the impact of family relations and personality factors on delinquent behaviours among youth

University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection

University of Wollongong Year

The impact of family relations and

personality factors on delinquent

behaviours among youth

Nadine C. PeiserUniversity of Wollongong

Peiser, Nadine C., The impact of family relations and personality factors on delinquentbehaviours among youth, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Faculty of Health and BehaviouralSciences, University of Wollongong, 2001. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1843

This paper is posted at Research Online.

THE IMPACT OF FAMILY RELATIONS

AND PERSONALITY FACTORS ON

DELINQUENT BEHAVIOURS AMONG YOUTH

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree

Ph.D (CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY)

from

THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

Department of Psychology

by

NADINE C. PEISER

2001

DECLARATION

This thesis was completed under the supervision of Associate Professor Pafrick

Heaven, at the Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong. It is submitted

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of PhD (Clinical Psychology).

I certify that this manuscript is entirely my own work. It has not been submitted for

qualifications at any other academic institution.

The data reported in Study 1 were published in 1996 in the Journal of

Adolescence, volume 19, pages 557-568 (see Appendix A). The data reported in

Study 2 has being submitted for publication to Personality and Individual

Differences. The data reported in Study 3 were presented to the First Australian

Forensic Psychology Conference, in Sydney, 9* Febraary 2001. The papers are co-

authored by Dr Heaven.

Nadine C. Peiser 2 October 2001

Ill

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my parents

in gratitude for their support

of me as their daughter,

in gratitude for their encouragement

of me educationally which has

culminated in this PhD thesis,

in admiration of the unique people

that Mom is and Dad was,

and in awareness of

the enormous impact

they have had on my life,

and the rich contribution

they have made to who I am.

And, dedicated to my husband

who has inspired my thinking

with his thinking,

who has extended me

and opened worlds to me,

who has had faith in me.

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to a number of people whose support and encouragement helped me to complete this thesis.

In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to my Supervisor, Associate Professor Patrick Heaven - for sharing his interest in Adolescence with me, for his commitment to me and my research, for his constant encouragement and belief in me, for his time, prompt reading of my work, and for the helpful guidance and supervision he has given me throughout this research process.

I would like to thank Peter Caputi for his invaluable advice regarding the statistical aspects of my research. I would like to thank Dr Jessica Grainger for her encouragement of me over the years. I would like to thank Professor Bob Barry, Head of the Department of Psychology, the acadenuc staff and the support staff of the department for their support, help and encouragement.

To my Mother, Father and sisters, Andrea, Stephanie and Michelle - I am forever grateful to you for your never-ending love, for the way you all have stood by me throughout the years of this research project, for your interest in my work, for your confidence in me, and for spuning me on.

To my husband Edward - I thank you for your practical support, love and care, for listening to my ideas, for challenging me, and with encouragement, helping me to become focused.

To my friends - who supported me and encouraged me - 1 am grateful.

Finally, I am indebted to the students and parents who participated in this research, and the school staff who made the data collection mn smoothly - my thanks to them, without whom this thesis could not have been accomplished.

Abstract

Adolescent dehnquency is a growing social problem affecting individuals, families,

and communities. The cunent research comprised three studies, which sought to

explore the contribution of family and personality factors to self-reported

delinquency, and to discover the nature of the relationship between perceptions of

parental discipline style and perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviour.

The fust study examined the links between perceptions of family relationships,

perceptions of parental discipline style, locus of control, self-esteem and self-

reported delinquency among Australian high school stadents (N = 177). The

prediction that locus of control and self-esteem would mediate the effects of family

processes on delinquency was tested using stmctural equation modelling. Although

there appeared to be a good fit between the data and the proposed model, the amount

of variance explained by the predictor variables was not large. Among females, the

best predictor of low levels of self-reported delinquency was an inductive discipline

style, whilst for males high levels of self-reported delinquency were best predicted

by a punitive discipline style. Among males, positive family relations was a

significant predictor of high self-esteem. No mediating effects of self-esteem and

locus of confrol were observed. Given these results and the findings of previous

research indicating links between family process factors, Eysenck's Psychoticism

(P) factor, and delinquency, the second study investigated the relationships between

perceptions of parental discipline style, perceptions of parental bonding, P, and self-

reported delinquency among a sample of delinquent youth (N = 39). It aimed to

determine the intervening effect of P on family process factors and self-reported

delinquency. As expected, this sample of delinquent youth obtained significantly

VI

higher delinquency scores than mainstream high school students, as well as

significantly higher P levels than established norms. Scores on the parental bonding

instmment differed significantly in the expected direction from nondelinquent

students. Self-reported delinquency was significantly related to an inductive

parental discipline style and high P levels. As predicted, P mediated the effect of

inductive parenting on delinquency. The third study aimed to assess the stracture of

adolescents' and adults' perceptions of the seriousness of behaviours labelled as

"delinquent", and to determine whether these perceptions vary across the sex of the

respondent and sex of target (that is, the person engaging in the behaviour). A

further aim was to examine whether these perceptions are linked to particular

parenting discipline styles. The results indicated that, within a sample of high

school students (N = 321) and their parents (N = 193), adolescent and adult

perceptions of delinquent behaviours are multi-dimensional, possessing a particular

stmcture. As expected, sex of target and sex of respondent were found to have some

impact on adolescents' perceptions of offence seriousness. Parental discipline style

was found to be especially important in predicting the perceptions of adolescent

boys rather than girls, as well as some perceptions of parents. In exanuning the

contribution of family and personality factors to delinquency, all the studies in this

research found parental discipline style to be a key variable. The results of the three

studies are discussed with reference to previous research, recommendations for

intervention and clinical practice are made, and implications of the findings for

further research are noted.

Vll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE (i) DECLARATION (ii) DEDICATION (iii) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (iv) ABSTRACT (v) TABLE OF CONTENTS (vii) LIST OF TABLES (x) LIST OF FIGURES (xii)

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Delinquency: the problem 1 1.2 Conduct Disorder versus delinquency 3 1.3 Incidence 7 1.4 Psychological perspectives on the causes of delinquency 8

1.4.1 Biological factors and heredity 9 1.4.2 Personality 12

1.4.2.1 The Eysenckian perspective 13 1.4.2.2 Self-esteem 21 1.4.2.3 Locus of control 22

1.4.3 Environmental factors 25 1.4.3.1 School influences 26 1.4.3.2 The role of the peer group 28 1.4.3.3 Family influences on delinquency 32

1.4.3.3.1 Family sttiicmre 33 1.4.3.3.2 Family process 35

1.4.4 General summary and conclusion 41 1.5 The present series of studies 42

1.5.1 Study 1 44 1.5.2 Study 2 45 1.5.3 Study 3 46

CHAPTER 2: STUDY 1 48 Family and personality influences on self-reported delinquency among high school students 2.1 Infroduction 48 2.2 Aims 49 2.3 Hypotheses 49 2.4 Method 50

2.4.1 Respondents 50 2.4.2 Measures 52 2.4.3 Procedure 55

2.5 Results 56

VIU

2.5.1 Descriptive statistics 56 2.5.2 Conelational analyses 56 2.5.3 Stmctural equation modelling .57

2.6 Discussion 61 2.6.1 General findings 62 2.6.2 Implications of findings for clinical practice 65 2.6.3 Methodological linutations of the study 68 2.6.4 Implications for further research 69

2.7 Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 3: STUDY 2 71 Family and personality influences on self-reported delinquency among delinquent students 3.1 Infroduction 71 3.2 Aims 76 3.3 Hypotheses 76 3.4 Method 78

3.4.1 Respondents 78 3.4.2 Measures 78 3.4.3 Procedure 80

3.5 Results 81 3.5.1 Descriptive statistics 81 3.5.2 Conelational analyses 85 3.5.3 Parental groups and adolescent adjustment 87 3.5.4 Regression analyses 88

3.6 Discussion 90 3.6.1 General findings 91 3.6.2 Implications of findings for clinical practice 96 3.6.3 Methodological limitations of the study 99 3.6.4 Implications for further research 100

3.7 Conclusion 101

CHAPTER 4: STUDY 3 103 Perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours. 4.1 Introduction 103

4.1.1 Study rationale 104 4.2 Background literature regarding perceptions of delinquent behaviours 106

Hypotheses 1 to 3 108 4.3 The influence of family climate 108

Hypothesis 4 110 4.4 Method I l l

4.4.1 Respondents I l l 4.4.2 Measures 113 4.4.3 Procedure 120

4.5 Results 121 4.5.1 Descriptive statistics 121 4.5.2 Conelational analyses 127 4.5.3 Multiple regression analyses 128

IX

4.6 Discussion 135 4.6.1 General findings and theoretical implications 135 4.6.2 Implications of findings for clinical practice 141 4.6.3 Implications for further research 144

4.7 Conclusion 145

CHAPTER 5: GENERAL DISCUSSION 146 5.1 Introduction 146 5.2 Summary of the findings 147 5.3 Theoretical implications 149 5.4 Implications for intervention and clinical practice 155 5.5 Directions for future research 161 5.6 Thesis conclusion 163

REFERENCES 164

APPENDICES 197 A. Study 1 Joumal publication 198 B. Study 1 Questionnaire 211 C. Study 1 Consent Forms 222 D. Study 2 Questionnaire 225 E. Study 2 Consent Fomis 239 F. Study 3 Questionnaire - Student sample 242 G. Study 3 Questionnaire - Parent sample 253 H. Study 3 Consent Forms - Student sample 264 I. Study 3 Consent Forms - Parent sample 267

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Chapter one: Introduction

Table 1: Tabulated studies that offer full or partial support for the Eysenckian thesis regarding crime and personality (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 586,587) 17

Table 2: Tabulated studies that show results that do not support the Eysenckian thesis regarding crime and personality (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 587) 19

Table 3: Tabulated studies looking at the relationship between the Eysenckian personality dimensions and self-reported delinquency (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 588) 19

Chapter two: Study 1

Table 1: Students' living arrangements 51

Table 2: Parents' occupational prestige 52

Table 3: Mean scores and standard deviations on measures 56

Table 4: Pearson conelations between measures 58

Table 5: Goodness-of-fit indicators 59

Chapter three: Study 2

Table 1: Descriptive statistics 82

Table 2: Parental Bonding scores of delinquent and nondelinquent male students 83

Table 3: Comparison between Study 1 and Study 2 means on parental discipline

style measures for males only 85

Table 4: Pearson conelations between measures 86

Table 5: Mean delinquency and P scores for the different parenting styles 87

Table 6: Multiple regression analyses 89

XI

Chapter four: Study 3

Table 1: Percentage of respondents engaged in certain behaviours 104

Table 2: Parents' occupational prestige of the adolescent sample 112

Table 3: Occupational prestige of the adult sample 113

Table 4: Rotated factor loading for the perceived seriousness of behaviours .... 115

Table 5: Rotated factor loading for the perceived seriousness of behaviours .... 117

Table 6: Mean scores and standard deviations on perceived seriousness factors female and male student respondents as they relate to female and male targets 122

Table 7: Mean scores and standard deviations on perceived seriousness factors female and male parent respondents as they relate to female and male targets 123

Table 8: Mean scores and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness of behaviours items for students and parents 124

Table 9: Mean scores and standard deviations on parent discipline style measures for female and male students 126

Table 10: Mean scores and standard deviations on parent discipline style measures for female and male parents 126

Table 11: Conelations between discipline style and perceived seriousness factors for adolescent male respondents 129

Table 12: Conelations between discipline style and perceived seriousness factors for adolescent female respondents 130

Table 13: Conelations between discipline style and perceived seriousness factors for adult male respondents 131

Table 14: Conelations between discipline style and perceived seriousness factors for adult female respondents 132

Table 15: Multiple regression analyses for male smdents 134

Xll

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Chapter two: Study 1

Figure 1: Path diagram of causal relationships for females 60

Figure 2: Path diagram of causal relationships for males 61

Chapter three: Study 2

Figure 1: Mediation of parental induction by psychoticism 90

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Adolescent delinquency is now a world-wide phenomenon attracting much research

attention, reflecting the growing need for unravelling what has become a community,

family and individual problem. While a multiplicity of factors contribute to its

development, poor fanuly management practices - in particular defective discipline -

have been shown to be powerful, strong and consistent predictors (for example, Ge,

Conger, Cadoret, Neiderhiser, Yates, Troughton & Stewart, 1996; Goldstein & Heaven,

2000; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zehi & Huesman, 1996; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Mak,

1994; Shaw & Scott, 1991).

Based on a review of the delinquency literature, there is strong indication that the

way in which a child is disciplined within the fanuly unit is vital to gaining a deeper

understanding of the nature of delinquency. This thesis explores, inter alia, the effect of

family factors, in particular parental discipline style, on self-reported delinquency, as

well as the importance of personality factors. In addition, it investigates whether a link

exists between young people's and adults' perceptions of identified delinquent

behaviours and the discipline style they have experienced/used.

1.1 Delinquency: the problem

The eyes of the world have been drawn to unthinkable acts of violence in recent

years, committed by young people. And it is this that causes the most shock: the age of

the perpetrators.

fri Britain in 1993, a three year old boy was bmtally murdered by two 10-year-olds

(Zwi & Rifkin, 1995). fri the USA there have been a number of fatal shootings by

adolescents over the last few years: in 1996, a 14-year-old boy shot and killed one

teacher and two students; in 1997 a 16-year-old boy killed two smdents, wounded seven

and stabbed his mother to death, and in the same year a 14-year-old killed three

students; in 1998, two boys aged 11 and 13 murdered four of thefr schoolmates and a

teacher with 22 shots; two months later a 15-year-old killed two students, wounded

more than twenty and killed his parents; less than a year later, two high school seniors

aged 17 and 18 launched the Columbine massacre, murdering 13 and wounding 23

before killing themselves (Cloud, 1999; Gibbs, 1999; Pooley, 1999; Van Biema, 1999).

In Australia, in 1988, a group of young people in Sydney of ages 14-, 15-, 16-, 17- and

23-years repeatedly raped and then murdered a 20 year old woman (Fife-Yeomans,

1995). fri 1998, on a northern beach of Sydney, a six-year-old boy demanded money at

knifepoint from two aduhs (Hanis, 1998). More recentiy, in January 2001 on the

Central Coast of New South Wales, a three-year-old girl was murdered in the street

where she lived by a 13-year-old boy (Gibbs & Mercer, 2001).

We must critically explore the contexts of these crimes to gain a deeper

understanding of what contributes to these behaviours. Based on the findings of a

British commission on children and violence set up in response to the 1993 tragedy,

Zwi and Rifkin (1995) point out that "the 'causes' of violence are multifactorial, largely

social and environmental, and arise predominantiy in childhood" (p. 1384).

What information do we have about such young people? fri the Ausfralian case of

the murdered 20-year-old woman, tiie youths had been involved in less serious offences

prior to committing murder. The 23-year-old man was assessed as being intellectually

among the bottom 5 per cent of the population, and the 17-year-old was a mildly

mentally retarded girl who had a sfrong desire to be accepted by her peers. One of the

youth came from a 'broken home', another had been in trouble since the age of five at

which time he was made a ward of the court as an uncontrollable child, and the others

had left their schools and homes (Fife-Yeomans, 1995). A review of the mental health

and family situations of the American perpetrators of violence indicate the following:

severe depression, an inferiority complex, enatic coping skills, lack of empathy and

sensitivity to insults, being aggressive, lonely, shy, some coming from single parent

families, others from homes with both parents or with their mother and step-father

(Gabel, 1999). The possible motives provided include rejection by girls, consistent

teasing (e.g. about weight, being gay), given labels (e.g. "Trench Coat Mafia"), and

expulsion from school. These hardly seem adequate explanations for the shootings!

In endeavouring to understand more deeply the underlying causes of adolescent

delinquency, this chapter will consider the major psychological theories and

perspectives of delinquency. However, it is appropriate to first distinguish delinquency

from Conduct Disorder.

1.2 Conduct Disorder versus Delinquency

Although the behaviours associated with delinquency are very similar to those

characteristic of Conduct Disorder, they are distinguishable. According to the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-PV)

(American Psychiafric Association, 1994, p. 85):

The essential feature of conduct disorder is a repetitive and persistent pattem of

behaviour in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal

norms or rales are violated. These behaviours fall into four main groupings:

aggressive conduct that causes or threatens physical harm to other people or

animals (Criteria A1-A7), nonaggressive conduct that causes property loss or

damage (Criteria A8-A9), deceitfiilness or theft (Criteria A10-A12), and serious

violations of mles (Criteria A13-A15). Three (or more) characteristic

behaviours must have been present during the past 12 months, with at least one

behaviour present in the past 6 months.

The associated descriptive features of conduct disorder, as described by the DSM-PV,

overlap with features characteristic of delinquents including a lack of empathy, lack of

remorse, low self-esteem, irritability, temper outbursts, recklessness and risk-taking,

and school suspension or expulsion.

Of further interest is the way in which Mak's (1993) Self-Reported Dehnquency

Scale covers most of the behaviours in the four main conduct disorder behaviour

groupings. Moreover, 21 of the 34 Delinquency Scale behaviour items are reflected in

the identified conduct disorder behaviours. What further behaviours are included in the

Delinquency Scale? Vehicle offences, alcohol and other drag offences, going to an R-

rated film, and telephone misdeeds. It is thus evident that there is a large overlap

between the behaviours characteristic of Conduct Disorder and those associated with

delinquency. This begs the question: what distinguishes delinquency from conduct

disorder?

According to dictionaries such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

(Thompson, 1995) and The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (Reber, 1985),

delinquency involves activities that violate the legal code. This is reflected in Mak's

(1993) Self-Reported Delinquency Scale which is described by Mak and Kinsella

(1996) as a scale that "provides a measure of the variety of law-violating conduct

problems that the respondent have engaged in during the previous year" (p. 16).

Furthermore, researchers such as Binder (1988) view the law and its accompanying

legal processes as the critical element that differentiates disraptive behaviour of youths

(such as child aggressiveness, adolescent violence, and child psychopathology) and

juvenile delinquency.

However, Binder (1988) points out that a discussion of juvenile delinquency cannot

be restricted to those youth who have been defined by law and adjudicated by juvenile

courts as delinquent, since (i) the juvenile system is very selective at its various stages

of processing, and (ii) states (and countries) vary in the laws governing misconduct.

Moreover, it has been suggested that delinquency can be conceptualised as both a legal

and social term (Bartol & Bartol, 1998). From a legal perspective it is behaviour

against the criminal code (as described above). From a social perspective, it "comprises

a plethora of youthful behaviour deemed inappropriate" (Bartol & Bartol, 1998, p.2).

What is required for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder? The Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) is a manual of

mental disorders. Thus, Conduct Disorder is considered a mental disorder. To guide

decisions regarding which conditions should be included in the manual, the DSM-FV

relies on a defirution of mental disorder used by the DSM-Itl and DSM-HI-R. One

aspect of this definition is that "whatever its original cause, it must cunentiy be

considered a manifestation of a behavioural, psychological, or biological dysfunction in

the individual" (American Psychological Association, 1994, p. xxi-xxu). Furthermore,

for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder, the behaviour being displayed has to be

"symptomatic of an underlying dysfunction within the individual and not simply a

reaction to the immediate social context" (American Psychological Association, 1994,

p. 88). Where isolated conduct problems occur that do not meet the criteria for Conduct

Disorder, these can be coded as Child or Adolescent Antisocial Behaviour. A criteria

necessary for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder is that "the disturbance in behaviour

causes clinically significant impairment in social, acadeiruc, or occupational functioning

(Criterion B)" (American Psychological Association, 1994, p. 85).

Given these definitions of delinquency and Conduct Disorder it is evident that,

while there is an overlap in the behaviours associated with Conduct Disorder and

delinquency, dehnquency can be distinguished from Conduct Disorder in that it is not a

mental disorder. While the delinquent youth may experience significant impairment in

their day-to-day living, their behaviour is not necessarily a symptom of an underlying

dysfunction. Thus, while young people diagnosed with Conduct Disorder are likely to

be involved in delinquent activities, not all those who are described as "delinquent"

fulfil the criteria of Conduct Disorder.

Having established the difference between delinquency and Conduct Disorder, and

recognising the greater breadth of behaviours included in a sociolegal definition of

delinquency, this thesis will focus on adolescent delinquency.

1.3 Incidence

A gender differential in delinquent behaviour is clearly evident with boys

outnumbering girls in almost all offence categories, particularly for serious offences

(review by Bartol & Bartol, 1998; review by Emler & Reicher, 1995; Smith, 1995).

This is reflected in the statistics of those appearing before the New South Wales

Children's Court on criminal matters: In the year 1997/98, 82.5% were male and 17.5%

were female (NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, 1998). Moreover, 96% of young

people detained in NSW Juvenile Justice Cenfres in this time period were male.

Culturally mandated gender roles are seen to be the reason for this, girls being

socialized not to be aggressive, and boys being encouraged in aggression (Campbell,

1993; Maccoby, 1986).

Australian data reveal that young people brought before the children's court in New

South Wales on crinunal matters range in age from 10- to 18-years of age. In the year

1997/98, 0.2% were 10 years old, 0.7% were 11 years old, 1.8% were 12 years old,

4.3% were 13 years old, 10.8% were 14 years old, 18.6% were 15 years old, 23.4%

were 16 years old, 28.3% were 17 years old, 11.7% were 18 years old (NSW

Department of Juvenile Justice, 1998).

In terms of the types and percentages of offences brought before the children's court

in NSW in the year 1997/98, 25.8% were offences against the person (including murder,

manslaughter, malicious wounding and serious assaults, robbery and extortion, and

sexual offences), 42.2% were theft offences (including break and enter, steal motor

vehicle, shoplifting, theft, fraud, and unlawful possession), 6.1% were drag offences

(including possessing, using, trafficing drags, and possessing drag utenstis), and 25.8%

were other offences (including driving offences, firearm and weapons, property

damage, offensive behaviour) (NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, 1998).

