CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Behaviour is a particular way a person is acting. It is the way a person, an animal, a plant, a chemical, etc. behaves or functions in a particular situation. Positive behaviour is behaviour that comes from the heart, is affirming for other people or yourself in a good way. Negative behaviours are acts, actions, attitudes that are not acceptable either morally, legally in our society. Antisocial behaviour is a description for all behaviour, attitudes and personality traits that people engage in that appear to be dysfunctional in that they often have negative interpersonal and societal outcomes. According to Arnola (2002), antisocial behaviours include criminal behaviour, but also has been defined as any behaviour that is socially unacceptable or ignores the rights of others. According to Frick (1998), antisocial behaviour is behaviour resulting from an individual’s inability to respect the rights of others. These behaviours include assault, vandalism, setting fire, theft, crime and other delinquent acts which do  not conform to social norms. 

Njie and Lo-oh (2020) defined antisocial behaviour as a pattern of behaviour that is verbally or physically harmful to other people, animals or property, including behaviour that severely violates social expectations for a particular environment. They may include stealing, lies telling, runaway tendencies, bullying, smoking, examination malpractices, abortion, rape and cultism. Kimberly and Jacob (2002) defined antisocial behaviour as any act that imposes physical or psychological harm on other people or their property. According to them, lying, stealing, assaulting others, being cruel to others and being sexually promiscuous are all examples of antisocial behaviour. Also, such behaviours may sometimes constitute a violation of legal codes, and it is often accomplished by disturbances of thought of emotion

Antisocial behaviour, personality disorder or conduct disorder, a term synonymous with delinquency was defined by Wachikwu and Ibegbuna (2012) as crimes committed by young people below the age of eighteen years usually characterized by violation of existing social norms.  Simcha-Fagan et al. (1975) stated that antisocial behaviour encompasses behaviours that violate social norms and/or impact personal and property rights of others. This definition provides commonality to a set of behaviours that are often quite individualized.

The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) defines antisocial behaviour as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. This pattern typically begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. According to the DSM-5, individuals with antisocial behaviour may display characteristics such as repeatedly engaging in illegal activities, deceitfulness, impulsivity, aggressiveness, and a lack of empathy or remorse.According to Patterson (1990), antisocial behaviour appears to be a developmental trait that begins early in life and often continues into adolescence and adulthood. He further emphasized that if antisocial behaviours begin at an early age, the persistence and chronic of these behaviours can be differentiated by the age of the antisocial behaviour onset.

The focus of this research study is to investigate how antisocial behaviours affect social life in Bamenda 11.  This can include examining how these behaviours affect individual’s ability to form and maintain relationships, engage in prosocial activities, and navigate social interactions. The researcher will draw from various disciplines, including psychology, sociology, criminology, and neuroscience, to gain a comprehensive understanding of antisocial behaviours and their impact on adults’ social life. The independent variable for this study is antisocial behaviours having its indicators as, noise nuisance, aggression, vandalism and deceitfulness. Then the dependent variable is adults Social life.  This chapter will focus also on background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, and hypotheses, justification of the study, significance of the study, scope and operational definitions of terms.

Background to the study

The study anti-social behaviour has emerged from various perspectives, including sociology, psychology, criminology, genetic, developmental, and anthropology. It is important to note that our understanding of these behaviours has evolved over time, and different regions have diverse cultural, social, and historical contexts that shape their views and understanding. However a brief overview of these perspectives across different regions, including Ancient America, Europe, Africa, and specifically Cameroon, as well as modern-day views will be discussed below. The modern understanding of anti-social behaviour emerged during the late 19th and early 20th centuries when scholars started to examine it from sociological and psychological perspectives. Theories such as social learning theory, and control theory explored the social, structural, and individual factors contributing to anti-social behaviour. The concept has changed over time, and there has been a shift in how it is socially regarded. In the past, certain forms of antisocial behaviour may have been less recognized or less stigmatized. Societal norms and expectations were different, and behaviours that are now considered antisocial might have been seen as more tolerable or even acceptable. For example, public drunkenness or certain forms of aggressive behaviour may have been seen as less problematic or even as displays of masculinity. Lemie and Mishkind (1989) said that social drinking is a primary cultural symbol of manliness.

