclusion, prevalence of substance abuse is quite
one of the psychoactive substances in their lifetime while high among our sample, and by extension undergraduate
almost a half of the respondents were current users. These students. The study also highlighted the important roles of
rates are similar to prevalence rates among students as parenting styles (especially authoritative parenting), peer
reported by other researchers (15-22). As opined by pressure, age and gender in understanding students’
Makanjuola et al (2007), a possible explanation for the high substance abuse problem, we are of the considered view
prevalence of substance use among students could be the that these variables should be factored into intervention
fact that the university experience is unique as it provides programmes. It is also important for relevant interventions
students with the first opportunity to be part of a larger to commence before students enter the university since
group of peers without parental supervision. This makes many young people come to the university or college with
students more vulnerable to try novel, previously prohibited pre-existing perceptions and expectations concerning
and sometimes illicit experiences. Also, alcohol, tobacco, substance use, and often start university with already
stimulants, cannabis and sedatives were found to be the established habits and orientations. Limiting intervention to
most commonly abused substances, which also corroborate merely reeling out rules and regulations in the university
several empirical reports (15-19). without taking the salient background issues into
On the prediction of parenting styles, we found parenting consideration may, therefore, not yield the desired results.
styles to be significantly associated with substance abuse, Caution should be adopted in interpreting and generalizing
with authoritative parenting style being the beneficial style. the findings of this study, especially considering the
This corroborates previous evidence (12) that adolescents following limitations of the study. First, the fact that only 23%
from authoritative homes reported significantly higher of the variance in substance use was explained by the
levels of more positive outcomes such as self variables in the present study indicated that there are other
conceptualizations, greater well being, and fever behavioral explanations for students’ substance use. Second, the study
problems, including drug involvement and failure to thrive. was a survey conducted in only one Nigerian university. The
Gender was found to be significantly associated with sample may, therefore, not necessarily typify the overall
substance abuse, with males students more vulnerable. This student community in the university or other Nigerian
finding of the present study lend support to earlier positions universities. The above-mentioned limitations, however, did
researchers (3, 5, 8, 10, 14, 27), who reported that male not negate the valuable contributions of the study to the body
students were, by far, more likely than their female of knowledge on this vital issue.
counterparts to abuse substances and justify such behaviour
as a means of coping with the stresses and challenges of
school work. Additionally, cultural factors may also explain References
why males abuse substances more than females. In the
predominantly masculine African culture, substance [1] Hewitt BG & Enoch G. Alcoholism. Microsoft Encarta.
Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. 2009.
use/abuse is more permissible for males whereas female
substance users/abusers are viewed in a negative [2] World Health Organization. Global Strategy to reduce the
perspective. Substance use in many parts of Africa (Nigeria harmful use of alcohol. Geneva: Author. 2010.
 Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2014; 3(2): 55-59 59

[3] Agrawal RK, Puliyel JM, Chansoria M, Mukerejee M, Kaul [15] Makanjuola AB, Daramola TO, Obembe AO. Psychoactive
KK. Comparative Study of the Personality Correlates and Substance Use among Medical Students in a Nigerian
the Nature of Drug Abuse in Schools and Colleges. Indian University. World Psychiatry 2007;6:112- 114.
Journal of Pediatrics, 2007; 49 (5): 76-85.
[16] Makanjuola AB, Daramola TO, Obembe AO. Psychoactive
[4] Yoon J, Higgins S, Heil S. Delay Discounting Predicts Substance Use among Medical Students in a Nigerian
Postpartum Relapse to Cigarette Smoking among Pregnant University. World Psychiatry 2007;6:112- 114.
Women. Experimental & Clinical Pharmacology, 2007;
15(2), 176-186. [17] Adelekan ML. West Africa sub-region: an overview of
substance abuse problems. Drugs: Education, Prevention
[5] Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and Protective and Policy 1996; 3:231-7.
Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in
Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for [18] Anumonye A. Drug use among young people in Lagos,
Substance Abuse Prevention. Psychology Bulletin, 1992; Nigeria. Bulletin on Narcotics 1980;32:39-92.
12;64-105.
[19] Baptista T, Novoa D, Hernandez R. Substance use among
[6] Santi S, Best J, Brown K.S. Social Environment and Venezuelan medical And pharmacy students. Drug Alcohol
Smoking Initiation. International Journal of Addiction, 1990; Dependence 1994;34:1217.
25:881-903.
[20] Anochie IC, Nkanginieme K. Social correlatives of drug use
[7] Seeman M, SeemanTE. Health Behavior and Personal among secondary school students in Port Harcourt, southern
Autonomy. A Longitudinal Study of the Sense of Control in Nigeria. Sahel Medical J 2000;3:87- 92.
Illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1983; 24,
144-160. [21] Bell R. Correlates of college student marijuana use: results
of a US National survey. Addiction 1997;92:571-81.
[8] Ogden J. Health Psychology: A Textbook (2nd Edition).
Buckingham: Open University Press. 2003. [22] Adelekan ML, Ndom RJE, Makanjuola AB et al. Trend
analysis of substance use among undergraduates of
[9] Patton QN. Adolescent Development and Behaviour Health. university of Ilorin, Nigeria, 1988-1998. African J Drug
A Handbook of Health Enhancement. New York. 1998. Alcohol Studies 2000;1:39-52.

[10] Shamsuddin M, Abdul-Han NH. Smoking Behaviour on [23] Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H, Strote J et al. Increased use of
Family and Consequence in Adolescence. Psychology marijuana and other illicit drugs at US colleges in the 1990s:
Journal of Social Behaviour, 2000; 20; 135-45. results of three national surveys. Addiction 2000;95:1655-67.

[11] Maccoby EE, Martin JA. Socialization in the context of the [24] Walsh A. Drug use and sexual behaviour: users,
family: Parent child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. experimenters and abstainers. J Soc Psychol 1992;132:691-3.
Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child psychology:Vol. 4.
Socialization, personality, and social development (4th [25] Leibsohn JM. Relationship between drug and alcohol use
ed.,pp. 1-101).1983. and peer group association of college freshmen as they
transit from high school. J Drug Education 1994;24:177-92.
[12] Baumrind D. The influence of parenting styles on adolescent
Competence and substance use. Journal of Early [26] Attah-Johnson FY. Attitudes of Nigerian medical students
Adolescence, 1991; 11, 56-95. towards use and abuse of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Drug
Alcohol Dependence 1985;15:323- 34.
[13] Thakore S, Ismail Z, Jarvis S, Payne E, Keetbaas S, Payne R,
Rothenburg L. The perceptions and Habits of Alcohol [27] Aje SA, Akanbi A, Folorunsho I. Problems of cultism in
Consumption and Smoking among Canadian Medical Nigerian schools. Ilorin: INDEMAC, 2000.
Students. Academic Psychiatry, 2009; 33 (3), 197 – 197. [28] Abikoye GE, Adetifa TL. Parenting Styles, Self-Esteem, and
[14] Abikoye GE Adekoya JA. Predicting Substance Abuse in a Undergraduates’ Alcohol Consumption. Ilorin Journal of
Sample of Nigerian Undergraduates: The Role of Core Self- Sociology, 2011; 3 (1), 137 – 150.
Evaluations and Delay of Gratification. Psychological [29] Montegomery County Court Referral Program. Substance
Studies. 2010; 55 (4), 299 – 307. Abuse Questionnaire. Crawfordsville: Author. 2001.

View publication stats