Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.3A, 246-253
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.43A037
246
Parental Influence on Social Anxiety in Children and Adolescents:
Its Assessment and Management Using Psychodrama
Esther F. Akinsola, Pamela Arnold Udoka
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
Received December 18th, 2012; revised January 16th, 2013; accepted February 14th, 2013
Available literature implicates hereditary disposition and environmental conditions in the development of
social anxiety in children. Based on their early experiences children can perceive and interpret normal so-
cial situations and interactions negatively and as threatening. This perceptions can generate anxieties in
them including social and performance anxieties. Based on this premise an attempt was made in this study
to assess social and performance anxieties in some children and adolescents, determine the influence of
parenting on the development of these anxieties and manage those with high levels of these anxieties us-
ing psychodrama as the therapeutic technique. 567 children and adolescents aged 7 - 16 years, (275 males
and 292 females) were assessed on social anxiety, performance anxiety, and parenting style scales. Par-
ticipants who reported high levels of anxiety and who scored higher than the mean scores on the anxieties
scales were managed using psychodrama. Results obtained indicated that permissive parenting style and
its hybrids tend to promote the development of social and performance anxieties in the participants more
than other parenting styles. In addition psychodrama as an intervention therapy was found to be effective
in reducing the levels of social and performance anxieties in the participants managed.
Keywords: Parental Influence; Social Anxiety; Psychodrama
Introduction
Parental Influence on Development
Baumrind (1971) identified parental practices, which influ-
ence the developing child, as parenting style, and this parenting
style was categorized into three types, namely authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. The permissive
parenting style was later differentiated into neglectful and in-
dulgent styles (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
According to Baumrind (1971), authoritarian parenting is re-
strictive and punitive, and places firm limits and controls on
children with little or no verbal exchange. Authoritarian par-
enting is presumed to be associated with social incompetence
and poor communication skills (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritative
parents although put some limits and controls on their chil-
dren’s actions, but they allow extensive verbal dialogue which
promotes parental responsiveness, and encourages independ-
ence, social and cognitive competence, self reliance and social
responsibility in them. Authoritative parents make use of be-
havioural and monitoring controls to guide and direct their
children’s behaviour and provide them with reasons for their
own actions. Authoritative parents encourage reciprocal com-
munication with their children and are open to modifying their
rules if and when necessary (Baumrind, 1967). In permissive
parenting few or no rules and little or no controls are exerted
over the children. Children under such parenting style are given
complete freedom to make their life decisions and behave
autonomously and independently (Baumrind, 1991). This type
of parenting style was associated with social incompetence and
lack of self control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983, Baumrind, 1971).
In Nigeria, parental practices embrace all the parenting styles
with emphasis on obedience and compliance with parental in-
structions (Akinsola, 2011). Many Nigerian parents however
accompany this demand for obedience and compliance with
parental instructions with responsiveness, love, care, sensitivity,
reciprocal dialogue, and explanations for their actions. The
combination of demand for obedience and responsiveness by
parents allows Nigerian children to perceive their parents as
authoritative some of the time and authoritarian at other times.
Research evidence has indicated that authoritative and au-
thoritarian parenting styles as well as their hybrids are signifi-
cantly practiced by Nigerian parents (Akinsola, 2010a). It is
therefore expected that children brought up under permissive
and authoritarian parenting styles and their hybrids would re-
port higher levels of social and performance anxieties than
those brought up under authoritative parenting style.
Social Anxi et y
Social anxiety involves exaggerated, persistent, irrational and
disruptive fear of a particular object, a particular event, or a
particular setting. Social anxiety becomes social anxiety disor-
der when it is very distressing or it interferes with work or
school or other activities. Social anxiety disorder involves
overwhelming anxiety and excessive self consciousness in
everyday social situations (Bruce & Saeed, 1999). People with
social anxiety have a persistent, intense and chronic fear of
being watched and judged by others and of being embarrassed
by their own actions. Social anxiety disorder as defined in
DSM-IV is characterized by a strong and persistent fear of so-
cial or performance situations in which the person concerned
might feel embarrassment or humiliation (DSM-IV American
Psychiatric association, 1994, 2000)
Available literature suggests that hereditary and environ-

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
mental factors contribute to the development of social anxiety
(Chandler,2012, Cuncic, 2012). This is because many children
usually have one or even both parents with anxiety disorders.
