Survey assesses impact of parental supervision and personality type on online grooming in adolescents, suggesting preventive measures.
In recent times, online grooming has been discovered to be a developing societal problem with adverse impact on adolescents. This study investigated parental supervision, personality type and peer rejection as predictors of online grooming of adolescents in secondary schools. Three hundred and thirty-four students made up of 102 males (30.5%) and 232 females (69.5%) selected from a population of Senior Secondary 2 students in secondary schools in Uyo Metropolis participated in the study. The participants were drawn using purposive sampling technique. The ages of the participants ranged between 12-24 years, and their mean age was 15.07 years. The study was a survey, and the design of the study was a cross sectional design. Parental Awareness and Monitoring of Adolescent Internet Use, The Big Five Inventory, Social Peer Rejection Measure, and the Multidimensional Online Grooming Questionnaire were the instruments used in the study. Data was analyzed using multiple regression. The results of the study revealed that parental supervision independently predicted online grooming of adolescents (β = -0.17, t = 3.26, p < .01). Results also showed that personality type independently predicted online grooming of adolescents (β = 0.12, t = 2.33, p < .05). In addition, the result of the study revealed that peer rejection independently predicted online grooming of adolescents (β = 0.26, t = 4.82, p < .01). It was also found that parental supervision, personality type, and peer rejection jointly predicted online grooming of adolescents (R² = 0.14, F (3,446) = 7.78, p < .01). In conclusion, parental supervision, personality type, and peer rejection are predictors of online grooming of adolescents. It was recommended that behavioral and psycho-educational interventions be established for adolescents with specific risk factors (high openness to experience and high peer rejection).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emeh A. Udoh (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: