Issuu

Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, Online ISSN 2278-8808, SJIF 2018 = 6.371, www.srjis.com PEER REVIEWED & REFERRED JOURNAL, JULY-AUG, 2019, VOL- 7/52

FAMILY TYPE AND GENDER: PREDICTOR OF RISK FACTOR EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS Ashu Roulet1 & Seema Dhawan 2, Ph. D. 1

Faculty, 2Assoc. Prof., Department of Education, H.N.B Garhwal (Central) University,

Srinagar Garhwal, UK, India. E-mail of the corresponding authors: ashuroulet85@gmail.com , seemahnbedu@gmail.com. Abstract Family is a unit of any society, which is formed either by consanguinity, affinity or co-residence, of people with similar culture. Families often love and care for its members and integrates people with common genetic sequence despite different living and thinking styles of individual. The most common families found in India are Joint and Nuclear. A nuclear family is most basic type of family which is often portrayed as happy and contended. A joint family is the one with all family members living together in co-operation, harmony and respect for each other. Despite personal differences they remain united before the community. Most of the time children learn behavioral patterns from their family environment. This research study tries to explore effect of family type and gender on behavior of students studying in secondary schools. The data was collected from five randomly selected development blocks of district Pauri Garhwal (Uttrakhand, India), through normative survey method. The findings show that family type plays an important role in shaping behavior of students. The students living in nuclear family were likely to exhibit violent and destructive behavior and misbehavior with others. The gender differences were significant in exhibition of violent & destructive behavior, misbehavior, rebellious behavior and anti-social behavior. Boys exhibit more externalizing behavior than girls. The findings expose importance of joint families for rearing children in proper behavior. It also poses a threat to male children who are widely exposed to externalizing behavior and later indulge in delinquent activities. Keywords: Externalizing behavior, Family type, Gender, Elementary school students

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Family is bedrock of any society, central to Godâ€&#x;s plan and purpose for human beings. The relations which are formed either by consanguinity, affinity or co-residence, can best be termed as family. Interwoven in strong threads of love and care for its members, family generally integrates people with common genetic sequence but different thinking styles in total harmony. Families are of different types but the most commonly found in India are Joint and Nuclear. A nuclear family is most basic type of family which is often portrayed as happy and contended. In the hills of Garhwal, migration in pursuit of education, medical facilities and

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12752

job opportunities has coerced people to live as a nuclear family; where as those living in villages still preserve the culture of joint family. A joint family is the one with all family members living together in co-operation, harmony and respect for each other. Despite personal differences they remain united before the community. Often children learn behavioral patterns from their environment and family type plays an important role here. The research studies show that children living in non-intact families are more vulnerable to delinquency and anti-social activities at an age it is not legally allowed (below 16 years) (Venassche et.al., 2014). These behaviors can be of two types i.e. internalizing (directed towards self) and externalizing (are directed towards others). TYPES OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS Psychologists divide behavior in two categories namely skill behavior and problem behavior (fig.1). The skill behaviors are the behaviors which helps an individual to cope in society. They are positive, adaptive desirable, asset and good in nature. More often people with such behavior are recognized and liked by all in the society. Opposite to this behavior are problem behaviors which have propensity to disturb others unnecessarily and people with such behavior are often neglected and hated in the society. Sometimes these behaviors which are undesirable, negative, maladaptive, deficit and bad may force expulsion of an individual from the society. People with such behavior are hated and rejected by their own kith and kin. SKILL

PROBLEM

BEHAVIOUR

BEHAVIOR

DESIRABLE BEHAVIOR

UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR

POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

NEGATIVE BEHAVOUR ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR

MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR

ASSET BEHAVIOUR

DEFICIT BEHAVIOUR

GOOD BEHAVIOUR

BAD BEHAVIOUR

Fig 1: Types of Behavior The instability in behavior is stored in the form of energy which is directed towards self or others. It is also referred as „deviant behavior‟ manifesting some sort of alienation in behavior from the normal one. The problem behavior can further be categorized in two ways: 1- Externalizing Behavior (directed to others) 2- Internalizing Behavior (directed to self) Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12753

Externalizing Behavior The problem behaviors which are directed toward others are termed as externalizing behavior. When a teacher notices that some of the class students has been showing certain behavioral inconsistencies like refusal to complete classroom assignments, disturbing other class-mates, disrupt or breaking the furniture of

misbehave with teachers and students during classroom hours, classroom, disobeying rules, physical aggression, threatening,

bullying and fighting with others etc. then it predicts externalizing behaviors in children. Since these behaviors are directed towards the external environment therefore often referred as externalizing behaviors. Instead of expressing their negative emotions or repose to life pressure in a healthy or productive way children with externalizing behavior reflect their feelings outward to other people or things through verbal or non verbal modes. For example a child who is trouble comprehending school work may choose to bully classmate who is doing good in school.

AGGRESSIVE/ VIOLENT / MISBEHAVING

OTHERS

ARSON

Fig 2: Externalizing Behaviors Major Incidents In the year 2012, involvement of an adolescent in the heinous ‘Nirbhaya’ rape case shook the nation. It was after this incidence that the existing juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) was amended on 22nd December 2015 under which „the juveniles in conflict with law in age group of 16 – 18 involved in heinous offences will be treated as Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12754

adults‟. The fast track courts were established to resolve the delinquent cases. As a result, justice in a murder case by two minors 16 and 17 year old in Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh) was pronounced within 3 months of incident (Hindustan, 2 March 2017) which was first case after the amendment in the law. The minors in this verdict were sentenced life imprisonment and treated as adults. The most thrilling incident of February 2018 was homicide of 17 people inside the school premises at Parkland, Florida by a 19 year old boy Nikolas Cruz who revenged killing 17 people after he opened fire by AR-15 riffle. He was dismissed from school on discipline ground which led him to retaliate against the school administration and colleagues. ‘This is the 18th incident of its own kind in United States of America’ states the local newspaper (Amar Ujala, 16 Feb. 2018). Similar cases happened in India and abroad in past few months. The growing gun-culture has been acknowledged throughout the world to be the most terrifying way of homicide, which has envisaged worldwide protest against armament. Is Childhood Externalizing Behavior a Major Risk Factor? Childhood externalizing behavior is a major risk factor for juvenile delinquency, crime and violence in later years (Betz et. al, 1995). It is also viewed as public health problem (Campbell et. al., 1995, Hann 2002). In a holistic way externalizing behavior can be referred to as grouping of behavior problems that are revealed in children‟s external behavior and reflect the child negatively acting on the external environment (Campbell et. al, 2000, Eisenberg, 2001). Children with externalizing behavior problems of conduct disorder are more likely to grow up to delinquent as adolescents and criminal and violent as adults (Farrington, 1997). In the research literature, externalizing disorders are collection of different behavior problems like hyperactivity, misbehavior, disruptive behavior and aggressive behaviors (Hinshaw, 1987). In this research study the externalizing behavior collectively pertains to different behavioral problems viz. misbehavior with others, temper and tantrums, hyperactivity, violent and destructive behavior, rebellious behavior and antisocial behavior. The other terms used for externalizing behavior are conduct disorders and behavior problem. Sometime anti-social behavior and externalizing behaviors are used synonymously or interchangeably. In most of the cases the term externalizing behavior is used instead of antisocial behavior to discuss less severe disruptive and destructive behavior of children (Shaw and Winslow, 1997).

