Gender Issues in Nigeria: Do boys just sneer at being the spouse of a female president?

The last week of June 2018 was for community service. This time around I was going to some secondary schools in rural communities  in Enugu Nigeria to speak on Examination malpractice, Career. I chose these topics because of how pertinent they are for the rural students at this level. As a product of rural schools, and sometimes teacher at both rural and urban schools, I know the mindset  and other common issues affecting students in these areas with little or no intervention. Especially Examination malpractice which is a bane to quality education in the country. And one of the current social problems which has been trending in the news media in recent times.
During this campaign,  I devoted a good portion of my time to chat with the students. At the chat session in one of the schools, I tried to find out their perceptions about some of the issues we discuss.  And accidentally chipped into the gender Issue by asking how many of the students would like to be the president of their country.
Of course, everyone of them would like to be the president. Good! 'Then, how many of you the girls would love to be the wife of the president?' Virtually all the girls in affirmation. Time for the  boys. 'How many of you would love to be the husband of the president?'  That countenance of sneering faces said it all. How many boys on the ground? 10, 20, 50, over 70 boys and none of them would love to be the husband of a president except one. 'I would be providing a gift for the only boy who has boldly accepted to be the husband of a president'  'And also a gift for any other boys who would proudly accept to be the husband of a president'. Disappointedly, the boys would rather not have a gift than accept publicly in the presence of the girls to be the husband of a female president. They instead, asked to know what the husband of a president is called. As a female spouse is called first lady, a male spouse is called what? Funny suggestions though: First man, first gent, Mr. Husband of the president etc. Should he belong to the other room too? I let them suggest as they mock.
 Laughing but serious. Does it matter what you are called? Would you rather choose to be the husband of a nobody than a president?  It wasn't really the topic. But immediately I thought we should divert some of our time to speak more on this.And started by telling them stories of women in Nigeria, Africa and the World who had been great in leadership. Late Dora Akunyili, Chimamanda Adichie, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Angela Merkel of Germany, Theresa May of Britain etc. Nonetheless, their spouses were good in their own ways without being threatened by the positions of their wives. Perhaps, we'd never have known about these men if not for their wives.
So, this recurring question still on my mind: Do the boys just sneer at being the spouse of a female president?
P.S
The Community Service was an integral part of my fellowship programme at the YALI Regional Leadership Centre Accra.
I however reiterate my preparedness to work more in these areas  (SDGs 4 and 5) with you and yours. Thank you

Parental monitoring, birth order and gender in adolescent's health risk behaviour

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Human behavior plays a central role in the maintenance of health; health risk behavior can be defined as any activity undertaken by people with a frequency or intensity that increases risk of disease or injury (Baban & Craciun, 2007). The impact of these risk behaviors on health is of such magnitude that it has become one of the priorities of the most important national and international health organizations (Baban & Craciun, 2007).

Adolescence is a developmental period of physical, psychological, socio-cultural and cognitive changes characterized by efforts to confront and surmount challenges and to establish a sense of identity and autonomy, while many adolescents navigate the sometimes turbulent cause from childhood to adulthood to become productive and healthy adults, there is growing concern that too many others may not achieve their full potential as workers, parents and individuals. Unfortunately, adolescence is also a period of fraught with many threats to the death and wellbeing of adolescents, many of whom suffer substantial impairment and disability. Much of the adverse health consequences expensed by adolescents are, to a large extent the result of risk behaviors that are preventable (Diclemente, William, & Lynne 1996).

During the transition from childhood to adulthood, adolescents establish patterns of behavior and make lifestyle choices that affect both current and future health. Contemporary threats to adolescents’ health are primarily the consequence of risk behaviors and their related adverse outcomes, identifying factors associated with adolescents risk behaviors is critical for developing strategies (Diclemete, Wingood, Crossby, Sionean, Cobb, Harrington, Davies, Hook & Oh, 2001). Adolescents take risk as a way of developing and defining themselves. They do this by taking on new challenges in areas that they often understand very little about engaging in behaviors with results that range from devastating to extremely positive. Risk-taking is the major tool that adolescents use to shape their identities.  The term “risk” has a negative connotation especially when it comes to girls. Girls’ risky behavior elicits images of unsafe sex, drug use and criminality. Research on girls’ unhealthy behavior is plentiful. A simple literature search warns parents, counselors and teachers about what can happen when girls step out of the box.

          A meta-analysis performed by Byrnes, Miller and Schafer in 1999 found after reviewing more than 150 papers, across the board, men were more likely to engage in risks than women. And in 2002 study done by Weber, Blais, and Betz, women were found to be more cautious across different domains of risky behavior, such as financial and recreational with the exception of social risk, in which case there was no significant difference.

          Adolescents engage in risky health behaviors more than young children and adults. This risk taking is thought to be a result of biological and environmental factors influencing adolescent behavior. Teenagers’ engagement in risky sexual behavior puts them at a higher risk for morbidity and social stress resulting from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. This increased risk of morbidity emphasizes the public health significance of adolescent risk behavior (Jean, 2010).

Consequences of health-Risk Behaviors include sexually transmitted disease (STD) a name that actually covers all diseases that are spread by sexual contact; with the discovery of antibiotics at mid century, many physicians thought that the problem of STD or *VD-Venereal Disease, as it was then called) could be cured once and for all. In fact, the frequency of STD did decline during the 1956s, as infected people were cured with penicillin before they could spread the disease. However, in the past twenty years, the incidence of STD has taken a marked upswing, especially among people under age 25, who now account for three fourths of all reported cases (Green and Horton, 1982).

          The seriousness of this for the future of the young person should not be underestimated; repeated STD is a leading cause of infertility. And in the case of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) even one exposed to this sexually transmitted virus can lead to illness and death.

          Adolescents certainly do not need to be told that drugs are harmful to them. For most of them, this message has come from the homes and schools since they were children. For instance, 97% of all adolescents report that their parents would be strongly opposed to their regular use of Marijuana or daily use of alcohol and a majority report parental opposition to even one time use of most drugs; given the adolescents inclination toward the imaginary audience and personality table, some drug exploration is almost inevitable (Elkinid, 1984). Indeed, two tenets of adolescent egocentrism- “I can handle anything” and “adults don’t understand my experiences” are especially misleading for the adolescent trying to think about drugs. For instance, the cognitive confusion characteristic of regular marijuana use or the slowed reaction time after even one or two alcoholic drinks are particularly difficult to spot if one believes one is invincible.

 Another serious consequence of adolescents’ health risk behaviors is unwanted pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2015) many adolescent girls between 15 and 19 years get pregnant and about 16 million women 15-19 years old give birth each year, about 11% of all births worldwide. The proportion of births that take place during adolescence is about 2% in China, 18% in Latin America and the Caribbean and more than 50% in Sub-Sahara Africa while half of all adolescent births occur in just seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and the United States.

However, pregnancy among very young adolescents is a significant problem. Although adolescents aged 10-19 years account for 11% of all births worldwide, they account for 23% of the overall burden of disease (disability-adjusted life years) due to pregnancy and child birth and the risk of maternal death is four times higher among adolescents younger than 16 years than among women in their twenties, many health problems too are particularly associated with negative outcomes of pregnancy during adolescence, these include anaemia, malaria, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, post-partum haemorrhage and mental disorders such as depression, up to 65% of women with obstetric fistula develop this as adolescents, with dire consequences for their lives, physically and socially (W.H.O, 2015).

However, few have examined the impact of parental monitoring, birth order and gender in adolescent health risk behavior. Historically and across diverse cultures, parents have been identified as central influences in the development of their children.

Today, despite recent controversy over the role of parents, considerable research indicates that parent-child relationship is important in the lives of infants, children, young adolescents and teens (Hair, Moore, Garret, Kinukawa, Lippman, & Michelsen, 2003). As central socializing agents for children, parents provide emotional connections, behavioral constraints and modeling which affect children’s development of self regulation, emotional expressions and expectations regarding behaviors and relationships. Theories about deviant and problem behavior have thus also included parents as central elements in their explanation framework. Social control theory, one of the most influential theories of deviance proposes that parental bonding with children inhibits deviance or problem behavior by making youth aware of the costs and effects of such behavior on their ties with others.