Why are young people involved in such behaviours? What contributes to thefr

beconung involved in delinquent activity? Psychological research into delinquency has

provided insight into the many factors that influence its development. It is well

recognised that there are multiple causal pathways to delinquency (Sankey & Huon,

1999; Sullivan & Wilson, 1995; Thomberry, 1987). Not surprisingly, the etiology of

juvenile delinquency is multifaceted, involving individual, family, subculmral, and

community characteristics. Furthermore, the variables on each of these levels do not

operate in isolation; rather, the risk factors associated with delinquency interact and

influence each other in complex ways (for example, Bartol & Bartol, 1998; Sankey &

Huon, 1999; Sullivan & Wilson, 1995). A discussion of the psychological perspectives

on delinquency will provide a deeper insight and understanding into what is a complex

problem.

1.4 Psychological perspectives on the causes of delinquency

Psychological research into delinquency is assisted by a spectram of theories.

These include biological theory and heredity, personality, and social factors (such as the

fanuly, peer group, school and community).

While it is evident from a generation of research that biological and genetic factors,

play a cracial role in determining the potential development of delinquent behaviour.

there is abundant evidence that environmental factors shape the development of

delinquent behaviour (supporting research follows). Both aspects need to be

considered, since biological and genetic factors and environmental factors are not

independent of each other (e.g. Pike, McGuire, Hetherington, Reiss & Plomin, 1996).

However, from a clinical perspective the cracial focus is the environmental factors - in

particular parenting - which are open to intervention and remediation.

Given that biological and heredity factors are not the focus of this thesis, they will

be discussed briefly, followed by a discussion of the personality and environmental

influences on delinquency development.

1.4.1 Biological and heredity factors

The work of Hans Eysenck has contributed greatiy to psychological theorising on

criminal behaviour. According to Eysenck (1983) "no clear understanding of

individual differences can be gained without close attention to the role of

psychophysiological variables'" (p. 28, his italics). The cracial process in his theory of

crime is classical conditioning. Eysenck (1977a) proposed that those involved in

antisocial behaviour have a deficit in classical conditioiung. fri his view, classical

conditioning is cracial to the socialisation of individuals to refrain from antisocial

responses.

Thus, Eysenck conceptualises what we call "conscience" as a set of classically-

conditioned emotional responses. If these classically-conditioned emotional responses

are well developed in an individual, their conscience will be better developed and

10

antisocial behaviour will be less likely to develop. On the other hand, where there is

poor conditionability, conscience development will be poor and under-sociahsed

antisocial behaviour will result (Raine, 1997). For example, when a child is punished

by their parents or teachers for unacceptable behaviour, the child wiU evenmally pair

the punishment with the unacceptable behaviour. The thoughts preceding the behaviour

will also become conditioned. This results in the development of a conscience which

can prevent the child/young person from participating in certain behaviours.

A review by Hare (1978) found support for Eysenck's view of poorer

conditionability in antisocial groups. More recent studies reviewed by Raine (1993)

also provide evidence of significantly poorer skin conductance conditionability in

antisocials. However, while Raine and Venables (1981) found poor conditioning in

antisocial children from a higher social class, this was not the case in those from lower

social classes. Furthermore, Hemming (1981) found differences in his sample which

consisted of criminals from relatively good social backgrounds. In discussing these

findings, Raine (1997) argues that "biological predispositional variables may have

greater explanatory power in antisocials from relatively benign homes where the "social

push" towards antisocial behaviour is low; if individuals become antisocial therefore, it

may be more for biological than social reasons" (pp. 126-127).

While Eysenck views biology and genetics as having an important role in shaping

human behaviour, he also recognises the importance of the environment. For example,

Eysenck (1977a) argues that in a situation of having antisocial parents, a child who is

highly conditionable will become "socialised" into the antisocial habits of their parents,

while a child who conditions poorly will avoid becoming antisocial. Research by Raine

11

and Venables (1981) provides support for this, with antisocial boys from favourable

homes showing poor conditioning and antisocial boys from negative homes showing

good conditionability.

Research into the influence of heredity and the environment on delinquency has

used twin and adoption studies. Support has been found for the influence of both

heredity and the environment (e.g. Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; O'Connor,

Neiderhiser, Reiss, Hetherington & Plomin, 1998). Recent research indicates that

behavioural problems in young people are related to genetic factors (McGuire

Neiderhiser, Reiss, Hetherington & Plonun, 1994; Ge et al., 1996; O'Connor et al.,

1998; Pike et al., 1996). For example, research using an adoption design (Ge et al.,

1996) found that psychiatric disorders of biological parents were significantiy related to

their children's antisocial/hostile behaviours. Furthermore, greater risk was found for

children of biological parents with co-morbid disorders than those whose biological

parents had a single disorder. In addition, according to Ge et al. (1996) the

characteristics inherited by adolescents have an effect on the parenting they receive

from their parents (often negative) which places them at further risk for antisocial

behaviour.

While research in the field of behavioural genetics indicates that biological and

genetic components play a role in antisocial behaviour, the importance of psychological

and social variables are also sttessed (Agnew, 1995). Edgar (1995) holds the view that

while innate capacities exist, these can be "helped or hindered by the type of nurturing

environment into which a child is lucky or unlucky enough to be bom" (p. 14). These

views are consistent with Eysenck (1996a) who views antisocial behaviour as a result of

12

an interaction between social and psychophysiological factors, "not a 100% biological

chain of causation" (p. 150).

Summary and conclusion

Research provides support for Eysenck's view of poorer conditionability in

antisocial groups. Furthermore, twin and adoption studies indicate that genetic factors

are involved in adolescent behavioural problems. Nevertheless, in developing an

understanding of delinquency, it is evident that both the biological make-up and the

socialisation history of each individual need to be considered. This is summed up in

Ehrhch's (2000) view, namely that the nature-nurture dichotomy is largely a false one,

with all characteristics a result of the simultaneous influences of both.

1.4.2 Personality

"Troublesome, daring, dishonest, and aggressive" is the way that convicted youth

have been identified from an early age by their teachers, peers, and parents (Fanington,

1986, p. 382). Research has indicated that the personality of children and adolescents is

an important predictor of delinquency (for example, Conger & Miller, 1966; Eysenck &

Gudjonsson, 1989; Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Gudjonsson, 1997; Heaven, 1993,

1994a, 1996a, 1996b; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987;

West & Fanington, 1973, 1977).

Many personality characteristics have been associated with delinquency. For

example, a difficult temperament in early childhood has been shown to predispose a

13

child to become aggressive and delinquent in later childhood (Pepler & Slaby, 1994).

Furthermore, violent offenders often have a history of early aggression (Loeber & Hay,

1996; Olweus, 1979) and of hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attention problems

(Fanington, 1991; Klinteberg, Andersson, Magnusson & Stattin, 1993; Moffitt and

Silva, 1988). Three major higher-order personality factors have been argued to be

cracial in predicting delinquency and crinunahty, namely extraversion, neuroticism and

psychoticism (Eysenck, 1977a; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989). Lower-order factors

such as self-esteem (for example. Levy, 1997) and locus of control (for example, Shaw

& Scott, 1991) have also shown a strong relationship with delinquency. The following

section will focus on Eysenck's factors, as well as provide a brief discussion of the

influence of self-esteem and locus of control on delinquency.

1.4.2.1 The Eysenckian perspective

The three major personality dimensions identified by Eysenck and Eysenck (1976),

are made up of elementary fraits. Thus, extraversion (E) is described as sociable, lively,

active, assertive, sensation-seeldng, carefree, donunant, surgent, and venturesome;

neuroticism (N) is described as anxious, depressed, low in self-esteem, tense, inational,

shy, moody, emotional, and with feelings of guilt; and psychoticism (P) is described as

aggressive, cold, egocenfric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, creative,

and tough-minded (Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989). Antisocial behaviour and criminality

have been associated witii high P, high N and high E scores (Eysenck, 1977b).

However, findings regarding the role of the three dimensions in predicting delinquency

are not unequivocal.

14

According to Eysenck (1983) "biological factors of psychophysiological or

hormonal kind" underlie individual differences in personality (p. 16). Thus, from this

perspective, an understanding of the psychophysiological processes underlying the

personality dimensions can provide insight into the way in which the dimensions

operate.

In terms of psychoticism, it has been found that in normal groups this personality

dimension is significantly conelated with serotonin metabolites as well as with

dopanune metabolites and MAO, which is also the case in people with schizophrenia

(Eysenck, 1983 - personal communication with Schalling; Gray & Gray, 1994). A

further association has been found between schizophrenia and the human leucocyte

antigen (HLA) system (McGuffin, 1979). In groups with schizophrenia, higher

psychoticism sores were to be found in those with HLA than those without HLA.

According to Matthews and Deary (1998), disinhibition in high P scorers is influenced

by a number of physiological systems, including "arousability of noradrenergic and

dopaminergic neural pathways by intense stimulation, low levels of serotonin, high

levels of the sex hormone testosterone, and low levels of the enzyme monoamine

oxidase (MAO)" (p. 129).

In terms of neuroticism, Eysenck in 1967 claimed that underlying the neuroticism-

stability axis are differences in the limbic system, the system which confrols the

autonomic system. The viscero-cortical loop interconnecting the cerebral cortex with

the visceral brain (which includes the limbic system) is more excitable in people with

high neuroticism. Thus, high N scorers are more easily autonomically aroused, and in

stressful situations, experience disfress and agitation. Independent of this system, the

15

reticular formation-cortex arousal loop is responsible for differences in extraversion-

introversion, with extraverts tending to have lower resting arousal levels than infroverts

(Eysenck, 1983). Eysenck (1983) proposed that since extraverts tend to score low on

arousal they seek strong sensory stimulation (such as thrill-enhancing and venturesome

activities) to raise their levels. Introverts, on the other hand, tend to be highly aroused

and therefore seek to avoid too much stimulation.

fri a nine-year prospective study, Raine and his colleagues (Raine, Venables &

Williams, 1990) used three measures of arousal (namely heart rate level, skin

conductance activity, and excessive theta EEG) measured at 15-years of age in 'normal'

schoolboys to predict criminal behaviour at 24-years of age. They found that all three

measures independently predicted criminal behaviour, providing support for an arousal

theory of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, a 14-year prospective study

conducted by Raine et al. (Raine, Venables & Williams, 1995) provides additional

support, their results indicating that heightened levels of autononuc arousal and

reactivity in young people displaying antisocial behaviour may protect them from later

crime.

As mentioned earlier, Eysenck (1977a) assumes that socialised behaviour is

developed through the conditioning process responsible for the creation of the

"conscience". Research by Eysenck and Levey (1972) found that introverts conditioned

better than extraverts in most ordinary conditions. Given both the above points, Eysenck

(1983) suggests that "the difficulties that extraverts have in forming strong conditioned

responses would be responsible for their more antisocial and even crinunal type of

behaviour" (p. 25). More recentiy, Eysenck (1996a) suggested that psychoticism as

16

well as exfraversion are important in the development of conscience. His view is that

impulsivity links conditioning to personality.

A large number of studies have been conducted in the last four decades examining

the relationship between psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism and delinquency.