Besides behavioural inhibition which is the tendency to react
negatively to new situations or people or things is believed to
be inherited and can lead to social anxiety disorder (Chandler,
2012). Some children may be irritable as infants, shy and fear-
ful as toddlers, cautious, quiet and introverted at the school age,
and this trait may continue to show into adolescence and adult-
hood, and they appear more likely to develop social anxiety
disorder (Schwartz, Snidman, & Kagan, 1999). Children who
consistently behave in this way are more likely to have parents
who have anxiety disorders (Merikangas, Avenevoli, Dierker,
& Grillon, 1999). Children with social anxiety appear less in-
terested in exploring new things, more likely to be embarrassed
about what they say at school, how they look or be afraid of
looking at or doing something stupid. Social phobia typically
occurs between 11-19 years of age (Cuncic, 2012). Socially
phobic children appear less likely to receive positive reactions
from peers and anxious or inhibited children may isolate them-
selves (Spence, Donovan,& Brechman-Toussaint, 1999; Rubin,
& Mills, 1988). It has also been found that parents of children
with anxiety disorders tend to be isolated themselves, and that
shyness in adoptive parents significantly correlated with shy-
ness in adopted children (Bruch, 1989).
Environmental factors such as speech or language problems,
disfiguring physical illness, abuse, neglect, and direct social
experiences have also been linked with social anxiety. For in-
stance, previous social experiences that are traumatic or hu-
miliating have been found to be associated with the onset or
worsening of social anxiety disorders especially those related to
performance anxiety and fear of public speaking (Beidel, 1999,
Beidel & Turner, 1998). In addition parental practices are con-
sidered to be part of environmental factors that may affect the
development of anxiety in children. In this regard, it has been
suggested that children can acquire social anxiety or phobia
through the processes of observational learning and parental
psychosocial education. For example, direct experiences such
as observing or hearing about the socially negative experiences
of others or verbal warnings of social problems and dangers
may make the development of social anxiety disorder more
likely (Mineka, & Zinbarg, 1995; Bidel, & Turner, 1998). So-
cietal attitude to shyness and avoidance has also been found to
be related to social anxiety by affecting the ability to form rela-
tionships or access employment, or education and by causing
shame (Okano, 1994). It has also been found that the effects of
parenting are different depending on the culture. For instance in
one study American children were found to be more likely to
develop social anxiety disorder if their parents emphasize the
importance of others’ opinion and use shame as a disciplinary
strategy, whereas in another study in China, it was found that
shy and inhibited children were more accepted than their peers
and more likely to be considered for leadership and considered
competent (Xinyin, Rubin, &Boshu, 1995). In countries such as
Nigeria where children are to be seen and not heard and as such
are trained to be timid and fearful of adults, parental input in
the socialization of children or parental psychosocial education
may generate social and performance anxieties in them.
Social Anxiety & Intervention Strategies
Social anxiety has been found to be responsive to behav-
ioural and cognitive behavioural therapy involving the use of
exposure (gradual re-entry into feared situation), (Bruce &
Saeed, 1999). Components of cognitive behaviour therapy for
social phobia have been found to include symptom manage-
ment skills, social skill training, cognitive restructuring all of
which are aimed at changing the patients’ anxious thought
processes and exposure. Studies that have examined compo-
nents of behavioural and cognitive behavioural interventions
for social anxiety reported that cognitive behaviour therapy
involving exposure and focusing on changing phobic thinking
can benefit as many as75% of patients (Bruce & Saeed, 1999).
Treadwell, Kumar, & Wright (2005) combined the use of
cognitive behavioural therapy with psychodrama to address the
problems of college students and patients diagnosed with mood,
substance abuse, anxiety and personality disorders. They found
that the students and the clinical populations responded well to
the cognitive behavioural techniques within the context of psy-
chodrama. The techniques helped the clients to become aware
of their habitual dysfunctional thought patterns and beliefs sys-
tem that play an important role in mood regulation. The com-
bination of the techniques provided a balance between an ex-
ploration of emotionally laden situations and a more concrete,
data based, problem-solving process.
Psychodrama
Psychodrama is a therapeutic technique often used as a psy-
chotherapy that uses group role playing and dramatic self pres-
entation and spontaneous dramatization to investigate and gain
insight into clients’ lives. People in a psychodrama group act
out scenes from one person’s life to help them process the issue
they want to address in therapy
Psychodrama was developed by Moreno (1889-1974), and
includes elements of theatre which is often conducted on a
stage where props can be used. By closely re-creating real-life
situations and acting them out in the present, clients have the
opportunity to evaluate their behaviour and more deeply under-
stand a particular situation in their lives
A core tenet of psychodrama as postulated by Moreno is the
theory of “spontaneity-creativity”. Moreno believed that the
best way for an individual to respond creatively to a situation is
through spontaneity which is reflected by a readiness to impro-
vise and respond in the moment. He believed that when people
are encouraged to address a problem in a creative way by re-
acting spontaneously and on impulse they may begin to re-
discover new solutions to the problems in their lives and learn
new roles they can inhabit within it. The focus on spontaneous
action within the psychodrama was developed in Moreno’s
“Theatre of Spontaneity”. According to (Tomasulo, 2011), psy-
chodrama is based on the premise that spontaneity and anxiety
are inversely related such that the more spontaneous a person is
the lower the person’s anxiety. This in Tomasulo’s view makes
the use of psychodrama and role playing in therapy to be very
effective in overcoming anxiety.