          Empirically, research has found that good relationships with parents may protect youth from initiating risky behaviors. (Liu, Fangmail, Zhou, Zhang, & Deng, 2013). Parenting practices have been conceptualized as a system of dynamically interrelated dimensions including monitoring (eg. Attention, tracking and structuring contexts) behavior management (e.g. Negotiation, problem-solving, limit-setting), and social cognitions (e.g, motivation, values, goals and norms), with the quality of the parent-child relationship (eg. Trust) serving as the foundation. However, when parent practices are examined for their role in health-risk behaviors in adolescence, such as sexual activity or substance use, research is often limited to a single dimension and most often, to the roles of parental monitoring. The other possible dimensions (e.g. birth order and gender) have been considered much less frequently, although these dimensions may serve as important components of health risk prevention and management. (Barowski, Ievers-landis, Lovegreen & Trapl, 2003).

          As children mature and gain independence, parents adjust their supervision practices to allow for more freedom and independent decision-making by the adolescent. Research has suggested that open lines of communication and knowledge of an adolescents whereabouts (i.e, parental monitoring) are important in reducing health-risk behaviors. It is also observed that there is a significant interaction between parental monitoring and a number of adverse life events, adolescents with high levels of parental monitoring reporting lower levels of delinquency even at high levels of adversity. Parental closeness is an important support and buffer for children living in contexts characterized by high levels of adversity because the close ties between the parent and child allow for greater-expression and enables parents to provide better care for their children, in addition close parental monitoring may help young people adjust positively when exposed to external stressors. (Kabiru, Elung’ata, Mojola & Beguy, 2014).

          Behavior management approaches are also used by parents of older adolescents as part of their general supervisory practices. However, such approaches have less clear implications with regard to risk behaviors. For example, in later adolescence, parents are more likely to allow their teen the freedom of spend increased unsupervised time with peers, as part of a negotiated agreement between parent and adolescents. As such, parents may allow their adolescent to “bend the rules” as long as prior permission is granted for those exceptions. Additionally, parents may believe that they can monitor their teen better if he/she entertains friends at home rather than at different location (i.e. friend’s house). And in exchange, parents often reduce the amount of direct supervision in these situations by providing private space for the adolescent and his/her friends. Although, these examples of negotiated unsupervised time with peers may increase the adolescents’ decision-making and encourage a level of parent-child, they may also lead to more opportunity for experimentation with sexuality and substances (Barowski, Ievers-Landis, Lovegreen,  & Trapl, 2003)

          Jean (2010) noted that “parental monitoring has been identified as important protective factor for adolescents’ negative sexual health outcomes. However, the distinction between rule and coercive discipline is critical in understanding the influence that parents have over their adolescents risk taking behaviors. Without recognition of the importance of a supportive and trusting parent/adolescent relationship, parental monitoring studies and interventions will be less effective in bringing about behavior change in adolescents and their parents. Perceptions of parental monitoring can vary greatly between adolescents and parents, and thus there is a need for a scale to measure actual parental knowledge of adolescent risk behavior. It is also important to consider the quality of parent and adolescent relationships when attempting to understand the effects of parental monitoring. As a result the examination of barriers to parental monitoring and the nature of parent/adolescent relationship are crucial for making a last positive impact on adolescent sexual health outcomes”.

          Parents know that at a certain point in their adolescent’s life, they must “stop relying on their own vigilance, discipline and control and begin relying on their children’s responsibility and integrity”. This trust is established through shared knowledge and communication often centered on parental knowledge of their children’s daily atrocities and previous demonstration of established responsibility on the part of the adolescent. Research has shown that adolescents who perceive a strong mutual trust with their parents are less likely to engage in high risk behaviors; however, much less is known about the relationship between perceived trust and other risk behaviors such as sexual atrocity or substance use. Thus, an important foundation for parenting practices, trust should be examined in the context of  other dimensions of parenting to determine its relative contribution in explaining adolescent health risk behavior (Barowski et al; 2003).

According to Fiegelman and Stanton(2000), “low levels of perceived parental monitoring were associated with participation in several health risk behaviors, including sexual behavior, substance / drug use, drug trafficking, school truancy and violent behaviors”.

Females perceived themselves to be more monitored than did males. In general, the perceived parental monitoring tended to decrease with advancing age of the youth and perceived parental monitoring had protective effects on concurrent adolescent risk involvement over two-year observation. The protective effect on girls’ sexual abstinence increased significantly over time (Yang, Staifon, Li, Cottrel, Galbraith, & Kaljee, 2007).

       According to psychoanalyst Alfred Adler, our birth order also predicted our personality to a great extent, his theory from the early 1900s still stand in many respects, however, it is new research that is now receiving these ideas and particularly we are seeing the interplay of our biology and psychology, new research is showing that birth order can predict health consequences (Varma, 2013). Alfred Adler is known as the pioneer of the birth order theory; his belief which is both accepted and rejected by researchers, is that the order or position of a child’s birth in the family influences their personality. However, what is often misunderstood is the fact that Adler did not believe it was simply the order of birth that influenced a child’s character, but rather the child’s environment as well as their natural instinct or interpretation of their birth order which molded personalities (Guilbeau, 2014). There is a widespread belief that birth order is an important determinant of personality. A distinguished University of Georgia psychologist Alan E. Stewart wrote what is perhaps the definitive recent work (2012) on the theory and research on birth order. He bases his paper on 529 journal articles published over a 20 year period. Taking his lead from the original birth order theorist, Alfred Adler (a onetime disciple of Freud), Stewart distinguished between “actual” birth order ‘ABO’ (the numerical rank order into which you are born in your family of origin) and “psychological” birth order, or PBO (self perceived position in the family). Your actual birth order need not have the same impact on you as the birth order you believe you have. Actual and psychological birth order can deviate for a number of reasons, including illness of one child, size of family and degree of separation between siblings.

          As explained by Stewart, using Adler’s framework, the firstborn child (or one with the “oldest” role) would be most likely to take on a leadership position, to like it when people stick to rules and order and to strive toward achievement goals. The first born may be sensitive to being “dethroned” by younger sibs who drain away the attention of parents that the first born enjoyed before they came along.

          The youngest child may feel less capable and experienced and perhaps is a bit pampered by parents and even older sibs. As a result, the youngest may develop social skills that will get other people to do things for them, thus contributing to their image as charming and popular.

          Then there’s the all-too-easy to ignore middle child, who feels probed of the prized youngest child status and perhaps feels rejected on the positive side, the middle child may also develop particularly good social skills in order to keep from being ignored.

          For the only child, there’s the possible advantage of receiving all the attention from parents, but this is balanced by the feeling of constantly being scrutinized and controlled.

          There are also reported relationship between birth order and health. According to Chris Weller (2015), first born are given a bevy of advantages. They receive all of their parents’ affection and earn all the spoils. But it comes with a price. A childhood of excess has been found to lead to several health complications later in life. First born are more prone to diabetes, metabolic disorders and obesity, the last of which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Parents who want nothing but the best for their pride and joy tend to over feed them. Parents also tend to helicopter over their first born when it comes to their vaccines. A great deal of research suggests a link between firstborn and the development of allergies, asthma and immune related disorders. Anxiety plays a part statistically speaking; worried parents of an on child will typically rush to get every shot and injection pumped into their kid’s veins to prevent future illness more so than they end up doing for future children. As a result, vaccine-related emergency room visits tend to be much higher for firstborn than their siblings.

          Weller (2015) in his analysis noted that firstborn generally don’t engage in as much risky behavior compared to their younger siblings, especially their youngest. The baby of a given family is usually more likely to exhibit addictive tendencies, such as drinking and smoking, and engage in sexual behaviors earlier. In contrast to the strict parenting styles of the firstborn, the last born children tend not to get as much attention, which again can either be helpful or harmful to the development.

          Before discussing the personality traits that differ between siblings, it’s important to keep in mind the many ways in which families operate. Health outcomes, too, low-income families might not show the same preference of vaccinating their eldest child more than their youngest, simply because other things take priority, like food and paying the bills. In the sense, financial limitations skew the average data, which it should be said isn’t a small point. (Weller, 2015). Each family operates with different constraints, but psychologists have found several sweeping differences between kids born first and those thereafter.

Adolescence being a developmental transition between childhood and adulthood is characterized by intense changes in peers, family, school, self concept and physical development, while most young people successfully move through this transition without serious difficulty, a variety of behavioral and mental health problems increase during this period with significant sex differences (Francis, 2007), while both boys and girls engage in increased levels of law-violating and other problems behaviors during adolescence, girls commit fewer such behaviors than boys on the other hand girls experience more depression, suicide attempts and lower self concept than boys (Francis, 2007).