Fumham and Thompson (1991) provide an extensive review of these to that date,

presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The first table presents stadies offering full or partial

support for the Eysenckian position, while the second table presents studies that have

not provided support for this position. The samples of these studies come from

convicted groups. Given that criminal behaviour is often undetected and therefore more

widespread than official records, Fumham and Thompson (1991) provide a third table

presenting studies which have employed self-reported delinquency measures with non-

convicted individuals.

The findings reveal a general lack of consistency in the results. This is further

reflected in Fumham and Thompson's (1991) research with 18-25 year olds, in which

psychoticism, but not neuroticism or extraversion significantiy predicted delinquency.

Additional studies not reviewed by Fumham and Thompson (1991) include research

with 14-year-old boys by Emler and colleagues (Emler, Reicher & Ross, 1987) which

found virtually no support for neuroticism, mixed support for exfraversion, and the

strongest conelation between delinquency and psychoticism. Furthermore, longitudinal

research by the Gluecks (cited in Binder, 1988) indicated that delinquent boys were

more extraverted than non-delinquent boys. In contrast, Fanington (1992) found that

while high scorers on neuroticism, but not extraversion, tended to be official offenders.

17

those with high scores on extraversion but not neuroticism were from the self-reported

delinquency group. High scorers on psychoticism came from both groups.

Table 1 Tabulated studies that offer full or pariial support for the Eysenckian thesis regarding crime and personality (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 586.587)

Please see print copy for image

18

Table 1 continued Please see print copy for image

19

Table 2 Tabulated studies that show results that do not suppori the Eysenckian thesis regarding crime and personality (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 587)

Table 3 Tabulated studies looking at the relationship between the Eysenckian personality dimensions and self-reported delinquency (Fumham & Thompson, 1991, p. 588)



20

More recentiy, research among Australian adolescents found that psychoticism and

sociability (extraversion) were significant predictors of delinquency for both males and

females (Heaven, 1993). However, the various personality traits (self-esteem,

venturesomeness, dysfunctional impulsiveness and anger) acted differentiy across the

two gender groups. For males, besides dysfunctional impulsiveness, all the personality

traits had significant direct effects on delinquency. For females on the other hand, no

direct effects were found; rather, psychoticism mediated the effects of venturesomeness

and dysfunctional impulsiveness on delinquency. In a further study. Heaven (1994a)

found that for both sexes, venturesomeness and psychoticism had additive effects on

vandalism and also violence (females only). A longitudinal smdy with Australian

adolescents provides further support for the significant association between

psychoticism and delinquency (Heaven, 1996a). And most recently, research by

Heaven and colleagues (Heaven, Caputi, Trivellion-Scott & Swinton, 2000) indicated

the oveniding importance of psychoticism in predicting delinquency, with no effects

found for the global measures of extraversion and neuroticism.

A range of studies have been discussed here, with the majority providing partial

support for the Eysenckian position. A possible explanation for the failure to

demonstrate a link between neuroticism and delinquency is given by Rushton and

Chrisjohn (1981). They suggest that neuroticism is less important during the early

stages of development of antisocial tendencies, while with adults the habit of anxiety

assumes greater importance. In conclusion, from the research reviewed as well as from

other studies (for example, Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; Heaven & Virgen, 2001), it is

evident that there is no doubt of the significant and consistent influence that Eysenck's

psychoticism factor has on self-reported delinquency. This is reflected in the view of

21

Eysenck & Gudjonnsson (1989, p.88), namely that "criminality is related to certain

dimensions of personality, in particular that labelled psychoticism...".

1.4.2.2 Self-esteem

In the last fifty years, self-esteem has been identified as an important contributor to

the development of delinquency. For example, research has found that individuals with

high self-esteem are less likely to be delinquent than those with low self-esteem (e.g.

Dinitz, Frank, Scarpitti & Reckless, 1962; Edwards, 1996; Owens, 1994; Ross, 1994,

1996; Scarpitti, Munay, Dinitz & Reckless, 1960). Within a Saudi male sample,

delinquency was significantly associated with negative self-descriptions (Hilmi, 1988),

and results from an Indian study showed that delinquents had lower self-image than

non-delinquents (Singh, Verma, Arora & Agrawal, 1986). Within a Russian sample,

low levels of self-esteem were reported in delinquent subjects (Ruchkin, Eisemann &

Hagglof). Recent research in an Australian sample of youth (Levy, 1997) found that

nondelinquent adolescents, non-institutionalised delinquent youth and instimtionalised

delinquents were distinguishable on the basis of their self-esteem scores with a

progressively more negative self-concept in the latter two groups.

Research has indicated that delinquent youth obtain significantly lower scores on

measures of cognitive, academic, social and general self-worth scales than do non-

delinquents (Cole, Chan & Lytton, 1989; Evans, Levy, Sullenberger & Vyas, 1991;

Fergusson, Lynskey & Horwood, 1996; Shore, Massimo & lUcks, 1965). Ross (1996)

identified three self-esteem factors (namely self-confidence, self-rejection, and

sociability) and also found a positive relationship between 'sociability' and two aspects

22

of dehnquent behaviour (namely, serious gang-related activities and disciplinary

infractions). This positive relationship is suggested to be a result of an emphasis on the

abihty to communicate in gangs. Negative relationships were found between 'self-

confidence' and theft, profane and abusive language, and with disciplinary infractions,

and between 'self-rejection' and theft.

Various explanations for the relationship between self-esteem and delinquency have

been given. For example, according to Cohen (1955), lowered self-esteem results from

the "strain" that develops when there is a discrepancy between the values and goals held

by the society and the legitimate means of achieving them. From this perspective,

delinquency becomes a way for youth to acquire status. Kaplan (1975, 1977, 1978,

1980) argues that negative self-esteem results from situations (including school failure,

rejection by school, and parental rejection) in which the adolescent is unable to defend

their self-image. Consequently they lose their motivation to comply with the patterns of

behaviour endorsed by the school authority and their parents. Engagement in antisocial

behaviour is a response that improves their self-esteem. More recently it has been

suggested that young people with low self-esteem participate in delinquent behaviour

because in doing so they are likely to lower their self-rejecting feelings (Rice, 1992) and

enhance their self-esteem (Rosenberg, Schooler & Schoenbach, 1989).

1.4.2.3 Locus of control

Originally formulated by Rotter (1954) as part of his social learning theory, the

concept of locus of confrol distinguishes people who perceive they have control over

events in their lives and in their environment (internal control), from those who perceive

23

these events to be detemuned by extemal forces: either powerful others or events m the

environment. Using the locus of control measure developed by Nowicki and Strickland

(1973), research has indicated a relationship between extemal locus of confrol and

delinquency (Ducette & Wolk, 1972; Kendall, Finch, Lfrtie, Chirico & Ollendick, 1978;

Panott & Strongman, 1984; Shaw & Scott, 1991), and hopelessness and suicidal

potential (Melges & Weisz, 1971). On the other hand, intemal locus of control has been

associated with self-control (Fener & Krantz, 1987), higher levels of self-esteem

(Gordon, 1977; Ralph, Menahs, Hart, Porter & Tan Su-Neo, 1995), being raised in a

home environment that is warm and nurturing (Nowicki & Schneewind, 1982), and

greater popularity among peers (Dahlquist & Ottinger, 1983).

Early research by KendaU et al. (1978) involved an examination of locus of control

in 'normal', 'emotionally disturbed' and 'juvenile delinquent' groups. Results indicated

differences between these groups, with the emotionally disturbed and juvenile

delinquent groups scoring in a more extemal direction than the normal group, and the

emotionally disturbed group scoring more in the extemal direction than the delinquent

group. Furthermore, factor analyses indicated the multi-dimensionality of the locus of

control constract, with differences in the patterning of factors among the groups. Thus,

within the normal group the main factor was a generalised expectancy theme. Within

the emotionally disturbed group the majority of factors reflected feelings, and the

juvenile delinquent factors emphasised situations or environments (e.g.. Helplessness at

Home, Helplessness with Friends, and Helplessness with Parents).

A further study comparing delinquent and nondelinquent male adolescents found

that delinquency was associated with greater extemality (Panott & Strongman, 1984).

24

Furthermore, increased extemality for positive events was associated with more confrol

in the home (that is, more rales and restrictions). The results of this smdy support the

conceptualisation of locus of control as multi-dimensional. Research with normal

adolescent samples has pointed to a multi-factor conceptualisation of locus of control,

although there is littie overlap in the item composition of factors (for example, Raine,

Rogers & Venables, 1981; Wolf, Sklov, Hunter & Berenson, 1982; Yates, Hecht-Lewis,

Fritsch & Goodrich, 1994).

Various explanations for the relationship between extemal locus of control and

delinquency have been presented. According to Cummings (1977), an extemal

orientation serves a purpose for those who experience failure frequently, this orientation

protecting them against negative self-evaluation. Similarly, Panott and Strongman

(1984) suggest that when reinforcement is infrequent or unattainable, an extemal

orientation may serve a defensive fimction. Based on their research, Panott and

Sfrongman (1984) argue that familial experiences are associated with the development

of an extemal orientation. The behaviour that results from these beliefs leads to

experiences that can influence their persistence. Subsequent experiences such as

incarceration provide evidence of lack of personal control, increasing fatalistic feelings.

According to Panott and Sfrongman (1984) the relationship between restrictive parental

control and an extemal orientation is consistent with developmental literature "which

suggests that an overly restrictive home environment may limit exploration and

movement toward independence (Lefcourt, 1976; Johnson & Kilmann, 1975)" (p. 469).

In contrast and consistent with this, earlier research has suggested that intemality is

found where there is love and support from parents (MacDonald, 1971; Nowicki &

Segal, 1974).

25


It is evident from the research discussed that Eysenck's theory of personality has

had a major impact on research into delinquency. While the findings on exfraversion

and neuroticism are in part inconsistent, psychoticism has shown itself to be consistent

in its predictive ability. Furthermore, measures of self-esteem indicate that overall,

lower self-esteem is related to delinquency. Research in the area of locus of control

indicates that a generalised extemal orientation characterises delinquent adolescent

males.

1.4.3 Environmental factors

Several factors within the adolescent's environment have been identified as

contributing to the development of delinquency. These include school-related

experiences, peer-group influences, the community, socio-economic deprivation, and

family influences (for example, Bartol & Bartol, 1998; Chen, Greenberger, Lester,

Dong & Guo, 1998; Fanington, 1992; Huizinga, Esbensen & Weiher, 1991; Rutter &

Giller, 1983; Sankey & Huon, 1999; Suhivan & Wtison, 1995; Weatherbum & Lind,

1997, 2001). According to these authors tiie above-mentioned social factors do not act

in isolation from each other. Three environmental factors that have received

considerable attention from a psychological perspective are the school, the peer group,

and the family. A discussion of these main areas of influence is presented below.

26

1.4.3.1 School influences

It is the school that dispenses the skills prized in contemporary society, provides

the major arena in which the young can demonstrate competence, and functions

as the major arena in which youth gain status.

