Aggressive behavior: examining the psychological and demographic factors among university students in Nigeria

Abstract

Aggressive behaviour is a common occurrence among adolescents. However, there has been less work done among young adults in Nigerian universities concerning this phenomenon. Therefore, we aimed to examine the psychological and demographic factors of aggressive behaviour among undergraduate students. A total of 350 undergraduate students {Male = 110 (31.4%): Female = 240 (68.6%)} conveniently sampled from various departments in the University of Lagos were involved in the study. A correlational research design was adopted for the study. The Parenting Style Questionnaire (PSQ), Adverse Childhood Experience International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ), and Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) were used to gather data for the study. The multiple correlation analysis identified authoritarian parenting style (r(350) = .258; p < .01) and adverse childhood experience (r(350) = .285; p < .01) positively related to aggressive behaviour. Additionally, the multiple regression analysis revealed that adverse childhood experience (B = .344, β = .233, p < .05) and authoritarian parenting style (B = .803, β = .173, p < .05) are independent predictors of aggressive behaviour. we concluded that while demographic variables, authoritative and permissive parenting did not collectively predict aggressive behaviour among university students, adverse childhood experiences and authoritarian parenting style independently predicted aggressive behaviour among university students.

Keywords:

• aggressive behaviours
• authoritarian parenting style
• adverse childhood experiences
• university students

1. Introduction

The unfortunate outcomes of aggressive behaviours have been portrayed in the news media. Rather than the news media in Nigeria focusing on factors that can mitigate aggression among young adults, they are interested in sensationalizing the occurrence. This has compounded the problem of understanding the concept of aggression and the factors responsible for it among young adults in the university. As a concept, aggressive behaviour is heterogeneous. Many disciplines have attempted to define it. However, in behavioural science, as defined by Escobar-Chaves and Anderson (2008), aggressive behaviour is an intentional act to cause harm to another person. This could be expressed more overtly, such as physically hitting someone, in verbal or relational contexts, and also as violence, bullying, and more like covert action, such as lying and stealing. The covert context of aggression is to reduce the repercussion towards the aggressor. The end goal of aggression is to cause intentional harm to another person. The intentionality of aggressive behaviour makes it an abnormal act that violates social norms (Agbonlue, 2022).

Interestingly, aggressive behaviour pre-adulthood can mark future dysfunctionality, such as antisocial behaviour and substance abuse (Fergusson et al., 2007; Gruenwald, 2017; Schaeffer et al., 2003). Mundia (2006) highlighted that biological, individual, home, and school environments, peer influence, exposure to media violence, and community and social factors could be the causes of aggressive behaviours. While there has been a focus on the causes of aggressive behaviours among secondary school students in Nigeria (Agbonlue, 2022; Obikeze & Obi, 2020; Omoteso, 2019), less attention has been paid to university students. Therefore, this study investigates adverse childhood experiences and parenting styles as predictors of aggressive behaviour among university students in Nigeria.

Many authors have written that adolescence is aggression-prone (Heizomi et al., 2021; Meyers, 2016; Xiong et al., 2021). University is designed to satisfy the educational, thinking, and personality development of young adults and to serve as a hub for the future of a nation (Ahmed et al., 2020). Despite this, aggressive behaviours are commonplace among young adults. This could be because aggression in adolescence is a precursor to aggressiveness in adulthood (Wahl & Metzner, 2012) and among college-age (Gruenwald, 2017). Moreover, university students may overestimate some types of aggression (physical, verbal, and hostility) more than adults in the general population; however, research has shown that only verbal aggression was shown to be more common (Kalmoe, 2015).

Furthermore, types of aggressive behaviour respond to the developmental course. Overt aggression, which is very common during adolescence, may fizzle out for the manifestation of relational aggression, a common phenomenon among college students referred to as emerging adults in the literature (Deason, 2015). Emerging adults are 18–25 agers (Arnett, 2000). This stage of development is characterized by expanding the importance of social support and making complex social and academic decisions (Storch et al., 2004). A cross-national study on university students revealed that violence in a relationship moves up from adolescence and becomes heightened in young adulthood (Whitaker et al., 2013).

Gender is an essential topic in aggressive behaviour, also among university students. In a study focused on aggression in a relationship, the study revealed that there was more likelihood that young women in the university would experience sexual violence (sexual violence being an example of aggressive behaviour). Young men in the university would be victims of psychological aggression (Kaukinen, 2014). Another study among university students showed that women were more physically aggressive than men in a relationship (Hines & Saudino, 2003).