In a session of psychodrama, the therapist becomes the di-
rector and one member of the group becomes the protagonist
and focuses on a particular situation to enact on stage. A variety
of scenes may be enacted depicting memories of specific hap-
penings in the clients’ past. These scenes approximate real-life
situations or external representation of inner mental processes
within the individuals in the group. According to Coleman
(2011), acting out scenes from a person’s life allows other

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
group members to address their past issues so that they can
process them and move forward. He pointed out that without
processing such past issues members of the role playing group
cannot move ahead. Furthermore (Coleman, 2011), affirmed
that psychodrama is effective for the treatment of disorders
such as grief, loss, drug and alcohol addiction, depression and
anxiety. Pramann (2005), also emphasized that psychodrama
can be used to facilitate developmental repair, address the
symptoms of post traumatic stress disorders and promote con-
trol, containment and stability.
Psychodrama as Intervention Strategy
Empirical research studies on the use of psychodrama as in-
tervention therapy are scanty. Practitioners of psychodrama
traditionally rely more on clinical experience than experimental
research data. This is because research data on psychodrama are
more descriptive than empirical
Some studies however have been carried out on classical
psychodrama. Kellermann (1987) reviewed some studies that
applied classical psychodrama. In one of such studies (Hall,
1977), compared the differences between an intensive weekend
psychodrama experience, and six spaced (once a week) sessions.
In the study 54 female nursing students were randomly as-
signed to the week-end group, spaced group, and control group.
The two experimental groups had 18 hours experience each.
The results indicated that the intense week-end group recorded
significantly reduced feelings of anxiety, depression, and dis-
tress but such reduction was not recorded for spaced sessions’
group, suggesting that long exposure to psychodrama may be
unimportant. In another study (Shearon, 1975) studied the ef-
fectiveness of psychodrama on fourth grade students. He found
that this approach was no more effective than reality therapy or
bibliotherapy in improving the self esteem of the participants.
Petzold, (1979) in his own study found that most of his sen-
ior participants recorded improved social relations as a result of
one year of psychodrama. In another study, Schramski, Feld-
man, Harvey, & Holiman (1984), studied the effectiveness of
psychodrama with adult correctional residents. They found that
psychodrama was more effective than a non treatment control
group in improving behaviour toward the environment. White,
Rosenblatt, Love, & little (1982) evaluated the effect of a com-
munity based project including psychodrama in the treatment of
child abusing mothers. Results showed that psychodrama was
effective in positively modifying the attitudes of the mothers
through increasing their self-acceptance, self-Control, responsi-
bility, and socialization. Carpenter & Sandberg (1985) found
that psychodrama was effective in improving ego strength and
in developing socialization skills in a small group of delinquent
adolescents. Newman and Hall (1971) also succeeded in treat-
ing socially dysfunctional college students with psychodrama.
These research evidences lend support to the effectiveness of
psychodrama in addressing the problems of adjustment, antiso-
cial, anxiety and related disorders. On the strength of these
reviews it was expected that the use of psychodrama would be
effective in reducing social and performance anxieties in the
participants studied. Hence the following hypotheses guided the
study.
Hypotheses
1) Children brought up under authoritative parenting style
and authoritative/authoritarian parenting style hybrid would be
significantly represented in the sample studied.
2) The highest proportion of children who would report high
levels of anxiety would be those brought up under the authori-
tarian/authoritative parenting style hybrid when compared to
those brought up under other parenting styles.
3) Children brought up under the authoritarian/authoritative
parenting style hybrid would report highest level of anxiety on
all the anxiety measures when compared to those reported by
children brought up under other parenting styles.
4) Psychodrama would be effective in reducing anxiety in the
children such that post treatment scores in anxiety would be
lower than pre-treatment scores.
Method
Participants
567 elementary school children aged between 7 and 16 years
randomly selected from four different schools participated in
the study. The participants were made up of 275 males and 292
females. It should be noted that the participants were not part of
a clinical sample. They were not previously diagnosed as hav-
ing anxiety disorder.