(Dunham & Albert, 1987, p. 46)

A strong conelation between delinquency and school failure has been

consistently reported by criminologists (e.g. Brier, 1995; Panott & Strongman, 1984;

Wilson & Hermstein, 1985). Furthermore, a close relationship has been identified

between delinquency and learning disabilities (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986; Perlmutter,

1987). A review by Winters (1997) indicates that, typically, incarcerated juveniles are

school drop-outs and a substantial percentage of incarcerated youth have special

education needs.

Bartol and Bartol (1998) present two explanations for the association between

delinquency and school failure, one they refer to as the "smdent deficit hypothesis" and

the other as the "school deficit hypothesis". The 'student deficit hypothesis' holds that

the student is ill prepared for the rigours of school, begins to experience failure,

becomes frastrated and angry, begins to be involved in delinquent behaviour, and drops

out as quickly as possible. According to Elhott and Voss (1974) male delinquency is

essentially a response to school failure. Delinquency may be a way of coping with the

loss of self- esteem associated with this failure and with the social stigma associated

with it.

27

The 'school deficit hypothesis' on the other hand (advocated by Schafer and Polk,

1967), puts the blame for school failure onto the school and many of hs supporting

groups. This position holds that the school puts labels on children such as "slow

learner", "disadvantaged", "special learner" or "academically handicapped" and reacts

to the child accordingly; the child takes on the label and begins to act accordingly, as do

parents and peers. The child gets caught in a downward spiral and, as school becomes

increasingly frastrating, the child starts violating the rales and regulations of the school

and those of society.

Emler and Reicher (1995) suggest that delinquent behaviour is an expression of a

negative orientation to formal authority and a rejection of its demands. This rejection is

partly expressed in a preparedness for aggression, pursuing grievance methods which lie

beyond the law. It is expressed in actions which challenge the ability of the institutional

order to protect and defend the values it supports (such as property). And finally, it is

expressed in direct attacks on concrete symbols of the institutional order (such as in

graffiti-writing and vandalising public property), and direct defiance of the

representatives of the institutional order (such as teachers and policemen).

Furthermore, Emler and Reicher (1995) suggest that the negativity towards school

and its authority - expressed as delinquency - needs also to be seen in the broader social

and economic context. They point out that school is rejected by adolescents partly

because of what youth anticipate and experience of life beyond school, namely

"unemployment and dradgery in the main" (p. 226). These authors argue that the nature

of the labour market, unemployment and baniers to social mobility need to be

addressed

28


It is evident that school experiences (including academic performance) are related to

adolescents' antisocial behaviour and negative attitude to authority. Both the student

deficit hypothesis and the school deficit hypothesis provide insight into this

relationship. Furthermore, the social and economic context beyond school needs to be

considered, given its effect on young people's attitudes and expectations of prospects

following school.

1.4.3.2 The role of the peer group

Adolescents join gangs

largely to obtain what all adolescents appropriately seek: peer friendships, pride,

identity development, self-esteem enhancement, the acquisition of resources,

and family and community fradition.

(Goldstein & Soriano, 1994, p. 318).

fri contemporary Euro-American and other Westem societies adolescence is a well-

marked and elaborated social category (Fabrega & Miller, 1995). It is a time of

movement from childhood into adulthood, and a time in which young people are

developing and forming their identity (Erikson, 1968). Delinquent behaviour serves an

important function in this development. This is reflected in the view of Emler and

Reicher (1995), namely that delinquent behaviour is not "evidence for a breakdown of

identity" but rather it is a way in which individuals "define where they stand" (p. 200).

29

Thus, dehnquent behaviour is not necessarily destractive in itself, but is a way in which

adolescents communicate who they are.

During the transition from childhood to adulthood belonging to a peer group is

important since it enables adolescents to achieve a sense of identity and independence

(Fasick, 1984). Peer groups prescribe what activities its members are involved in, its

values and modes of conduct (Coleman & Hendry, 1990). Within the peer group sfrict

normative codes exist and deviation from these norms can lead to rejection by other

group members (Gavin & Fumham, 1989). Thus, participation in group-acts is cracial

for group membership. Exclusivity and status for group members is achieved by the

impermeability of groups (Gavin & Fumham, 1989). The authors suggest that this

results in increased self-esteem for group members.

According to Emler and Reicher (1995) five key functions are performed by the

delinquent peer group. It provides its members with (i) companionship (doing things

together with others), (ii) anonynuty (in which the individual's personal identity and

social identity merge so that there is little difference between individuals within the

group), (iii) security (the group provides a place of safety), (iv) reputation management

(the fact that the individual and the group behave in a manner concordant with their

reputation), and (v) behavioural norms (reflecting the beliefs and values of the group).

Such a view is supported by research in two groups of adolescents which found that

delinquent companionship and delinquent behavioural norms made significant

contributions to explaining self-reported delinquency (Heaven et al., 2000). In

observing girls in New York City gangs, Campbell (1984) also found that the main

reason for belonging to the gang was for companionship and security.

30

Given the important role that the peer group plays in the development of identity, it

is not surprising that adolescent delinquent behaviour is most often committed in the

company of other youth (for example, Amett, 1992; Emler & Reicher, 1995; Heaven &

Virgen, 2001). Peer norms and peer sanctions for misconduct have been shown to

account for a significant amount of variance in adolescent misconduct (for example,

Biglan, Metzler, Wirt, Ary, Noell, Ochs, French, & Hood, 1990; Chen et al., 1998;

Kandel, 1985; Maggs & Galambos, 1993). It is not surprising therefore, that delinquent

behaviour is sttongly predicted by association with delinquent peers (for example.

Baron & Hartnagel, 1998; Benda & Corwyn, 2000; Dishion, Patterson, Stoolnuller &

Skinner, 1991; Farrington, 1989; Fergusson, Lynskey & Horwood, 1996; Heaven et al.,

2000; Sankey & Huon, 1999; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger & Conger, 1991; Scholte,

1999).

Different research perspectives provide different views on how young people move

into delinquent peer groups. From the perspective of Cohen (1955) lower-

socioeconomic male youth have linuted opportunities to gain access to mainstream,

middle-class society. Furthermore, they are at a disadvantage in the school system

when compared with middle class youth. Strain results, leading the youth to find other

lower class boys who feel the same way. A group is formed, developing its own set of

beliefs and values, inclined to violate norms, and this becomes the essence of the

delinquent subculture. In these groups, delinquent boys steal for fun (not for material

gain) and for the status obtained from their fellow gang members. On the other hand,

Merton (1938) assumes that these boys steal for material gain and to be hke mainstream

society.

31

According to Patterson and his colleagues (Patterson, 1982; Patterson & Dishion,

1985; Patterson, Dishion & Bank, 1984; Snyder & Patterson, 1987), delinquency is

largely due to faulty socialisation during childhood (coercive fanuly processes) and

where family attachments are weak or non-existent. The child's consequent inadequate

interpersonal approach turns people away, ultimately leading to rejection. Unable to be

accepted into mainstream society, the young person is drawn to similar youth. This

increases the opportunity to leam antisocial behaviour which becomes more frequent,

varied and serious over time. This finding supports that of Short and Sttodtbeck (1965)

- the gangs they observed were found to have members almost completely of lower-

SES who were socially disabled individuals with poor interpersonal skills, limited

verbal skills, and alienated from mainstream society.


Young people move into the delinquent group for various reasons, including

socioeconomic circumstances, school and peer related experiences, and fanuly-related

experiences. Whether the individual is perceived as "socially normal" or "socially

inept", the peer group fulfils important functions for the adolescent. Importantiy, the

delinquent peer group facilitates identity-formation in adolescents. At the same time,

peers within the delinquent peer group exert significant influence on the misconduct of

adolescents, sanctioning delinquent behaviour.

32

1,4.3.3 Family influences on delinquency

The nucrosystem of the family may be the single most important

system in the development of delinquency. The family is, after all,

the principal context in which human development takes place.

(Bartol & Bartol, 1998, p. 147).

It is well documented that family functioning affects the emotional adjustment of its

members. Adolescents' emotional health has been found to be shaped by factors such

as parenting styles, family communication, parental pathology, separation and divorce,

family conflict, and adolescent perceptions of the family (review by Heaven, 1994b).

Research by Scott and Scott (1987) indicated that individual pathology among family

members (measured as neurotic symptoms, low self-esteem, and dissatisfaction with life

circumstances) was significantly related to the level of interpersonal pathology

displayed by the family (measured as intermember conflict, low solidarity, and member

dissatisfaction). More recentiy, Scott and Scott (1998) investigated adolescent

adjustment as a multifaceted process. They found, (among other things), that perceived

parental nurturance was associated with adjustment to family, to friends, and to school.

Furthermore, they found that the major effect of the fanuly on adolescents' adjustment

was indirect, with parental nurturance affecting adolescents' self-reported self-esteem

and anxiety, and parent-reported parental purutiveness affecting adolescents' hostility.

Extensive research indicates a sfrong relationship between family functiorung and

the development of delinquent behaviour in young people. Research suggests that

delinquent adolescents perceive their families to be considerably less cohesive, less

33

expressive, and to have lower levels of independence among members than do members

of control groups. Furthermore, they perceive their fanulies as having higher levels of

control and to participate in fewer social and recreational activities compared to other

families (Bischof, Stith & Whitney, 1995). One sttidy investigated the relationship

between adolescent and parental perceptions of how family members interact with and

feel about one another and official and self-reported delinquency. It was found that

both parental and adolescent family process measures made independent and significant

contributions to the explanation of delinquent behaviour (Krohn, Stem, Thombeny &

Jang, 1992).

Studies investigating the influence of the family on delinquency distinguish between

family stracture and family process, with disagreement as to which is more important.

Farrington (1989) argues that both are important, based on his finding that both family

stracture factors (i.e. economic status, parental criminality) and family process factors

(i.e. harsh discipline, authoritarian child rearing, parental disagreements on discipline)

were associated with violent offending. As will be seen, fanuly stracture and family

process are not totally independent of each other.

1.4.3.3.1 Family structure

Adolescent delinquents often come from large families, with siblings participating in

much of the same delinquent activities [concluded from an extensive review of the

literamre by Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) and Loeber and Fanington (1998)].

Furthermore, middle-bom children are potentially more prone toward delinquent

behaviour (West & Farrington, 1973; Ernst & Angst, 1983). The single-parent fanuly

34

has been marked as a risk factor for delinquency. However, some researchers have

found no relationship between single-parent homes and delinquency (Gibson, 1969;

Grinnell & Chambers, 1979; Hennessy, Richards & Berk, 1978). Others have found a

positive relationship - such as Rankin (1983), but only for certain offences (such as

ranning away, traancy, auto theft) and for certain types of homes (those in which

neither biological parent was present). Research by Henry and colleagues (Henry,

Caspi, Moffitt & Silva, 1995) indicated that single parent status, number of parent

changes, and number of residence changes were associated with increased risk for

violent and nonviolent convictions.

Dombusch et al. (Dombusch, Carlsmith, Buschwall, Ritter, Leiderman, Hastorf &

Gross, 1985) found that mother-only households had a greater proportion of

delinquency than households with two biological parents, even when social class and

income level were taken into account. Furthermore, they found that adolescent

deviance was substantially reduced by the presence of a second adult in the mother-only

households; this second adult could be anyone other than a stepfather. Stepfathers have

a stronger negative impact on male than on female adolescents (Dombusch et al., 1985;

Johnson, 1986). Steinberg (1987) found that adolescents living in step-parent families

were as much at risk of becoming deviant as their peers living in single-parent

households.