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12755

Dimensions of Externalizing Behavior The construct of Externalizing Behavior includes different dimensions like hyperactivity, antisocial behavior, temper and tantrums, rebellious behavior, misbehavior with others, violent and destructive behavior etc. Each one of these dimensions together contributes towards a major behavior problem which seems to be directed towards others always. These behaviors may create problem to others those who are nearby, leading to the conflicts or tensions. Each one of these dimensions is discussed briefly in following points. a) Violent and Destructive Behavior This form of behavior is directed towards others through aggressive actions. This may pertain to the ultimate form of aggression, hate and jealousy. It crosses over the social boundaries and disregards laws in pursuance of self satisfaction. The children exhibit violent and destructive behavior towards others with who he or she may not be in calm temperament. It includes kicking, pushing, pinching, biting others, poking with sharp objects, throwing objects on others etc. Sometimes this may be exhibited through breaking the things around, like furniture, glass objects and toys, tearing books of others and so on. b) Temper and Tantrums It is mostly associated with heightened emotions of behavior. The child screams, stamps foot, rolls on the floor and cries excessively whenever situations are not according to his or her will. c) Misbehavior with Others Often the behavior which seems to contradict social norms of conduct is interpreted as misbehavior. It is verbal when abusive words are used rampantly or loud noises are made to disturb and to interrupt others. It can be, passing unwanted and vulgar comments on others, sometimes it can be seen in intimidating others. It can take non verbal forms when expressed through actions like pulling objects, writing nasty things or tripping others while walking. Sometimes such kind of behavior is exhibited through expressions like making faces to tease, or laughing and mocking on others. d) Hyperactivity Instability in actions and attention deficit is termed as hyperactivity. A hyperactive person cannot sit in one place for required period of time. He or she is unable to pay attention and continue with the work at hand for a certain time period.

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12756

e) Rebellious Behavior Unwilling to follow rules and regulation of a particular organization is termed as rebellious behavior. It is always against the authorities when anyone refuses to obey command, argues without purpose or does opposite of what ever is requested. Sometimes wandering outside schools or running away from school during school hours is also observed as rebellious behavior. f) Anti-Social Behavior Every society has its own way of living, attuned to the members of it. Laws and regulations are framed to prevent unsteady conditions of mayhem threatening existence of the society. An adult convicted of violating rules and laws of the society is booked as a criminal but children below the certain age are treated as delinquents. Delinquents are treated differently than criminals on the pretext of certain psychological factors like maturation in emotions, thoughts, thinking and other aspects. Causes of Externalizing Behavior The factors responsible for the problem behavior may be categorized as below: a) Personal factors: Personal factors are those which take the individual as the locus of all circumstances. The cause of externalizing behavior can be attributed to the individual in following ways: 1- Depression: Depression is a state of extreme dejection. It is characterized by persistent feeling of sadness or loss of interest often exposed through behavioral and physical symptoms. It can lead to agitation, excessive crying, irritability or social isolation (externalizing behavior) or can be associated with suicidal thoughts (internalizing behavior). Other physical changes visible in such condition are anxiety, guilt, discontent, mood swings, sleeplessness, fatigue, loss of appetite, lack of concentration, weight loss etc. Depression causes adjustment disorder in which a person may react excessively abnormal to an identifiable life stressor. 2- Family Involvement: Family is reflection of any individualâ€&#x;s trait, attitudes, values and ethics that flow in a hierarchical way. Parents play a pivotal role in molding behavior of children. Their involvement can serve to promote and support the social, emotional, physical, academic and vocational growth in children but problematic relationship with parents tempts adolescents to associate with deviant friends often cited as one of the strongest correlate of delinquent behavior (Dishon et.al., 1994). Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12757

3- Amusement: Aberrant behavior is linked with amusement to some extent. Often children seek for fun and enjoyment in their leisure activities. They seek for enjoyment of pleasure through destruction, recreation and play, often deviating from normal behavior in the mundane activities of daily life. b) Biological Factors:

Adolescence is often identified with physiological changes in

human body. The hormonal secretions in human body rapid at this developmental stage largely influence the behavior. The secretion produces neurobiological changes which results in physical and psychological alteration. It directly affects the physical development and functioning of brain, body and emotions. This may augment mood swings, emotional surges, aggression and bouts of crying, extremely sensitivity, uncertainty, indecisiveness and sometimes mere drastic conditions resulting in uncontrollable and harmful behavior. c) Social Factors: The behavior of an individual is both socially and biologically determined. The researches show that more externalizing behavior problems of adolescents are associated with less parental monitoring and unsupervised time spent in community (Beyers et. al., 2003). Much of the causes of externalizing problems behaviors lie in the interaction between children‟s genotypes and their environment as well as their temperamental qualities (Moffit, 2005). „Nurture‟ in „Nature vs. Nurture‟ conflict has always played a significant role in shaping an individual‟s behavior. Moreover there are several sociological effects like cultural inheritance (wealth, religion, race, ethnicity, caste etc.) which influences the behavior. Urbanization certainly has affected the way of living and behaving. It has exposed to new ideas and resources to reshape the individual‟s behavior. It is well known fact that urban areas are much higher than rural areas in terms of crime rates. d) Clinical Factors: Apart from above discussed factors there can be malfunctioning of human organs leading to serious changes in behavior. Some of the diseases which may affect behavior are discussed below. 1- Autism Spectrum Disorder: 2- Neuroses: 3- Schizophrenia: 4- Conduct disorder:

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12758

Repercussions of Externalizing Behavior The unexpected outcomes may be serious and threatening for any child who is identified with externalizing behavior. Childhood externalizing behavior is a predictor of early childhood delinquency (Farrington, 1989; Betz, 1995; Moffit, 1993) and is also considered to be a public health issue. Kothari commission has righty said, “The destiny of nation is shaped in classroom”, therefore it becomes important to secure our nation‟s future by preventing fall in moral ethics of adolescents. The most threatening consequences of deviant behavior were seen in „Nirbhaya Case‟, Pradyumna murder case‟ and many other nameless fameless unidentified cases which never made the news headlines. At present the population of children in the nation below 15 years is around 27.3 % of the total population (SRS, 2015). It could be fatal to leave the nation at the risk of delinquency and destruction if not checked at primary stage. The objective of the study was to study the effect of family type and gender on externalizing behavior of elementary school students. Null hypotheses were framed. METHODOLOGY The method used in the above study was survey method. A representative sample of 509 students (boys and girls) was selected from 31 schools of 5 randomly selected blocks of district Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand. The tool PBSS developed by Dr. S. Venkatesan, Prof of Clinical Psychology, AIISH Mysuru, was used to study the externalizing behavior. MannWhitney test was used to compare the difference between the externalizing behaviors of male and female students and students from Joint and Nuclear families. RESULTS Family-wise Profile

(129) 25% (380) 75%

joint nuclear

Fig. No. 3

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12759

The analysis shows that the sudents belonging to Nuclear Families were 380 while the students belonging to Joint Families were 129 which constituted 75% and 25% of the sample respectively. A large difference indicates that the trend of living in a nuclear family is increasing in the hills. It is largely adopted by the families since it is economical and beneficial in many ways. The pictorial presentation of the data is given in the fig.3 Table No 1: Family-wise Behavior Variable Joint

Family Type

Behavior Normal Behavior

Deviant Behavior

Total

94 (72.9%)

35 (27.1%)

129

107 (28.2%) 142 (28%)

380 509

Nuclear 273 (71.8%) 367 (72%)

Total

The analysis also shows distribution of behavior in terms of family type. It is evident from the table 1 that 27.1% (35) students belonging to joint families and 28.2 % (107) students from nuclear families are deviated. The difference is marginal in terms of type of families. Thus it can be said that nuclear families have slightly more deviant children than joint families. The children with slightly deviant behavior which is otherwise considered to be the normal behavior are almost equal in both families. The figure 3 also shows the growing trend of nuclear family, as the number of nuclear families are quite larger than joint families. People now prefer to live in nuclear families rather than joint families. Gender- wise Behavior The externalizing behavior is leveled in two categories on the basis of severity of behavior i.e. the normal with scores between 0 â€“ 28.5 and the deviant with composite scores above 28.5. Normally it is observed that all children have some sort of behavior problems to a certain measure whether due to personal, biological or social factors and these behaviors are assorted product of all the three factors, hence referred as normal behavior in this part of analysis. The problem behavior which is high, severe and clinical has been clubbed to be referred as deviant behavior. The analysis presents a comparison between the normal and the deviant on the basis of gender and helps us to understand the nature of externalizing behavior. Table No. 2: Gender-wise Behavior Behavior Variable Gender Total