Historically, in the America, scholars have extensively studied anti-social behaviours in diverse contexts. The Chicago School of Sociology, during the early 20th century, conducted research on urban environments, poverty, and crime, which contributed to the understanding of anti-social behaviour in the American society. Shaw et al. (1942) published an article on Juvenile Delinquency and urban areas, which examined the relationship between social disorganisation, poverty and crime in Chicargo, laying the foundation for understanding the impact of community dynamics in antisocial behaviours. Additionally, social psychologists like Albert Bandura and his famous Bobo doll experiment explored the role of aggression and its association with anti-social behaviour. From a sociological perspective, the roots of antisocial behaviour can be traced back to the rapid urbanization and industrialization of America in the 19th and 20th centuries, which led to social disorganization and a breakdown of traditional community structures. This created environments where antisocial behaviour could flourish. Messner and Rosenfeld (1999) wrote a book calling attention to a unique feature of American society—its “obsession” with crime. They argued that the American Dream, which emphasizes individual achievement, material success, and upward mobility, directly contributes to high levels of crime and antisocial behaviours in the United States. According to Messner and Rosenfeld (1999) the American Dream created a strong emphasis on monetary success as a measure of personal worth. However, the social and economic structure of society often limits access to legitimate means of achieving success, such as education, job opportunities, and social mobility. This discrepancy between goals and means create strain and frustration among individuals who are unable to meet societal expectations.

To cope with this strain, Messner and Rosenfeld (1999) suggested that individuals may resort to criminal behaviours. They argue that those who are unable to achieve their aspirations through legitimate means may turn to illegal activities, such as theft, drug dealing, or fraud, as a way to obtain wealth and status. Furthermore, antisocial behaviours in America today are generally not well-regarded, as they are considered harmful to individuals and society. These behaviours, such as vandalism, aggression, bullying, deceit, and disrespect for others’ rights, often lead to negative consequences for both the individuals engaging in them and the broader community. Scholars from various fields have also written on this topic, including psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, and experts in behavioural sciences such as Albert Bandura (1977) and Sampson (1997) and so on. Samenow (2001) said ‘‘it is far more useful to adopt a phenomenological approach in order to focus on the offender’s world view. This enables one to understand the psychological makeup of people who engage in antisocial behaviour. By identifying specific thinking patterns common to offenders, it is possible to take a more realistic and effective approach to containing and, in some cases, totally eliminating criminal behaviour’’ In his work, he has emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and choice in criminal behaviour. He believed that individuals who engage in antisocial behaviours are not simply victims of their circumstances, but rather make conscious decisions to commit crimes. Samenow (2001) workfocused on understanding the thought processes and decision-making of individuals who engage in criminal behaviour, and he has written extensively on the subject in books such as “Inside the Criminal Mind.”

In Europe, early theories about antisocial behaviour were influenced by philosophical and psychological perspectives. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some European scholars proposed that criminal behaviour had a biological basis. Cesare Lombroso (1876) an Italian criminologist, advanced the idea that certain physical traits (known as “atavistic stigmata”) were indicative of an individual’s predisposition to criminality. This perspective emphasized genetic determinism in shaping antisocial behaviour. Émile Durkheim (1897) from France examined criminality and deviant behaviours from a sociological standpoint. The Frankfurt School in Germany, known for critical theory, expanded discussions about anti-social behaviour to encompass structural issues, capitalism, and the alienation of individuals from society.

In Africa, the study of anti-social behaviour is contextualized within unique social, cultural, and historical circumstances. However, it is important to note that Africa is a diverse continent with numerous countries and cultures, each with distinct approaches to studying and addressing anti-social behaviour. In Nigeria, several people have written on antisocial Behaviours arguing they are destructive acts according to the African context, characterized by covert and overt hostility (Clare, 2006). African scholars employ a range of theoretical frameworks, including indigenous knowledge systems and postcolonial perspectives, when investigating anti-social behaviours within their specific contexts. Ojo (2011) argued that individuals with hearing impairment exhibit some antisocial behaviour such as stealing, smoking, risky sexual behaviour and examination malpractice as a result of personal factors, peer influence, negative attitude of members of the society and lack of parental care . Isaiah (2011) agreed with the present study, he reported that media influence, peer influence, school and home environment are causes of behaviour problems of secondary school students with hearing impairment. According to Kimberly and Jacob (2002) such behaviours may sometimes constitute a violation of legal codes, and it is often accomplished by disturbances of thought of emotion. Given the importance of community and social cohesion in many African cultures, individuals who display antisocial behaviours may be seen as going against the norms and values of their society.