Extensive reviews of the literature (Emery, 1982; Gove & Cratchfield, 1982)

indicate that children from single-parent, conflict-free homes are less likely to be

delinquent than children from "intact" homes that are conflict-ridden, indicating that it

is parental conflict rather than separation per se that results in delinquency.

35

Furthermore, according to Weatherbum and Lind (1997), it is the lack of community

support rather than the rate of divorce or teenage pregnancy that contributes to

delinquency. This reflects the overlap between family stracture and family process, as

well as the interaction with community factors.

1.4.3.3.2 Family process

As early as 1931, Shaw and McKay noted that delinquent behaviour increased when

parental influence and control over their children was weakened or hampered. More

recent research has indicated a strong relationship between parental practices (such as

poor supervision and poor monitoring, extensive use of coercive discipline, inconsistent

discipline, passive or neglectful parenting), a lack of family cohesion, and various forms

of delinquency including violent delinquency (for example, Gorman-Smith et al., 1996;

Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; McCord, 1979; Patterson, 1982, 1986a; Patterson,

De Baryshe & Ramsey, 1989; Pepler & Slaby, 1994; Reid & Patterson, 1989; Scholte,

1999).

It has been suggested that deviant behaviour is learned in much the same way that

any other behaviour is leamed (Bartol & Bartol, 1998). Serious delinquency and

violent behaviour are partly leamed through the behaviour of parents. This is reflected

in the view of Eron and colleagues (Eron, Huesmann & Zehi, 1991, p. 170), namely,

that "parents teach children aggression by the models of behaviour they present, the

reinforcements they provide for aggressive behaviour, and the conditions they fumish in

the home that frasttate and victimise the child". It is evident that aggressive methods of

36

discipline set up aggressive models for children to observe and imitate (review by

Bartol & Bartol, 1998).

It has been argued that a coercive parenting style is ultimately ineffective in

controlling behaviour (Patterson, 1982, 1986b). This type of parenting is characterised

by explosiveness, nattering, threats, is often inconsistent in its follow-through, and often

leads to increased aggressiveness in the young person. Coercive spirals resuh when

negative and aggressive responses are elicited by both the parent and the

child/adolescent. Patterson (1982, 1986b) found that young people socialised in this

environment leam to use aggressive methods in their interactions with others outside the

home, resulting in rejection by peers and teachers and, ultimately, involvement in

delinquent behaviour. This is supported by the findings of Simons and colleagues

(Simons, Whitbeck, Conger & Conger, 1991).

Evidence shows that parents' behaviour towards their children is affected by their

socioeconomic environment. A recent investigation into the relationship between

economic stress, neglect and offending behaviour by Weatherbum and Lind (1997) lead

them to conclude that "Economic and social disadvantage appears to increase the rate of

juveiule participation in crime mainly by increasing the rate of child neglect" (p. iii).

The stress that is caused by poverty can diminish parents' capacity for consistent and

supportive parenting (Hammond & Yung, 1994; Larzelere & Patterson, 1990; Sampson

& Laub, 1994; Vondra, 1990). For example, Larzelere and Patterson (1990) found that

parents from low socioeconomic status backgrounds were more likely to engage in

harsh, erratic and inconsistent discipline. Low income has been shown to increase the

risk of depression in women (Dore, 1993), and depression in parents, in turn, has been

37

found to lead to a lowered tolerance for misbehaviour in children and the employment

of highly authorfrarian, over-controlling responses (Lahey, Conger, Atkeson & Treiber,

1984). A further study indicated that depressed mood in parents was inversely related

to the level of nurturance shown by them (Conger, Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons &

Whitbeck, 1992). ft is not surprising that sttessed parents will employ aggressive

methods of discipline, since these methods of controlling a child are much easier and

require less energy than methods which involve sensitivity, listening and understanding

(Bartol & Bartol, 1998).

Three types of discipline have been identified by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967),

namely:

power assertion, in which the parent capitalises on his power and authority over

the child; love-withdrawal, i.e. direct but non-physical expressions of anger,

disapproval, etc.; and induction, consisting of the parent's focusing on the

consequences of the child's action for others (p. 45).

Love-withdrawal and induction are non-power assertive discipline, also described as

psychological techniques. Based on Hoffman and Saltzstein's categories, Shaw and

Scott (1991) developed a measure of parental discipline style comprising three sub-

scales: parental punitiveness, parental love-withdrawal and parental inductiveness.

They found that perceived punitiveness and love-withdrawal were positively associated

with self-reported delinquency, while an inductive discipline style was negatively

associated with delinquency. Research has indicated that both punitive parental

discipline as well as lax discipline are related to delinquency (Farrington, 1989;

McCord, McCord & Zola, 1959; WeUs & Rankin, 1988).

38

According to Hirschi (1969) good child-rearing techniques and proper disciphne are

the main ways of preventing and controUing delinquency. This is supported by research

by Forgatch (Forgatch, 1988, as cited in Webster-Stratton, 1990) who showed that

changes in parental discipline and monitoring resulted in significant reductions in child

antisocial behaviour. No changes in antisocial behaviour were found in families who

showed no changes in parenting skills.

From the perspective of Hirschi's (1969) social control theory, deviant behaviour is

the result of weak social bonds. These bonds consist of four factors: attachment to

conventional others (for example parents, teachers and peers), commitment to

conventional pursuits, involvement in conventional activities, and acceptance of

conventional beliefs. Where these bonds are absent, individuals are freed to maximise

thefr self-interest, thereby increasing the probability of criminal deviance. According to

social control theory, the closeness of the adolescent to their parents and their respect

for and identification with their parents is cracial in bonding the adolescent to society

and keeping their behaviour within conventional boundaries. A further perspective

provided by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) is that ineffective child-rearing affects the

individual's ability to restrain themselves from acting on their immediate impulses.

Thus, in their view, low self-control has its origins in low social control during the early

childhood years.

Consistent with Hirschi's (1969) theory, research indicates that adolescents who are

strongly attached to their parents are less likely to partake in delinquent behaviours than

adolescents who are less attached (for example, Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler & Mann,

1989; Le Blanc, 1992; Mak, 1990, 1991). Where parental supervision, monitoring and

39

parent-child involvement are lacking, and where parental rejection is experienced

adolescent criminal activity increases (Benda & Corwyn, 2000; Farrington, 1991;

Patterson & Dishion, 1985; Simons, Robertson & Downs, 1989). Thus, latchkey

children who have no adult supervision have been found to be more prone to minor

delinquent behaviours than those who have some kind of adult supervision, mostiy

because of the increased susceptibility to peer pressure (Steinberg, 1986). Furthermore,

adolescent perceptions of low care and high overprotection have been associated with

higher levels of delinquency (Goldstein & Heaven, 2000; Mak, 1994, 1996a, 1996b;

Mak & Kinsella, 1996). Thus, adolescents from affectionless control families showed

significantly greater involvement in delinquent behaviour than adolescents from

optimally bonded families, reflecting the damaging effect of a combination of parental

neglect and overprotection.

Recent research has explored the genetic influences on family process (for example,

Ge et al., 1996; Pike et al., 1996; Reiss, 1995; Reiss, Hetherington, Plomin, Howe,

Simmens, Henderson, O'Connor, Bussell, Anderson & Law, 1995). While it has been

accepted that important contributions are made by genetic factors to many behavioural

outcome measures, it is only recentiy that "genetic analyses have uncovered substantial

genetic influence on measures of the environment, especially fanuly environment"

(Pike et al., 1996, p. 600).

Pike and colleagues (1996) conducted multivariate genetic analyses of the

covariance between measures of familial negativity and adolescent antisocial behaviour.

When genetic differences were controlled, differential treatment by parents affected

adolescent adjustment. In other words, when the young person is the object of more

40

parental negativity than is their sibling, they are more likely to experience adjustment

problems. Furthermore, they found that the genetic conttibution to the covariance

between familial negativity and adolescent antisocial behaviour was substantial. The

genetic contribution accounted for most of the phenotypic conelation between measures

of parental negativity and antisocial behaviour. Pike et al. (1996) concluded that the

association between parental negativity and adolescent antisocial behaviour is not

necessarily driven by the parents' behaviour. Rather, it is "the children's genes that are

reflected in both the parent's behaviour and in the adolescent adjustment" (p. 600).

Nevertheless, these researchers do not deny the importance and efficacy of interventions

with parents.


It is evident that family stracture and, even more so, family process factors have a

major influence on the development of delinquency in adolescents. In particular,

parent-child interaction has been shown to be a central variable in the etiology of

antisocial behaviour. Aggressive models of parenting, coercive and inconsistent

discipline, passive and neglectful parenting, poor supervision and monitoring, and poor

attachment between parent and child all contribute to adolescent delinquent behaviour.

Even researchers who support a significant role of genes in the associations between

negative, harsh parenting and adolescent antisocial behaviour, do not deny the

importance of parenting skills. Based on the research discussed, it is quite clear that the

role of the family and parenting factors cannot be underestimated.

41

1.4.4 General summary and conclusion

The psychological perspectives reported here - namely biological factors and

heredity, personality, the role of the school and peer group, and the influence of the

family - provide some insight into the complexity of the etiology of adolescent

delinquency.

Eysenck's theory of personality has contributed greatiy to research, with

psychoticism proving to be a strong and consistent predictor of delinquency.

Furthermore, low self-esteem and a generalised extemal orientation are also related to

participation in delinquent behaviour. While biological and genetic factors are involved

in adolescent behavioural problems, research has indicated the need to consider the

socialization history of each individual. Environmental factors such as school-related

experiences, peer-group influences, and family influences make significant

contributions to the development of delinquency. Given that the family is "the principal

context in which human development takes place" (Bartol & Bartol, 1998, p. 147), it is

not surprising that the family environment and parenting practices are central influences

on delinquency.

It is important to emphasise that none of the factors described here act in isolation.

Rather, the biological and genetic, personality, and social factors are interactive (for

example, Sankey & Huon, 1999; Suhivan & Wilson, 1995; Thombeny, 1987). For

example, research indicates that family and peer factors are linked (for example,

Dishion et al., 1991; Patterson, 1986b; Patterson & Dishion, 1985; Patterson et al.,

1989). Longitudinal data from Patterson and Dishion (1985) indicate that when famihal

42

attachments are weak or non-existent, adolescents drift into delinquent peer groups in

search of attachments. Furthermore, Heaven and Virgen (2001) demonstrated that

personality, family, and peer group factors interact in influencing delinquency.

Thomberry and colleagues (Thomberry, Esbensen and Van Kammen's study as cited in

Loeber & Farrington, 1991) provide evidence for a reciprocal relationship between

commitment to school and delinquent behaviour (that is, low commitment increases

delinquency, and delinquency in turn reduces commitment to school). Furthermore,

they found a reciprocal relationship between attachment to parents and delinquent

behaviour (that is, low attachment leads to increases in delinquency and delinquency

further attenuates the adolescent's attachment to parents).