Adverse Childhood Experiences, otherwise called ACEs, are probably the most intense and distressing occurrences experienced by an individual during their early life. They are experiences that leave an indelible scar potentially carried to adulthood. Examples of ACEs are many. They are but not limited to the experience of violence, various forms of abuse such as emotional, physical, or sexual deprivation; suffering from neglect; family disunity, divorce and separation, parental substance abuse and mental health problems; parental death or incarceration or loss; and social discrimination (Bethel et al., 2014; Felitti et al., 1998). According to Hesterman (2021), ACEs’ impacts are noticeable through adolescence and even into adulthood.

These pre-adulthood stressful experiences affect adult violent behaviours (Holtzhausen & Campbell, 2021). Studies considering the link between ACEs and aggressive behaviour are looking at aggression as part and parcel of broader behaviour problems such as delinquency (Martins et al., 2021), antisocial attitudes (Holtzhausen & Campbell, 2021), and violent crimes (Scarpa & Haden, 2006). For this study, we define adverse childhood experiences as potentially traumatic events that occur before a child reaches the age of 18, which emanate from the Relationship with parents/guidance, Relationship with family/environment, exposure to peer violence, and exposure to community violence as assessed by World Health Organisation Adverse Childhood Experience—International Questionnaire (WHO ACE-IQ).

Parents are an essential resource in the upbringing of a child. Studies analyzing parenting styles and aggression have demonstrated that how parents communicate with their children can have positive and negative outcomes (Reed et al., 2008). Parenting styles are the ways parents relate with children or attempt to raise their children and the determinants of children’s behavioural and developmental outcomes (Perez-Gramaje et al., 2019). The seminal work of Baumrind (1966) on parenting styles recognized three types which are authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. These parenting styles are subject to cross-cultural practices, beliefs, and values (Ganga & Chinyoka, 2017; Qureido et al., 2002).

Interestingly, current Africa’s perspective on parenting is captured in the exposition of Ganga and Chinyoka (2017) with the introduction of the concept of “chameleon parenting styles,” which describes the situational nature of parenting in which all parenting styles are deployed in the training of African children. They further stated that an African child is born into warmth and acceptance regardless of economic condition, but as he grows, different parenting styles are used to ensure compliance. This is evidence of Western cultures’ dilution of traditional African parental beliefs. The study by Ojukwu et al. (2020) on the association between aggressive behaviours and parenting styles among adolescents attending secondary school in Nigeria found that all the parenting styles had a composite relationship with aggressive behaviour; however, the authoritative parenting style showed more contribution to aggression followed by authoritarian parenting style.

It should be highlighted that Baumrind (1971) characterized the authoritative parenting style as being supportive by trying to strike a balance between love and discipline; authoritarian parenting operates harshly towards their children. They wield punishment as a consequence against infractions of any laid down rule, while a permissive parenting style allows their children to make decisions. According to the reports of Muhammad et al. (2020) and the review of Massud et al. (2019), authoritarian parenting and permissive parenting styles have an inverse relationship with aggression. The search from emerging literature in Nigeria revealed more research endeavours about parenting styles and aggression among adolescents, leaving a gap for young adults in the university.

The background for aggressive behavior and its associated psychosocial factors in Nigeria reveals more studies on adolescents than university students. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate psychosocial factors such as age, gender, educational level, adverse childhood experiences, and parenting styles as predictors of aggressive behaviours among university students in Nigeria. The importance of this study cannot be underemphasized as it helps fill the gap in the literature about aggression among university students in Nigeria. The highlights on the influence of parenting on aggression could draw attention to parents on the best styles to adopt in parenting to ensure their children are less aggressive. Additionally, the results can be relevant to clinicians by focusing on managing the scars of childhood traumatic experiences better so that there could be reduced aggression among university students.

Based on the reviewed literature, we hypothesize that there would be significant independent and joint influence of demographic variables (gender, age, and educational level), Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and Parenting Styles (Authoritarian, Authoritative and Permissive) on aggressive behaviours among university students in Nigeria,

2. Materials and method

2.1. Design, participants, and instruments

The research design adopted for this study is correlational. The design was adopted because the study sought to investigate the association between psychological and demographical factors and aggressive behaviour among university students.

The participants for this study were 350 undergraduates [(Male = 110 (31.4%) and Female = 240 (68.6%)] selected through convenient sampling from various departments at the University of Lagos. This afforded the opportunity of getting prompt, uncomplicated, and economically cheap data due to the ease of getting the participants.