Normal Behavior

Deviant Behavior

Total

Male

267 (67.4%)

129 (32.6%)

396

Female

100 (88.5%)

13 (11.5%)

113

367 (72%)

142 (28%)

509

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12760

The table 2 shows distribution of normal and deviant behavior in terms of gender. The table clearly indicates that in male students, 129 (32.6%) are deviant and 267 (67.4%) are normal in behavior while in female students 13 (11.5%) are deviant and 100 (88.5%) are normal in behavior. It is evident that percentage of males is three times of females in problem behavior. The students with normal behavior are proportionally high in females as compared to their counterparts while the male students with deviant behavior are comparably high (almost thrice in percent) to females. The fact that males are always bold and harsh than girls seems to prevail the findings. Boys are more exposed to the society as compared to girls. Parents prefer home stay for girls while boys stroll learning different things through interaction. Girls face many restrictions and are expected to be nobel in character while boys are free to go anywhere. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR OF MALES AND FEMALES Table 3: Difference between VDB of Male and Female students Dimension Sex VDB

Mean Rank

Male 396 266.91 Female 113 213.27 Total 509

Sum Ranks

of MannWilcoxon Whitney U W

105696.00 24099.00

17658.00

24099.00

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.001** 3.44

**Significant at 0.01 The table 3 shows significant difference between VDB of male and female students of secondary school. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 266.91 and 213.27 respectively. The test statistic U = 17658.00, z = - 3.44, p < 0.01which shows a significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that males are significantly more violent and destructive as compared to females. Table 4: Difference between TT of Male and Female students Dimension TT

Sex

Mean Rank

Male 396 258.03 Female 113 244.38 Total 509

Sum Ranks

of MannWilcoxon Z Whitney U W

102180.50 27614.50 21173.50

27614.50

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

.372 .893

The table 4 shows significant difference between TT of male and female students studying in secondary schools. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 258.03 and 244.38 respectively. The test statistic U = 21173.50, z = - .893, p> 0.05 which do not show any significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12761

males and females are almost identical in showing temper and tantrums. Thus the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between Temper and Tantrums (TT) of male and female students is accepted. Table 5: Difference between MO of Male and Female students MannMean Sum of Wilcoxon Sex N Whitney Z Dimension Rank Ranks W U Male 396 269.12 106572.50 MO Female 113 205.51 23222.50 16781.50 23222.50 4.07 Total 509

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) .000**

**Significant at 0.01 The table 5 shows significant difference between MO of male and female students studying in secondary schools. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 269.12 and 205.51 respectively. The test statistic U = 16781.50, z = - 4.07, p < 0.01 which shows a significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that males are significantly more misbehaving as compared to females. Thus the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between Misbehavior with Others (MO) of male and female students is not accepted. Table 6: Difference between H of Male and Female students Dimension H

Sex

Mean Rank

Sum Ranks

MannWhitney U

Male 396 259.10 102602.50 Female 113 240.64 27192.50 20751.50 Total 509

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

Wilcoxon Z W 27192.50

.229 1.20

The table 6 shows significant difference between H of male and female students studying in secondary schools. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 259.10 and 240.64 respectively. The test statistic U = 20751.50, z = -1.20, p > 0.05 which do not show any significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that males and females are identical in exhibiting hyperactivity. Thus the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between Hyperactivity (H) of male and female students is accepted. Table 7: Difference between RB of Male and Female students Dimension RB

Sex

Mean Rank

Male 396 263.19 Female 113 226.29 Total 509

Sum Ranks

of MannWhitney U

104224.00 25571.00

19130.00

Wilcoxon W

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

25571.00

-2.42

.015*

*Significant at 0.05 Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12762

The table 7 shows significant difference between RB of male and female students studying in secondary schools. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 263.19 and 226.29 respectively. The test statistic U = 19130.00, z = -2.42, p < 0.05 which shows a significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that males are significantly more rebelling as compared to their counterparts. Thus the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between Rebellious Behavior (RB) of male and female students is not accepted. Table 8: Difference between ASB of Male and Female students