1.5 The present series of studies

It is evident that the family plays a vital role in the adjustment of its children. Social

control theory (Hirschi, 1969) and self control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) call

attention to the important role that parenting plays in the development of dehnquency.

Taken together, the findings from the studies discussed above provide strong evidence

for the central role that maladaptive family management practices play in the

development of delinquency, hi particular, the style of discipline used by parents has

been consistentiy related to delinquency, specifically harsh and inconsistent discipline

(e.g. Carlo, Roesch & Melby, 1998; Fanington, 1992; Gorman-Snuth et al., 1996;

Leflcowitz, Huesmann & Eron, 1978; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; McCord, 1979;

Patterson et al., 1989; Rankin & Wefts, 1990; Rutter & Giller, 1983; Shaw & Scott,

1991; Stoolmiher, Patterson & Snyder, 1997; Vuchinich, Bank & Patterson, 1992). At

43

the same time, research indicates that lax discipline also leads to delinquency (e.g.

Hirschi, 1983; Wilson, 1980).

Discipline can be seen as a form of knowledge-fransfer, with adults transfening

knowledge to young people and teaching them rales. Sometimes, however, the way in

which the adult teaches these rales leads to behaviours that violate the socially accepted

form of behaviour. Emerging from the delinquency literature is the cracial role of

disciphne experienced by young people in thefr home environment. Based on the

review of the psychosocial factors contributing to adolescent delinquency, it is believed

that the way in which a chtid is disciplined within the family unit is vital to

understanding the nature of delinquency. This is central to the series of studies to be

presented here.

It is further evident from the research reviewed that various personality

characteristics are significantly associated with delinquency. The Eysenckian

perspective (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976) highlights three major personality dimensions,

of which psychoticism is the most sfrongly associated with adolescent delinquency

(Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; Farrington, 1992; Heaven, 1996a). Lower order

personality factors such as self-esteem and locus of confrol have also been demonstrated

to contribute significantly to delinquency (for example, Cole et al., 1989; Levy, 1997;

Parrott & Sfrongman, 1984; Shaw & Scott, 1991).

Researchers investigating delinquency are increasingly realising the need to

investigate the effect of multiple factors (Heaven et al., 2000; Rowe & Flannery, 1994;

Sankey & Huon, 1999; Sulhvan & Wilson, 1995). Given the large number of factors

44

influencing the development of adolescent delinquency, the present research sought to

focus on two major areas, namely, family process and personality. It further sought to

investigate the joint effects of a number of variables in both domains on self-reported

delinquency.

1.5.1 Study 1

There is empirical evidence to suggest that personality factors mediate the effects of

family experiences on delinquency. Shaw and Scott (1991) observed that adolescents'

locus of control mediated the relationship between parent discipline style and self-

reported delinquency. In other words, punitive parenting and parental love-withdrawal

were significantiy associated with increased reports of delinquency, these effects being

mediated by an extemal locus of control. On the other hand, self-reported delinquent

activity decreased when inductive parenting had been experienced, with the effect being

mediated by an intemal locus of control.

Links have been demonstrated between parent discipline style and self-esteem on

the one hand, and self-esteem and delinquency on the other. Newman and Munay

(1983), for instance, found that coercive rather than inductive methods of parenting,

combined with low levels of parental support, produced lowered self-confidence and

self-esteem among adolescents as well as problems of identity formation, extemalised

moral standards, and a susceptibility to peer pressure. Conversely, positive family

communication has been shown to be the most powerful predictor of self-esteem and

perceived fairness of parental discipline (Larzelere, Klein, Schumm & Alibrando,

1989).

45

As mentioned previously, it is also well documented that delinquent youth obtain

significantiy lower scores on measures of cognitive, social and general self-worth scales

than do non-delinquents (Cole et al., 1989; Evans et al., 1991; Hilmi, 1988; Singh et al.,

1986). Given these results, the possibility exists that, in addition to locus of control,

self-esteem may also mediate the effect of parental influences on self-reported

delinquency. As it is possible that youth who engage in delinquent and antisocial

behaviours may be both extemally controlled and have low self-esteem, it is important

to assess the mediating influence of these personality factors.

Thus, the first study investigates the possibility that personality factors (namely,

self-esteem and locus of control) act as mediating variables between two family process

factors (parent discipline style and perceptions of family relationships) and self-reported

dehnquency, thereby extending the work of Shaw and Scott (1991).

1.5.2 Study 2

Given the results of Study 1, the second study investigates the possible mediating

role of a further personality dimension that has a strong and significant influence on

self-reported delinquency, namely, psychoticism (discussed in section 1.4.2). Previous

research has shown psychoticism to mediate the effect of negative family

communication on self-reported delinquency (Heaven, 1994a).

Given Hirschi's (1969) social confrol perspective which views the individual's

attachment to their parents as important in bonding to society and protecting against

deviance, the second study also seeks to explore the role of parental bonding as a

46

second family process factor. A widely used scale, the Parental Bonding Instmment

developed by Parker and colleagues (Parker, Tupling «fe Brown, 1979), is used to assess

individuals' perceptions of their parents' attitudes and behaviours on two dimensions,

care and protection. This scale has been used in research with delinquent samples in

Austraha (e.g. Mak, 1996a) and in Scotland (Biggam & Power, 1998).

While Study 1 collected information from high school students, the second smdy

collected data from a delinquent sample.

1.5.3 Study 3

Items included in self-report delinquency scales often range from minor offences to

severe offences. This raises the question of whether the scales are more extensive than

what is taken to be "delinquent", thereby labelling juveniles inappropriately as such.

The third study, therefore, begins by investigating both adolescents' and adults'

perceptions of the seriousness of the behaviours identified in the Australian Self-

Reported Delinquency Scale (Mak, 1993). The importance of asking adolescents is that

they are the peers of so called "delinquents". Once "delinquent" behaviours are

identified as serious offences by adolescents, engaging in these acts can be seen as

breaching peers' norms and values rather than adults' social norms and values.

Family and parenting factors have been shown to determine and shape the views,

behaviours and adjustment of fanuly members (e.g. Bartol & Bartol, 1998; Scott &

Scott, 1987, 1998). Parental discipline style in particular has been found to have a

direct influence on adolescent involvement in delinquent behaviours (e.g. Loeber &

47

Dishion, 1983; Farrington, 1992; Patterson et al., 1989; Shaw & Scott, 1991). Given

this, it is likely that links exist between parental discipline styles and adolescents'

perceptions of delinquent behaviours. Thus, the third study further aims to explore the

nature of the relationship between perceptions of parental discipline style and

perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours. It also investigates whether the

perceived seriousness of behaviours is dependent on the sex of the individual engaging

in the behaviour. No study to date has explored these relationships, the results of which

could provide further support for the cracial role of parental discipline style in the

development of adolescent delinquency.

48

CHAPTER TWO

STUDY ONE

Family and personality influences on self-reported delinquency among high school

students

2.1 Introduction

As was discussed in the previous chapter, several family process factors have been

identified as being important in shaping adolescents' emotional health. These include

parenting styles, family communication, intermember conflict, parental pathology, and

separation and divorce (e.g. Heaven, 1994a; Scott & Scott, 1987, 1998). Furthermore,

the relationship between family process factors and delinquency is well established. For

example, research indicates that general family functioning and parental practices

contribute significantly to the development of delinquency (e.g. Bischof et al., 1995;

Cortes & Gatti, 1972; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996; Heaven, 1994a, 1994b; Krohn et al.,

1992; Patterson & Dishion, 1985; Scholte, 1999). One aspect of family functioning

that has received specific research attention is parental discipline style, with results

indicating a strong relationship between harsh, power-assertive, and inconsistent

discipline and adolescent delinquency and aggression (e.g. Carlo, Roesch & Melby,

1998; Fanington, 1992; McCord, 1979; Patterson et al., 1989; Rankin & Wells, 1990;

Shaw & Scott, 1991; Stoolmiller et al, 1997; Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber, 1988)

Personality factors have been shown to mediate the effect of family experiences on

delinquency. For example, Shaw and Scott (1991) found adolescents' locus of control

49

to mediate the effect of parent disciplme style of self-reported dehnquency. Given that

hnks have been demonstrated between parent discipline style and self-esteem on the one

hand, and between self-esteem and delinquency on the other (see section 1.5.1), it is

proposed that self-esteem may also be an important mediator between family process

factors and self-reported delinquency. It is possible that delinquent youth may be

extemally controlled and also have low self-esteem.

Thus, this study investigates the effects of two personality factors as mediating

variables between two family process factors and self-reported delinquency.

2.2 Aims

This first study was designed to complement and expand existing research (e.g.

Shaw & Scott, 1991) by investigating (i) the effect of certain family processes on

adolescents' self-reported delinquency, and (ii) the role of both self-esteem and locus of

control as possible mediating factors between the perceived family processes (namely,

perceptions of family relationships and parental discipline style) and self-reported

delinquency.

2.3 Hypotheses

It was predicted that:

1. Punitive and love-withdrawal parent discipline styles and love-withdrawal will be

related to higher levels of self-reported delinquency, while an inductive discipline

50

style will be related to low self-reported delinquency (foUowing Shaw & Scott,

1991).

2. Negative perceptions of family relationships will be directiy related to high self-

reported delinquency scores (foUowing Bischof et al., 1995; Krohn et al., 1992).

3. Self-esteem and locus of control will mediate the effect of perceived family

processes on self-reported delinquency. More specifically, (i) greater evidence of

the presence of family relationship problems, punitive discipline style, and parental

love-withdrawal will be related to lower self-esteem and extemal locus of confrol,

which is likely to lead to higher levels of self-reported delinquency; (ii) an inductive

discipline style will be related to higher self-esteem and intemal locus of control,

which is likely to lead to lower levels of self-reported delinquency (following Shaw

& Scott, 1991).

2.4 Method

2.4.1 Respondents

The sample consisted of 105 female and 72 male high school smdents, aged

between 15 and 16 years (mean age = 15.3 years). The students came from three high

schools, two public and one private, in the Hlawana region of New South Wales.

Respondents were asked to provide information about their living anangements and the

education and current occupation(s) of their parent(s). Parental occupation was

categorised according to Daniel's (1983) prestige scale which ranks occupations in

51

Australia from high prestige (1.2) to low prestige (6.9). Table 1 presents information

regarding respondents' living anangements and Table 2 shows the occupational prestige

of their parents. It is important to stress that all respondents were "normal range"

adolescents, that is, they cannot be classified as offenders.

Table 1 Students' living arrangements

Living arrangement Frequency % (N=177)

Mother and father 140 79.1 Mother alone 16 9.0 Father alone 3 1.7 Mother and partner 11 6.2 Father and partner 4 2.3 Guardian 1 0.6 Unanswered 2 1.1

From Table 1 it can be seen that the living anangements of almost 80% of the

sample was traditional, that is, students reported living with both their mother and

father. Of the remainder, the majority reported living with their mother alone (9%) or

with their mother and partner (6.2%).

ft is evident from Table 2 that, although the parents were involved in a wide range

of occupations, the sample had a middle class bias, ft is not suggested that the sample is

representative of Australian adolescents, altiiough it appears sufficiently heterogeneous

for the purposes of this study.

