A Binary Model of Broken Home: Parental Death-Divorce Hypothesis of Male Juvenile Delinquency in Nigeria and Ghana

Abstract

In terms of the concept of broken home as a juvenile delinquency risk factor, whilst Nigeria and Ghana are culturally different from western nations (Gyekye, 1996; Hofstede, 1980; Smith, 2004), parental death (PDE) and parental divorce (PDI) have been previously taken-for-granted as one factor, that is ‘broken home’. This paper aims to deconstruct the singular model of ‘broken home’ and propose a binary model – the parental death and parental divorce hypotheses, with unique variables inherent in Nigerian/Ghanaian context.

It principally deploys the application of Goffman’s (1967) theory of stigma, anthropological insights on burial rites and other social facts (Gyekye, 1996; Mazzucato et al., 2006; Smith, 2004) to tease out diversity and complexity of lives across cultures, which specifically represent a binary model of broken home in Nigeria/Ghana. It slightly appraises post-colonial insights on decolonization (Agozino, 2003; Said, 1994) to interrogate both marginalized and mainstream literature.

Thus far, analyses have challenged the homogenization of the concept broken home in existing literature. Qualitatively unlike in the ‘West’, analyses have identified the varying meanings/consequences of parental divorce and parental death in Nigeria/Ghana.

Unlike existing data, this paper has contrasted the differential impacts of parental death and parental divorce with more refined variables (e.g. the sociocultural penalties of divorce such as stigma in terms of parental divorce and other social facts such as burial ceremonies, kinship nurturing, in relation to parental death), which helped to fill in the missing gap in comparative criminology literature.

Full text

A BINARY MODEL OF BROKEN
HOME: PARENTAL DEATH-
DIVORCE HYPOTHESIS OF MALE
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN
NIGERIA AND GHANA
Suleman Ibrahim
ABSTRACT
Purpose In terms of the concept of broken home as a juvenile delin-
quency risk factor, whilst Nigeria and Ghana are culturally different
from western nations (Gyekye, 1996; Hofstede, 1980; Smith, 2004),
parental death (PDE) and parental divorce (PDI) have been previously
taken-for-granted as one factor, that is ‘broken home’. This paper aims
to deconstruct the singular model of ‘broken home’ and propose a binary
model the parental death and parental divorce hypotheses, with unique
variables inherent in Nigerian/Ghanaian context.
Methodology/approach It principally deploys the application of
Goffman’s (1967) theory of stigma, anthropological insights on burial
rites and other social facts (Gyekye, 1996; Mazzucato et al., 2006;
Smith, 2004) to tease out diversity and complexity of lives across
Violence and Crime in the Family: Patterns, Causes, and Consequences
Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Volume 9, 311340
Copyright r2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1530-3535/doi:10.1108/S1530-353520150000009014
311

cultures, which specifically represent a binary model of broken home in
Nigeria/Ghana. It slightly appraises post-colonial insights on decoloniza-
tion (Agozino, 2003; Said, 1994) to interrogate both marginalized and
mainstream literature.
Findings Thus far, analyses have challenged the homogenization of
the concept broken home in existing literature. Qualitatively unlike in
the ‘West’, analyses have identified the varying meanings/consequences
of parental divorce and parental death in Nigeria/Ghana.
Originality/value Unlike existing data, this paper has contrasted the
differential impacts of parental death and parental divorce with more
refined variables (e.g. the sociocultural penalties of divorce such as
stigma in terms of parental divorce and other social facts such as burial
ceremonies, kinship nurturing, in relation to parental death), which
helped to fill in the missing gap in comparative criminology literature.
Keywords: Parental death; parental divorce; juvenile delinquency;
broken home; Nigeria and Ghana
INTRODUCTION
Nigeria and Ghana are Anglophone Sub-Saharan nations separated and
surrounded by Francophone nations. Despite multiple ethnic variations
within and across these two countries, they have similarities: British coloni-
zation, English language, relatively, similar time of independence
(Amponsah, Akotia, & Olowu, 2006;Feit, 1968;Mivanyi, 2006). In part,
these similarities offer a logical basis to examine them together without the
surrounding nations. In terms of male juvenile delinquency, adult males in
these nations have been implicated in the bulk of banditry crimes such as
kidnapping, armed robbery, terrorism (Ajaegbu, 2012;Adu-Mireku, 2002)
as well as cybercrimes (Warner, 2011;Tade, 2013;Doyon-Martin, 2015),
especially
1
socioeconomic cybercrimes. As a result, many facets of develop-
ment such as tourism are weakened (Adegoke, 2014;Aderibigbe & Olla,
2014;Otoo, 2014). Given that, juvenile offenders often ‘metamorhosized’
into hardened criminals (Igbinovia, 1988;Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber,
Farrington, & Kalb, 2001) and there is a convergence of numerous
developmental theories on stability of delinquency across lifespan
312 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

(Farrington, 2005;Loeber, 1982;Moffitt, 1993; Patterson & Yoerger,
1993), it is reasonable to consider male juvenile delinquency in Nigeria/
Ghana.
Delinquency itself, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (Agozino,
2003;Becker, 1963/1997;Durkheim, 1965/1885). Yet researchers have gen-
erally defined juvenile delinquency as a set of behaviours prohibited by law
(Akers & Burgess, 1966;Dugdale, 1887;Moffitt, 1993,Loeber et al., 2001;
Farrington, 2012a) and consistent with these researchers’ views, this present
endeavour operationalizes juvenile delinquency as a range of rule breaking
behaviours. A principal feature of most studies is that juvenile delinquency
is broadly age-graded (Moffitt, Lyam, Silva, & Bartusch, 1997;Sampson &
Laub, 2005). However, some studies have pointed out that age is lived dif-
ferently and age-related behaviours are constituted differently across cul-
tures (Brathwaite, 1996;Cain, 2000). Therefore, a universal assumption is
that juvenile delinquency is moderated by risk and protective factors
(Derzon, 2010;Mulder, Brand, Bullens, & Van Marle, 2010).
A risk factor, as Kazdin, Kraemer, Kessler, Kupfer, and Offord (1997,
p. 377) clearly explained, is ‘a characteristic, experience, or event that, if
present, is associated with an increase in the probability (risk) of a particu-
lar outcome over the base rate of the outcome in the general (unexposed)
population’. This suggests that whilst risk factors have direct association
with delinquency, they are not deterministic due to their interaction with
protective factors. On the flipside, protective factors such as having a sup-
port network only moderate the potential consequences of risk variables.
They have no direct association with delinquency (Derzon, 2010;Piquero,
Welsh, Tremblay, Farrington, & Jennings, 2009). Therefore, this paper will
lean its weight more on risk variables that have direct association with
delinquency than protective factors.
In terms of risk variables, children-behaviours are primarily ruled by
immediate gratification (Erikson, 1995;Freud, 1991/1927). Thus it is the
responsibility of ‘care-givers’ to see that they adapt to societal norms
(Bowlby, 1988). Yet the likelihood of this adaptation concurrently depends
on environmental variables as well as children’s characteristics (Belsky,
1984). Consistent with this assumption, Wissink, Asscher, Dekovic, Prinzie,
and Stams (2014) conceptualized juvenile delinquency risk factors into tri-
partite branches: familial, individual and structural factors. These tripartite
branches are illustrated in Fig. 1. A more important issue is that the vulnerabil-
ity effect of any single risk-variable on these branches is magnified only in the
presence of other variables (Derzon, 2010;Miller, 2014;Welsh & Farrington,
2007a, 2007b).
313A Binary Model of Broken Home

Historically, the legal concept of ‘juvenile delinquency’ was introduced
in about 1900 in Nigeria/Ghana through colonialization the British
Government (Ebbe, 1992). Drawing from Cohen’s (2008/1988) analysis of
African history and western criminology, Agozino (2003, p. 6) constructed
a link between colonialism and criminology. He argued that criminology is
a ‘discipline for disciplining the Other’ and not to benefit the ‘Other’ (see
also Agozino, 2010;Kitossa, 2012). This link between colonialism and
criminology perhaps underpins the total absence of empirical study in
Nigeria/Ghana, until official colonialization ended in the 1960s (Bankole &
Chipaca, 2014). In part, whilst juvenile delinquency has been extensively
investigated in western societies (Loeber et al., 2001), Nigerian/Ghanaian
studies are scanty (Boakye, 2013;Tankebe, Hills, & Bankole, 2014).
Also, various studies conducted in western nations have alongside
familial and structural factors covered individual factors, whereas
Nigerian/Ghanaian literature focused mainly on familial variables, apart
from Boakye’s (2013) study, one of the most comprehensive study so far in
this region. Boakye (2013) situated predictors of juvenile delinquency
more to individual factors than to familial variables and identified
The Tripartite Factors within the ‘Glass’ are in a Dialectic Relationship
in Predicting Delinquency
Broken Home,
Family
Factors
Individual
Factors
Structural
Factors
Impulsivity,
Low IQ,
Academic
Difficulty,
Aggression,
Substance
Abuse
(Farrington et al. 2010;
Loeber et al., 2012;
Boakye, 2013)
Social Disorganisation,
High Crime Rates,
Delinquent Peers,
Low Social Buffers,
Gang Membership
Juvenile Delinquency
(Skinner et al., 2014; Smith
and Mc Vie, 2003;
Weinberg, 1964;
Shaw and MacKay, 1948)
Lax Parenting,
Physical Punishment,
Family Conflict,
Low Family Income
(Derzon, 2010; Piquero
et al., 2009; Moffitt et al.,
2013; Sanni et al., 2010)
Fig. 1. The Tripartite Branches of Risk Factors.
314 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