Instruments
Three assessment instruments were administered to the chil-
dren. These were:
Children social anxiety scale;
Performance anxiety scale;
Parenting style scale.
Children Social Anxiety Scale
This scale consists of 20 items and was developed by the re-
searchers taking into account the environmental context. The
scale assesses levels of anxiety in the children. The scale has
two parts. The first part evaluates the anxious events in the
participants’ lives, while the second part evaluates the fre-
quency of the anxiety provoking events and which was meas-
ured by frequency of avoidance. Examples of items in the scale
are: “Telephoning in public gives me (no anxiety, mild anxiety,
severe anxiety); I avoid it—(all the time, once a while, never);
Acting, performing or talking in front of people I don’t know
gives me—(no anxiety, mild anxiety, severe anxiety); I avoid it
—(all the time, once a while, never). The response to the first
part of the scale varied on a 3-point scale where severe anxiety
is scored 3 and no anxiety 1. For the second part, all the time is
scored 3 and never is scored 1. The split half reliability coeffi-
cients for the two parts of the anxiety scale were found to be
0.39, p < .01, and 0.59, p < .01, respectively. Norms were es-
tablished for the two parts of the scale as well.
Performan c e A n x i et y Scale
This scale was also developed by the researchers. The scale
consists of 20 items designed to assess the way children feel
when they meet, greet, talk or perform in front of their friends,
strangers, or a large group of people. Examples of items in the
scale are: describe how you feel anytime you know you are
going to meet, greet, talk or perform in front of your friends,
strangers or a large number of people. Responses to such items
248

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
include (my mouth becomes dry, I start sweating in my palms).
Responses to the scale varied on a 3-point scale of (all the time,
some of the time, none of the time). The split half reliability
coefficient for the scale was found to be 0.58, p < .01. Norms
were also established for this scale.
Parenting Style Scale
The parenting style scale was adapted from (Baumrind‘s
1971) parental care scale. It consists of 20 items designed to
assess the parenting styles under which the children were
brought up.
5 of the items measures permissive style, 6 items measures
authoritarian style and 9 items measures authoritative style.
Examples of items in the scale include: my parents respect my
privacy, “My parents give me a lot of freedom”. Responses to
the scale items varied on a 3-point rating of (agree, uncertain,
disagree). For permissive style the number of items is five. If a
child is uncertain for all the items, the score would be 10.
Therefore any score that is higher than 10 is taken as permis-
sive score, any score higher than 12 is taken as authoritarian
score and any score higher than 18 is taken as authoritative
score. The split half reliability coefficient for the scale was
found to be 0.39, p < .01; five weeks interval test retest reliabil-
ity for the three styles were found to be Permissive—0.67, au-
thoritarian—0.35, Authoritative—0.80, p < .01.
Procedure
For the assessment stage the three instruments were admin-
istered to the children after ensuring that they understood the
instructions and what they were expected to do. For the man-
agement phase, and based on the average mean scores of all the
participants, some of the children who scored higher than the
average mean scores were selected as the management sample.
This sample consisted of 50 children and their scores were rank
ordered from highest to lowest. Out of this sample 24 of them
that had the highest anxiety scores participated in the manage-
ment phase.
Management
Psychodrama was used as the therapeutic technique. This
method of therapy consists of three stages. The stages are: the
warm up stage, the action stage and the sharing stage.
At the warm up stage the director (one of the researchers) in-
teracted with the children and encouraged them to talk about
those situations that make them shy or afraid and they were
asked to choose partners and get acquainted with them.
The action stage started with selection of the antagonist (one
of the participants). The antagonist was told to act out or re-
enact some of the anxiety provoking situations that were dis-
cussed at the warm up stage. Scenes involving head-teacher-
student, mother/father/children, and eating in public places
were re-enacted. There after a protagonist was chosen amongst
those who had the fear of public speaking to act as the VC of
the University and to address the staff school children. All the
activities enacted involved all the items in the performance
inventory scale and the children Social anxiety scale. These
activities were aimed at showing the children that their per-
ceived anxiety was nothing other than a distortion of the mind.
In the sharing stage the group members were invited to ex-
press and share their feelings on what they now understand as
anxiety. After this interactive session the post test was given to
the children to find out if any significant changes had occur red
as a result of the therapeutic sessions. The psychodrama therapy
was carried out in three days.
Results
Frequency Distribution Statisti cs
Hypothesis One
Children brought up under authoritative parenting style and
authoritative/authoritarian parenting style hybrid would be sig-
nificantly represented in the sample studied.