It is essential to note that while some scholars have researched and written about antisocial behaviours in general, finding specific studies focusing on Cameroon can be challenging. Cameroon joined the United Nation to ratify the rules and regulations concerning antisocial behaviours together with other countries of the world. Cameroon has laws that are against antisocial behaviours acts to protect its citizens. In Cameroon, antisocial behaviours are often seen as deviant and disruptive to societal norms. Njie and Lo-oh (2020) defined antisocial behaviour as a pattern of behaviour that is verbally or physically harmful to other people, animals or property, including Behaviours that severely violates social expectations for a particular environment. They may include stealing, lies telling, runaway tendencies, bullying, smoking, examination malpractices, abortion, rape and cultism. These behaviours can range from criminal activities, such as robbery and violence, to more general transgressions against accepted social standards. Such behaviours are often viewed negatively as they can harm individuals, families, communities, and the overall social fabric. Bamenda II, being one of the towns in the North West region needed to follow all the laws of Cameroon concerning anti-social behaviours. Respecting our traditional societal setups where social norms are respected .The philosophy of “Ubuntu” by Desmond Tutu of South African is respected and living in solidarity. In the midst of the on-going Anglophone crisis, life has changed to become something else. A lot of crimes committed and killing taking place. Thus there was the need to carry out this study.

As of today, it is difficult to predict how the perception of antisocial behaviours might change in the African context. However, as Africa undergoes social, economic, and technological transformations, it is likely that attitudes towards antisocial behaviours will continue to evolve. This can include increased awareness, education, and efforts to address and prevent such behaviours through interventions, rehabilitation programs, and community-based initiatives consist of the various bonds they form with others, such as family, friends, members of their community and strangers. It can be measured by the duration and quality of the social interactions they have on a regular basis both in person and online

Conceptually, Calkins and keane  (2009) said  antisocial behaviours are behaviours that violate the basic rights of others. Their argument revolves around the factors that contributes to the development of antisocial behaviours such as genetic predispositions, environmental influences and individual differences. For individual differences in adults they say “antisocial behaviour is often associated with criminal behaviours such as stealing or physical assault” and in adolescents, it is typically manifested as delinquency. Farringston (2005) said that antisocial behaviour in childhood and adolescence are categorized to behaviour disorders, impulsiveness, stealing, vandalism, physical and psychological aggression, bullying, running away from home and truancy. He delved into the influence of individual, family, peer, school and community factors on the emergence and persistence of antisocial behaviours. Again, he discussed the role of genetic and environmental factors in shaping antisocial behaviour and highlights the need for early intervention and prevention strategies.

The study conducted by Wachikwa and Ibegbunam (2012) and Mayer (2001), found out that, aversive and punitive home environments promoted antisocial behaviours such as violence, vandalism and escape from home while majority of children raised in loving and caring environments developed pro-social behaviours. Lee et al. (2010) argued that antisocial behaviours are a set of behaviours which are against any established rules and norms. That it could be from the action of spitting in the public and other behaviours that go against society norms. Moffitt (1993) insinuated that the early stages of delinquent behaviours in antisocial behaviour. He believed that antisocial behaviours has the potent to cause school failures, impairments in socio-emotional development, peer rejection, delinquency and adults crimes. He argued that “juvenile delinquency is prevalent in cities perhaps due to the fact that cities create high social inequality, where the rich get richer, while the poor remains poor”.

Antisocial behaviour are behaviours that are harmful and lacking in consideration for others. Njie and Lo-loh (2020) defined antisocial behaviour as a pattern of behaviour that is verbally or physically harmful to other people, animals or property, including. Behaviour that severely violets social expectations for a particular environment. They may include stealing, lies telling, runaway tendencies, bullying, smoking, examination malpractices, abortion, rape and cultism, They argued that antisocial behaviour is not a mental disorder but requires attention because it completely derails the child from school and home environment (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). While Farringston talked about genetics and environmental factorsshaping antisocial behaviours.  Njie and Loloh (2020) are of the opinion that antisocial behaviours are not mental disorders. All the above behaviours now are seen as negative behaviours that this research study must understand how they are manifested, what causes it and what interventions are there to carry out. The indicators of anti-social behaviours below explain how they are negative and considered anti-social Behaviours.

Noise is a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance. Noise is associated with various phenomena, ranging from unwanted sounds to random fluctuations in thermodynamics systems (Wittje, 2020). According to this study, noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. Lebayer and Naturel (1991) said there is “unacceptable noise made by a person described negatively and exceptional noise of unknown origin”. They attempted to describe the situational parameters of neighbourhood noise which explains the level of annoyance and victims’ reactions towards the noise originators. This noise viewed as loud, disruptive or excessive sound negatively impacts the well-being and quality of life of others. It is also seen as a lack of consideration for others and can lead to feelings of annoyance, stress and even health issues in those affected by the noise. Leboyer and Naturel (1991) argued that “the most annoying noise are those which are judged as being not normal, possible to avoid, happening during the night and are described as being loud”. Weinbold (2018) wrote instead on neighbour noise arguing that residential neighbour noise is ubiquitous and a major source of stress and found out that neighbour noise is relatively more damaging to health than street noise. Overall, noise as an antisocial behaviour can strain relationships within a community and affect individual’s mental and physical health.