The years from 12 to 21 are critical for the initiation and development of a range of adult behaviors, a proportion of behaviors that put youth at risk can be seen as natural responses to the greater freedom of choice that comes with increased physical activity and social freedom, risk taking behaviors in particular may meet adolescents emerging needs for autonomy, relatedness with peers, sense of personal mastery and intimacy (Browne, Clubb, Aubercht & Jackson, 2001). Adolescence is a time when experimentation is more likely to occur, as well as when safe and responsible behavior patterns (e.g., safe sexual practices) are adopted. (Barowski, lever-landis, Lovegreen & Trapl, 2003).

In this study, the three variables of parental monitoring, birth order and gender would play independent and significant roles in the engagement in health-risk behaviors among a sample of adolescents.

Statement of the Problem

          Adolescence is an important stage of life for establishing healthy behaviors, attitudes, and lifestyles that contribute to current and future health. Health risk behavior is one indicator of health of young people that may serve both as a measure of health over time as well as a target for health policies and programs. It offers a window of opportunity for development of health promoting behaviors, but also represents a period of vulnerability for the formation of health risk behaviors. There has been a marked change of morbidity and mortality among adolescents, who are increasingly at risk for adverse health outcomes even death that are not biomedical in origin, this is as a result of life-style practices and the majority of current threats to adolescent health are the consequences of social environmental and behavioral factors. These social morbidities include a broad spectrum of behaviors and related outcomes such as substance use and abuse, violence, eating disorders, teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.

          Further, transmission points between childhood and adolescence are marked by widespread developmental changes in emotional, social and cognitive development of health related behaviors in important ways. The health risk behaviors might cluster together in a risky lifestyle, much of the mortality and morbidity is caused by individual behavioral patterns.

          Much research has been done to document various types of health risk behaviors, but little research has focused on understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors responsible for the process of behavior change.

          This study is however aimed at developing effective prevention programs based on an understanding of the effects of parental monitoring, birth order and gender on adolescents’ health risk behavior. Thus, the study attempted to provide answers to the following questions:

1.   Will parental monitoring affect adolescent’s health risk behavior?

2.   Does birth order contribute to adolescent’s propensity to participate in health risk behavior?

3.   Will there be gender differences in adolescents’ health risk behavior?

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

          Adolescence is a time of tremendous biological, cognitive and psychosocial growth and development, taking children on a whirlwind trajectory from early childhood to young adulthood. It represents challenging target for research aimed at understanding how health risk behaviors form; how they differ by birth order, gender and the importance of parental monitoring. Thus, the objectives of the research are:

1.   To find out whether parental monitoring will significantly affect adolescent’s health risk behavior.

2.   To find out whether birth order will significantly contribute to adolescent’s propensity to participate in health risk behavior.

3.   To examine whether there is significant gender differences in adolescents’ health risk behavior.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

·        Adolescence: This refers to the period of transition between childhood and adulthood, which involves some emotional, physical and social developmental changes.

·        Adulthood: This is the period of growth when maturation has been attained, emotionally, physically, socially and other developmental changes concerned with being an adult have taken place.

·        Birth order: Birth order is defined as your rank in your sibling constellation, only child, or twin (Cane, 2007). In this study, it simply means the ordinal position of siblings by birth or age in relation to one another.

·        Childhood: The term childhood is non-specific and can imply a varying range of years in human development, developmentally and biologically it refers to the period between infancy and adulthood (Wikipedia, 2014). In this study, it can be simply defined as the early stage in the development of life just before puberty or adolescent stage.

·        Gender: In this study gender simply means certain social characteristics associated with a particular sex.

·        Health risk behavior: In this study, Health risk behavior can be defined as any human activity that directly or indirectly poses threat to their wellbeing.

·        Morbidity: This refers to the incidence or frequency of disease in a population.

·        Mortality: The incidence or frequency deaths in a given population.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

THEORETICAL REVIEW

 The following theories were reviewed in this work:

BIOLOGICAL-MATURATIONAL THEORY

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

 PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY

 COGNITIVE STAGE THEORY

 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

TRANSITIONAL TEENS THEORY

ACQUIRED PREPAREDNESS MODEL

THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR

SOCIAL NORMS THEORY

PROBLEM BEHAVIOUR THEORY

          BIOLOGICAL-MATURATIONAL THEORY

Biological-maturational theory is of the view that certain aspects of human behavior are related to the physiological factors such as hormone levels, inherited traits, or neurological disorders. Biological views dominated the beliefs and research on adolescence during the early 1900s. One of the most important scholars of adolescence development Hall pioneered and popularized biological views of adolescence at the turn of the century. Hall’s theory is probably the earliest formal theory of adolescence and as such he is dubbed the father of a ‘scientific study of adolescence’ (Hall, 1904).

          According to Hall (1904), adolescence is a distinct and tumultuous time of life when our behavior is primarily determined by the way our species is genetically programmed. Hall believed that adolescents are genetically destined to be especially prone to rapid, rebellions and sometimes life threatening changes in behavior. Therefore, Hall promoted the biological viewpoint that adolescent is universally a difficult, troublesome period of life.

          From the biological view point many of the changes in a person’s behavior during adolescence is related to the physiological changes that occur during the teenage years; likewise, many of the differences in their physiological make-up. Researchers have found associations between certain aspects of teenage behavior and physiological factors such as disorders in the neurological system, hormone imbalances and inherited disturbances. For example, male delinquents who continue to engage in criminal activities beyond adolescence have lower levels of adrenal secretions than male delinquents who don’t become criminals as adults. Much research supports the theory that certain aspects of an adolescent’s behavior and mental health are influenced by biological factors. Most researchers who study adolescence from biological view point today, however, consider themselves advocates of biosocial theories- That is, biological and environmental factors work together to account for our behavior during adolescence (King, 2004).

          BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

          Unlike strictly biological theories, behavioral and social learning theories are based on the promise that most of how we behave and who we become during and after adolescence is determined by environmental influences. Although, behavioral and social learning theorists do not deny that biological factors influence our behavior, they emphasize the impact that our experiences have on our development. Among the most important environmental factors are the kinds of behaviors and ways of thinking that are reinforced or punished at home, at school, by peers and the society. The idea that environmental factors play a large role in determining how people behave during adolescence initially gained wider recognition through the research of anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Both women pointed out that adolescents in other societies behave differently than American teenagers because each group is socialized differently. In opposition to Hall’s still popular views, Mead and Benedict were showing that adolescence is not a particularly stressful or rebellious period in every society. How children are socialized has an impact on how they think and behave when they become adolescents (Muss, 1996)

          Research emerging from sociology at the time also back up these anthropological findings, Sociologists were finding that teenagers behaved in different ways according to the kind of families they come from. In conjunction with the early sociological and anthropological studies, support was growing among psychologists for a theory being developed by. B.F. Skinner known as behavioral or Skinnerian psychology. According to Skinner and other behavioral psychologists, most of an individual’s behavior and attitudes are a result of the ways he or she has been reinforced or punished since birth.

          PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY

          Psychoanalytic theorists like the behavioral and social learning theorists believe that our teenage behavior and development are influences from environmental factors – mainly by the kinds of experiences we have during the first few years of our lives in our families. Unlike other theorists, however, psychoanalytic theorists put the most emphasis on our early childhood experiences (Freud, 1958). Above all, how our mothers relate to us in the first few years of our lives supposedly shapes our ways of thinking and relating to people from there on. For example teenagers who continually have trouble getting along or becoming intimate with people and becoming self reliant have often had unloving, ambivalent, or overly involved, relationships with their mothers during early childhood. These teenagers have apparently developed maladaptive ways of reasoning and behaving around people based on problems in their relationships with their mothers as infants and pre-schoolers.

          Psychoanalytic theorist also see our development progressing in distinct stages during which certain psychological and sexual issues need to be resolved if we are to become well adolescents and adults. Because the founder of psychoanalytic theories was Sigmund Freud, they are commonly referred to as Freudian theory.

          Contemporary Psychoanalytic theorists such as Peter Blos and Erik Erikson have modified Freud’s original theories. According to these more recent theories, the experiences we have after early childhood continue to influence our development in particular period for shaping and reshaping certain aspects of ourselves. Indeed, adolescence is a crucial time for separating on “individuating” enough from families to build close relationships with peers and to function in the adult world. Like Freud, however, newer psychoanalytic theorists still consider our childhood experiences with our parents and the dynamics within our families to have a significant impact on how we think and behave as teenagers (Blos, 1979; Erikson, 1956).