From Table 1 above out of 565 participants 273 or 48.3% of
the children reported being brought up under the authorita-
tive/authoritarian parenting style hybrid. The chi-square (x2)
value for this proportion is 8.54 and it is significant at p < .01.
Similarly out of 565 children studied 79 of them or 14% re-
ported being brought up under authoritative parenting style.
The chi-square (x2) value for this proportion is 3.92 and it is
also significant at p < .01. In addition out of the 565 children
who participated in this study, 113 or 20% of them reported
being brought up under the permissive/authoritative/authori-
tarian parenting style hybrid. Furthermore the chi-square (x2)
value for this proportion is 4.75 and it is significant at p < .01.
By these results the first hypothesis is thus supported and an
additional hybrid the permissive/authoritarian/authoritative pa-
renting style hybrid is also significantly represented.
Hypothesis Two
The highest proportion of children who would report high
levels of anxiety would be those brought up under the authori-
tarian/authoritative parenting style hybrid when compared to
those brought up under other parenting styles.
A look at Table 2, showed that the highest number of chil-
dren that reported high levels of social anxiety, highest fre-
quency of anxiety and highest levels of performance anxiety
were those brought up under the authoritative/authoritarian
parenting style hybrid with proportions of (142/295, 48.14%),
(145/276, 52.54%), and (109/266, 40.98%). The chi-squares (x2)
for these proportions are: 8.51, 9.11, and 7.62 respectively.
Table 1.
Distribution of parenting styles and their hybrids in the sample.
Parenting style No % x2
Permissive 11 1.9
Authoritarian 13 2.3
Authoritative 79 14 3.92*
Permissive & authoritarian 19 3.4
Permissive & authoritative 37 6.5
Authoritarian & authoritative 273 48.3 8.54*
Perm/authoritarian/authoritative 113 20.0 4.75*
Undifferentiated 20 3.5
Total 565 100
Note: Chi-square table values are: (x2 = 1.9, p ≤ .05; 2.58, p ≤ .01)) 6

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
250
Table 2.
Distribution of high levels of anxiety according to parenting styles.
Parenting Style Social Anxiety No % and x2Anxiety Frequency No % and x2 Performance Anxiety No % and x2
Permissive 7 2.37 2 0.73 7 2.63
Authoritarian 6 2.03 7 2.54 4 1.50
Authoritative 40
13.56
3.41** 32 11.59 2.98** 39 14.66 3.98**
Permissive/Authoritarian 9 3.05 8 2.90 14 5.26
Permissive/Authoritative 22 7.46 13 4.71 25 9.40
3.79**
Authoritarian/Authoritative 142
48.14
8.51** 145 52.54 9.11** 109 40.98 7.62**
Perm/Authoritarian/Authoritative 61 20.68
4.82** 59 21.38 4.98** 63 23.68 5.11**
Undifferentiated 8 2.71 10 3.62 5 1.88
Total 295 100 276 100 266 100
Note: Chi-square (x2) table values are: x2 = 1.96, p ≤ .05, 2.58, p ≤ .01.
The values are significant at p < .01. The next high frequency
of children that reported high levels of social anxiety, frequency
of anxiety and high levels of performance anxiety were children
brought up under the permissive/authoritarian/authoritative par-
enting style hybrid. The proportions are: (61/295, 20.68%),
(59/276, 21.38%), and (63/266, 23.68%). The chi-square values
for these proportions are: 4.82, 4.98, and 5.11 respectively.
These values are significant at p < .01. The next high frequency
involved those children brought up under the authoritative par-
enting style. The proportions of these children that reported
high levels of anxiety are: (40/295, 13.56%), (32/276, 11.59%)
and (39/266, 14.66%). The chi-square values for the propor-
tions are: 3.41, 2.98, and 3.98 respectively. Similarly they are
significant at p < .01. The last significant frequency of children
that reported high levels of performance anxiety were those
brought up under the permissive/authoritative parenting style
hybrid. The proportion is: (25/266, 9.40%). The chi-square
value for this proportion is 2.61, and the value is significant at p
< .01. These results support the second hypothesis.
Descriptive Statistics Results
The scores in Table 3 represent the norms for the social and
performance anxiety scales. The participants that participated in
the management phase were selected from those who scored
higher than the mean scores reported above. The mean scores
and standard deviations of anxiety measures according to the
three single parenting styles are reported in Table 4.
From Table 4 above it is observed that children brought up
under permissive parenting scored highest in social anxiety
and performance anxiety. For frequency of anxiety, children
brought up under the authoritarian parenting style had the high-
est score. However these differences were not statistically sig-
nificant.