Three instruments were used in this research study, namely: Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ: World Health Organization (WHO), 2018), the Parenting Style Questionnaire (PSQ), and the Buss Perry Aggressive Behaviour Questionnaire (BPABQ: Buss & Perry, 1992). All instruments have been used previously in Nigeria. However, for this study, the instruments were revalidated to obtain a new psychometric property:

2.1.1. Parenting style scale

The parenting style scale used for the studies being reported here is a 20—item parenting style scale adapted by Akinsola (2010a) from the parenting care scale, initially developed by Baumrind (1971). However, the scale contains items from Baumrind’s version and Rohner’s (1990) acceptance-rejection questionnaire. In the adapted scale used for this study, five items measure permissive parenting style, six items measure authoritarian parenting style, and nine items measure authoritative parenting style. In addition, participants’ responses to the scale items in the adapted version varied according to the five-point Likert Scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree on a scale of 1 to 5. This differs from the responses to the scale items in Baumrind’s version, which is a “yes” or “no” response. Examples of the items in the adapted scale include “My parents respect my privacy,” My parents really expect me to follow family rules,” and “My parents give me a lot of freedom.” For the permissive parenting style, the number of items is five. If a respondent is uncertain about all the items, his score would be 15. Therefore, any score higher than 15 is taken as a permissive score. For the authoritarian parenting style (6 items), any score higher than 18 is taken as an authoritarian score, and for the authoritative parenting style (9 items), any score higher than 27 is taken as the authoritative score. Akinsola (2010a) obtained the following correlation coefficients for a 5-week interval test-retest reliability analysis for the adapted PSS: Permissive r = 0.67, authoritarian r = 0.35, and Authoritative r = 0.80. Conversely, the Parenting Style Scale was revalidated for this study, and the revalidation yielded a Cronbach-Alpha of 0.77 for the overall scale. Similarly, the permissive parenting style items yielded a Cronbach-Alpha of 0.75, the Cronbach-Alpha for the authoritarian parenting style item was .76, while authoritative parenting items yielded a Cronbach-Alpha of 0.82.

2.1.2. Adverse Childhood Experience—International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ) by (World Health Organization (WHO), 2018)

This is a modified version of the ACE Questionnaire, developed at the Kaiser Centre in 1995. The ACE-IQ was designed to measure childhood trauma in adolescents and adults in all countries of the world. The questionnaire measures family dysfunction, neglect from caregivers or parents, physical abuse, sexual and emotional abuse, witnessing community violence, peer violence, and exposure to other sources of violence. The ACE-IQ is an eight-section questionnaire that utilizes different response formats, such as the binary, which includes YES or NO for the first two sections (Demographic and marriage), while the frequency format ranges from Always to Never for the remaining six sections. However, those who refuse to respond to a particular question are coded as “Refused.” The frequency format for this study ranges from “1—Always and 5—Never.” The range of possible scores on ACE is 26 (for those whose response is “1- Always” from questions 1–26) to 130 (for those whose response is “5- Never” from questions 1–26). The questions include “Did your parents/guardians understand your problems and worries?” “Did your parents/guardians really know what you were doing with your free time when you were not at school or work?” “How often did your parents/guardians not give you enough food even when they could easily have done so?”. Several studies have confirmed the reasonable validity of the content of the ACE-IQ, reliable internal consistency of α = .81 (Kazeem, 2015), and satisfactory test-retest reliability since all the critical elements of the questionnaire ensures that information collected is independent (Ho et al., 2019). Convergent validity evidence was observed in a sample of 253 Nigerian prisoners and reported a correlation between ACE-IQ and the CTQ ranging from = .49 to .72.

For this study, the ACE-IQ was also revalidated. The revalidation yielded a Cronbach-Alpha of 0.76 for the Relationship with parent/guardian and a Cronbach-Alpha was 0.86 for the Relationship with family and environment; others are a Cronbach-Alpha was 0.74 and 0.67 for Peer Violence and Community Violence, respectively.