Aggression is any behaviour, including verbal events which involves attacking another person, animal or object with the intension of harming the target. Aggression today in fact, seems maladaptive and destructive. Aggression breeds aggression, and seems to cause more problems than it solve (Bushman and Huesmann, 2009). Similarly, Baron and Richardson (1994) defined aggression as any behaviour that is intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed. To this light, “aggression is an external behaviour that you can see” (Bushman and Huesmann, 2009).Contrary, to that behaviour is a positive behaviour, ancient ancestors who lived in small groups, considered aggression positive. According to Bushman and Huesmann (2009) again, “male used aggression to gain access to females, food, shelter and other resources. Female used aggression to defend their offspring and gain resources for them”. Thus, the most aggressive individuals in our revolutionary past used their genes to subsequent generations. Furthermore, aggression is not accidental but intentionaland not all intentional behaviours that hurt others are aggressive behaviours. Bushman and Huesmann (2009) argued that “a dentist might intentionally give a patient a shot of Novocain (and the shot hurts), the goal was to help rather than hurt the patient. Thus aggression according to this study will be physical aggression and intentional action to hurt another individual.

Vandalism is an action involving deliberate damaging of things especially public property or it is intentional destruction or damage to property. Vandalism is a criminal offence involving damage to or defacing of property belonging to another person or to be public (Ceccator and Wilhelmsson, 2012). According to Peace Corps Cameroon (2019), vandalism is mischievous or malicious defacement, destruction or damage of property. They considered vandalism an antisocial behaviour that negatively impact communities by causing damage, fear and distrust among members. They emphasized the importance of respect for the community resources, cultural heritage, and public spaces in fostering positive relationships and building of sense of unity among community members. Wilson and Kelling (1982) said that acts of vandalism and public disorder function as symbol of the extent to which a neighbourhood is in decline. More to that, the Swedish legal penal code defined vandal as “any person who destroys or clamages property, real or moveable, to the detriment of an other’s right there to” (ministry of justice, 1999:36)they argued that vandalism is often directed at unclaimed or impersonal public spaces (examplace, squares, bust stops) rather than at (private) home. Also, skogan (1990)suggested vandalism maybe a form of entertainment for groups of people, it may be a symbolic act or a demaccation of a group’s territory, or may even be the way a group expresses. Its revolt or frustration towards a situation or an expression of intergenerational conflict.Wilson and Kelling (1982) argued that vandalism and other signs of physical deterioration are often taken as signs of other social problems, which in turn lead to fear. To conclude, Wilson and Kelling (1982) said vandalism is an important factor motivating fear of crime in the community and vandalism impacts negatively an apartment prices or housing prices after controlling for attributes of the property and neighbourhood characteristics.

Synonyms for deceitfulness are double-dealing, dishonest, fraudulent, crooked and defrauding. Deceitfulness is an act of keeping the truth hidden, especially to get an advantage. Deception is a universal feature of life, at all levels and in all relationships both within species and between species, inside individual and outside, with strong effects on both deceivers and deceived (Trivers, 2010). Again, Trivers (2010) defines self-deception as hiding true information from the conscious and unconscious mind. He argued that, when one decides to deceive, it can favour self-deception which is better to hide the deception and to reduce its cognitive costs. Vrij and Mann (2008) carried out an experiment examining the ability of fifty-two uniformed police offers to detect deception and those who were interviewed all lied during press conferences. Findings show that there was a significant positive correlation between having experience in interviewing suspects and being confident in detecting deception. Finally, men were detected deceitful more than women.

Shaul et al. (2011) are of the opinion that people avoid situations that enable them to deceive others. They carried out experiments on three phases to find out if people are more likely to avoid settings enabling them to privately deceive their counterparts than settings which do not enable deception. They concluded that when navigating through social space people avoid situations enabling them to deceive others. Levine and Schweitzer (2014) said that economist, psychologists and philosophers have long asserted that deception exist and harm trust. But he challenged this claim, saying that “personal lies increase benevolence-based trust. From their findings they expanded their, understanding of deception and deepened their insight into the mechanics of trust. Contrary to this, is this article, which described how envy motivates deception? We found out that individuals who envy a counterpart are more likely to deceive them than are individuals who do not envy their counterparts (Moran and Schweitzer, 2008). This study induced envy by providing participants with upward social comparison information. Findings showed that upward social comparison, predictably trigger envy, and that envy promotes deception by increasing psychological benefits and decreasing psychological cost of engaging in deceptive behaviours.