‘academic-difficulty’ as one of the strongest predictors of delinquency in
Ghana. However, academic difficulty is not the main focus of this paper
and the overall concentration of Nigerian/Ghanaian literature converged
more (in a descending order of significance) on ‘broken home’ than others.
It is reasonable therefore that these patterns of existing literature dictate
where this paper will lean its weight, that is where Nigerian/Ghanaian lit-
erature mainly overlaps with that of the ‘West’ broken home. Broken
home has been homogenized by existing literature, whereas this paper pro-
posed a binary model parental divorce and parental death hypotheses
with more refined variables.
Given that every experience counts in cross-cultural research (Cain,
2000) and Sub-Saharan African is a critical site for comparative
criminology knowledge-mining (Tankebe et al., 2014), it is compelling
therefore that this paper aims to highlight the importance of widening the
focus of comparative criminology beyond European, American and
Australian continents (Tankebe et al., 2014). This is not to concede that
claims made in these world regions may have applicability in African
nations (LaFree, 2007, p. 16), but on the contrary, ‘criminology’s claims in
western nations might just be nothing more than local truths’ (Nelken,
2010, p. 14). Therefore, are the consequences of broken home in the ‘West’
universalizable to Nigerian and Ghanaian context? Are the consequences
of parental death and parental divorce the same across cultures? A princi-
pal goal of this paper is to deconstruct the homogenization of parental
death and parental divorce in most existing literature and sharpen the
distinction between the two constructs, specifically in Nigerian/Ghanaian
context. The need to address these issues is reinforced by sociocultural
variations across these world regions.
Theoretical Background
Apparently, there are huge and long-standing cultural variations between
western nations broadly categorized under individualism, and Nigeria/
Ghana relatively under collectivism (Hofstede, 1980;Smith, 2001).
Culture is an interwoven set of beliefs, practices, and ‘common sense’ that
define people’s way of life (Skeggs, 2013). According to Fincher and
Thornhill (2014, p. 114), ‘[C]ollectivism is characterised by conformity,
kinship and in-group dependency, whereas individualism places a lesser
emphasis on in-group reliance and kinship’. Even if modernity blurs the
boundary between collectivism and individualism (Sampson, 2000),
315A Binary Model of Broken Home

according to Smith’s (2001, 2004 and 2011) anthropological insights, whilst
modernity privileges individuality in western societies, people’s socio-
economic and political insecurity in contemporary Sub-Saharan region
reinforce a strong rather than less reliance on ties to family/community of
origin (see also McCauley, 2012 Ghana; Akanle & Olutayo, 2011 Nigeria).
Given that mainstream criminology-claims are reflective of western cul-
ture (Kalunta-Crumpton, 2004), suggests that some claims made in western
world region may not be universalizable. This paper will assess the validity
of this assumption in terms of the concept of broken home. Also, it will
help to reveal the ‘superordination-subordination’ relationship between the
‘West’ and cultural others Nigeria/Ghana (Hall, 1990;Fanon, 1967/
2008;Onyeozili, 2004;Otu, 1999;Pieterse, 1989;Ranuga, 1986;Said,
1994), which perpetuates claims from western studies as ‘universal-truths’
(Smith, 1999).
For Foucault (1977/1991), ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ in knowledge-
power relationship, is distinguishable only by unequal power resources,
exercisable and contestable in varying levels (see also Cohen, 2008/1988).
This is consistent with Staples’s (1960) idea that, having the hegemonic
power over ‘knowledge’ is vulnerable to hegemonic tendencies towards cul-
tural others (see also Althusser, 1971/2001). Accordingly, this paper will
also deploy a post-colonial perspective as a tool of enquiry, because of its
emphasis on decolonization. ‘Decolonization’ is the deployment of a more
critical examination at mainstream assumptions and research practices that
appear to be ‘universal-truths’ and manifestly marginalize/shape the prac-
tices/claims of the ‘Other’ (Smith, 1999).
METHODOLOGY
In order to address the above questions raised above, library-based
research was used. Keywords such as juvenile delinquency, broken home,
family and delinquency, parental death, parental divorce and delinquency,
etc., were used in academic search engines such as Google scholar, project
MUSE and psycINFO, to identify relevant journal articles. Every relevant
paper found (in line with the research topic and after reading the abstracts)
in Nigerian/Ghanaian contexts was selected, whereas only the most recent
ones from the ‘West’ were included due to the varying volume and other
aspects of literature in these world regions as mentioned. Accordingly, stu-
dies in these two world regions in terms of broken home were summarized
316 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

and juxtaposed on the basis of their unique axes of differentiations, which
will help to set off points for synthesis. The rationale is to expose ‘what is
true/false of one society in relation to the other’ (Bendix, 1963).
Also, it will interrogate some contemporary academic endeavours in
Nigeria/Ghana, which are often as Fanon (1967/2008) and Myers (2006)
suggested, rooted in a colonial framework. As Agozino (2003) pointed out,
in criminology and the social sciences in general, the deficiency of original
theorizing among the colonized; the monopolization of theory-production
by imperialist countries, are the conditions that perpetuate overreliance of
the former on the latter. This suggests that theoretical originality is the
arena where marginalized voices are mostly vulnerable. This paper there-
fore takes a provocative stance and aims to stimulate contemporary scho-
larly endeavours from formerly colonized nations to think for themselves
and drop the ‘colonial baggage’ the way poets and novelists from these
nations have hitherto demonstrated. This theoretical stance will provide
avenues for discourse deconstruction and evoke new interpretations (Go,
2013;Myers, 2006;Uday, 2013). It will lead to the deconstruction of a sin-
gular model of broken home, and offer more refined components that con-
stitute parental death and divorce, which sharpen the contrast between
them across regions (see Figs. 3 and 4).
An Overview of Literature: Broken Homes
Familial variables have been implicated since the 19th century to impact on
children’s susceptibility to crime (Akers & Burgess, 1966;Dugdale, 1887;
Farrington, 2011;Fergusson, McLeod, & John Horwood, 2014;Price &
Kunz, 2003;Shaw & McKay, 1932). However, Derzon’s (2010) meta-
analysis of 119 works in western societies pointed out that the ill or protec-
tive effects of familial factors such as broken homes, are only evident in
combination with other branches of factors illustrated in Fig. 1.
Specifically, Wells and Rankin (1991) summarized 50 studies on broken-
homes and explained that the ill-effect of a broken home requires the pre-
sence of other risk factors to significantly predict delinquency (see also
Price & Kunz’s, 2003 summary of 72 studies).
Consistent with the above position, the majority of literature from
Nigeria/Ghana highlighted that a broken home is a predictor of juvenile
delinquency (Aniche, 2015;Boakye, 2013;Ebbe, 1992;Oloruntimehin,
1973;Sanni, Modo, Uduh, Ezeh, & Okediji, 2010;Weinberg, 1964).
However, unlike most studies from the West with large sample sizes and
317A Binary Model of Broken Home