Dimension

ASB

MannMean Sum of Wilcoxon Whitney Z Rank Ranks W U

Sex

Male

396 273.06 108133.50

Female 113 191.69 21661.50 Total 509

15220.50 21661.50

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

.000** 5.38

**Significant at 0.01 The table 8 shows significant difference between ASB of male and female students in secondary schools. The mean rank scores of males (N = 396) and females (N = 113) are 273.06 and 191.69 respectively. The test statistic U = 15220.50, z = -5.38, p < 0.01 which shows a significant difference between males and females. It can be interpreted that males significantly behaves antisocially as compared to females. Thus the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between Anti-Social Behavior (ASB) of male and female students is not accepted. EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS FROM JOINT AND NUCLEAR FAMILIES Table No 9: Externalizing Behavior of Students from Joint and Nuclear Families Family N Dimension Type

VDB TT MO H RB

Mean Sum of MannRank Ranks Whitney U

Joint

129 231.47 29859.50

Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint

380 129 380 129 380 129 380 129

262.99 243.80 258.80 232.37 262.68 251.44 256.21 240.49

99935.50 31450.00 98345.00 29976.00 99819.00 32436.00 97359.00 31023.50

Wilcoxon Z W

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

21474.50

29859.50

-2.116 .034*

23065.00

31450.00

1.027- .305

21591.00

29976.00

-2.030 .042*

24051.00

32436.00

-.325

.745

22638.500 31023.500 -1.334 .182

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

ASB

Nuclear 380 259.93 98771.50 Joint 129 254.67 32853.00 24468.00 Nuclear 380 255.11 96942.00

32853.00

-.030

12763

.976

*Significant at 0.05 It was hypothesized that there existed no difference in six dimensions of Externalizing Behavior namely „Violent and Destructive Behavior‟ (VDB), „Temper and Tantrums‟ (TT) „Misbehavior with Others‟ (MO), Hyperactivity (H), Rebellious Behavior (RB), and „AntiSocial Behavior‟ (ASB) of students from Joint and Nuclear families. Table 9 shows difference between VDB of students from joint and nuclear families. The mean rank score for Joint (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 231.47 and 262.99 respectively. The test statistic U = 21474.50, z = -2.116, p < 0.05 which shows that there exists a significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting VDB. The students from nuclear families are more violent and destructive as compared to joint families (Hwang & Roberts, 1998). Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in violent and destructive behavior of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is not accepted. The table 9 also shows a difference between MO of students from joint and nuclear families. The mean rank score for Joint (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 232.37 and 262.68 respectively. The test statistic U = 21591.00, z = -2.030, p < 0.05 which shows that there exists a significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting MO. Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in misbehavior with others of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is not accepted. The table 9 shows the mean rank scores of Temper and Tantrums for Joint (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 243.80 and 258.80 respectively. The test statistic U = 23065.00, z = -1.027, p > 0.05 which shows that there does not exists any significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting TT. Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in Temper and Tantrums’ of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is accepted. The table 9 shows the mean rank scores of Hyperactivity for Joint (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 251.44 and 256.21 respectively. The test statistic U = 24051.00, z = .325, p > 0.05 which shows that there does not exists any significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting H. Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in Hyperactivity of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is accepted. The table 9 shows the mean rank scores of Rebellious Behavior for Joint (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 240.49 and 259.93 respectively. The test statistic U = Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12764

