Motivation for Using the Primary Socialization Theory

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER FOUR LITERATURE REVIEW PART 2: ON PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION AND CRITICAL THEORY.

Overview of Chapter

This chapter is the continuation of the knowledge development (KD) component of intervention research. Chapter three focused on the review of the body of knowledge on adolescence and substance abuse. Chapter four presents the review of literature on the theoretical framework of the Primary Socialization Theory (PST) and Critical Theory (CT) perspectives that undergirded this study. The key components of each theory and their application to this study will be presented. The chapter also expounds on the contextual application of PST to the Nigerian university setting. In addition to the above, the nature and components of previous studies on collaborative work with families is also portrayed.

Motivation for Using Primary Socialization Theory

The proponents of Primary Socialization Theory are Eugene R Oetting and Joseph F Donnermeyer of the Tri- Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Colorado State University, Colorado and The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA respectively. Prior to the PST study, Petraitis, Flay, & Miller (1995), reviewed 14 theories of adolescent substance use and reported that existing multivariate theories:

1. Do not integrate current knowledge about causes,
2. Do not make sense out of unrelated research findings,
3. Do not deal adequately with gender and ethnicity differences,
4. Have been vague in discussing how mediating variables interact with each other,
5. Do not consider differential etiology for different substances,
6. Fail to lead to accurate predictions, and
7. Do not form the foundation of effective prevention programs.

Oetting and Donnermeyer therefore developed PST as a response to the above deficiencies in theoretical frameworks for adolescent substance abuse. They stated that “The theory (PST) meets the call for a theoretical model that crosses over traditional boundaries, providing a logical framework for organizing ideas about social behavior and linking together constructs from diverse academic disciplines” (Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a:996).
Due to the multiple issues that impact on adolescent deviant behaviour, which have already been established by prior studies, Oetting and Donnermeyer sought to harmonize these variables under one integrated theory. The broad range of issues in adolescent substance abuse was therefore explored in four papers. The first paper covered the basic theory, with a particular emphasis on adolescence, the developmental period when most drug use and deviance emerge (Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a). A second paper dealt with psychological characteristics and behavioural issues, showing that personal traits influence drug use and deviance predominantly through their influence on the primary socialization process (Oetting Deffenbacher & Donnermeyer 1998b). The third paper focused on sociological issues and discussed secondary socialization sources such as extended families and community characteristics and how they influence the primary socialization process (Oetting, Donnermeyer, & Deffenbacher, 1998c).
A fourth paper discussed culture, cultural identity, and cultural identification, and show that primary socialization theory enhances understanding of how culture influences drug use and deviance through its effects on the primary socialization process and how primary socialization influences cultural identification (Oetting, Donnermeyer, Trimble, & Beauvais 1998d). A fifth paper is a presentation of other researchers and their perspectives on PST with the inclusion of the secondary socialization sources of spirituality and Government institutions, such as the criminal justice system, welfare, and child protection services. This particular paper, along with that of Herd (1996), examined the influence of religious affiliation on socio cultural predictors of alcohol consumption, will undergird the discussion of the findings of this study in the context of the private Christian university and religious affiliations of the student and family participants.
The outcome of the above studies is the comprehensive output of PST which is a wholistic integration of various aspects of adolescent development. It examined the possible factors that influence the emergence of deviant behaviour in adolescence such as personality traits, primary socialization sources (Family, school and peer clusters) and secondary socialization sources (neighborhood, community, religious institutions, media). While a direct causal relationship between entities of the primary socialization sources is still the focus of ongoing research, PST provides a conceptual framework for understanding and harmonizing the impact of the different variables found in the socialization environment (Lopez, Martınez, Martın , Martın , Martın & Scandroglio 2001). Whitbeck (1999:1025) also affirmed that Primary socialization theory integrates the proximal sources of childhood socialization into a single, comprehensive theoretical model. Conceptually, it embeds the adolescent in a threefold socialization process made up of family, school and peer clusters. Galliher, Evans & Weiser (2007) attest that PST provides a foundation for understanding various models that have been hypothesized to explain the development of substance use and abuse in children and adolescents. The strength of PST is that it can be used to guide and organize disparate factors and variables (Leukefeld & Leukefeld 1999:984). It is the harmonizing and integrative posture of PST that fascinated this researcher and motivated her to utilize the PST as one of the theoretical frameworks for this study.
The above figure shows the relationship between the primary and secondary socialization sources and an individual.
In addition to the benefits of conceptual harmonization of adolescent substance issues, PST fills in the gap of some of the deficiencies identified by Petraitus et al (1995). In their studies, Oetting & Donnemeyer (1998:997) submitted that PST:

• Incorporates current knowledge about causes and correlates of deviance.
• Makes sense out of unrelated research findings, showing, for example, how both genetically determined traits and social structure of communities can both produce deviant behavior through their influence on the primary socialization process.) The theory provides a basis for understanding gender and ethnicity differences, -with particular emphasis on how culture influences the primary socialization process in determining gender and ethnicity differences in pro-social and deviant behaviors.
• Where prior papers have presented menus of risk and protective factors for deviance, primary socialization theory specifies how the mediating socialization forces influence and interact with each other, explains why some personal, social, and societal characteristics are risk and protective factors, why others are not, and how these risk and protective factors operate to increase or demand the potential for deviance.