based on longitudinal data, Nigeria/Ghana based studies are all cross-
sectional and have relatively small sample sizes. Another key area of diver-
gence is on family size and socio-economic status (SES). Whilst a large
family size and low SES have an unfavourable impact on children’s risk of
involvement in criminality (Dugdale, 1887;Loeber et al., 2001), most
Nigeria/Ghana-based studies suggest that a large family size has beneficial
impact on children and a low SES has no significant effect on children’s
susceptibility to be involved in criminality (Boakye, 2013;Ebbe, 1992;
Oloruntimehin, 1973;Weinberg, 1965). These distinct slices of data will be
considered later in the analysis and critique of evidence.
A more important issue is that, unlike most western literature that has
attached a relatively small amount of importance to broken homes in com-
parison to variables such as individual factors shown in Fig. 1, most regio-
nal literature from Nigeria and Ghana situated broken home as a principal
driver of juvenile delinquency (Aniche, 2015;Oloruntimehin, 1973;Sanni
et al., 2010;Ugwuoke & Duruji, 2015;Weinberg, 1964). This is indicative
of the assumed centrality of the family in this region as a major determi-
nant of children’s behaviour. Specifically, Sanni et al. (2010, p. 27) pointed
out that ‘[A] healthy home environment is the single most important factor
necessary to keep children from becoming delinquent’ and Ugwuoke and
Duruji (2015, p. 44) argued that ‘children from broken homes are at the
greatest risk of becoming delinquents’. This suggests that a broken home is
a more important index of the rate of criminality in children in Nigeria/
Ghana than in western societies.
Having said that, whilst numerous studies have ‘clumped together’ dif-
ferent forms of family disruptions and compared them with two parents
families (Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000;Fergusson et al., 2014;Loeber et al.,
2001;Oloruntimehin, 1973) few have specifically compared divorced par-
ents with intact families (Akanbi et al., 2015;Amato, 2014;Animasahun,
2014;Aughinbaugh et al., 2005;Cherlin, McRae, & Chase-Lansdale, 1998;
Li, 2007) and fewer have attempted to distinguish between parental death
and parental divorce in varying degrees (Amato & Anthony, 2014;Free Jr,
1991;Gregory, 1965a, 1965b;Juby & Farrington, 2001;Rutter, 1971).
Whilst recent Nigerian and Ghanaian studies from other fields of study
have considered the relationship between orphanhood and educational
attainment (e.g. Hampshire et al., 2015), others have investigated the causes
and consequences of divorce in isolation (Aniche, 2015;Asante, Osafo, &
Nyamekye, 2014).
As far as this paper is concerned, none has considered the varying vari-
ables that constitute and contrast parental death (PDE) and parental
318 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

divorce (PDI) within the Sub-Saharan region (Nigeria/Ghana) and also
between the Sub-Saharan region and the West. The specific variables that
define the type of family disruption in different world regions may vary,
meaning that this a crucial entry point in the understanding of the varying
impacts of parental divorce and parental death on juvenile delinquency in
these world regions. Even if marital conflicts that accompany most divorces
are broadly universalizable, divorce is a bud, which unfolds overtime and
not a one-time event. It is inseparable from sociocultural ‘contaminations’.
This suggests that it is unreasonable to separate divorce from major under-
lying social facts that may buffer or amplify its negative effects across cul-
tures. Bearing in mind that, whilst most western societies are drifting
towards elevated individualism at the expense of existing social structure
and traditional values (Hofstede, 1980;Lesthaeghe, 2010), Nigeria and
Ghana are in the zone of collectivism as Smith’s (2004) and McCauley’s
(2012) ethnographic works have highlighted. These sociocultural variations
suggest that divorce may not be a uniform experience for individuals across
cultures.
This begs the question, are the variables that constitute parental divorce
in western society the same in Nigeria and Ghana? Unlike studies from
both world regions that locate marital conflict as a crucial aspect of differ-
entiation between parental divorce and parental death (Amato & Anthony,
2014;Boakye, 2013;Free Jr, 1991;Gregory, 1965a, 1965b;Juby&
Farrington, 2001; Rutter, 1971;Sanni & Oyibo, 2013), this paper, alongside
marital conflict, aims to situate stigma as a principal element of distinction
between parental divorce and parental death on one hand, and on the other
hand, invoke some anthropological insights on burial rites, to further sharpen
the contrast between the two constructs, unlike existing literature.
PARENTAL DEATH AND PARENTAL DIVORCE
Two-parent families can be disrupted for reasons other than parental death
and parental divorce. Creighton, Park, and Teruel (2009) found that inter-
national migration can separate spouses (see also Jampaklay, 2006).
Similarly, Paris, DeVoe, Ross, and Acker (2010) found that overseas
deployment of a parent for military service can lead to single-parenthood
(see also Gorman, Eide, & Hisle-Gorman, 2010). Finally, Lee, Porter,
and Megan (2014) found that parental incarceration often disrupts families
(Wildeman, Wakefield & Turney, 2013). Generally, all five routes to
319A Binary Model of Broken Home

single-parenthood negatively impact on children (Kelly & Emery, 2003)
by their association with high psychological stress, low parental super-
vision and/or low parental income in comparison to two-parent families
(Amato & Keith, 1991;Savage, 2014). Arguably, all five forms of
lone-parenthood could be risk factors in children’s involvement in
anti-social behaviours.
However, given that to date, Nigeria/Ghana-based literature has prin-
cipally focused on parental death and parental divorce as elements of
broken homes, it is reasonable then for this paper to consequently centre
on these two factors. Parental divorce and parental death lead to a lone-
parent household, they both generally carry similar baggage of lower
parental supervision and lower income than two-parent families.
Arguably, to paraphrase Amato and Anthony (2014, p. 383),parents
with high socio-economic resources ‘are more likely to buffer their chil-
dren from the detrimental impacts of family disruptions’, because they
are more likely to afford childcare services instrumental social support,
and more immune to child rearing psychological distress than others.
Apart from the psychological impact of family disruptions, which are
‘impossible’ to quantify accurately (Kelly & Emery, 2003)thetwomain
consequences of parental separation low supervision and poverty, are
moderated by parents’ socio-economic positions (Savage, 2014). Based
on this assumption, which is based on a western context (Farrington,
2012a, 2012b;Loeber et al., 2001;Smith & McVie, 2003) this paper there-
fore asks, can these mechanisms hold true across cultures, that is Nigeria
and Ghana?
According to Nigeria/Ghana-based cross-sectional studies, a family’s
socio-economic status is weakly related to the likelihood of children’s invol-
vement in criminality (Akinlabi & Olatunji, 2013;Boakye, 2013;
Oloruntimehin, 1973;Weinberg, 1964). The sociological underpinning is,
the majority of children live in poverty and deprived communities
(Akinlabi & Olatunji, 2013;Boakye, 2013). Consistent with this assump-
tion, Owusu, Agyei-Mensah, and Lund (2008) elaborated that, the majority
of those in poverty in this region generally have high aspirations, which
they called ‘poverty-of-hope’. It is only a minority of people in poverty
who have low aspirations, which Owusu et al. (2008) coined ‘poverty-of-
despair’. The latter group unlike the former are more likely to offend due
to their low aspirations.
Also, unlike in western societies, which are characterized by individual-
ism, Nigerian and Ghanaian cultural values broadly put huge emphasis on
collectivism (Gyekye, 1996;Kuyini, Alhassan, Tollerud, Weld, & Haruna,
320 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

2009). Perhaps as a consequence of this, Okpako (2004),Okorodudu
(2010),Boakye (2013) and Annor (2014) noted that, the burden of parent-
ing is often distributed among members of one’s extended families and
communities. Specifically, Okorodudu (2010, p. 61) explained that, in the
Sub-Saharan region, the term ‘parents expand beyond immediate mother
and father to include members of the extended family, neighbours and
every other person who in one way or the other is involved in upbringing
of the child’. This suggests that parenting responsibility is not solely
bestowed on biological parents/guardians as in Western societies. Parents
in need of social support can easily benefit from a close-knit network that
often characterizes collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1980). Even if large
family size is common place, it has no detrimental effect on children in
Nigeria/Ghana as compared to Western societies (Annor, 2014;Boakye,
2013). The underpinning being, unlike in western nations, the extended
family network and older siblings serve as an additional layer of juvenile
supervision in Nigeria/Ghana.
Drawing from Durkheim’s (2001/1912) theory of social bond, Stets and
Carter (2012, p. 122) explained that ‘the motive underlying behaviour in
interaction is to maximize and replenish emotional energy’. This is most
conducive in collective societies. It is required to buffer the unavoidable
emotional distress in everyday parenting. What affects parent-wellbeing
also affects parents’ capacity to parent well or otherwise (Belsky, 1984).
This highlights that the accessibility of social support in a Nigerian/
Ghanaian context is not significantly influenced by peoples’ economic posi-
tions. Shared supervision of children found in Nigeria/Ghana weakens the
impact of possible low supervision by direct parents.
Support for this is found in Akinlabi and Olatunji’s (2013, p. 21) study,
which confirmed that ‘respondents from rich and poor homes do not differ
in their upbringing due to economic status’. This suggests that, in contrast
to findings in western societies, economic deprivation does not appear to
have a negative impact on child rearing in Nigeria/Ghana. This suggests
that the buffering impact of high SES on parental divorce and parental
death in western societies is not applicable to the Nigeria/Ghana. What
does this tell us about the differences between parental death and parental
divorce, in terms of their efficacy in predicting juvenile delinquency across
these world regions?
Given that most western societies can be generalized to be fairly indivi-
dualistic (Gyekye, 1996;Hofstede, 1980;Selin, 2014), PDI and PDE can be
argued to have relatively similar consequences in terms of juvenile delin-
quency, as both factors reduce parental supervision and parental income.
321A Binary Model of Broken Home