Hypothesis Three
Children brought up under the authoritarian/authoritative
parenting style hybrid would report the highest level of anxiety
on all the anxiety measures when compared to those reported
Table 3.
Means and standard deviation scores of the participants in the meas-
ures.
No Mean Standard Dev.
Social anxiety 565 37.56 6.84
Frequency of anxiety 565 40.00 7.35
Performance anxiety 565 35.02 5.91
Table 4.
Means & Std. deviation of anxiety scores according to the three main
parenting styles.
Parenting
style
Social
anxiety
Frequency
of anxiety
Performance
anxiety
MeanStd Dev.Mean Std. Dev. MeanStd. Dev.
Permissive
No = 11 38.645.99 37.00 6.51 37.55 4.50
Authoritarian
No = 13 36.385.42 42.46 9.73 33.23 6.06
Authoritative
No = 79 36.157.93 39.40 6.58 34.63 6.41
by children brought up under other parenting styles.
From Table 5 above children brought up under permis-
sive/authoritarian hybrid scored highest in performance anxiety
followed by those under permissive/authoritative hybrid, fol-
lowed by those under permissive/authoritative/authoritarian hy-
brid then authoritarian/authoritative hybrid and lastly those
under the undifferentiated hybrid in that order. Children brought
up under the permissive/authoritative hybrid scored highest in
social anxiety. This is followed by those brought up under per-
missive/authoritative/authoritarian hybrid. Children brought up
under the undifferentiated hybrid scored lowest in social anxi-
ety. For frequency of social anxiety children brought up under
permissive/authoritarian/authoritative hybrid had the highest
score, while those brought up under permissive/authoritarian
hybrid had the least score. In other to determine if these differ-

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
ences are significant the data was subjected to analysis of vari-
ance test. The results are presented in Table 6.
From Table 6 below, the difference in mean scores is sig-
nificant only for performance anxiety. As can be seen in Table
5 below those children brought up under permissive/authori-
tarian hybrid scored highest on performance anxiety, and those
brought up under undifferentiated hybrid scored lowest. These
results do not support hypothesis three. On the contrary the
results suggest that permissive parenting style and its hybrids
tend to promote anxiety more in children than other parenting
styles.
Hypothesis Four
Psychodrama will be effective in reducing anxiety in the
children such that post treatment scores in anxiety would be
lower than pre-treatment scores.
From Table 7 it is evident that psychodrama was effective in
reducing social and performance anxiety in the children. The
pre-test and post-test mean scores of the children are: (Social
anxiety: 29.08, 21.75, t = 8.12, p < .01); (Frequency of anxiety:
37.87, 30.43, t = 2.68, p < .05); and (Performance anxiety:
31.79, 27.92, t = 2.36, p < .05). These pre and post test mean
scores are significantly different. Therefore by these results
the fourth hypothesis is supported.
Discussion
Major Findings:
1) Children brought up under authoritative parenting style,
authoritarian/authoritative parenting style, permissive/authori-
tarian/authoritative parenting style and permissive/authoritative
parenting style were significantly represented in the sample
studied.
2) The highest proportion of children who reported higher
levels of anxiety (higher than the norm), was for children
brought up under authoritarian/authoritative parenting style
hybrid.
3) Children brought up under permissive/authoritarian par-
enting hybrid reported the highest level of performance anxiety.
4) Psychodrama was found to be effective in reducing anxi-
ety levels in the children.
In terms of frequency distribution, children brought up under
authoritarian/authoritative parenting style were highest in
number in the total sample and highest in number that reported
the three levels of anxiety studied. This is followed by the
Table 5.
Mean scores & Std. Deviation of anxiety scores according to parenting style hybrids.
Social Anxiety Frequency of anxiety Performance anxiety
MeanStd. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Perm/authoritarian No = 19 36.7410.85 37.58 10.61 38.26 5.48
Permissive/authoritative No = 37 38.787.11 38.97 4.95 37.24 4.61
Authoritarian/authoritative No = 273 37.776.40 40.22 6.89 34.08 5.88
Perm/authoritative/authoritarian. No = 113 38.156.05 40.81 7.74 36.72 5.31
Undifferentiated No = 20 35.457.88 39.10 11.62 32.40 6.31
Table 6.
ANOVA summary table for all the anxiety variables.
Measures Source SSQ df MSQ F
Social anxiety
Between
Within
Total
181.81
20347.27
20529.08
4
457
461
45.45
44.52 1.02
Frequency of social anxiety
Between
Within
Total
249.05
25088.75
25337.80
4
457
461
62.263
54.90 1.13
Performance anxiety
Between
Within
Total
1088.02
14632.02
15720.04
4
457
461
272.01
32.02
8.05*
p < .05
Table 7.