A person’s social life consisted of the various bonds they form with others, such as family, friends, members of their community, and strangers. It can be measured by the duration and quality of the social interactions they have on a regular basis both in person and online. Skinner said culture is a”totality of how people live and behave “. Baumeister (1991) said that society as a large set of interconnected human beings, and culture as the set of ideas, practices, and institutions that they share. He said people do in fact, live in small groups that are associated with large groups. He argued that culture is a framework that allows people to live together and society to function and survive. Sibani (2014) argued that “culture is the entity that incorporates the totality and is synonymous with the people’s way of life, transmitted from age to age and from generation to generation”. Obiajulu (2006) posits that,”culture is the complex part of living that directs human social life. The things each generation must learn and to which they eventually may add.

African has a unique perspective on social life. In these societies, community and family are often prioritized over individualism. Social ties are strong, and people are expected to support and care for one another. Aucante (2006) pinpointed that “at the heart of our social relation, the essence of the” living-together “shapes our communities and which underpins much of our humanitarian actions “. This goes to affirm that African community life belief on” ubuntu” confirmed by Boni(2014), who argues that “African appears to be the continent in which the practice of solidarity among family members is the norm, even if individuals are confronted with all manners of risk from a very young age. Looking at Tutu (2004) work, he believed in the Ubuntu philosophy of African social life style. According to Tutu (2004), the Ubuntu philosophy is integrated into all aspects of day-to-day life throughout Africa and is a concept shared by all the tribes in Southern, central, west and East Africa amongst people of Bantu origin. Similarly, Nelson Mandela, described Ubuntu as a philosophy constituting a universal truth, a way of life, which underpins an open society (Mandela, 2006).This Ubuntu implied that if people are treated well, they are likely to perform better in their communities. Again, this philosophy brings to light that an African society is, in general, humanist, community based and socialist in nature.

Three theories were discussed to explain antisocial Behaviours in this research study   such as social learning theory by Albert Bandura (1977), Behavioural learning theory by B. F. Skinner 1930s, ecological system theory of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) and the cognitive dissonance theory, developed by Leon Festinger in 1950. In defining behaviour, behaviourist learning theories emphasized changes in behaviours that result from stimulus response associations made by the learner.Akintunde (2017) said a theory presents a systematic way of understanding behaviours, events and/or situations.

Albert Bandura’s experiment on social learning, conducted in 1977, is commonly known as the Bobo doll experiment. This experiment aimed at understanding how individuals learn and acquire new behaviours through observation and imitation of others. Bandura and his colleagues conducted their research with children as participants. They divided these children into three groups. The first group was exposed to a model who displayed aggressive behaviour towards a Bobo doll, such as punching and kicking it. The second group observed a non-aggressive model that played with other toys in a peaceful manner. The third group did not observe any model and acted as the control group. After observing these models, each child was placed in a room with several toys, including the Bobo doll. The researchers noted that the children who had observed the aggressive model imitated the same aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll, while those who had observed the non-aggressive model exhibited similar non-aggressive behaviour. The control group did not display any significant behaviour related to aggression. Bandura’s experiment demonstrated that behaviour can be learned through observation and imitation of others, even without direct reinforcement or punishment. He concluded that individuals acquire new behaviours, whether positive or negative, by observing models and then reproducing those behaviours in similar situations. This theory is often referred to as social learning theory.

Bandura’s 1977 Bobo Doll experiment is highly relevant to this study of antisocial behaviours and their effects on society, particularly in terms of aggression. This experiment demonstrated the concept of observational learning, where individuals observe and imitate behaviours they witness from others. The study showed that children who observed an adult model displaying aggressive behaviours towards a Bobo doll were more likely to replicate these aggressive actions themselves. Moreover, they can perceive aggressive behaviour as an appropriate way to address and resolve conflicts (Bandura et al., 2008). Again the Bobo doll experiment sheds light on how exposure to aggressive models can contribute to the development of aggression in individuals. According to Yaro and Jaja (2020) violence is the so called “witness to violence”, which refers to violent situations witnessed by children/adolescent at home, school or in the community to which they belong. It is worth noting that a child or adolescent might be affected by more than one type of violence, especially in chronic and severe circumstances where these situations are related. It suggested that observing and internalizing aggressive behaviours can increase the likelihood of individuals engaging in similar actions, leading to a potential cycle of aggression within society.Moreover, understanding the mechanisms of observational learning and the influence of social models on behaviour is crucial in addressing antisocial behaviours and aggression in society. By identifying and addressing the factors that contribute to the transmission of aggressive behaviours, interventions can be developed to mitigate the negative effects of such behaviours on social life and promote more positive and prosocial interactions.