Relatedly, given that the negative effects of PDI and PDE are moderated
by a family’s socio-economic position, suggests that it is the minority of
families (affluent families) to whom most negative outcomes are buffered in
terms of parental supervision and poverty. Therefore, it can be deduced
that in western societies, the departure of one parent due to death or
divorce, is relevant in predicting delinquency in children as illustrated in
Fig. 2. This aligns with a multitude of research studies in Western societies
according to Amato and Keith’s (1991) meta-analysis (see also Derzon,
2010).
Contradictorily, whilst these geopolitical spaces are relatively welfare-
oriented (Barker, 2013;Pratt, 2008), welfare benefits have minimal impact
on families’ economic position in relation to paid childcare (Koopmans,
2010). This suggests that, the buffering effect of welfare on lone-parent
families in western societies, if any, is dissolved by the individualistic
components of western societies. As Borgers, Dronkers, and Van Praag
(1996) have pointed out, the interactions of these two mechanisms, on one
hand explain why the negative impacts of parental death in relation to
divorce is less in continental Europe more welfare-based, than in the
Conflicting Mechanisms
Parental Divorce
or Parental Death
Lone Parent Family
Lower income
Lower supervision
Welfare
State Individualist
Society
Support
D
E
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
J
U
V
E
N
I
L
E
Fig. 2. Broken Home Parental Death Hypothesis in Western Societies.
322 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

United States less welfare-based. On the other hand, it reinforces the
standpoint that welfare-state-support and the individualistic elements of a
society are conflicting mechanisms in the moderation of the effect of lone-
parenthood due to either divorce or parental death in western nations
unlike in Nigeria/Ghana. Even if some studies have noted a slight differen-
tial effect of parental death and parental divorce on juvenile delinquency in
the West (Free Jr, 1991;Gregory, 1965a, 1965b; Juby & Farrington, 2001;
Rutter, 1971), Wells and Rankin’s (1991, p. 88) meta-analysis emphasized
that their differences are statistically non-significant.
Sharp contrasts between parental death and parental divorce, and also
between existing literature and this paper are required for clarity of thought
and precision in illustrations. In Nigeria/Ghana, parental death and paren-
tal divorce lead to lone-parent families as in western societies. Despite a
long standing convergence of Nigerian/Ghanaian literature in homogeniz-
ing the differential consequences of parental death and parental divorce as
one factor (Boakye, 2013;Ebbe, 1992;Oloruntimehin, 1973;Sanni et al.,
2010;Ugwuoke & Duruji, 2015;Weinberg, 1964), this paper proposes a
binary model of broken home, because parental divorce and parental death
yield distinct and unique slices of realities in Nigeria and Ghana as
illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Even if some studies in western societies have
reported slight differences between the two constructs as aforementioned,
unlike these studies that locate a crucial area of their differences in divorce
conflicts, this paper, alongside the conflict element of divorce, situates its
hypothesis on the unique social facts inherent in Nigeria/Ghana such as
elaborate burial rituals as illustrated in Fig. 3, in relation to parental death
and other factors such as stigma as illustrated in Fig. 4 in terms of parental
divorce.
In Nigeria/Ghana, unlike parental death, recent studies have labelled
parental divorce as national threats, and public health problem
(e.g. Akanbi et al., 2015;Aniche, 2015). Data from the most comprehensive
study in this area (Boakye, 2013, p. 268) specifically illustrated that, PDI
(OR =5.1) was more strongly associated with self-reported delinquency
than PDE (OR =1.6.). This suggests that parental divorce, significantly,
and to a greater extent than parental death, may induce some compound-
ing variables that underpin children’s involvement in delinquent behaviour
as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. However, these studies have not offered
viable explanations in line with contextual social facts to tease out these
more refined variables, but rather generally deployed ‘marital status’ or
‘broken home’ to explain children’s likelihood to be involved in delinquent
behaviour. Despite these scholars identifying differences between PDE and
323A Binary Model of Broken Home

PDI, they could have put the findings into context to a greater extent,
reflecting more deeply on them in relation to the sociocultural contours of
this world region. This invokes Agozino’s (2003, p. 7) idea that unlike a
range of marginal voices (poets, novelists) not trained in criminology such
as Frantz Fanon, Wole Soyinka, Kofi Awoonor, Ngugi Wa Thiong’o,
Chinua Achebe, etc., those trained in criminology and the social sciences in
general, rarely challenge mainstream familial definitions and predefined
models upon the lived experience of marginal groups. The implication is
that in social science, there is little original theory coming out of colonized
nations compared to the imperialist countries.
These theoretical oversights (the use of the concept of broken home to
clump together PDE and PDI when considering the possible link with juve-
nile delinquency and also contextless generalization) perpetuate a long-
standing over-reliance on western insights and claims by colonized nations.
As Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, and Baumgardner (1986, p. 227)
Buffers
Buffers low income & low
supervision
Parental Death
Collectivist
Society
Extended Burial
Rites,
Empathy
Family
Support
D
E
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
J
U
V
E
N
I
L
E
Lone Parent Family
Lower income
Lower supervision
Fig. 3. Broken Home Parental Death Hypothesis in Nigeria and Ghana.
324 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

beautifully summarized, ‘[T]heory obstructs research progress when the
researcher has more faith in the correctness of the theory than in the suit-
ability of the procedures that were used to test it’ and also the fundamental
social-cultural fabric of situation, as Igbinovia (1988, p. 154) once empha-
sized. This suggests that the over-reliance on western criminological the-
ories by former colonized nations, in an imitative fashion rather than in an
innovative way is unlikely to decolonize knowledge within criminology
(Agozino, 2003,p.7;Uday, 2013, p. 450). Therefore, in order to overcome
this limitation, these particular contours of Sub-Saharan complex social
facts (PDE and PDI) require the application of insights from other disci-
plines such as anthropology.
An anthropological lens is crucial to examine the complexities that sur-
round the subjective and socio-cultural ways of life in Nigeria/Ghana that
tend to differentiate the impacts of PDE from those of PDI. Whilst PDE is
a risk factor, its effects are strongly buffered by tripartite mechanisms: bur-
ial rites, extended family support and collectivism. African cultural beliefs
and practices emphasize collectivism (Gyekye, 1996), as evidenced by ela-
borate African burial rites. Burial rites in Nigeria/Ghana unlike in western
nations, are major community events and generally last for about two
Lone Parent Family
Stigma
Society School Peers
Lower income
Lower supervision
Disruption of bonds
Distortion of relationships
Residential mobility
Patriarchal context
Parental Divorce
D
E
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
J
U
V
E
N
I
L
E
Fig. 4. Broken Home Parental Divorce Hypothesis in Nigeria/Ghana.
325A Binary Model of Broken Home

weeks (McCauley, 2012;Smith, 2004). This therefore induces authentic
empathy towards the bereaved children in the event of the death of a par-
ent and sociologically, ‘unite its adherents in a single moral community
called the church’ (Durkheim, 2001/1912, p. 46). Consequently, these socio-
cultural processes reinforce extended family support. Unlike divorce, death
in any family necessitates the ‘coming home’ or ‘being there’ of all extended
family members for the immediate bereaved. The dialectic interactions of
these mechanisms a gap overlooked in criminology literature (Nigerian/
Ghanaian) are prominent features of the anthropological literature on bur-
ial rites and social cohesion (Geschiere & Gugler, 1998;Gugler, 2002;
Lentz, 1994;Smith, 2004).
In line with these anthropologists, in most African societies including
Nigeria and Ghana, it is culturally mandatory to be buried ‘at home’ in
people’s places of origin. The elaborateness of burial rites acknowledge the
need to ‘be there’ for the children of the deceased and to develop concrete
plans on how to implement this support (Mazzucato, Kabki, & Smith,
2006;Smith, 2004). This is one of the ‘most powerful symbolic indicators
of the continuing strength of ties to place of origin’ (Smith, 2004, p. 569). It
also serves as a mechanism, which absorbs the impact of PDE on children
as the burden of parenting is mutually and more enthusiastically shared
among the deceased relatives (Lentz, 1994;Gugler, 2002).
Given that unlike in western nations, elaborate burial rites reinforce
extended family support for children of a lone parent due to parental
death, they reduce the likelihood of children’s involvement in criminality as
illustrated in Fig. 3. Even if such rituals are not immune to familial con-
flicts (Geertz, 1977), most burial-based conflicts are primarily geared to
maximize the socio-economic benefits for the immediate bereaved
(Mazzucato et al., 2006;Smith, 2004). This implies that the two major con-
sequences of parental death poverty and low parental supervision are
minimized by these mechanisms available in collectivist societies such as in
Nigeria/Ghana. For example, Hampshire et al. (2015), although covering a
slightly different field of study parental death and educational attain-
ment, recently noted that in relation to non-orphans, orphans were not sig-
nificantly disadvantaged due to kinship nurturing available in this world
region.
One the other hand, whilst the negative impacts of PDE are buffered by
sociocultural mechanisms, the numerous detrimental effects of PDI (as
shown in Fig. 4) which interpenetrate one another, are amplified via stig-
matization: stigmatization at school, at play with peers and in society. This
invokes the theory of stigma. According to Goffman’s (1967/1990, p. 3)
326 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