          COGNITIVE STAGE THEORY

          Like the Freudians, cognitive stage theorists believe that adolescent behavior is related to stages of development unlike the Freudians, however, the cognitive stage theorists see stages of human development as mental, not as psychological or sexual. Throughout childhood, we supposedly move into more advanced mental stages that enable us reason, to solve problems and to interact with people in more mature ways. The process of maturing that we observe in most adolescents, therefore is seen as evidence of their having finally arrived at the higher cognitive level – a stage referred to as “formal operational thinking” on the other hand, those adolescents who think and behave in extremely immature ways are seen as being stuck, so to speak, in the childhood stage of reasoning referred to as “concrete operational thinking”. Thus, adolescence is considered a distinct, unique phase of life because young people are advancing to a new cognitive stage that enables them to behave more maturely (Oswalt, n.d). These adolescent changes however are not considered to result mainly from environmental influences, family dynamics or early childhood experiences. Because Jean Piaget is considered the founder of cognitive stage theories, they are often referred to as Piagetian theories. Piaget began to look at the period of adolescent development later in his career with the publication of The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (with B. Inhelder, 1958). Probably some of Piaget's notions about cognition came from his work and experiences as an assistant to Alfred Binet in Paris, while Binet was developing his intelligence test. Piaget became fascinated with the thought processes children revealed in attempting to solve test problems.(King, 2004)

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Brontenbrenner is one of the most well known psychologists in the field of developmental psychology. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is arguably his most acknowledged work.

 Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) defines complex “layers” of environment, each having an effect on a child’s development. This theory has recently been renamed “bioecological systems theory” to emphasize that a child’s own biology is a primary environment fueling her development. Changes or conflict in any one layer with ripple throughout other layers. To study a child’s and her immediate environment; but also at the interaction of the layer environment as well.

Bronfenbrenner’s structure of environment include: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem.

The Microsystem: This is the layer closest to the child and contains the structures with which the child has direct contact. The microsystem encompasses the relationships and interactions a child has with her immediate surroundings (Berk, 2000). Structures in the micro system include family, school, neighborhood, or childcare environments. At this level relationships have impact in two directions. For example, a child’s parents may affect his behavior; however the child’s parents may affect his behavior; however the child also affects the behavior of the parent.  Bronfenbrenner’s calls these biodirectional influences.

The mesosystem: This layer provides the connection between the structures of the child’s microsystem (Berk, 2000) Examples: the connection between the child’s teacher and his parent etc.

The Exosystem: This layer defines the larger social system in which the child does not function directly. The structure in this layer impacts on the child’s development by interacting with some structure in her micro system. (Berk, 2000). Parent workplace schedules or community-based family resources are examples.

          Finally, the macrosystem: This layer may be considered the outermost layer in the child’s environment. This layer is comprised of cultural values, customs and laws (Berk 2000).

          The chronosystem encompasses the dimension  of time as it relates to a child’s environments. Elements within this can be either external, such as the timing of a parents death, or internal such as physiological changes that occur with the aging of a child. As children get older they may react differently to environmental changes and may be more able to determine more how that change will influence them.  Bronfenbrenner’s sees the instability and unpredictability of family life we have left our economy create destructive force to a child’s development (Addison, 1992)

TRANSITIONAL TEENS THEORY

          Although this theory focuses largely on the problems associated with adolescent impaired driving, transitional teens theory (Voas & Keller- Baker, 2008) also provides a general framework for understanding trajectories into adolescent substance abuse and criminal conduct.

          Transitional Teens Theory (TTT) defines four key elements that significantly affect behavior; namely; the developmental dynamics and status of the adolescent; parental influence; social, environmental and community influences; and peer influences. The later three are considered to be external influences. All four can operate as either risk or protective factors that influence adolescent behaviors, development and decisions.

          During this period, parental influence and supervision decrease, and time independent of that influence increases. The automobile enhances this independence from parents. The protective components of the community and environment substitute somewhat for the decrease in parental supervision.

          It is inevitable that the teen will experience more and more independence from adult influences during this period. Most relevant during this period is the period group and, more specifically, what Voas and Kelley-Baker (2008) call small affinity groups, mainly defined by the number of teens who can fit into an automobile. This small group, because of the car, can travel away from the home environments supervisory regulations to locations where they perceive themselves to have more control over their own behavior.

          However, this sense of self control may be a distortion since they may find themselves in environments with which they are less familiar and in which they have less control. The risk increases when small the small affinity or intimate group has deviant behavior norms.

ACQUIRED PREPAREDNESS MODEL

          G.T. Smith and Anderson (2001) present a risk model for understanding the development of adolescent problem drinking based on personality and learning factors. They combine personality factors based on traits that are predictive of alcohol problems and that have genetic loadings with learning factors that are more environmentally determined. The combination of these two risk factors creates what they call an acquired preparedness for the development of alcohol abuse and associated problem behaviors.

       Infer woven with this model is the curial stage of development in which adolescents are faced with, and engage in, the task of differentiating themselves from parents and family and broadening their rage of experiences beyond family and parental protection and control. They must confront the challenges of controlling urges and managing their interpersonal and social experiences. These challenges have potentially positive or negative outcomes. One area of challenge is drinking alcohol, which some researchers conclude is part of this development process. (see G.T. Smith and Anderson, 2001).

In summary, acquired preparedness model (APM) holds that adolescents who show the disinhibited personality trait (disinhibition impulsivity) and behavioral under control are ready to learn the positive reinforcing aspects of risk-taking behavior more than they are ready to learn the punishing aspects of risk-taking behavior. When this readiness (dishibition) is combined with alcohol expectancy learning or other drug expectancy learning there is a bias toward alcohol and other drug expectancies over negative expected outcomes. Alcohol expectancies, enhanced by disinhibition can predict the outset of alcohol use and related problems. This model is applicable to some adolescent as they navigate through the various developmental tasks and stages of adolescence, particularly those who tend to fit the disinhibited personality pattern. Smith and Anderson (2001) made it clear that the APM can help identify “one sub-group of high-risk adolescents” and not necessarily applicable to all adolescents.

THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

          The theory of planned behavior (TPB) was developed by Ajzen and is seen as an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The theory of reasoned action holds that the intention (motivation) to perform certain behavior is dependent on whether individuals evaluate the behavior as positive (attitude) and if they judge others as wanting them to perform the behavior (subjective norm). TPB builds on this theory and holds that all behavior is not executed under purposeful control and that behavior lie on a continuum from total control to complete lack of control. TPB is based on the correction between attitudes and behaviors.

          Behavior is guided by three kinds of beliefs and cognitive outcomes; viz: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs are the expected or likely outcome of the behavior that produces a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior (outcome).

Normative beliefs are what others expect and the desire of the individual to follow those expectations. These beliefs result in the degree of social pressure to comply or subjective norm; the adolescent thinks others (eg. Peers) want him or her to perform the behavior.

     Control beliefs are the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior resulting in the degree of perceived behavioral control (outcome).

SOCIAL NORMS THEORY

          Social norms theory (SNT) describes situations in which individuals incorrectly perceive the attitudes and / or behaviors of peers and other community members to be different from their own when in fact they are not. This phenomenon has been called “pluralistic ignorance” (Miller & Mcfarland, 1991; Toch & Klotas, 198). These misperceptions occur in relation to problem or risk behaviors (which are usually overestimated) and in relation to healthy or protective behaviors (which are usually underestimated). The social norms approach had its start with research in the 1980s by Perkins and Berkowitz based on a research conducted at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the 1980’s (Berkowitz & Perkins, 1987; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). The approaches use a variety of methodologies to provide normative feedback as a way of correcting misperceptions that influence behavior.

          The first social norms intervention was initiated in 1989 by Michael Haines at Northen Illinios University (Haines, 1996; Haines & Barker, 2003; Haines & Spear, 1996). Haines expanded on the theory by applying standard social marketing techniques to present the actual healthy norms for drinking to students through specially designed media. SNT holds that subjective norms or the perceived expectations of other or of peer groups who approve or disapprove of a particular behavior, along with attitudes toward the behavior are determinants of that behavior. SNT posits that people are highly influenced by what they think their peers are doing or thinking and then confirm to what they believe is the norms that come from incorrect assessment of what others do will influence social behavior.