The above section presented the researcher‟s motivation to undergird this study with the theoretical framework of PST. The following section will delineate the fundamental theorem of PST as well give a brief description of the individual constructs.

Fundamentals of the Primary Socialization Theory (PST).

The fundamental theorem of Primary Socialization Theory posits that norms for social behaviour, including drug use, are learned predominantly in the context of interactions with primary socialization sources (Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a:995,998). This means that socialization, which is the process of learning social norms and behaviors, occurs in the social environment of family, school and peers which are the primary socialization sources identified by PST. This is diagrammatically presented in fig.4.2
As seen in the previous diagram, the youth is at the center of the primary socialization sources which are family, school and peer cluster. Bonds between the youth and the primary socialization sources are vital in the development of either pro-social or deviant behaviours. Strong bonds provide the channel for communicating pro-social norms while weak bonds are risk factors for deviance. PST posits that adolescents are supported and maintained by the connections to the primary socialization sources of family, school, and peer clusters. There is an active interaction between the youth and the primary socialization sources through which norms and social requirements are transmitted. The socialization process also involves meeting the demands and requirements of sources and provision of feedback and rewards when the requirements are met (or sanctions when there is deviance from the requirements e.g. punishment for using drugs). These rewards and sanctions are matched to the individual‟s needs to produce reinforcement (Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a:998). One can therefore see the relevance of the reward and punishment component of socialization by the school (university) in communicating both the expectations and consequences of drug use on campus in the process of socializing university students (Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a.p999) It is worthy to note that PST also identifies secondary socialization sources such as community, extended family, media, religious and governmental institutions. The major effects of the of secondary socialization sources occur indirectly, and affect behavior because they influence the primary socialization process (i.e., secondary socialization sources affect the individual because they influence the primary socialization sources or because they enhance or detract from the transmission of norms by the primary socialization sources) ( Oetting 1999:948). This study also keys in the involvement of the secondary socialization sources of the extended family and religious communities involved in the lives of students who abuse substances as possible stakeholders in developing sustainable and relevant campus- based substance abuse intervention. The applications of the secondary socialization sources will be presented in a latter section as well in the discussion of the findings of this study. The following section will give a summary of the primary socialization sources and their interactions with the youth and interrelationship with each other. The following section will give a brief description of each primary socialization theory source.

Family

Primary socialization theory proposes that the family is one of the three major sources for socialization. The family is usually a source of pro-social norms, but for a family to be a strong source for pro-social norms, there must be strong bonds between the family and child, and the family must use those bonds to communicate pro-social norms ( Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a: 1002). PST is cognizant of normative family relationships where parents are nurturing, warm, caring and are actively involved in monitoring their children. These interactions develop strong bonds between the youth and the family. The influence of the family is so paramount that the proponents of PST emphatically stated that it is the strongest influence in preschool years (Oetting 1999:951). As strong as these bonds may be they have to be utilized for the transmission of norms ( Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a: 1002).
Dysfunctional family practices such as parental substance abuse, domestic violence, different forms of child abuse and criminal lifestyles by parents not only model deviance but weaken the bond between the adolescent and the family. It is the weakening of the family bond that strengthens the peer cluster bonds for the transmission of deviant behavior ( Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a :999).
In addition to the triadic interactions of family bonding and transmission of pro-social and deviant attitudes and behavior, PST also recognizes that there are cultural diversities that colour the experiences of youth in the family context. There are differences in parenting styles and persons involved in the family processes e.g. extended versus nuclear family, However, ethnic differences do not violate the general principle that, in essentially all cultures, the family (in its variations) is a major primary socialization source, and the family‟s effect on socialization depends on bonding and on the communication of pro-social or deviant norms (ibid.1003). The concept of family was differentiated between the nuclear and the extended family. The nuclear family, which includes biological parents and anyone who is directly responsible for supervision, care and monitoring, such as nannies and child care workers, are considered primary socialization sources, while adults who provide support but are not directly responsible for supervision, care and monitoring such as aunties, uncles grandparents etc are members of the extended family and they are part of the community that is classified as secondary socialization sources (Oetting, Donnermeyer & Deffenbacher 1998c), While most researchers agree on the primacy of family as primary source of socialization, the study of Harris (1995), seems to stand in opposition by positing that there is no causal relationship between family practices and development of deviant behavior.
Harris submitted in group socialization theory that behavioral outcomes in adolescent are heavily dependent on personality traits and interactions with peers. Whilst Harris‟s group socialization theory highlights personality traits that are pretty much consistent across developmental stages and across social environment, PST focuses on the communication of norms which could be inconsistent across developmental stages and socio- cultural environment. For example, an introverted child will most likely be reserved and withdrawn in any given environment from childhood to adulthood and could display pro- social or deviant behavior in the uniqueness of his personality trait. PST on the other hand posits that while this child may remain stable in his personality, social expectations and rules of behavior (norms) are subject to change and the family is primarily involved in the transmission of these norms. PST as postulated by Oetting and Donnermeyer and Group socialization theory as propounded by Harris are in agreement in the area of peer group influence. Harris submitted that it does not matter what parents do, a child will make behavioral choices based on acceptable behaviours among peers and the prevailing peer culture. While PST agrees by identifying peer clusters as a major source of primary socialization that transmits norms to a young person, it is emphatic that even the transmission of norms amongst peers is informed by values, ideas and attitudes transmitted by the families of the individual members of the peer group and, according to Whitbeck (1999), it all starts with the family. This researcher leans heavily on the side of PST’s stand on the place of the family because from previous research cited in this document, families are both developmental assets and part of the risk and protective factors in an adolescent‟s life. Regardless of what traits or personality emerge in a child, that child does not grow in a societal vacuum nor is he or she dropped from the sky. The rules about life are taught and learnt directly or indirectly in the socio- cultural context of the home. PST posits that a home environment that is loving, safe and nurturing strengthens the bond between the child and the parents thus allowing for better transmission and reception of pro-social norms and values.