theory, stigma can be defined as an ‘attribute that is deeply discrediting
[and that lessens the holder] from a whole and usual person to a tainted,
discounted one’. Stafford and Scott (1986, p. 80) elaborated on Goffman’s
idea and postulated that stigma is a feature of individuals that is in opposi-
tion with the collective norm of a social unit. Crocker, Major, and Steele
(1998, p. 505) pointed out that ‘stigmatized individuals posses (or are
believed to possess) some attribute that conveys a social identity that is
devalued in a particular context’. Thus this paper applies the term stigma
as Link and Phelan (2001, p. 367) suggested, when its elements: segrega-
tion, labelling, stereotyping, status loss, and discrimination co-occur to
unfold their outcomes on the stigmatized.
Historically, despite the erosion of some African traditions due to colo-
nization, urbanization and industrialization (Igbinovia, 1988), in line with
the theory of stigma, parental divorce in Nigeria/Ghana is still seem as a
violation of African traditional norm and ‘common-sense’ (Akinlabi &
Olatunji, 2013, p. 22). According to socio-cultural ‘common-sense’, it is
preferable to be a second or third wife than to bear the agony of being
mocked and labelled as prostitute, infertile or evil-spirit possessed when a
woman is of age and unmarried. This sets the desperation of unmarried
women in motion, pedalling and reinforcing a patriarchal system and poly-
gamous marriages. Consequently, desperations are often soaked-up by and
condition some contemporary women in this world region into polygamous
systems of marriage. This socio-cultural-platform shapes the parameter
with which ‘marriage’ and ‘divorce’ are measured. Therefore, while a mar-
riage accords social prestige, divorce connotes loss of social status
(Akinlabi & Olatunji, 2013;Aniche, 2015;Asante et al., 2014;Denga, 1981,
1982).
Support for this is reinforced by recent Nigerian/Ghanaian studies on
divorce, which revealed that the negative societal reactions levelled against
divorce prevent its supposed benefits such as personal freedom and liberty
(Aniche, 2015;Asante et al., 2014). How divorce is culturally tainted is evi-
dent in Ebbe’s (1992, p. 356) analysis of African family structure as mainly
patriarchal. Most importantly, ‘family-name’ is generally seen as supreme,
which must be protected and cherished more than members’ rights, tenden-
cies and instinctual inclinations. Arguably, any transgression against what
Durkheim (2001/1912) called the collective conscience in the form of
divorce, activates the devaluing of not only the direct transgressors’ sta-
tuses but anyone associated to them such as the children. This suggests that
the conservative sentiments of Nigerian/Ghanaian society that view divorce
almost as a taboo, charge transgressors with the sociocultural penalties of
327A Binary Model of Broken Home

divorce: stigmatization and humiliation. The sociocultural penalties of
divorce can be conceptualized as the culturally defined and location specific
negative consequences of divorce, which could be intentional or otherwise
bestowed on divorced individuals by other members of a given society. No
wonder Durkheim (2001/1912, p. 322) once reminded us, ‘[N]o society can
exist that does not feel the need to reaffirm the collective ideas that consti-
tute its personality’. Given that what affects parents’ psychosocial position
often affects their children (Belsky, 1984) it is reasonable therefore to con-
struct a link between the sociocultural penalties of divorce received by par-
ents and the negative impacts on their children.
Based on the patriarchal and paternalistic nature of the Sub-Saharan
sociocultural context (Ajayi & Owumi, 2013;Fourchard, 2005), the social
weight of stigma bestowed on children from divorced parents is greater for
boys than girls. Conversely, women suffer more than men from the socio-
cultural penalties of divorce (Asante et al., 2014), possibly due to the legacy
of gender inequalities in Nigeria/Ghana (Akotey & Adjasi, 2015;Fawole &
Adeoye, 2015). In terms of male juvenile delinquency, the sociological
underpinning can be deduced from the principles of paternalism.
According to Akinlabi and Olatunji (2013, p. 21) a father is a ‘figure of
identification and a significant agent of discipline’ (see also Animasahun,
2014, p. 598). This supports Ebbe’s (1992, p. 356) view: unlike a mother,
‘the father is the supreme judge of the family and the chief enforcer of the
norms of the society’. Therefore, boys from divorced parents are generally
perceived as ‘incapable’ of possessing ascribed manly attributes in African
ways of being, due to as Ebbe (1992) noted, the static hierarchical model of
gender relations in Sub-Saharan Africa.
This entrenched tradition that promotes machismo in boys, combined
with boys’ need as Freud (1991/1927) once suggested, to identify with their
ideal models, which are usually fathers, increases their propensity to
involve in delinquency if the ‘father-figure’ is absent due to divorce. Also, if
a man fails in his marriage(s), he could be seen from a sociocultural subjec-
tive lens as having attributes of a ‘failure’, who could not ‘manage’ his
wife/wives. According to Achebe (1994), there is a proverb that, if a finger
touches oil, it can easily spread to other fingers. This implies that any attri-
butes of unmanliness affixed to a man also affect his sons (Ajayi & Owumi,
2013;Ebbe, 1992;Fourchard, 2005). As illustrated in Fig. 4, if society dis-
tinguishes boys based on their parents’ marital status boys from divorced
parents and those from ‘healthy-homes’, such a society labels them on the
basis of these stereotypes. Society therefore ‘armed with these facts’, stig-
matizes the less cherished ones, who then lose their statuses and become
328 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

‘abnormal’. The peer group of the stigmatized, ‘orchestrated’ by their sig-
nificant others, is more likely to distance themselves from them, so as not
to be ‘contaminated’, thereby creating social isolation for the bearers of
stigma, because as Thomas and Thomas (1928, p. 572) noted, ‘if children
believe situations are real, they are real in their consequences’. Given that
schools are crucial social contexts for children, peer groups and teachers
intentionally or otherwise participate in this circle of ‘othering’ (Goffman,
1967/1990). These are processes that sustain the predicament of stigma, as
the stigmatized are most likely to regress educationally, dropout and
become involved in anti-social behaviour.
This problem is compounded, because as Joireman (2008, p. 1238)
explained, unlike in western cultures, in Sub-Saharan African ‘women do
not own property but rather, under customary law, women are perceived
as properties’. Although women can own property under public law, the
enforcement of public law at the expense of customary law is against the
grain of Sub-Saharan Africa cultural practice (Mamdani, 1996, p. 50). The
implication is that parental divorce necessitates residential mobility for
women/children, unlike parental death (Amato & Anthony, 2014, p. 382).
Given that mothers who often have custody of children have no property
rights if they are lone parents via divorce (Joireman, 2008), this may result
in higher levels of residential mobility, which could induce stress on
mothers and children and a distortion of relationship between them, which
could concomitantly as Hoeve et al. (2012) noted, further put a strain on
the bonds between them (see also Mack, Leiber, Featherstone, &
Monserud, 2007). What does this tell us about the predicament of boys
from divorced parents in terms of delinquency?
Given that, men rather than women in this context, are culturally and
predominantly raised to be bread winners, implies that the possibility of
having a decent accommodation after divorce for women/children is limited
unless an ex-husband or a woman’s family of origin has a fleet of houses. It
is only the minority of people who possess such wealth in Sub-Saharan
Africa (Joireman, 2008;Owusu et al., 2008). This phenomenon unlike par-
ental death merged with stigmatization and other sociocultural penalties of
divorce, place children at a higher risk of being stereotyped, labelled, bul-
lied, isolated by peers, new neighbours and even discriminated intentionally
or otherwise by teachers. In a nutshell, whilst the predictive strength of par-
ental death as a risk factor is shielded by collectivism, extended family sup-
port and elaborate burial ceremonies, that of parental divorce alongside
other variables as illustrated in Fig. 4, is amplified by stigma on multiple
levels: school, peers, society. Beyond the amplification of the negative
329A Binary Model of Broken Home