22638.500, z = -1.334, p > 0.05 which shows that there does not exists any significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting RB. Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in Rebellious Behavior of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is accepted. The table 9 shows the mean rank score of Anti-Social Behavior of students from Joint families (N = 129) and Nuclear families (N = 380) are 254.67 and 255.11 respectively. The test statistic U = 24468.00, z = -.030, p > 0.05 which shows that there does not exists any significant difference between joint and nuclear families in exhibiting ASB. Thus, null hypothesis „there is no significant difference in Anti-Social Behavior of students from joint and nuclear family‟ is accepted. DISCUSSIONS The results show that a significant difference existed between students of joint and nuclear families in exhibiting violent and destructive behavior and misbehavior with others. The mean rank score show that nuclear family students exhibit more violent and destructive behavior as compared to the joint family students. Therefore it can be said that type of family does influence violent and destructive behavior. The guidance span, vigilance and discipline of a joint family is absent in nuclear families. Although to some extent it is better to have nuclear families but the values, attitudes and ethics of supreme Indian culture seems to be missing. Thus, students from nuclear family are more violent and misbehaving. Family-type does not affect the temper and tantrums, hyperactivity, rebellious behavior and anti-social behavior in the children. No significant difference between joint and nuclear families predicts that family type does not influence above mentioned dimensions of externalizing behavior. Perhaps to some extent children are manageable under single guidance of parents when they are exposed to higher surveillance. Around three-fourth of the students come from nuclear families and one-fourth come from joint families. This shows a paradigm shift and a great revolution in Indian culture of joint families. Globalization and need of contemporary situation has significant effect on the culture of joint families in India. Mostly of the families are migrating to urban areas and cities in pursuance of education, health and other facilities which has led families to set off nuclear. This also indicates towards the problem of migration which is frequent in hills of Garhwal. Males are comparatively high in deviant behavior as compared to females. The number of deviant males is almost three times of the females. This shows that problematic boys will excel in numbers in class as compared to the girls. It is consistent with the common saying Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12765

that boys are more problematic than girls. Therefore it can help teachers to maintain the ratio of boys and girls while making sections in any grade, for smooth running of the classroom activities. The mean rank scores of males are higher than females on the â€žviolent and destructiveâ€&#x; dimension of externalizing behavior, thus it can be concluded that males are more violent and destructive than females. The findings are consistent with the findings of Moylan et. al, (2010) who found boys to be more deviant than girls. Moreover it is often seen that males are generally more violent from childhood as compared to females. It was found in the study that male students did not differ significantly from females in exhibiting temper and tantrums. This indicates that both gender stand equal in exhibiting temper and tantrums. On the basis of validation of the hypothesis it can be concluded that male and female students differ significantly in misbehaving with others. To some extent cultural background and ethics play a vital role in exhibition of misbehavior. Males are grown up with dominating temperament while females are submissive. Misbehaving is a part of dominating character in which directly or indirectly the person tends to show alienation from social norms and tries to establish his will in all. It might be through interrupting others while talking, using vulgar language, intimidating others, passing unwanted comments, mock or stare for a long time or sometimes forcing others to do according to his will in a bossy way. Thus it can be said that male students are more misbehaving as compared to female students. It is revealed in the study that males and females do not differ significantly in hyperactivity. Therefore both sexes appear to exhibit similar intensity of hyperactive behavior. It was found that male and female students significantly differ in showing rebellious behavior. The mean rank scores for males is higher than females showing males more rebellious by not obeying the commands, doing opposite of what ever is asked, by running away from schools and arguing without purpose. This is a tendency of self dependency which generally lacks in females. The factor of self esteem found in most of the girls is missing in boys to some extent. They are fearless to do or talk anything therefore easily vulnerable to rebellious behavior. Thus it is concluded that males are more rebelling than female students at secondary school level. It was also found that male and female students differ significantly in anti-social behavior. Thus the anti-social behaviors like, stealing, lying, making obscene gestures, exposing body parts, making sexual advances towards opposite sex, gambling, chewing tobacco, using drugs, smoking or drinking alcohol etc. are more observable in males than females. These behaviors are learned mostly from outside home with peers or friends, for which boys are often exposed as Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12766