Pre & post test scores of children in the anxiety measures.
Pre-test (N = 24) Post-test (N = 24) t
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Social anxiety 29.08 3.50 21.75 2.71 8.12**
Frequency of anxiety 37.87 7.53 30.43 11.22 2.68*
Performance anxiety 31.79 6.37 27.92 4.91 2.36*
Note: **p < .01; *p < .05

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
number of those brought up under the combination of the three
parenting styles namely the permissive/authoritarian/authori-
tative parenting style hybrid. Next in number is the children
brought up by authoritative parents. The significant representa-
tion of the children brought up under the authoritarian/authori-
tative parenting style in this study agrees with earlier findings
(Akinsola, 2010, 2011) that this parenting style hybrid is sig-
nificantly and commonly practiced in Nigeria. One important
observation is the fact that in the earlier studies (Akinsola, 2010,
2011) in which young people served as the participants au-
thoritative parenting recorded the highest frequency of partici-
pants followed by the authoritarian/authoritative parenting.
However in this study, where children served as participants,
the authoritarian/authoritative parenting hybrid recorded the
highest frequency of participants. The implication here seems
to be that as Nigerian children grow up and mature, they tend to
perceive their parents more as authoritative and less as authori-
tarian.
The findings of this study as depicted in (Table 3) suggest
that permissive parenting tend to promote the highest level of
social and performance anxiety in the children when compared
to the levels of anxiety being promoted by other parenting
styles and the levels of anxiety reported by the total sample
(Table 3). Though this tendency was not statistically significant,
it was significant that children brought up under the permis-
sive/authoritarian parenting style reported the highest level of
performance anxiety. These findings reflect the contribution of
parental psychosocial education embedded in parenting styles
to the development of social anxiety in Nigerian children, and
the fact that all types of parenting style promote anxiety in
children raised under them, with authoritative parenting pro-
moting the least anxiety and permissive parenting promoting
the highest level of anxiety in the children. The influence of
parenting styles on social anxiety in children demonstrated in
this study also reflect societal attitude to shyness and cultural
dimension of parental socialisation of Nigerian children. The
traditional Nigerian society believes that children are to be seen
and not heard and as such child training method promotes ti-
midity and shyness in the children.
Psychodrama was found to be effective in reducing anxieties
in the children who went through therapy. This finding agrees
with the findings of Hall (1977), White et al. (1982), and Car-
penter, & Sandberg) (1985). Hall, (1997) found the intensive
weekend psychodrama experience effective in significantly
reducing feelings of anxiety, depression and distress in nurses,
while White et al. 1982, found psychodrama effective in modi-
fying child abusing mothers’ attitude and in improving their
self control and socialisation. Carpenter, & Sandberg, 1985, in
their own research, found psychotherapy effective in improving
ego strength and in developing social skills in delinquent ado-
lescents. The present finding further confirms the effectiveness
of psychodrama in reducing social and performance anxieties
and promoting public appearance confidence. Of note is the fact
that the children who went through psychodrama therapy were
not clinical samples. However given the success of the therapy
it can be confidently inferred that psychodrama therapy can be
effective in reducing anxieties in Nigerian clinical samples. In
addition some cognitive restructuring of the children’s feelings
about the objects or situations provoking fears or anxieties in
them was carried out. It is therefore suggested that it is needful
to combine psychodrama therapeutic approach with cognitive
restructuring to ensure effective and enduring outcome of psy-
chodrama therapy.
REFERENCES
Akinsola, E. F. (2011). Relationships between parenting style, family
type, personality disposition and academic achievement of young
people in Nigeria. Ife PsychologIA, 19, 246-267.
Akinsola, E. F. (2010a). Correlation between parenting styles and sex-
ual attitudes of young people in Nigeria: comparison of two ethnic
groups. Gender and Behaviour, 8, 2771-2788.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Anxiety disorders. In Diag-
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (pp. 450-456).
Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of
preschool behaviour. G eneti c Psychology Monograph, 75, 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Develop-
mental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent
competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11,
56-95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004
Beidel, D. C. (1999). Psychopathology of childhood social phobia.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia-
try, 38, 643-650. doi:10.1097/00004583-199906000-00010
Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (1998). Shy children, phobic adults: The
nature and treatment of social phobia. American Psychological As-
sociation Books.