The second theory used in this study is the ecological system theory, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) the Russian American psychologist. He assumed that individuals are influenced by multiple environmental systems, each nested within the others. These systems are: micro systems (individuals immediate surroundings), mesosystems (interactions between micro systems), exosystems (social settings indirectly affects the individual) and macro-system (cultural values, laws, customs). This theory emphasizes the complex interplay between individuals and their environment, and how this interplay affects human development. Paquette and Ryan (2001) are of the opinion that Bronfenbrenner has said that ecology has changed our society. At the time when we are so much engaged in defending our physical environment against the curses of technology, we have not done a thing to reach a similar state of security in the environment of our social life. The ecological systems theory suggested that human development is influenced by multiple levels of environmental systems, which can be categorized into four main levels or contexts. In the context of this research study of anti-social behaviours and their effects on the community, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory can provide a framework for understanding the multifaceted factors that contribute to such behaviours. Noise nuisance and deceitfulness are two specific behaviours being investigated, so let’s analyse their relevance to the theory; first is the microsystem which involved immediate interactions and influences that directly affect an individual. In the case of noise and deceitfulness, it could include factors such as family dynamics, peer relationships, and school environment. The theory suggests that the presence of dysfunctional microsystems can contribute to the development of anti-social behaviours. Second is the mesosystem which highlights the interactions between various microsystems. For example, the influence of family dynamics (microsystem) on peer relationships (another microsystem) can shape anti-social behaviours. The theory stresses that disruptions in the mesosystem, such as conflicts between microsystems, can impact an individual’s behaviour. Third is the exosystem includes indirect environments that influence an individual but with which they have limited direct interaction. In the context of noise nuisance and deceitfulness, it could encompass the community, neighbourhood, or media influences. The theory suggests that unfavourable exosystems, like a community with a tolerance for anti-social behaviours, can contribute to the development and perpetuation of such behaviours. Fourthly is the macro system that represents broader cultural and societal factors that shape an individual’s development. It includes social norms, values, and economic systems. For instance, a culture that glorifies deceitfulness might encourage the adoption of such behaviours. The theory asserted that the macro system can significantly influence the occurrence of anti-social behaviours.

Considering Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, this research study will investigate how various levels of the ecological system interact and contribute to noise nuisance and deceitfulness in the community. It can examine how these behaviours are influenced by factors in microsystems, the interactions between microsystems, indirect influences from the ecosystem, and broader cultural and societal factors encompassed in the macrosystem. The ecological system theory holds that we encountered different environments throughout our life span that    may influence our behaviours in varying degrees (Saarien et al., 1994). Overall, this theory provides a comprehensive perspective for understanding the complexity of anti-social behaviours and their effects on social life the community.

The third theory used in this study is the behavioural learning theory by Burrhus Frederic (BF) Skinner (1930s),a renowned psychologist. Behaviourism is the school of thought that seeks to measure only observable behaviours. Skinner (1953) argued that all human behaviour could be explained by a combination of environmental stimuli and the consequences of behaviour, rather than relying on internal mental states. He emphasises the role of reinforcement and operant conditioning in shaping behaviours. Both classical and operant conditioning is forms of associative learning, meaning associations are made between events that occur together. Observational learning is learning by observing others. Although rooted in behaviourism, the observational learning theory is considered to be a bridge between behaviourism and cognitive learning theories. Operant conditioning is a learning process in which responses are controlled by consequences. B.F. Skinner was a psychologist known for his work on behaviourism, particularly the concept of operant conditioning. One of his most famous experiments is the Skinner box, also known as the operant conditioning chamber. In this experiment, Skinner placed rats or pigeons inside a box equipped with a lever or a key that, when pressed or pecked, would dispense food or provide a reward. Skinner’s theory says that behaviour is shaped by its consequences. He believed that reinforcement, either positive (reward) or negative (removal of an aversive stimulus), increases the likelihood of a particular behaviour occurring again, while punishment decreases its occurrence.