School

PST also identifies the school as a primary source of socialization ( Oetting & Donnermeyer 1998a: 1007-1010; Oetting 1999: 953-955). When school is mentioned it often refers to elementary to high (secondary school). However, for the purpose of this study the definition of a school as a structured environment outside of the home where young people learn values, behaviours, skills and are exposed to knowledge, will include institutions of higher learning. Teachers and schools in Western society and other parts of the world are expected to teach the basic skills and knowledge needed to participate in the culture (reading, writing, and computer science) and, at the same time, to monitor and control personal and social behaviors in the school environment. Schools, therefore, function as an important primary socialization source. A supportive and safe school environment enhances the bond between a child and the school. Just as there are dysfunctionalities in the family,

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Overview of Chapter
1.2 Rationale for Study
1.3 Statement of the Problem
1.4 Motivation for Research
1.5 Research Question(s)
1.6 Aim of Research
1.7 Brief Description of Research Environment
1.8 Theoretical Framework
1.9 Conceptual Frame Work and Value of Study to Social Work Practice.
1.10 Brief Description of Research Model
1.11 Limitation of Research
1.12 Organization of the Dissertation
1.13 Clarification of Key Concepts
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
2.1 Overview of Chapter
2.2 Research Approach
2.3 Theoretical Guide for Research
2.4 Research Model
2.5 Description of Intervention Research
2.6 Design and Development Model
2.7 Ethical Considerations.
2.8 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER THREE: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE: PART 1 ADOLESCENCE AND ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
3.1 Overview of Chapter
3.2 Adolescent Development
3.3 Today‟s Adolescents as Millennial Youth
3.4 Adolescence and Substance Abuse
3.5 Familial Influences on Adolescent Behavior and Substance Abuse.
3.6 Drugs of Preference
3.7 The University Environment as the Social Context for Mid to Late Adolescent Development for the Nigerian Youth
3.8 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER FOUR: REVIEW PART 2: ON PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION AND CRITICAL THEORY
4.1 Overview of Chapter
4.2 Motivation for Using the Primary Socialization Theory
4.3 Fundamentals of the Primary Socialization Theory (PST)
4.4 PST and Emphasis on Family Influence
4.5 Other Perspectives on PST
4.6 Factors that Influence Nigerian Parental/Family Involvement
4.7 The Motivation and Nature of Collaborative Work with Families
4.8 Critical Theory as a Philosophical Mindset
4.9 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS 
5.1 Overview of Chapter
5.2 Participant Description and Statistical Information
5.3 Emerging Themes
5.4 Highlight of Interview with a Pioneer Social Worker at the SSS
5.5 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS 
6.1 Overview of Chapter
6.2 Primary Socialization theory and collaborative work between the University and families of students involved with substance abuse
6.3 Critical Theory Perspectives in Findings and Practice Implications
6.4 A model for Collaborative Approach for Substance Abuse intervention
6.5 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER SEVEN: PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITYAND FAMILIES OF STUDENTS INVOLVED WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
7.1 Overview of Chapter
7.2 Overview of Intervention Model
7.3 Notification
7.4 Involvement of family in the disciplinary process
7.5 Probation Time Before Suspension
7.6 Staff Training
7.7 General Campus Awareness
7.8 Human Rights and Students Dignity
7.9 Services Provision
7.10 Summary of Chapter
CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
8.1 Chapter Overview
8.2 Review of Theoretical Framework
8.3 Overarching Themes and Religio-Cultural Factors
8.4 Review of Goals and Objectives and value to Social Work
8.5 Recommendations for Further Studies
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
DEVELOPING A PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND FAMILIES OF STUDENTS INVOLVED WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE AT BABCOCK UNIVERSITY NIGERIAb