Bruce, T. J., & Saeed, S. Y. A. (1999). Social anxiety disorder: A com-
mon under-recognised mental disorder. American Family Physician,
60, 2311-2320
Bruch, M. A. (1989). Familial and developmental antecedents of social
phobia: Issues and Findings. Clinical Psychology R e vi e w , 9, 37-47.
doi:10.1016/0272-7358(89)90045-7
Carpenter, P., & Sandberg, S. (1985). Further psychodrama with delin-
quent adolescents. Adolescence, 20, 599-604.
Chandler, J. (2012). Social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents.
URL (last checked 17 September 2012).
http://www.dis.com/chandler/pamphlet/socphob/socphobpamphlet.ht
m
Coleman, B. (2011). Psychodrama produces dramatic results in therapy.
URL (last checked 17 September 2012). http://4therapy.com
Cuncic, A. (2012). Modeling social skills to your child with social an-
xiety disorder. URL (last checked 17 September 2012).
http://socialanxietydisoder.about.com/od/childrenandsad/a/rolemodel
.hmt
Hall, I. (1977). The effects of an intensive weekend psychodrama ver-
sus spaced psychodrama sessions on anxiety, distress and attitude to-
ward group interaction in nursing students. Ph.D. Dissertation, Mex-
ico: University of Mexico.
Kellermann, P. F. (1987). Outcome research in classical psychodrama.
Group Behaviour, 18 , 459-469. doi:10.1177/104649648701800402
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A.(1983). Socialization in the context of
the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen, (Ed.), Hand-
book of child psychology (4th edition). New York: Wiley.
Merikangas, A. S., & Grillon, D. L. (1999). Vulnerability factors among
children at risk for anxiety disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1523-
1535. URL (last checked 17 September 2012).
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (1995). Conditioning and ethological models
of social phobia. In R. Heimberg, M. Liebowitz, D. Hope, & F.
Schneier, (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosi s, assessment and treatment
(pp. 134-162). New York: Guilford Press.
Moreno, J. L. (1953). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry,
group psychotherapy and psychodrama. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
Newman, G, & Hall, R. C. W. (1971). Acting out: An indication for
psychodrama. Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, & Sociometry,
24, 87-96
Okano, K. (1994). Shame and social phobia: A transcultural viewpoint.
252

E. F. AKINSOLA, P. A. UDOKA
Bull Menninger Clinical, 58, 323-338. URL (last checked 17 Sep-
tember 2012).
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
Petzold, H. (1979). Psychodrama therapie: Theorie, methoden, anwen-
dung in der arbeit mit alten Menschen. Paderborn: Junfermann.
Pramann, R. (2005). Enhancing treatment effectiveness: Using psycho-
drama to address the trauma and pain of victims and perpetrators.
Paper Presented at the Utah Domestic Violence Council’s 11th An-
nual Domestic Violence Treatment Conference.
Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. (1988). The many faces of social isolation
in childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
916-924. URL (last checked 17 September 2012).
http://content.apa.org/journals/ccp/56/6/916
Schramski, T. G., Feldman, C. A., Harvey, D. R., & Holiman, M. A.
(1984). A comparative evaluation of group treatment in an adult cor-
rectional facility. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and
Sociometry, 36, 133-147.
Schwartz, C., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J., (1999). Adolescent social
anxiety as an outcome of inhibited temperament in childhood. Jour-
nal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38,
1008-1015. URL (last checked 17 September 2012).
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
Shearon, E. M. (1975). The effect of psychodrama treatment on pro-
fessed and inferred self concepts of selected fourth graders in one
elementary school. Ph.D Dissertation, Gainesville, FL: University of
Florida.
Spence, S. H., Donovan, C., & Brechman-Toussaint, M. (1999). Social
skills, social outcomes, and cognitive features of childhood social
phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 211-221. URL (last
checked 17 September 2012).
http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/108/2/211
Tomasulo, D. J. (2011). Psychodrama, spontaneity & anxiety: The more
spontaneous you are the lower your anxiety. The Healing Crowd:
Psychology Today, 4 February 2011.
Treadwell, T., Kumar, V. K., & Wright, J. H. (2005). Enriching psy-
chodrama through the use of cognitive behavioural therapy techni-
ques. Unpublished manuscript. URL (last checked 17 September
2012). http://Psychodrama and Cognitive therapy.pdf
White, E. W., Rosenblatt, E., Love, A., & Little, D. (1982). Psycho-
drama and life skills: A treatment alternative in child abuse. Unpub-
lished Manuscript, Toronto: Center for Psychodrama and Sociome-
try.
Chen, X. Y., Rubin, K. H., & Boshu, L. (1995). Social and school ad-
justment of shy and aggressive children in China. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 337-349. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006544