          Social norms theory can be used to develop interventions that focus on three levels of prevention specified as universal, selective, and indicated (Berkowitz, 1997). Universal prevention is directed at all members of a population without identifying those at risk of abuse. Selective prevention is directed at members of a group that is at risk for a behavior. Indicated prevention is directed at particular individual who already display signs of the problem. Interventions at all levels of prevention can be combined and intersected to create a comprehensive program that is theoretically based and has mutually reinforcing program elements (Berkowitz, 2003).

PROBLEM BEHAVIOR THEORY

          Problem-behavior theory is a systematic, multivariate social psychological conceptual framework derived initially from the basic concepts of value and expectation in Rotter’s (1954, 1982) social learning theory and from Merton’s (1957) concept of anomie. The fundamental premise of the theory, all behavior is the result of person-environment interaction, reflects a “field theory” perspective in social science (Lewin, 1951). The earliest formulation of what later came to be known as problem behavior theory was developed in the early 1960’s to guide a comprehensive study of alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors in a small, tri-ethnic community in south western Colorado (Jessor, Graves, Hanson, and Jessor, 1968). In the following three decades, problem-behavior theory has been revised and extended during the course of studies by Richard Jessor and his colleagues. It was first adapted for the follow-up study of the earlier cohorts of adolescents and youth to encompass the developmental stage of young adulthood (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991).

Problem behavior theory (PBT; Jessor, 1987a, 1991, 1998; Jessor & Jessor, 1977) is a broad-brand and widely used theory to explain dysfunction and maladaptation in adolescence. The fundamental premise of PBT, developed initially from Merton’s (1957) concept of anomic and Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory, is that all behavior emerges out of the structure and interaction of three systems. The behavior system, the personality system, the perceived environment. Each system is composed of variables that serve either as instigations for engaging in problem behavior or controls against involvement in problem behavior. It is the balance between instigations and controls that determines the degree of proneness for problem behavior within each system. The overall level of proneness for problem behavior, across all three systems, reflects the degree of psychosocial conventionality characterizing each adolescent.

          The concepts that constitute the perceived environment system include social controls models, and support. Perceived environment variables are distinguished on the basis of the directness or conceptual closeness of their relations to problem behavior. Proximal variables (for example, peer models for alcohol use) directly implicate a particular behavior, where as distal variables (for example, parental support) are more remote in the causal chain and therefore require theoretical linkage to behavior. Problem behavior proness in the perceived environment system includes low parental disapproval of problem behavior high peer approval of problem behavior, high peer model for problem behavior, low parental controls and support, low peer controls, low compatibility between parent and peer expectations and low parent (relative to peer) influence.

          The concepts that constitute the personality system include a patterned and interrelated set of relatively enduring, socio cognitive variables values, expectations, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations toward self and society that reflect social learning and developmental experience. Problem behavior proneness in the personality system includes lower value on academic achievement, higher value on independence, greater social criticism, higher alienation, lower self-esteem, greater attitudinal tolerance of deviance, and lower religiosity.

          The concepts that constitute the behavior system include both problem behaviors and conventional behaviors. Problem behaviors include alcohol use, problem drinking, cigarette smoking, marijuana use, other illicit drug use, general deviant behavior delinquent behaviors and other norm volatile acts), risky driving and precocious sexual intercourse. Involvement in any one problem behavior increases the likelihood of involvement in other problem behaviors due to their linkages in the social ecology of youth.

          In summary, within each explanatory system, it is the balance of investigations and controls that determines psychosocial proness for involvement in problem behavior; and it is the balance of instigations and control across the three systems that determine the adolescent’s overall level of problem behavior proneness or psychosocial unconventionality.

REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

ADOLESCENTS AND HEALTH RISK BEHAVIOR

          Adolescence is a period during which youth experience physical, neurological, and cognitive transformations, as well as shifts in the nature of relationships by developing new social ties and roles across social domains (Moretti, 2004; Weisz and Hawley, 2002). As consequences of such dynamic transformations, youth may become easily vulnerable to multiple forms of risks related to poor health and health risk behavior during this period.

          The Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDCP, 2010) on its 2009 national Youth Surveillance survey United States reported that a startling proportion of youth (9^th to 12^th graders) in the U.S have experienced poor health and health risk behaviors. For example, among youth nationwide, 26.1% experienced depressive symptoms (felt sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row to the extent that it hindered their daily activities during the past 12 months) 31.5% were involved in physical aggression (involved in a physical fight one or more times in the past 12 months), 19.5% smoked cigarettes on at least 1 day during the past 30 days, 41.8% consumed alcohol (had at least one drink of alcohol 1 day in the past 30 days) 24.2% experienced binge drinking (had five or more drinks within a couple of hours on at least one day during the past 30 days), and 38.9% of the sexually active youth did not use conceptive during their most recent sexual intercourse.

          Research contents that various health risk behaviors that are developed at an early stage may often result in elevated risks of experiencing severe levels of morbidity or mortality in adulthood (CDCP, 2010; Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005; Merin-Kangas, He, Burstein, Swanson, Avenevoli, Cui, & Swendsen 2010). Estimates for the age-of-onset distributions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) disorders from a nationally representative U.S. study of adults support this finding, as the time of diagnosis for clinical levels of disorders for post survey respondents was around early adulthood (Kessler et al., 2005). More specifically, the 25^th and 75^th percentile range of the age-of-onset distributions was 18-27 years of age for substance use disorders (eg. Alcohol abuse and dependence) and 18-43 years for mood disorders (e.g, major depressive disorder). These estimates suggest that if non-severe levels of behavioral health conditions during adolescence are unattended, those mental health conditions and health risk activities may result in severe consequences later in life.

          The adolescence-adulthood temporal continuum of behavioral health conditions that is, observed in empirical health research is in accordance with the life course perspective (Elder, 1998). In detail, the theoretical view asserts that risk behaviors that are developed earlier in life, but are left to proliferate, may evolve into even greater medium- and long term health-related consequences through the accumulation of disadvantages. Consistent with the existing empirical findings, proponents of this theoretical perspective will claim that health risk behaviors in adulthood are strongly contingent upon their disadvantaged life experiences in the past including adolescence. However consistent with the findings of U.S youth (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDCP], 2010), existing literature concerning south Korean youth has suggested that adolescence is the period during which a large fraction of youth engage in various types of health behaviors for the first time (MOGEF, 2010; Rhee, Yun, & Khang, 2007).

          In particular; underage drinking and smoking is highly prevalent in Korea and has been considered a severe public health risk since 1990s (Hong, Lee, Grogan-Kaylor, & Huang, 2011). In 1999, in response to rising public demand, the juvenile Act was introduced. The law prohibits commercial businesses and individuals from offering services and products that may inflict harm towards the wellbeing of youth under the age of 19. Despite legislative efforts, a study conducted in 2010 revealed that a large proportion of middle school and high school students reported consuming alcohol (51.9%) and smoking (18.7%) in their lifetime (MOGEF, 2010).

          The foundation for preventing youth violence (FPYV, 2009) reported that in addition to substance use behaviors, aggression, particularly in the form of verbal and physical harassment within the school environment has also been of national concern in Korea. Despite legislative efforts to prevent the use of aggression and protect vulnerable victims on school grounds, national reports have shown that 12.4% of youth reported to have exerted aggression toward other students at school in the past year.

PARENTAL MONITORING AND ADOLESCENTS’ HEALTH-RISK BEHAVIOR

          Research has amply documented that the greater the communication between parent and adolescent and the greater the parent knowledge of the adolescents’ whereabouts (i.e; parental monitoring), the lower the likelihood that the adolescent will engage in health risk behavior (Chilcoat & Anthony; 1996; Li, Stanton & Feigelman, 2000; Li, Feigelman and Stanton, 2000, Steinberg, Fletcher & Darling, 1994; Stattin & Kerr; 2000; Dishion & Roeber 1985; Pittman & Cahse-Rangdale,2001).

          Barowski et al (2003) revealed that adolescents who report that their parents allow them to negotiate unsupervised time with peers were more likely to be sexually active and to use substance (alcohol and marijuana than the adolescents who do not, even when comparing adolescents who are similar in parental monitoring.

          However, these adolescents are also more likely to engage in sex-related protective measures such as consistent condom use, carrying protection, or refusing sex when protection is not available. Interestingly, these results were very similar in magnitude and direction for males and females alike. Although parents of female adolescents were less likely to negotiate unsupervised time than parents of male adolescents, when they do the effects appear to be same.