In terms of anti-social behaviours and their effects on society, Skinner’s theory is relevant but may not explain all aspects. Staats (1975) argued that Skinner’s theory failed to adequately address the role of cognitive processes and he proposed a more comprehensive framework that integrated both classical and operant conditioning principles with cognitive factors. Operant conditioning will help understand why some individuals engage in anti-social behaviours. For example, if these behaviours lead to positive consequences or rewards (e.g., gaining power, attention, or material benefits), they are likely to be reinforced and perpetuated. Bandura (1977) suggested that negative behaviours are reinforced during childhood by parents, caregiver, or peers. However, anti-social behaviours are complex and can be influenced by various factors such as genetics, upbringing, social environment, and psychological factors. Therefore, while Skinner’s theory provides insight into certain aspects of anti-social behaviour and its effects on social life, it is crucial to consider other psychological theories and research to fully understand and address this issue. Skinner believed that, by modifying the environmental factors and providing appropriate consequences, undesirable behaviours could be replaced or diminished. Thus looking at individuals in their communities interacting with each other, some will behaviour in a way towards other and will be considered antisocial according to their norms. Children who grew up in a home were domestic violence was common might exhibit aggressive behaviours towards others at the least opportunity. The child may apply the learned behaviour at school and a vicious cycle sets in: when the child starts exhibiting this learned behaviour, he might be rejected by his peers. And because of this rejection, he becomes angry and attempts to force his will or asserts his pride. This might lead to peer rejections, giving up an opportunity to might learn more positive behaviours (Njie and Lo-loh, 2020).Other children growing around certain areas might exhibit deceitful attitudes caused by the environment in which he or she grew up. People in their environment learn by observing and imitating the behaviours. The need to investigate noise nuisance, aggression, vandalism and deceitfulness in Bamenda was very necessary because it is an urban area made of different individuals with different behaviours.

The fourth theory is the cognitive dissonance experiment conducted by Leon Festinger in 1950 aimed at studying the theory of cognitive dissonance, which is the psychological discomfort that arises from holding contradictory beliefs or engaging in contradictory behaviours. Aronson (1972) said people strive for consistency in their thoughts, attitudes, actions and that cognitive dissonance arises when there is a conflict between these elements. In Festinger’s experiment, participants were asked to perform a boring task for an extended period of time. They were then divided into two groups: one group was paid $1 to lie and tell the next participant that the task was enjoyable, while the other group was paid $20 to do the same. After the experiment, participants were asked to rate their enjoyment of the task. Festinger found that those who were paid $1 reported higher enjoyment since they experienced cognitive dissonance between their negative feelings about the task and the lie they told, causing them to convince themselves that the task was actually enjoyable.

This theory of cognitive dissonance is relevant to this research study on anti-social behaviour and its effects on social life in the community. Aronson (1969) emphasised the practical implications of cognitive dissonant theory for both individuals and society as a whole. He explained how cognitive dissonant affects attitude, behaviours change and decision making processes. People who engage in anti-social behaviours may experience cognitive dissonance as they hold contradictory beliefs or engage in behaviours that go against societal norms or personal values. This discomfort can influence their social life in various ways;

Individuals may try to justify their anti-social behaviour by convincing themselves that it is justified or necessary. This justification helps to reduce their cognitive dissonance and maintain a positive self-image. Self-perception and attitude change for individuals who consistently engage in anti-social behaviour, they may start to internalize this behaviour as part of their self-concept. This self-perception may lead to further anti-social behaviours and negatively impact their relationships and interactions in the community. Brehm (1956) said individuals may make decisions and after making such decision may subsequently change their attitudes towards the rejected options. Thus those individuals in their communities may be rejected and isolated by so doing may lead to a breakdown in social connections and support.Overall, Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance can help explain the psychological processes behind anti-social behaviour and its effects on social life within the community. By understanding the cognitive dissonance experienced by individuals engaging in such behaviour, interventions and approaches to address and modify anti-social behaviour can be developed.

Contextually, In African communities, social life often plays a significant role in people’s daily interactions. Community ties are typically strong, with a focus on immediate family, extended family and close-knit relationships, social activities, rituals and ceremonies are also important aspects on African social life, fostering a sense of belonging and unity. In the African community, life is lived with others in a group, tribe, or clan. There is no individualism or privacy accepted on the village (Masango, 2005). The ability of residents to protect their neighbourhoods against crime, as well as their coverage to confront and question any suspicious character is a manifestation of cohesive communities (Kelling and Steward, 1990). The western world lived in a community and by try protecting each other to avoid crime rate like Africans live in solidarity “ubuntu”. Generally, western communities or societies place importance on social interactions, community involvement and relationship with others like Africans but act of antisocial behaviour or crime rates surpasses their communal life. According to Smith et al. (2017), they found out that communities with higher levels of antisocial behaviours experienced lower level of social capital, reduced community engagement and increased social isolation among residents. These effects ultimately contributed to a breakdown in social cohesion and a decline in overall wellbeing within the community. Contextualizing these same points, social activities, rituals and ceremonies are also important aspects of Cameroon social life, fostering a sense of belonging and unity.