impacts of parental divorce on children’s involvement in criminality, the
scars of stigma often accompany the stigmatized from childhood to adult-
hood. For example, marriage proposals could be accepted or rejected based
on certain sociocultural conditions, which include among other variables, if
a prospective spouse is from a disorganized subcultural home, that is if an
individual has divorced parents or otherwise (Aniche, 2015). This is because
marriage in this context is not just between two persons, but between two
families, and lineages, and even distant communities (Amponsah et al.,
2006;Mivanyi, 2006). Arguably, the scars of stigma conferred on juveniles
in this world region could potentially have long-lasting effects.
CRITIQUE OF EVIDENCE
However, in critiquing the evidence, caution should be applied in the inter-
pretation of the above culture-induced differences. Whilst cross-cultural
comparison of parental death and parental divorce is not immune to limita-
tions, it however boosts causal inferences bestowed on the impacts of par-
ental divorce across difference geopolitical spaces (Amato & Anthony,
2014). In other words, cross-national comparisons tend to neglect the com-
plexity and diversity of lives within targeted countries. Nevertheless, there
is consistent evidence across cultures in support of the negative effect of
parental divorce, specifically due to the ‘marital-conflict’ element of most
divorces.
The main limitation of the above comparison is evident in the methodo-
logical differences between western studies and Nigeria/Ghana studies.
Whilst all Nigerian/Ghanaian studies are based on cross-sectional data,
longitudinal data is central to the majority of western studies. Given that
correlational studies based on self-report and their conclusions are not cer-
tainties, they require extensive empirical confirmation, ideally longitudinal
data, to confirm to their efficacy. As Mitchell, Vella-Brodrick, and Klein
(2010, p. 37), although on a different tangent well-being, once stressed,
‘how meaningful research evidence in social science is will need to be deter-
mined by future longitudinal research’.
Besides, all four studies (Amato & Anthony, 2014;Aughinbaugh et al.,
2005;Cherlin et al., 1998;Li, 2007) specifically on effects of parental
divorce on children outcomes that deployed ‘fixed effect models’ are based
on Western societies. According to Amato and Anthony (2014, p. 371)
unlike all models available to cross-sectional studies, ‘[F]ixed effects models
have the advantage of controlling for all time-invariants variables’. Studies
330 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

based on cross-sectional data addressed these issues, by putting the inter-
viewees on the power-chair in the interview process, that is allowing partici-
pants to develop the trend of the interview itself and/or controlling for a
huge amount of potential confounding variables. A key limitation of these
methods includes the impossibility of knowing if all relevant factors have
been addressed and in the case of quantitative studies, if all variables have
been included in the statistical model. Secondly, unlike longitudinal studies,
cross-sectional studies are unable to measure the effect of marital conflict
before the event of divorce to ascertain if similar outcomes can be establish
at both times or otherwise. Support for this is found in Miller’s (2014,
p. 276) study that concluded that, parental-divorce juvenile-delinquency
linkages are often present before the occurrence of the actual divorce itself
(see also Buehler et al., 1997;Sun, 2001).
CONCLUSION
This paper has interrogated mainstream assumptions and Nigerian/
Ghanaian scholarly endeavours on the taken-for-granted singular model of
broken home. Specifically, anthropological insights on burial rites and
Goffman’s (1967/1990) theory of stigma provided a unique window to con-
trast the differential impacts of parental death and parental divorce with
more refined variables unlike existing data, that is this paper has deployed
the application of the sociocultural penalties of divorce such as stigma in
terms of PDI and burial ceremonies, kinship nurturing, etc., in relation to
PDE. This has helped to fill in the missing gap in comparative criminology
literature as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, because the above oversights are
not confined to mainstream literature, it is a feature of regional literature
from Nigeria/Ghana.
It has also exposed the uncritical imitation of criminology claims in wes-
tern nations by colonized nations, which had hitherto been the norm, per-
haps due to lack of theoretical originality coming out of colonized nations
(Agozino, 2003). The implication is the obscurity of ‘what is true of all
societies and what is true of one society at one point in time and space’
(Bendix, 1963, p. 532). If the acknowledgement of diversity is taken ser-
iously, it could, and perhaps should broaden the geographical scope of
criminological endeavours that will, as Tankebe et al. (2014) suggested,
take the experience of non-western regions unconditionally serious.
Finally, the main limitation of this paper is patterned by the existing lit-
erature. Whilst most western assumptions are informed by longitudinal
331A Binary Model of Broken Home

data, Nigerian/Ghanaian literature is cross-sectional based. However, even
if this pattern of existing literature across these distinct world regions is
considered as a weakness of this paper in drawing a ‘balanced’ comparative
analysis, it by no means undermine the importance of its main achieve-
ment: the deconstruction of the singular model of ‘broken home’ and pro-
posal of a rather binary model the parental death and parental divorce
hypotheses based on more refined variables. Future research empirical
studies, are needed to substantiate this claim beyond theoretical realm.
NOTE
1. Socioeconomic cybercrimes, primarily driven by commercial benefits, can be
conceptualized as intentional fraud-based crimes that are computer or/and internet-
mediated, such as online fraud, romance scam, and e-embezzlement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Claire P. Monks for proofreading this paper. I thank
Lucinda Platt, Onwubiko Agozino, Justice Tankebe and Sally Mann, for
their academic advice. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for useful
comments on earlier draft of this paper. My profound gratitude goes to
God Almighty for his grace, my family, and friends (Dave, Jovan, Craig,
Ben, Sophie) for their emotional support. I am also grateful to all CDT
members, the EPSRC and the UK government as part of the Centre for
Doctoral Training in Cyber Security at Royal Holloway, University of
London.
REFERENCES
Achebe, C. (1994). Things fall apart. London: Everyman’s Library.
Adegoke, N. (2014). Kidnapping, security challenges and socio-economic implications to the
Niger delta region of Nigeria. Centrepoint Journal (Humanities Edition),16(2),
205216.
Aderibigbe, A. M., & Olla, J. O. (2014). Kidnapping terrorism and political violence, implica-
tion for strategic security management in Nigeria. Developing Country Studies,4(6),
1619.
Adu-Mireku, S. (2002). Fear of crime among residents of three communities in Accra, Ghana.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology,43(2), 153168.
332 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

Agozino, B. (2003). Counter-colonial criminology: A critique of imperialist reason. London:
Pluto Press.
Agozino, B. (2004). Imperialism, crime and criminology: Towards the decolonisation of crim-
inology. Crime, Law and Social Change,41(4), 343358.
Agozino, B. (2010). Editorial: What is criminology? A control-freak discipline! African Journal
of Criminology and Justice Studies,4(1), 120.
Ajaegbu, O. O. (2012). Rising youth unemployment and violent crime in Nigeria. American
Journal of Social Issues and Humanities,2(5), 315321.
Ajayi, J., & Owumi, B. (2013). Socialization and child rearing practices among Nigerian ethnic
groups. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,2(2), 249256.
Akanbi, M., Gbadebo, B., Adekola, P., Olawole-Isaac, A., Sowunmi, A., & Godwin, H.
(2015). Influence of family structure on adolescent sexual behaviour in Mushin local
government area of Lagos state, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Social Science Research,
2(4), 116.
Akanle, O., & Olutayo, O. A. (2011). Kinship construction variability among Nigerian interna-
tional migrants: The context of contemporary diaspora. Human Affairs,21(4),
470480.
Akers, R., & Burgess, R. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal
behavior. Social Problems,14, 363383.
Akinlabi, F. B., & Olatunji, B. F. (2013). Social, economic and educational implications of
parental separation on upbringing of school children in Ekiti state. Global Advanced
Research Journal of Peace, Gender and Development Studies,2(2), 021025.
Akotey, J. O., & Adjasi, C. K. (2015). Exploring the effect of microinsurance on asset inequal-
ity among households in Ghana. The Journal of Developing Areas,49(2), 373398.
Althusser, L. (1971/2001). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Delhi: Monthly Review
Books.
Amato, P., & Anthony, C. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce and death with
fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family,76(2), 370386.
Amato, P. R. (2014). The consequences of divorce for adults and children: An update.
Dru ˇ
stvena istra ˇzivanja-C
ˇasopis za opc
´a dru ˇ
stvena pitanja,1,524.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin,110(1), 26.
Amponsah, B., Akotia, C., & Olowu, A. (2006). Ghana. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. J. van
de Vijver, C¸ . Kagitc¸ ibasi, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), (2006), Families across cultures: A
30-nation psychological study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aniche, A. I. (2015). Sociological approach to study divorce as a social problem and Nigerian
situation: Imperatives for sustainable solutions. Global Journal of Applied, Management
and Social Sciences,8,1318.
Animasahun, R. A. (2014). Marital conflict, divorce and single parenthood as predictors of
adolescent antisocial behaviour in Ibadan. British Journal of Education, Society and
Behavioural Science,4(5), 592602.
Annor, F. (2014). Managing work and family demands: The perspectives of employed parents
in Ghana. In Workfamily interface in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 1736). New York,
NY: Springer International Publishing.
Asante, K. O., Osafo, J., & Nyamekye, G. K. (2014). An exploratory study of factors contri-
buting to divorce among married couples in Accra, Ghana: A qualitative approach.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,55(1), 1632.
333A Binary Model of Broken Home