2.1.3. Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ)

The Aggression Questionnaire was developed by Buss and Perry (1992). The questionnaire contains 29 items that are measured on a Likert Scale ranging from “1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me” to “5 = extremely characteristic of me”. The questionnaire measures four distinct subscales: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, and Hostility. The total obtainable score in the overall response in BPOQ ranges from 29 − 145; the range of possible scores for the subscale is—for Physical aggression is 9–45; for verbal aggression, it is 5–25; for Anger, it is 7–35, and hostility is 8–40. Examples of the question items are “some of my friends think I am a hothead.” “If I have to resort to violence to protect my right, I will.” And “when people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they want.” The test-retest reliability coefficient in the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire ranges from = .72 for verbal aggression to .85 for the physical aggression subscale (Buss & Perry, 1992). The Turkish version of the BPAQ records a Cronbach coefficient of α = .85, a reliability coefficient = .97, and a split-half reliability coefficient of = .82. The BPAQ was revalidated for this study, and the result of the revalidation yielded a Cronbach-Alpha was 0.86 for the overall scale.

2.2. Procedure and data analysis

Ethical approval was obtained from the university research ethics committee. The participants were met in groups at different parts of the university campus, such as the classrooms, halls of residents, relaxation centres, and other venues within the university. The researchers introduced themselves to the participants and gave a thorough explanation of the aim of the research, followed by a question-and-answer section that enabled the participants to make further clarifications on the research. Those who volunteered to participate were given a set of questionnaires with a rider requesting that the attached consent form be filled out before the questionnaire. However, in every instance, about 1 or 2 out of 10 students declined participation due to other engagements. After completing the questionnaire, it was collected from the participants with the consent form detached from it. While the consent form was detached for safekeeping, the questionnaire was processed for further statistical data analysis. The anonymity of the participants was ensured by asking them not to provide their names or any identifying information on the questionnaires.

We first provided the descriptive findings and then analyzed the above hypotheses through regression analysis.

3. Results and findings

3.1. Demographic statistics

240 (68.6%) female students and 110 (31.4%) male students participated in the study. N = 153 were between 16 and 20 years old (43.7%), and N = 197 were older than 21 years (56.3%). Interestingly, a student’s university education starts at 100 level (first year, first-year students) and ends at 400 level (final year, senior), But some programs have a six-year duration, such as medicine, architecture, and so on. About 41 (11.7%) students were in 100 level at the time of the study, 64 (18.3%) were in 200 level, 76 (21.7%) were in 300 level, 117 (33.4%) were in 400 level, 28 (8%) were in 500 level while 24 (6.9%) students in 600 level.

The result from the multiple correlation analysis shows that demographic factors, including gender and educational level, did not significantly relate to aggressive behaviour. Also, the permissive parenting style did not significantly relate to aggressive behaviour. This result indicates that students’ aggressive behaviour did not significantly relate to permissive parenting style. Meanwhile, the authoritarian parenting style is positively and significantly associated with aggressive behaviour. This indicates that students who experience an authoritarian parenting style tend to be aggressive. At the same time, the authoritative parenting style is significantly and negatively related to aggressive behaviour. In this, students who experience an authoritative parenting style have less tendency to be aggressive. More experience with authoritative parenting symbolizes fewer predispositions to aggression, contrary to experience with authoritarian parenting style.

Further explanation of the multiple correlations in Table 1 above shows that students’ exposure to adverse childhood experiences is positively and significantly related to aggressive behaviour. Students exposed to adverse childhood experiences from their immediate family, peers, or community have a higher propensity to exhibit aggressive behaviour.

Table 1. Shows the means of the study variables and intercorrelations of study variables together with gender, age, and educational level

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	$\underset{\_}{X}$	SD
1. Gender	1
2. Age	−.150**	1
3. Educational Level	.040	.324**	1
4. Permissive	.113*	−.215**	−.048	1					11.85	2.62
5. Authoritarian	.019	.119*	.107*	−.177**	1				15.33	3.87
6. Authoritative	−.022	−.061	−.132*	−.036	−.540**	1			31.87	6.59
7. Adverse Childhood Experience	.016	−.038	−.025	.074	.241**	−.241**	1		51.45	12.21
8. Aggressive Behavior	.056	−.010	.086	−.013	.258**	−.200**	.285**	1	82.43	18.00

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 350

Table 1 also included the mean (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the variables measured. The values for permissive parenting (M = 11.85, SD = 2.62, Range = 5–25), for Authoritarian parenting (M = 15.33, SD = 3.87, Range = 6–30), for Authoritative parenting (M = 31.87, SD = 6.59, Range = 9–45), for Adverse Childhood Experiences (M = 51.45, SD = 12.21, Range = 26–130), for Aggressive Behaviour (M = 82.42, SD = 18.00, Range = 29–145). All the means scores fall within the range of scores for the variables.