          A significant proportion (40% to 60%) of these adolescents also reported being allowed to stay past curfew hour if they call, have friends over when their parents aren’t home and have a place in their home where they can hang out unmonitored. However, even when the sample is restricted to this highly monitored group, the higher the level of negotiated unsupervised time, the increased likelihood of sexual activity, substance use (alcohol and marijuana), and responsible sexual behaviors (consistent condom use, carrying protection). Thus, although the degree to which parents use negotiated unsupervised time is much less than general monitoring practices, this parenting practice does not appear to be rare, nor found only among adolescents who are poorly monitored. These findings suggested that when parents allow negotiation to occur adolescents may be permitted more opportunity for experimentation to occur. (Barowski, et al. 2003).

          Diclemente, Wingood, Crosby, Sionean, Cobb, Harrington, Davies, Hook & Oh (2001) examined parental monitoring association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Recruiters screened a sample of 1130 teens residing in low-income neighborhoods. Adolescents were eligible if they were black females between the ages of 14 and 18 years, sexually active in the previous 6 months, and provided written informed consent. Teens (n=609) were eligible and 522 (85.7%) participated, variables in 6 domains were assessed, including sexually transmitted diseases, sexual behaviors marijuana use, alcohol use, anti-social behavior and violence, the results in logistic regression analyses, controlling for observed covariates indicate that adolescents perceiving less parental monitoring were more likely to test positive for a sexually transmitted disease /odds ratio [OR] : 1.7), report not using a condom at last sexual intercourse (OR: 1.7) have multiple sex partners in the past 6 months (OR: 2.0), have risky sex partner in the past 30 days (OR:3.0), and not use any contraception during the last sexual intercourse episode (OR: 1.9). furthermore, adolescents perceiving less parental monitoring were more likely to have a history of marijuana use and use marijuana more often in the past 30 days (OR: 2.3 and OR:2.5, respectively); have a history of arrest (OR:2.1) and there was a trend toward having engaged in fights in the past 6 months (OR: 1.4). These findings demonstrate a consistent pattern of health risk behaviors and adverse biological outcomes associated with less parental monitoring.    

          Biddlecom, Awusabo-Asare and Bankole (2009) studied four African countries of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi and Uganda drawing a nationally representative survey of 12-19 years olds. Bivariate analysis compared gender differences for two outcomes among unmarried 15-19 years olds-having had sexual intercourse in the last 12 months and, among those who had in this period, contraceptive use at last sex. Multivariate logistic regression indentified associations between these outcomes and co-residence with parents or parent figures, parental monitoring and parent-child communication. The results indicate that adolescents reported moderate to high levels of parental monitoring and low levels of parent-child communication on sexual matters. In all countries, adolescent males who reported low monitoring were at elevated risk of having had sex in the last year (odd ratios: 2.4-5.4) as were their female counterparts in three of the countries (6.9-7.7). Parental monitoring was not associated with contraceptive use at last sex.

BIRTH ORDER AND ADOLESCENTS’ HEALTH-RISK BEHAVIOR

          Argys, Rees, Averett & Witonchart (2006) examined the relationship between birth order and adolescents’ health risk behaviours using data from National Longitudinal Survey of Youth- 1997 cohort (NLSY97). The NLSY97 was launched to enable researchers to define the transition that adolescents make from school to the labor market and into adulthood. In addition to including schooling and labor market information, the NLSY97 contains detailed questions on family background, personal characteristics, and a variety of behaviours that can be considered risky.

          Respondents to the NSLY97 have been surveyed on an annual basis beginning in 1997. The initial wave of the NLSY97 consisted of a representative sample of the U.S population aged 12-16 years on December 31, 1996 (n=6, 748), coupled with a supplemental over sample of black and Hispanic adolescents (n=2, 236). The study uses data from respondents between the ages of 12 and 17 who were interviewed at least once during the first three waves of the NSLY97. Respondents could contribute up to 3 observations to the analysis. Using ACASI (Audio Computer Assisted Self-Interview) technology outcome variables by gender and the presence of an older sibling, information on tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol consumption; sexual activity; birth control and criminal/ delinquent behaviors was collected. The result indicates that children with older siblings are, on average, more likely to have used tobacco, alcohol and marijuana than their firstborn counterparts controlling for family size, age and the other factors in the model. For instance, females with older siblings are 8 percentage points more likely to have smoked cigarettes than are their first born counterparts.

          A positive relationship between older siblings and substance use is not consistent with the arguments that experienced parents provide better guidance for their younger children or the notion that older siblings serve as positive role models. This result is more in keeping with the argument that adolescents with older siblings are “prematurely” exposed to behaviors initiated by their older siblings at later ages, although it could reflect differences in parental monitoring and supervision or even a beneficial effect of having younger siblings.

          On the estimates of the relationship between birth order and adolescent sexual behavior, two dependent variables are considered: the first is an indicator of adolescents ever having had intercourse, whereas the second is an indicator of whether they used contraception at first intercourse and it applies only to the subsample of respondents who indicated that they had sexual intercourse. For both males and females there are substantial (7.4 and 4.0 percentage points, respectively) increases associated with the presence of an older sibling in the probability of having had intercourse. This result might indicate that middle borns are at risk of experiencing unwanted pregnancies and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Using a subsample of respondents who had sexual intercourse, estimates of the effect of birth order on the probability that contraception was used at first intercourse. They provide little evidence that birth order is related to this probability. The report also suggest that younger brothers and sisters are more likely to be sexually active than their first born counterparts and that older sibling decreases the probability that sexually active females used birth control in the past year.

          It is not surprising that birth order seems to have a long-lasting influence on smoking as compared to that on drinking or marijuana use. Cigarettes are highly addictive and as Gruber and Zinman (2001) have shown, most adult smokers begin their habit as adolescents. The relationship between having an older sibling and smoking as an adult suggests that birth order should be related to long-run health outcomes.

GENDER AND ADOLESCENTS’ HEALTH-RISK BEHAVIORS

          Gender differences in the distribution of youth risk behaviors reported by Salvadoran students. Male students were significantly more likely than female students to report all aggression-related behaviors as well as two of the four victimization behaviors having been threatened or hurt with a weapon and feeling too unsafe to go to school. This gender difference for engagement in violence related behavior is reflected in the larger Salvadoran population, where 70-80 of homicides occur among males, with more than half occurring among males aged 15-30 years (Cruz, 1997). The 20% of male adolescents who reported carrying a weapon in the past 30 days along with the over 40% who reported participating in a physical fight in the past year may be causes for concern given that EI Salvador has been reported to have the highest homicide rate among young people in the Americas (Eberwine, 2003). Females (20%) reported that they had been forced to have sexual intercourse, and female students were almost four times likely to report having been forced to have sexual intercourse as males.

          Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottmoeller (2002) reported that between one-third and two-thirds of known sexual assault victims are age 15 or younger based on justice system statistics and rape crisis centers in eight countries, which included the U.S and four Latin American countries. In Nicaragua, one study found that 26% of women between the ages of 25 and 44 reported that they had experienced sexual abuse before the age of 19, and 15% reported having been victims of attempted or completed rape, a rate twice that of men (Olsson, Ellsberg, Berglund, Herrera, Zelaya & Pena, 2000).

          Female students were also more likely than male students to report feelings of sadness and hopelessness, suicidal ideation and suicidal attempt. A finding that follows similar gender patterns exhibited in the U.S adolescent population (Kann, Kinchen, Williams, Ross, Lory & Hill 2000; Grunbaum, Kann, Kinchen, Ross, Hawkins & Lowry, 2004); and that coincides with the significantly higher rates of depression found for female adolescents in Canada, Great Britain and the Unites States (Wade, Cairney, Pevalin, 2002). Gender differences in suicidal ideation and suicide attempt identified in these students also mirror the broader epidemiologic profile of El Salvador (Organization Panamamerica de la salud [OPS], 1998), Guatemala (Berganza and Aguilar, 1992) and Nicaragua (Caldera, Herreram Renberg, Kullgren, 2004) in terms of the higher suicide rates reported for adolescent females.

          Research has found similar lifetime tobacco prevalence use and  marijuana use, as reported for Salvadoran adolescents (mean age = 16 years, n=1,628) as revealed by Dormitzer, Gonzalez, Penna, Bejarano, Obando, Sauchez (2004) the relatively high percentage of students reporting cigarette use along with the lack of statistically significant difference for binge drinking between male and female students suggests that these substances may be the more socially accepted among both genders than marijuana use. The higher prevalence of tobacco and alcohol use as compared to other drugs mirrors similar findings from a study conducted with youth in the early 1990s in San Salvador (OPS, 1998) as well as later findings from Dormitzer et al (2004).