Bamenda II is made up of different villages, ruled by their fons or Chiefs, showing communal life wellbeing. Ceremony celebrations take place in Bamenda II, supported by each other, and showing love for each other. Therefore, the community life style can be contextualize with love trusting each other, being each other’s’ keeper. Bamenda people promoted positive social values encouraging empathy and understanding and fostering a sense of accountability. Communities can work together to prevent and address antisocial behaviours, ultimately strengthening social bonds and enhancing overall wellbeing.

Social life in Bamenda is affected by antisocial behaviours such as aggression, deceitfulness, theft, vandalism and so on. Positively, because of the high crime rate in Bamenda, many police and military post have been created or station to reduce or stop crime rates. The government has introduced new powers for tackling antisocial behaviour, such as antisocial behaviour order (Millie, 205). All these is to check antisocial behaviours and handle them peacefully. Negatively, Jaro and Jaja (2020)say “Domestic violence has proven to have profound negative effects, particularly on those living within homes and communities where violence is a dominant feature?. They wrote this study to examine the influence of domestic violence on adolescents’ development of antisocial behaviours. In the south region, so there was the need to carry out a study on antisocial behaviour in the North West region and specifically in Bamenda II. He says that “violence is among the leading causes of death worldwide for people aged 15 to 44 years” and Bamenda need to understand such works of writing in order to carry out theirs in the North West region, Bamenda specifically. Thus, there was the need for this research study because, it covers an age range from 19 years indicators of the study such as aggression, vandalism and so on will affect social life of people in that community negatively.

The love unity and trust that existed in ancient country has led to mistrust. “I cannot imagine what life would be like without caring for one another” (Masango, 2005). People fight, quarrel and vandalized peoples home and because of such fight force some people to withdraw and isolate themselves. People become homeless and unable to do anything because of that particular destruction. The on-going Anglophone crisis is a real situation where people have suffered because of graffiti and burning of people’s property, business places burnt thereby slowing down the economy. Prevalence of antisocial behaviour in Bamenda is a serious problem. More adolescents drop out of school for scamming which is an antisocial behaviour because of monetary issues. Taking of substance is common in our Bamenda society because young boys and girls are just copying western culture into our environment. Girls involvement in unprotected sexual activities leading to teenage mothers and fathers at that young age.

Another effect of antisocial behaviours on the social life of people living within a community is the lack of social interaction. The Ubuntu philosophy unlocks the capacity of an African culture in which individuals express compassion, reciprocity, dignity, humanity and mutuality in the interests of building and maintaining communities with justice and communalities (Poovan et al., 2006). Respect and love amongst the community members play an important role in an African framework (Tutu, 2004) but manifestations of antisocial behaviours will affect interactions between members thereby leading to disunity, withdrawal and living in isolation. The lack of interactions between members is a called for concern to this research study. The researcher wants to find out if this lack of social interaction exists in Mankon-Bamenda II.

Statement of the problem

The researcher observed that, adults in Mankon of Bamenda II are increasingly manifesting anti-social behaviours such as noise nuisance, aggression, vandalism and deceitfulness since the start of the on-going Anglophone crisis in the two English speaking regions of Cameroon which can have detrimental effects on their social life and the community as a whole. Looking at social life which refers to the interactions and relationships individuals have with others in a given society or community , the student researcher  discovered that adults in her community are not living as per the social life style and that African perspective of communal life such as respect for elders and the interconnectedness among community members were lacking .The adults exhibiting those behaviours may face social consequences such as loss of reputation , isolation ,strained social connections , conflicts, and a breakdown on social cohesion thereby disrupting harmony  and trust within community . It is this pertinent worry that the researcher wishes to address by examining those anti-social behaviours in relation to social life and to find the extent to which they are related.

 Objectives of the study

Main objective

The main objective of this study is to investigate manifestations of antisocial behaviours on adults’ social life in Mankon-Bamenda II.

Specific objectives

• To investigate how noise nuisance affects adult social life.
• To investigate how aggression affects adults social life.
• To investigate how vandalism affects adult social life.
• To investigate how deceitfulness affects adult social life.

 Research questions

Main research question

 How does antisocial behaviours affects adult social life in Mankon- Bamenda II?

Specific Research Questions

• How does noise nuisance affects adult social life?
• How does aggression affects adult social life?
• How does vandalism on buildings affect adult social life?
• How does deceitfulness affects adults social life?