From Table 2. the multiple regression model showed that gender, age of students, educational level, permissive parenting style, and authoritative parenting style did not significantly and independently predict aggressive behaviour. Meanwhile, adverse childhood experiences and authoritarian parenting styles positively and significantly predict aggressive behaviour. Students who record adverse childhood experiences tend to report aggressive behaviour. Per unit increase in the student’s adverse childhood experience correspond to about a 23.3% increase in aggressive behaviour. Similarly, students who experience an authoritarian parenting style have a higher tendency to behave aggressively. In the regression model, per unit increase in the student’s authoritarian parenting style experiences resulted in a 17.3% increase in aggressive behaviour.

Table 2. Multiple regression of study variables on self-reported aggression

Predictors	B	β	t	Sig.	R	R^2	ΔR^2	F	P
1. Gender	1.505	.039	.755	.451	0.359	.129	.111	7.242	<.05
2. Age	−1.720	−.047	−.858	.392
3. Education Level	4.508	.081	1.494	.136
4. Adverse Childhood Experience	.344	.233	4.410	.000
5. Permissive	−.086	−.013	−.234	.815
6. Authoritarian	.803	.173	2.759	.006
7. Authoritative	−.115	−.042	−.687	.492

Note: Dependent Variable: Aggressive Behaviour.

4. Discussion

University is a breeding ground for scholars and a place where the seed of future human capital development of a country is germinated through the transformation of students’ personalities. However, universities harbor students who are aggressive to one another and intentionally destroy the feelings of another or become physically and morally disruptive to one another. This study examined psychosocial factors (age, gender, educational level, parenting styles, and adverse childhood experiences) as predictors of aggressive behaviours among university students in Nigeria.

The result from our study failed to show significant composite prediction for all the variables. However, adverse childhood experiences and authoritarian parenting styles showed an independent contribution to aggressive behaviour among young adults. Adverse childhood experiences represent diverse kinds of aggressive behaviours. We found a similarity between this current study’s result and Holtzhausen and Campbell (2021). Holtzhusen’s study established that exposure to traumatic childhood experiences is a precursor to antisocial behaviour and that, most significantly, experiences of physical and emotional abuse are strong predictors of delinquency among young adults in South Africa. This result implies that children exposed to pre-adulthood stresses in the form of neglect, abuse, maltreatment, family dysfunction, neglect from caregivers or parents, physical abuse, sexual and emotional abuse, witnessing community violence, peer violence, and exposure to other sources of violence are prone to being aggressive in adulthood. This is so because of the accumulation of the effects of these traumatic experiences on the sufferer. Further illumination of the cumulative effects of ACEs could be gleaned from the submission of Hesterman (2021), which showed the influence of adverse childhood experiences on the brain development of the sufferer. Then to check aggressive behaviour in adulthood, early identification of adverse childhood experiences through a school referral system should be deployed.

This study revealed that authoritarian parenting predicted aggressive behaviour among young adults. We shared the same opinion with the result from the study of Perez-Gramaje et al. (2019). They opined that authoritarian parents are strict and not warm to their adolescents, which is a precursor of aggression for adolescents. Also, Muhammad et al. (2020) agreed that the authoritarian parenting style strongly predicted aggressive behaviour among high school students in Bangladesh. The negativity that authoritarian parents portend is shown in the high level of control in ensuring their wishes are stamped on their children (Massud et al., 2019), but this calls for parental education on the need to be less strict and warmer towards their children. However, the implication of authoritarian parenting may have cross-cultural interpretations. Although traditional African parenting supported the authoritarian style, it still did not correlate with socially unacceptable behaviours such as being hostile and violent (Baumrind, 1972). As the characteristics of authoritarian parents wield the sticks to make their children behave in a socially acceptable manner, it is important to state that parenting should be tailored toward positive psychological outcomes in adulthood.

5. Conclusion

The study concludes that adverse childhood experiences and authoritarian parenting style independently predicted aggression among young adults, but demographic factors, authoritative parenting, and permissive parenting styles did not have a significant joint contribution to aggression among young adults.

6. Limitations

Despite this current study’s conclusions, the data for the study was gathered from a university campus. Thus, there are no bases for comparing our data and findings with other universities within and outside the nation. The use of self-report in which there is a tendency for demand characteristics the participants may want to show is another potential limitation of the study.

Declaration

We declare that this is an original paper yet to be published and is not under review in any journal.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all students from the University of Lagos who volunteer for the study and the university’s ethics committee for their approval.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.