          Several interesting gender differences in sexual behaviors are worth noting, with perhaps the most striking being the large difference in reporting of sexual experience. Just under half of the male study participants reported having had sexual intercourse as compared with under 8% of females, and males were significantly more likely to report having had sex at or before age of 13 years one explanation for these differences in sexual behavior is a reporting bias in which males may exaggerate and females under represent their sexual experiences. Gender differences in prevalence of sexual intercourse may also be due to a possible cultural acceptance for young males to engage in sexual intercourse at an early age, which is supported by similar findings of sexual experience in male youth in Nicaragua (Zelaya, Marin, Garcia, Berglund, Liljestrand, & Persson, 1997; Rani, Figueroa & Ainsle, 2003). Lastly, with fairly equal proportions of sexually experienced male and female students reporting no condom use, this finding is of particular concern when considering that El Salvador has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in latin America and the Caribbean (Kasischke & Morales-Carbonell, 1998); ranking fourth out of the eight countries in the central American region according to the state of world population (1999) with the population ages 15-24 years accounting for 26.7% of the HIV/AIDS cases in EL Salvador in 2000 (PAHO, 2002); the need for education that promotes safe sexual practices among adolescents is further emphasized. Recognizing that sexual abstinence and the possible use of contraceptive methods may account for the lack of pregnancy experience reported by females in the study.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Theories of adolescence which explain the stages of development, how the adolescents see and evaluate themselves were reviewed in this study. Such theories include; Biological-maturational theory, Behavioral and Social Learning theory, Psychoanalytic theory, Cognitive Stage theory and Ecological Systems theory. More also, theories of adolescents’ health risk behaviors which try to explain its relationship with environment were also reviewed. Theories here include; Transitional Teens Theory, Acquired Preparedness Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Norms Theory, and Problem Behavior Theory.

Relevant empirical studies reviewed in this study were categorized into four sections: Adolescents and health risk behavior, Parental Monitoring and Adolescents’ Health risk behavior, and Gender and Adolescents’ Health risk behavior. They investigated the influence of various variables on adolescents’ health risk behavior in which some established a positive relationship and some did not. Thus, the need for the researcher to throw more light on these related constructs embarked on the research.

          RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

1. There will be no statistically significant differences between high parental      monitoring and low parental monitoring on adolescents’ health risk behavior.

2. There will be no statistically significant birth order differences on                        adolescents’ health risk behavior.

3. There will be no statistically significant gender differences on   adolescents’ health risk behavior.

REFERENCES

Addison, J. T. (1992). Urie Bronfenbrenner.

          Human Ecology, 20(2),16-20.

Baban A. and Craciun C (2007). Changing health-risk behaviors: A review of theory and evidence-based interventions in health psychology. Journal of Evidence-based psychotherapies 7(1)45-67.

Barowski, E.A; Ievers-Landis, C.E, Lovegreen, L.D, & Trapl E.B (2003). Parental monitoring, negotiated unsupervised time and parental trust: The role of perceived parenting practices in adolescent health risk behavior. Journal of adolescent Health, 33(2) 60-70.

Berganza, C.E; & Aguilar, G. (1992). Depression in Guatemalan adolescents. Journal of Adolescence. 27(108) 771-782.

Berger K.S (1988). The developing person through the life span (2^nd ed.) New York: Word Publishers Inc.

Berk, L.E. (2000). Child development (5^th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Berkowitz, A.D (1997). From reactive to proactive prevention: promoting an ecology of health on campus. Chapter 6 in P.C. Rivers and E. Shore (Eds).: A handbook on substance abuse for college and university personnel, Westport, CT: Greenwood press.

Berkowitz, A.D (2003). Applications of social norms theory to other health and social justice issues. Chapter 16 in HW Perkins (ed). The social norms approach to preventing school and college substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians, San Franscisco, Jossey-Bass.

Berkowitz, AD & Perkins, HW (1987). Current issues in effective alcohol education programming. In Joan Sherwood (Ed): Alcohol policies and practices on college and university campuses, p 69-85, Columbus, OH: National Association of student personnel administrators monograph series.

Biddlecom, A; Awusabo-Asare, K. & Bankole, A. (2009). Role of parents in adolescent sexual  activity and contraceptive use in four African countries. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 35(2) 72-81 doi: 10.1363/3507209

Birth order and risky adolescent behavior (n.d).The free Library. (2014). Retrieved Dec. 03 2014 from http://www.the free library.com/ Birth + order + and + adolescent + behavior.-a0144714548.

Blos, P.(1979). The second individuation process of adolescence. New York: IUP

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1990). Discovering what families do. In

Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the

American Family. Family Service America. Retrieved Nov. 29, 2014 from http://www.montana.edu/www4h/process.html

Browne, D.C, Clubb, P.A., Aubrecht, A.B, Jackson, M, (2001). Minority health risk behaviors: An introduction to research on sexually transmitted diseases, violence, pregnancy prevention and substance use. Maternal and child Health Journal 5(4) 215-223.

Byrnes, J.P, Miller, K.C & Schafer, W.D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.

Caldera, T., Herrera, A. Renberg, E.S; Kullgreen, G., (2004). Parasuicide in a low-income country: Results from three-year hospital surveillance in Nicaragua. Scandinavian Journal of public Health. 32(5) 349-355.

Cane W. (2007). The Birth order: Book of love. Retrieved on October 22, 2014 from http://birthorders.com

CDCP. (2010). Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance-United states, 2009. Morbidity & Mortality weekly report, 59 (5), 1-148.

 CDCP. (2012). Teen drivers: fact sheet. Retrieved March 27, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen-drivers/teendrivers-factssheet.html.

Chilcoat; H.D & Anthony, J.C (1996). Impact of parent monitoring on initiation of drug use through late childhood. Journal of the American Academy of child and adolescent psychiatry, 35:91-100

          Child Development (5^th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 23-38

Cruz J.M (1997). Enabling factors and expressions of violence in the nineties. Estudios centoamericanos, 588:977-992

Diclemente R.J; Wingood G.M; Crosby R; Sionean, C, Cobb, B.K; Harrinton, K, Davis, S. Hook E.W; Oh, M.K (2001). Parental monitoring: Association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Pediatrics 107 (6) 1363-8

Diclemente, R. J., William, B.H., & Lynne, R (1996). Adolescents at risk: A generation in jeopardy. Retrieved on December 7 2014 from www.springer.com/public+health/book/978-0-306-45147-8

Dishion, T.J & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: The role of parents and peers revisited. American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 11:11-25.

Dormitzer, C.M; Gozalez, G.B, Penna, M. Bejarano, J. Obando, P., Sanchez, M., (2004). The PACARDO research project: Youthful drug involvement in central American and the Dominican Republic. Rev Param salud Publica. 15(6)400-416.

Eberwine.D (2003). The violence Pandemic: How public health can help bring it under control. Perspectives on health, 8(3): 2-5.

Elder, G.H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Journal of Child Development 69(1) 1-12.

Elkinid, D. (1984). Egocentrism in adolescence. Journal of Child Development, 38, 1025-1034

Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychological Association, 4, 56-121.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. An Introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley

FPYV. (2009). National survey report on school violence in Korea. The foundation for preventing youth violence. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://www.jikim.net/

Francis, K.A (2007). Gender differences in delinquency and health risk behaviors: A test of general strain theory. Austin: University of Texas.

Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence:  The psychoanalytic study of the child, 13,255-278

Gleitman. H (1986). Psychology (2^nd ed.) New York: W.W Norton & Company Inc.

Gross, R. (2001). Psychology: The Science of mind and behavior. Kent: Greengate.

Gruber, J. and Zinman, J. (2001). Youth smoking in the United States: Evidence and Implications, in Gruber, J. (ed). Risky behavior among youths: an economic analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago press.

Grunbaum, J.A, Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., & Lowry, R., (2004). Youth risk behavior surveillance- United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality weekly Report surveillance summaries 53(2)1-96

Guilbeau N (2014) .The birth order theory. Retrieved on January 20, 2015

          from http://bellaonline.com/articles/art2288.asp

Guttmacher Institute (2013). In brief: Facts on American teens’ sexual and reproductive health. Retrieved May 5, 2015 from http:// www.guttmacher.org /pubs / FB-ATSRH.html

Haines, M.P & Barker, G.P(2003). The NIV experiment: A case study of the social norms approach. Chapter 2 in HW Perkins (Ed.) The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Haines, MP & Spear, SF (1996). Changing the perception of the norm; a strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American college health, 45:134-140.