Aughinbaugh, A., Pierret, C. R., & Rothstein, D. S. (2005). The impact of family structure
transitions on youth achievement: Evidence from the Children of the NLSY79.
Demography,42, 447468.
Bankole, C., & Chipaca, A. (2014). Juvenile delinquency in Angola. Criminology and Criminal
Justice,14(1), 6176.
Barker, V. (2013). Nordic exceptionalism revisited: Explaining the paradox of a Janus-faced
penal regime. Theoretical Criminology,17(1), 525.
Becker, H. (1963/1997). Outsiders: Studies in sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster Ltd.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development,55(1),
8396.
Bendix, R. (1963). Concepts and generalizations in comparative sociological studies. American
Sociological Review,28(4), 532539.
Biblarz, T. J., & Gottainer, G. (2000). Family structure and children’s success: A comparison
of widowed and divorced single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and Family,62(2),
533548.
Boakye, K. (2013). Correlates and predictors of juvenile delinquency in Ghana. International
Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,37(4), 122.
Borgers, N., Dronkers, J., & Van Praag, B. M. (1996). The effects of different forms of two-
and single-parent families on the well-being of their children in Dutch secondary educa-
tion. Social Psychology of Education,1(2), 147169.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. Abingdon: Routledge.
Brathwaite, F. (1996). Some aspects of sentencing in the criminal justice system of Barbados.
Caribbean Quarterly,42(23), 101118.
Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997).
Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child
and Family Studies,6, 233247.
Cain, M. (2000). Orientalism, occidentalism and the sociology of crime. British Journal of
Criminology,40(2), 239260.
Cherlin, A. J., McRae, C., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on men-
tal health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review,63, 239249.
Cohen, S. (2008/1988). Against criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Brunswick Publishers.
Creighton, M. J., Park, H., & Teruel, G. M. (2009). The role of migration and single mother-
hood in upper secondary education in Mexico. Journal of Marriage and Family,71,
13251339.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504553). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Denga, D. (1981). Juvenile delinquency among polygynous families in Nigeria. The Journal of
Social Psychology,114(1), 37.
Denga, D. (1982). Childlessness and marital adjustment in Northern Nigeria. Journal of
Marriage and the Family,44(3), 799802.
Derzon, J. H. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive, crim-
inal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology,6,
263292.
Doyon-Martin, J. (2015). Cybercrime in West Africa as a result of transboundary e-waste.
Journal of Applied Security Research,10(2), 207220.
334 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

Dugdale, R. (1887). “The jukes”: A study in crime, pauperism, disease and hereditary.
New York, NY: G. P. Putman and Sons.
Durkheim, E. (1965/1885). The rules of sociological method. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (2001/1912). The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ebbe, O. N. (1992). Juvenile delinquency in Nigeria: The problem of application of Western
theories. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,16(12),
353370.
Erikson, E. H. (1995). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Vintage.
Fanon, F. (1967/2008). Black skin, white mask. New York, NY: Pluto Press.
Farrington, D. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behaviour. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy,12, 177190.
Farrington, D. (2012a). Childhood risk factors for young adult offending: Onset and persis-
tence. In F. Lo
¨sel, A. E. Bottoms, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Young adult offenders:
Lost in transition? London: Routledge.
Farrington, D. (2012b). Predictors of violent young offenders. In B. C. Feld & D. M. Bishop
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of juvenile crime and juvenile justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2011). Families and crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and
public policy (pp. 130157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., Nagin, D. S., & Moffitt, T. E. (2010). Trajectories of offend-
ing and their relation to life failure in late middle age: Findings from the Cambridge
study in delinquent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,47(2),
151173.
Fawole, O. I., & Adeoye, I. A. (2015). Women’s status within the household as a determinant
of maternal health care use in Nigeria. African Health Sciences,15(1), 217225.
Feit, E. (1968). Military coups and political development: Some lessons from Ghana
and Nigeria. World Politics: A Quarterly Journal of International Relations,20(2),
179193.
Fergusson, D. M., McLeod, G. F., & John Horwood, L. (2014). Parental separation/divorce
in childhood and partnership outcomes at age 30. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry,55(4), 352360.
Fincher, C., & Thornhill, R. (2014). Collectivismindividualism, family ties, and philopatry,
In The parasite-stress theory of values and sociality (pp. 113170). New York, NY:
Springer International Publishing.
Foucault, M. (1977/1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
Fourchard, L. (2005). African urban history: Past and present perspective. Lagos Historical
Review,5(1), 121.
Free, M. D., Jr. (1991). Clarifying the relationship between the broken home and juvenile
delinquency: A critique of the current literature. Deviant Behavior,12(2), 109167.
Freud, S. (1991/1927). Civilization, society and religions: Group psychology and the analysis of
the ego, future of an illusion and civilization and its discontents. New York, NY: Penguin
Books Ltd.
Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geschiere, P., & Gugler, J. (1998). Introduction: The urbanrural connection: Changing issues
of belonging and identification. Africa,68(03), 309319.
Go, J. (2013). For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society,42(1), 2555.
335A Binary Model of Broken Home

Goffman, E. (1967/1990). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London:
Penguin.
Gorman, G. H., Eide, M., & Hisle-Gorman, E. (2010). Wartime military deployment and
increased pediatric mental and behavioral health complaints. Pediatrics,126,
10581066.
Greenwald, A., Pratkanis, A., Leippe, M., & Baumgardner, M. (1986). Under what conditions
does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review,93, 216229.
Gregory, I. (1965a). Anterospective data following childhood loss of a parent: I. Delinquency
and high school dropout. Archives of General Psychiatry,13(2), 99109.
Gregory, I. (1965b). Anterospective data following childhood loss of a parent: II. Pathology,
performance, and potential among college students. Archives of General Psychiatry,
13(2), 110120.
Gugler, J. (2002). The son of the hawk does not remain abroad: The urbanrural connection
in Africa. African Studies Review,45(01), 2141.
Gyekye, K. (1996). African cultural values: An introduction. Accra: Sankofa.
Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. Retrieved from http://sites.middlebury.edu/
nydiasporaworkshop/files/2011/04/D-OA-HallStuart-CulturalIdentityandDiaspora.pdf.
Accessed on June 20, 2014.
Hampshire, K., Porter, G., Agblorti, S., Robson, E., Munthali, A., & Abane, A. (2015).
Context matters: Fostering, orphanhood and schooling in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal
of Biosocial Science,47(02), 141164.
Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J., van der Put, C. E., Dubas, J. S., van der Laan, P. H., & Gerris, J. R.
(2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology,40(5), 771785.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Igbinovia, P. (1988). Perspectives on juvenile delinquency in Africa. International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth,1(2), 131156.
Jampaklay, A. (2006). Parental absence and children’s school enrollment: Evidence from a
longitudinal study in Kanchanaburi, Thailand. Asian Population Studies,2,93110.
Joireman, S. F. (2008). The mystery of capital formation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Women,
property rights and customary law. World Development,36(7), 12331246.
Juby, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted families and
delinquency sociodemography, ethnicity and risk behaviours. British Journal of
Criminology,41(1), 2240.
Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (2004). Criminology and orientalism. In B. Agozino & A. Kalunta-
Crumpton (Eds.), Pan-African issues in crime and justice. Hants: Ashgate Publishing.
Kazdin, A. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kessler, R. C., Kupfer, D. J., & Offord, D. R. (1997).
Contributions of risk-factor research to developmental psychopathology. Clinical
Psychology Review,17, 375406.
Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resili-
ence perspectives. Family Relations,52, 352362.
Kitossa, T. (2012). Criminology and colonialism: Counter colonial criminology and the
Canadian context. Journal of Pan African Studies,4(9), 204226.
Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration,
multiculturalism and the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies,36(1), 126.
336 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

Kuyini, A. B., Alhassan, A. R., Tollerud, I., Weld, H., & Haruna, I. (2009). Traditional kin-
ship foster care in northern Ghana: The experiences and views of children, carers and
adults in Tamale. Child & Family Social Work,14(4), 440449.
LaFree, G. (2007). Expanding the domain of criminology: 2006 presidential address for the
American society of criminology. Criminology,45(1), 131.
Lee, H., Porter, L., & Megan, C. (2014). Consequences of family member incarceration
impacts on civic participation and perceptions of the legitimacy and fairness of govern-
ment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,651(1),
4473.
Lentz, C. (1994). Home, death and leadership: Discourses of an educated elite from North-
Western Ghana. Social Anthropology,2(2), 149169.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population
and Development Review,36(2), 211251.
Li, J. A. (2007). The kids are OK: Divorce and children’s behavior problems. Working Paper
No. WR-489, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology,27,
363385.
Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child
Development,53(6), 14311446.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The
concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys’
delinquency. Journal of Adolescence,24(5), 579596.
Loeber, R., Menting, B., Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Stallings, R., &
Pardini, D. (2012). Findings from the Pittsburgh youth study: Cognitive impulsivity and
intelligence as predictors of the age-crime curve. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,51, 11361149.
Mack, K. Y., Leiber, M. J., Featherstone, R. A., & Monserud, M. A. (2007). Reassessing the
family-delinquency association: Do family type, family processes, and economic factors
make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice,35(1), 5167.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late
colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mazzucato, V., Kabki, M., & Smith, L. (2006). Transnational migration and the economy of
funerals: Changing practices in Ghana. Development and Change,37(5), 10471072.
McCauley, J. F. (2012). Africa’s new big man rule? Pentecostalism and patronage in Ghana.
African Affairs,112(446), 121.
Miller, L. (2014). Juvenile crime and juvenile justice: Patterns, models, and implications for
clinical and legal practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior,19(2), 122137.
Mitchell, J., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Klein, B. (2010). Positive psychology and the internet:
A mental health opportunity. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture,6(2),
3041.
Mivanyi, Y. C. (2006). Nigeria. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. J. van de Vijver, C¸ . Kagitc¸ ibasi, &
Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), (2006), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moffitt, T., Lyam, D., Silva, P., & Bartusch, D. (1997). Is age important? Test a general theory
of developmental and anti-social behaviour. Criminology,35(1), 1348.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behaviour: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,100(4), 674701.
337A Binary Model of Broken Home

Moffitt, T. E., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Fisher, H. L., Merrick, M. T., &
Arseneault, L. (2013). Safe, stable, nurturing relationships break the intergenerational
cycle of abuse: A prospective nationally representative cohort of children in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Adolescent Health,53(4), S4S10.
Mulder, E., Brand, E., Bullens, R., & Van Marle, H. (2010). A classification of risk factors in
serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidi-
vism. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,20(1), 2338.
Myers, G. A. (2006). The unauthorized city: Late colonial Lusaka and postcolonial geography.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,27(3), 289308.
Nelken, D. (2010). Comparative criminal justice: Making sense of difference. London: Sage.
Okorodudu, G. N. (2010). Influence of parenting styles on adolescent delinquency in delta cen-
tral senatorial district. Edo Journal of Counselling,3(1), 5886.
Okpako, J. E. F. (2004). Parenting the Nigerian adolescents towards smooth transition to
adulthood. In I. A. Nwazuoke, O. Bamgbose, & O. A. Morokola (Eds.), Contemporary
Issue and Research in Adolescents (pp. 275288). Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan Omoade
Printing Press.
Oloruntimehin, O. (1973). A study of juvenile delinquency in a Nigeria City. British Journal of
Criminology,13, 157169.
Onyeozili, E. C. (2004). Gunboat criminology and the colonialization of Africa. In B. Agozino &
A. Kalunta-Crumpton (Eds.), Pan-African issues in crime and justice.Hants:Ashgate
publishing.
Otoo, F. E. (2014). Constraints of international volunteering: A study of volunteer tourists to
Ghana. Tourism Management Perspectives,12,1522.
Otu, N. (1999). Colonialism and the criminal justice system in Nigeria. International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,23(2), 293306.
Owusu, G., Agyei-Mensah, S., & Lund, R. (2008). Slums of hope and slums of despair: Mobility
and livelihoods in Nima, Accra. Norwegian Journal of Geography,62, 180190.
Paris, R., DeVoe, E. R., Ross, A. M., & Acker, M. (2010). When a parent goes to war: Effects
of parental deployment on very young children and implications for intervention.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,80, 610618.
Pieterse, J. (1989). Empire and emancipation: Power and liberation on a world scale. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Piquero, A., Welsh, B., Tremblay, R., Farrington, D., & Jennings, W. (2009). Effects of early
family/parenting training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of
Experimental Criminology,5,83120.
Pratt, J. (2008). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess part I: The nature and
roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology,48(2), 119137.
Price, C., & Kunz, J. (2003). Rethinking the paradigm of juvenile delinquency as related to
divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,39(12), 109133.
Ranuga, T. (1986). Frantz Fanon and black consciousness in Azania (South Africa). Phylon,
47(3), 182191.
Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on the children. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry,12(4), 233.
Said, E. (1994). Culture and imperialism. London: Vintage.
Sampson, E. E. (2000). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: Their religious roots
and monologic versus dialogic personother relationship. American Psychologist,
55(12), 14251432.
338 SULEMAN IBRAHIM

Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: Lessons learned and
the future of life-course criminology. Integrated developmental and life course theories of
offending,14, 165182.
Sanni, K., Modo, F., Uduh, N., Ezeh, L., & Okediji, A. (2010). Family types and juvenile
delinquency issues among secondary school students in Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria:
Counseling implications. Journal of Social Science,23(1), 2128.
Sanni, L., & Oyibo, J. (2013). Housing and deviants among civil servants’ adolescent children
in Lokojah, Nigeria. African Journal for Psychological Studies of Social Issues,16(1),
3750.
Savage, J. (2014). The association between attachment, parental bonds and physically aggres-
sive and violent behavior: A comprehensive review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
19(2), 164178.
Selin, H. (2014). Parenting across cultures: Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in non-
western cultures. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shaw, C., & Mckay, H. (1948). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1932). Are broken homes a causative factor in juvenile delin-
quency? Social Forces,10(4), 514524.
Skeggs, B. (2013). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Skinner, A. T., Bacchini, D., Lansford, J. E., Godwin, J. W., Sorbring, E., Tapanya, S. …
Pastorelli, C. (2014). Neighborhood danger, parental monitoring, harsh parenting, and
child aggression in nine countries. Societies,4(1), 4567.
Smith, D., & McVie, S. (2003). Theory and method in the Edinburgh study of youth transi-
tions and crime. British Journal of Criminology,43(1), 169195.
Smith, D. J. (2001). Kinship and corruption in contemporary Nigeria. Ethnos,66(3), 344364.
Smith, D. J. (2004). Burials and belonging in Nigeria: Ruralurban relations and social
inequality in a contemporary African ritual. American Anthropologist,106(3), 569579.
Smith, D. J. (2011). Stretched and strained but not broken: Kinship in contemporary Nigeria.
In A. M. Gonza
´lez, L. de Rose, & F. Oloo (Eds.) Frontiers of globalization: Kinship and
family structures in Africa (pp. 3169). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Sidney: Zed
books.
Stafford, M. C., & Scott, R. R. (1986). Stigma deviance and social control: Some conceptual
issues. In S. C. Ainlay, G. Becker, & L. M. Coleman (Eds.), The dilemma of difference.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Staples, R. (1960). White racism, black crime, and American justice: An application of the
colonial model to explain crime and race. Phylon,36(1), 1422.
Stets, J., & Carter, M. (2012). A theory of self for the sociology of morality. American
Sociological Review,77(1), 120140.
Sun, Y. (2001). Family environment and adolescents’ well-being before and after parents’ mar-
ital disruption: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,63, 697713.
Tade, O. (2013). A spiritual dimension to cybercrime in Nigeria: The ‘yahoo plus’ phenom-
enon. Human Affairs,23(4), 689705.
Tankebe, J., Hills, A., & Bankole, C. (2014). Emerging issues of crime and criminal justice in
sub-Saharan Africa. Criminology and Criminal Justice,14(1), 37.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behaviour problems and pro-
grammes. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
339A Binary Model of Broken Home

Uday, C. (2013). The case for a postcolonial approach to the study of politics. New Political
Science,35(3), 479491.
Ugwuoke, C. U., & Duruji, O. U. (2015). Family instability and juvenile delinquency in
Nigeria: A study of Owerri municipality. Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
20(1), 4045.
Warner, J. (2011). Understanding cyber-crime in Ghana: A view from below. The International
Journal of Cyber Criminology,5, 736749.
Weinberg, S. K. (1964). Juvenile delinquency in Ghana: Comparative analysis of delinquents
and nondelinquents. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science,55,
471481.
Weinberg, S. K. (1965). Urbanization and male delinquency in Ghana. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency,2,8594.
Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact
of broken homes. Social Problems,38(1), 7193.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. (2007a). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors
and effective interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007b). Save children from a life of crime. Criminology &
Public Policy,6(4), 871879.
Wildeman, C., Wakefield, S., & Turney, K. (2013). Misidentifying the effects of parental incar-
ceration? A comment on Johnson and Easterling (2012). Journal of Marriage and
Family,75, 252258.
Wissink, I. B., Asscher, J. J., Dekovic
´, M., Prinzie, P., & Stams, G. J. J. (2014). Delinquent
behavior, poor relationship quality with parents, and involvement with deviant peers in
delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents different processes, informant bias, or both?
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,58(9),
10011019.
340 SULEMAN IBRAHIM