compared to females who had social and family restrictions. Thus it is concluded that male students are more anti-socially behaving than girls. The results show that a significant difference existed between students of joint and nuclear families in exhibiting violent and destructive behavior and misbehavior with others. The mean rank scores show that nuclear family students exhibit more violent and destructive behavior as compared to the joint family students. Therefore it can be said that type of family does influence violent and destructive behavior in the students. The guidance span, vigilance and discipline of a joint family is absent in nuclear families. Although to some extent it is better to have nuclear families but the values, attitudes and ethics of supreme Indian culture seems to be missing. Family-type does not affect the temper and tantrums, hyperactivity, rebellious behavior and anti-social behavior in the children. Perhaps to some extent children are manageable under single guidance of parents when they are exposed to higher surveillance. CONCLUSIONS Thus regarding above findings it is concluded that family type and gender can profoundly impact the externalizing behavior in children. The students living in nuclear family are more vulnerable to problem behavior. The traditional pattern of Indian culture seen in joint families also seems to be missing which has prelude lack of proper guidance and vigilance to the young ones in the family. The students of nuclear family exhibited significant difference in violent and destructive behavior and misbehavior with others than students living in joint family. Therefore to avoid problem behaviors in children one of the best solutions could be living together in harmony with the other family members of the same household. Regarding gender and behavior, it is very clear that males significantly differ than females in exhibiting Violent and Destructive Behavior, Misbehavior with others, Rebellious Behavior and Anti-social behavior. These dimensions further lay foundation for juvenile delinquency in children. Appropriate measure and counseling can lower the rate of child crime in our society. References Betz, C.L. (1995). ‘Childhood Violence; A Nursing Concern Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing’ 18(3), 149-161. Beyers, J.M., Bates J.E., Pettit, G.S., & Dodge, K.A. (2003). ‘Neighborhood Structure, Parenting Processes and the Development of Youth Externalizing Behaviors; A Multilevel Analysis’ American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 35-53.

Ashu Roulet & Dr. Seema Dhawan

(Pg. 12751-12767)

12767

Campbell, J.C., Harris, M.J., & Lee, R.K. (1995). ‘Violence Research an overview, Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing practice’,Vol. 9, 105-126. Campbell, S.B., Shaw, D.S., Gilliom, M. (2000). ‘Early Externalizing Behavior Problems: Toddlers and Pre-Schoolers at the Risk for Later Maladjustment’: Cambridge Core, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 12(3), 467-488. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G.R., & Giesler, P.C. (1994). Aggressive Behavior: Current perspectives New York, NY, US: Plenum Press. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Sinrad, T.L., Fabes, R.A., Shepard, S.A. & Reiser, M. (2001). ‘‘The Relations of Regulation and Emotionality to Children’s Externalizing and Internalizing Problem Behavior’: Child Development, 72, 1112 – 1134. Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early Predictors of Adolescent Aggression and Adult Violence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100. Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). ‘On the Distinction between Attentional Deficits/Hyperactivity and Conduct Problems/Aggression in Child Psychopathology’, Psychological Bulletin, 101, 443-463. Hwang, J. H., & Roberts, I. J. (1998). Emotional and behavioral problems in primary School children from nuclear and extended families in Korea. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied disciplines, 39 (7), 973-979 Moffitt, T. E. (1993). ‘Adolescence – Limited and Life – Course–Persistent Antisocial Behavior- A Developmental Taxonomy’, Psychological Review. Vol. 100, 674-701. Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T.I., Souse, C., Tajima, E., Herrenkohl, R.C. & Russo, M.J. (2010), ‘The Effects of Child Abuse and Exposure to Domestic Violence on Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems’, Journal of Family Violence, 25(2), 53-63. Shaw, D. S. & E. B. Winslow (1997). ‘Precursors and Correlates of Anti-Social Behavior Form Infancy to Preschool’, In: Staff D.M., Breiling J, Maser J, editors, Handbook of Antisocial Behavior, New York: Wiley, pp. 148-158. Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A.K., Mathijis, K. & Swicegood, G., (2014). The effects of family type; family relationships and parental role models on delinquency and alcohol use among Flemish adolescents. Journal of child and family studies, 23(1), 128-143 Venkatesan S., & Vepuri G.D., (1993). Parental perception of causes and management for problem behavior in individuals with metal handicapped. Disabilities and Impairments,7(2), 6370 Sample Registration Survey of India, 2015