Haines, MP (1996). A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking at colleges and universities, Newton, MA: The higher Education centre for Alcohol and other Drug Prevention.

Hair E.C, Moore K.A, Garrett S.B, kinukawa A, Lippman L.H, Erik .M (2005). The parent adolescent relationship scale. The search institute series on developmentally attentive community and society (3) 183-202 Doi = 10./007/0-387-23823-912.

Hair, E.C, Moore, K.A, Garrett, S.B; Kirukawa, A; Lippman, L.H. & Michelsen, E. (2003). Parent-Youth relationships: Psychometric analyses of the parent-adolescent relationship scale in National Longitudinal survey of youth. Washinton D.C: Child trends.

 Hair, E.C, Moore, K.A, Garrett, S.B; Kirukawa, A; Lippman, L.H. & Erik, M. (2005). The parent adolescent relationship scale: The search institute series on developmentally attentive community and society (3) 189-202. doi: 10. 1007/0-387-23823-9.

Hall, G.S, (1904). Adolescence. Engelwood Clifts and N.J: Prentice Hall.

Heise, L. Ellsberg M, & Gottmoeller M. (2002). A global overview of gender-based violence. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (1): 5-14

Hong, J.S, Lee, N.Y, Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Huang, H. (2011). Alcohol and tobacco use among south Korean adolescents: An ecological review of the literature. Children and youth services review, 33 (7), 1120-1126. Doi: 10:1016/j.childy-youth.2011.02.004

http://www.montana.edu/www4h/process.html>

          Human Ecology,20(2), 16-20.

Jean, F.M., (2010). Parental monitoring and adolescent sexual health outcomes. Masters Thesis, University of Pittsbugh

Jessor, R & Jessor, S.L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of Youth. New York: Academic press.

Jessor, R, Donovan, J.E, & Costa, F.M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young adult development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescences: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12,597-605.

Jessor, R; Graves, T.D, Hanson, R.C; & Jessor S.L (1968). Society, personality, and deviant behavior: A study of tri-ethnic community. New York: Holf, Rinehart & Winston.

Kabiru, C.W; Elungata, P. Mojola S.A, & Beguy, D. (2014). Adverse life events and delinquent behavior among Kenyan adolescents: A cross-sectional study on the protective role of parental monitoring, religiosity and self esteem. Journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health 8(24) 8-24. doi: 101186/1753-2000-8-24.

Kann, L., Kincheu S.A., Williams B.I., Ross J.G., Lowry R.; & Hill, C.V. (2000). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 1999 morbidity and mortality weekly report surveillance summaries 49(5)1-95

Kasischke, K. & Morales–Carbonell, M. (1998). Adolescents and sexual reproductive health: influence of socio-cultural factors. Fonto de Las Naciones Para la infancia (UNICEF), Cooperation: Technioca Alemana.

Kessler, R.C, Berglund, P., Demler, O., in, R., Merikangas, K.R., & Walters, E.E (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Morbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593-602. doi : 10.1001/archpsyc. 62.6.593

Krauss .S, (2013). Is birth order destiny? Psychology Today, Whitbourne. Retrieved from www.psychology today.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201305/is-birth-order-destiny

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Li, X., Stanton, B & Feigelman, S. & Stanton, B.  (2000) perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27:43-8

Li, X., Stanton, B & Feigelman, S. (2000) Impact of perceived parental monitoring on adolescent risk behavior over 4 years. Journal of adolescent Health, 27: 49-56.

Liu Q.X, Fangmail X, Zhou Z, Zhang T.T, Deng L. (2013). Perceived parent-adolescent, perceived parental online behaviors and pathological internet use among adolescents: gender specific differences. PLos One 8(9): e75642 Doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0075642

Merton R.K (1954). Social theory and social structure (rev.ed.). New York: Free Press.

Miller, DT & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. Chapter II in Suls, J & Wills, T (eds) social Comparison: Contemporary theory and research. Hillsdala, NJ: Erlbaum.

MOGEF. (2010). Investigation of environmental risk factors for youth. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from http:// www. moget. go.kr/ Korea /view/ policy/ policy/ policy 02- 01a. jsp? Func = view & current page = 0 & key- type  & key = % EC%9C% AD% 95% B4% ED% 99% 98% EA% B2% BD & search-start-date = & search _ end _ date = class _ id = 0 & idx = 622652.

Moretti, M.M (2004). Adolescent-parent attachment: Bonds that support healthy development. Paediatrics & Child health 9 (8), 551.

Muss, R (1996). Theories of adolescence. New York: The McGraw-Hill

Nielsen L. (1996). Adolescence: A contemporary view (3^rd. Ed.) Philadephia: Harcourt Brace College Pub.

Olsson, A., Ellsberg, M., Berglun, S.; Herrera, A. Zelayg E, Pena R, (2000). Sexual abuse during childhood and adolescence among Nicaraguan men and women: a population based anonymous survey. Journal of Child abuse and Neglect 24(12) 1579-89

 OPS (1998). Health in the Americas, volume II, Washington, D.C: OPS

Oswalt, A. (n.d). Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Retrieved on June 15, 2015 from http://www.sevencountries.org/poc/view_doc.php?id=41157

PAHO (Pan American Health Organisation) (2002). Health in the American, volume II. Washington D.C

Perkins, HW and Berkowitz, AD (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: some research implications for campus  alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21:961-976.

Pittman, L.D & Chase-Lansdale P.L, (2001). African-American adolescent girls in improvierished communitie: Parenting style and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescent, II: 199-224

Rani M. Figueroa M.E, Ainsle, R., (2003) The Psychosocial context of young adult sexual behavior in Nicaragua: Looking through the gender lens. International family plan perspective, 29 (4) 174-181

Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the

Rhee, D; Yun, S.-C; & Khang, Y. H.(2007). Co-occurrence of problem behaviors in South Korea adolencents: Findings from Korea Youth panel survey. The journal of Adolescent Health, 40(2), 195-197.

Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice Hall.

Rotter, J.B. (1954). The development and application of social learning theory: selected papers. New York: Praeger.

State of World Population (1999) New York: Prographics Inc.

Stattin H, & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A Reinterpretation. Journal of Child Development, 71: 1072-85.

Stein A.G (1999). Birth order: sense and nonsense and adlerian view. Retrieved from http://www.adlerian.us/birth-order-tr-preview.htm

Steinberg, L. & Morris, A.S 92001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of psychology 52. (2001): 83-110

Steinberg, L. Fletcher, A, & Darling .N (1994). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. Pediatrics, 93:1060-4.

Stewart A.E., (2012). Issues in birth order research methodology: Perspectives from Individual psychology. The Journal of individual Psychology, 68(1), 75-106

Touch, H & Klofas, J. (1984). Pluralistic ignorance, revisited. In GM Stephenson and JH Davis (Eds), progress in applied social psychology, vol 2, New York: Wiley.

Voas, R. & Kelly-Baker, T.(2008).Licensing teenagers: Nontraffic risks and benefits in the transition to driving status. Traffic Injury Preview, 9(2) 89-97. Doi: 10.1080/15389580701813297

Wade T.J., Cairney, J., Pevalin, D.J; (2002). Emergence of Gender differences in depression during adolescence: National Panel results  from three countries. Journal of American Academy child Adolescent Psychiatry 41(2) 190-198

Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R,. & Betz, E. (2002), A domain specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of behavioral Decision making, 15, 263-290

Weisz, J.R & Hawley, K.M (2002). Developmental factors in the treatment on adolescent. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 70(1), 21-43. doi: 10./037/0022-006x.70.1.21

Weller C.(2015). Birth order may predict intelligence and illness in first-born but vitality in their siblings. Retrieved May 29, 2015 from http://www.medically.com/birth-order-may-predict-intelligence-and-illness-first-born-vitality-their-siblings-319770

W.H.O (2015). Adolescent pregnancy. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from http: //www. who.int/ maternal/ child –adolescent / topics/ maternal/ adolescent –pregnancy / en

Zelaya, E., Marin, F.M, Ciacia, J., Berglund, S, Liljestrand J, Persson, L.A, (1997). Gender and social differences in adolescent sexuality and reproduction in Nicaragua. Journal of Adolescent health 21: 39-46.