52

Table 2 Parents' occupational prestige

* Prestige categories (Daniel, 1983): 1-1.9 = e.g. judge, medical specialist; 2-2.9 = e.g. architect, accountant, solicitor; 3-3.9 = e.g. teacher, small businessperson, trained nurse, computer programmer, draftsperson; 4-4.9 = e.g. tradesperson, poice constable, technician, caterer, industrial foreman; 5-5.9 = e.g. driver (taxi, bus), linesman, gardener, nurse aid, postal clerk, housewife; 6-6.9 - e.g. railway worker, factory worker, labourer, process worker.

2.4.2 Measures

A battery of self-administered questionnaires was prepared in order to assess

respondents' delinquent behaviour, perceptions of family relationships, perceptions of

parental discipline style, self-esteem, and locus of control (see Appendix B). The

following were included:-

(i) Self-reported delinquency (Gold, 1970)

This 14-item self-report measure assesses interpersonal violence (six items) and

vandalism/theft (eight items), and has been used successfully in previous Australian

research (e.g. Shaw & Scott, 1991; Heaven, 1994a). High scores on this scale indicate a


53

high incidence of delinquency. On the present occasion, Cronbach's alpha coefficient

was 0.84.

While self-report measures of delinquency can be criticised for being vulnerable to,

for example, forgetfulness and exaggeration on the part of respondents, it has been

argued that self-report measures provide valid and rehable information about

delinquency (Liska & Reed, 1985; Reicher & Emler, 1985; Shaw & Scott, 1991).

Researchers have shown that a close relationship exists between officially adjudicated

and self-reported delinquency (e.g. Reicher & Emler, 1985; Shaw & Scott, 1991),

thereby providing support for the use of these measures.

(ii) Index of Family Relations (Hudson, 1982)

This 25-item scale measures the extent, severity or magnitude of problems that

family members perceive in their relationships with one another. It has excellent

intemal consistency, known-groups validity, and good constract validity (Corcoran &

Fisher, 1987). Test-retest data are not available (Tutty, 1995).

On the present occasion, the item interconelations were subjected to a principal

components analysis with orthogonal rotation. Two components were extracted,

labelled "positive fanuly relations" and "negative family relations". The two factors

were shown to have alpha coefficients of 0.94 and 0.93, respectively, eigenvalues of

13.57 and 1.45, respectively, accounted for 54.3% and 5.8% of the total variance,

respectively, and were highly conelated (r = -0.87, p < .001). Sample items of the

positive family relations scale are: "Members of my family are really good to one

54

another" and "My family is a real source of comfort to me". Sample items of the

negative family relations scale are: "I feel like a stranger in my family" and "There is

too much hatted in my family". The subscales were kept separate for subsequent

analyses.

(iii) Parental discipline style (Shaw & Scott, 1991)

This 40-item scale measures three discipline styles, namely, perceived parental

punitiveness, perceived parental love-withdrawal and perceived parental inductiveness.

This scale has been successfully used among Australian adolescents in independent

research (e.g. Goldstein & Heaven, 2000). The intemal consistency for each scale,

estimated by Cronbach's alpha, has been found to be 0.85, 0.77, and 0.80 respectively

(Shaw & Scott, 1991). On the present occasion, alpha coefficients were 0.86, 0.74, and

0.85, respectively. High scores on each scale are indicative of high levels of

purutiveness, inductiveness and love-withdrawal.

(iv) Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979)

This well-known 10-item scale provides a measure of global self-esteem and has

demonstrated reliabtiity and validity (e.g. Byrne, 1983; Chiu, 1988). fr conelates

significantiy with other self-esteem measures (see Corcoran & Fisher, 1987), and has

suitable intemal consistency. On the present occasion, Cronbach's alpha was 0.84.

Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem.

55

(v) Locus of control (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)

A short form of the generalised scale designed for grades 7-12 was included. This

20-item scale was used by Shaw and Scott (1991) in their research. On the present

occasion, Cronbach's alpha was 0.78. The scale has good concunent validity,

conelating significantiy with other measures of locus of control (Corcoran & Fisher,

1987). Constract validation for this scale is supported by significant conelations with

the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale among seventh graders (r= .31, p <

0.01) and with the Rotter Adult Scale amongst college students (r = .61, /? < 0.01).

Previous research using this scale has found high conelations for intemality with

academic competence and social maturity (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971). Stability of

the original instmment is fair with six-week test-retest conelations of 0.66 for seventh

grade and 0.71 for tenth grade students. Items were scored in the direction of

extemality.

2.4.3 Procedure

Students were provided with a letter from the researcher inviting them to participate

in a study of various aspects of their home life, personal attitudes and behaviours. (See

Appendix C for consent forms.) Once consent had been given by the students and their

parents/guardian, the questionnaire was administered during school hours by the

researcher. Students were assured of anonymity and confidentiality and that the

information would be used for research purposes only. The questionnaire took between

15 and 30 nunutes to complete.

56

2.5 Results

2.5.1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations on the various measures for

females and males separately. Consistent with previous research, males scored

significantiy higher than their female counterparts on the self-reported delinquency

measure (e.g. Bryan & Freed, 1982; Heaven, 1993; Shaw & Scott, 1991), and on the

self-esteem measure (Heaven, 1993). Given these significant sex differences in self-

reported delinquency, subsequent analyses were conducted separately for females and

males.

Table 3 Mean scores and standard deviations on measures

2.5.2 Correlational analyses

Pearson conelations are presented for males and females in Table 4. It is evident

that the great majority of conelations were in the expected direction and significant at


57

the 0.001 level. Among males and females, positive family relations was positively

related to high self-esteem, negatively related to extemal locus of confrol and negatively

related to self-reported dehnquency. Negative fairuly relations, on the other hand, was

significantly related to low self-esteem, high extemal locus of control and high levels of

self-reported delinquency, providing support for hypothesis 2 and partial support for

hypothesis 3.

A punitive discipline style was significantiy related to an extemal locus of control

and high self-reported delinquency for both sexes, and significantly related to low self-

esteem for females only. Parental love-withdrawal was significantiy related to low self-

esteem, extemal locus of control and high levels of self-reported delinquency for both

sexes. On the other hand, parental induction was significantly related to high self-

esteem, intemal locus of control and lower levels of self-reported delinquency for both

sexes. For both males and females, positive self-esteem was significantly related to low

levels of self-reported delinquency and an intemal locus of control, while extemal locus

of control was significantly related to high levels of self-reported delinquency. These

results provide support for hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 3.

2.5.3 Structural equation modelling

In order to test the mediating effects of personality on the relationship between

family processes and delinquency, the data were subjected to a covariance analysis

using the SAS procedure PROC CALIS (SAS, 1990). This technique ahows "...

researchers to explore various constracts and their inter-relationships as well as thefr

causal contributions to other constracts.... (it) allows for a more thorough and inclusive

H

please see print copy for image

59

analysis of the causal paths which can lead to delinquency" (Suhivan & Wilson, 1995,

p. 11). The assumptions underiying stracttiral equation modelhng were examined and

met, namely that the ratio of participants to observed variables was 22:1, which is

adequate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, p. 774).

Multiple criteria for assessing the goodness of fit of the model were used (Parker,

Bagby & Summerfeldt, 1993): Chi-square goodness-of-fit, the goodness-of-fit index

(GFI), the adjusted GFI (AGFI), and the root mean-square residual (RMSR). As

suggested by Parker and colleagues (1993), the following criteria were used to indicate

the goodness-of-fit of the model to the data: for the chi-square test to be nonsignificant;

GFI > 0.85; AGFI > 0.80; and RMSR < 0.10. Table 5 presents the various goodness-of-

fit indices for females and males.

Table 5 Goodness-of-fit indicators

The results suggest a generally good fit between the proposed model and the data.

All Chi-square values were non-significant, suggesting plausability of the model.

Furthermore, from Table 5 it can be seen that the GFI and AGFI values indicate an

excellent fit of the data to the model. The root mean square residual indicates that the

model fits particularly well to the female set of data, and was close to meeting the

RMSR criterion for males.

60

PROC CALIS also generates output indicating the significant links in the model

expressed as standardised coefficients. According to Fassinger (1987), the t values

should be greater than or equal to 2.0 to be considered significant. From the equations

generated by the analysis, those coefficients that were significant at this level suggest

that for females the best predictor of low levels of self-reported delinquency was an

inductive discipline style (/ = -2.12; see Figure 1). For males, the best predictor of high

levels of self-reported delinquency was a punitive discipline style {t = 2.08; see Figure

2). Furthermore, among males, positive fanuly relations was a significant predictor of

high self-esteem (t = 3.48). Contrary to what was expected in hypothesis 3, self-esteem

and locus of control did not have a mediating effect in this sample of adolescents.

Figure 1. Path diagram of causal relationships for females.

SFLD: Self-reported delinquency PFR: Positive family relations NFR: Negative family relations PUN: Punitive discipline style

IND: Induction SE: Self-esteem LOC: Locus of control LW: Love-withdrawal


61

Figure 2. Path diagram of causal relationships for males.

SRD: Self-reported delinquency PFR: Positive family relations NFR: Negative family relations PUN: Punitive discipline style

IND: Induction SE: Self-esteem LOC: Locus of control LW: Love-withdrawal

The overall variance in females' and males' self-reported delinquency explained by

the predictor variables was not large, namely, 12% and 15% respectively.

2.6 Discussion

This discussion will focus on (1) the general findings of the first study, especially in

relation to previous research, (2) implications of the findings for clinical interventions,

(3) the methodological limitations of the study, and (4) directions for further research.


62

2.6.1 General findings

The aim of this research was to evaluate the effect of certain family processes on

adolescents' self-reported delinquency, and to investigate whether self-esteem and locus

of control mediate these effects. Overall, the results of this study are comparable with

previous research findings, which suggest that perceived family processes are

significantly related to delinquency among adolescent respondents.

The results of the conelational analyses provide support for both the first and

second hypotheses in that, for both males and females, punitive and love-withdrawal

discipline styles and negative perceptions of family relations were directiy related to

high self-reported delinquency scores. Conversely, an inductive disciphne style and

positive perceptions of family relations were significantiy related to low self-reported

delinquency scores. Furthermore, the analyses partly support the third set of hypotheses

in that a) love-withdrawal was significantly related to low self-esteem and an extemal

locus of control, b) induction was significantly related to high self-esteem and an

internal locus of control, and c) a punitive disciphne style was significantly related to

extemal locus of control for both sexes and significantly related to low self-esteem in

females but not males. As expected, low self-esteem and an extemal locus of control

were associated with high self-reported delinquency. Not surprisingly, self-esteem

conelated with an intemal locus of confrol (see also Griffore, Kallen, Popovich &

Powell, 1990).

The finding that a punitive discipline style in males was not significantly related to

low self-esteem is somewhat surprising and not consistent with the results of other

63

smdies. For example, Newman and Munay (1983) found that coercive parenting

combined with low levels of parental support, resulted in lowered self-esteem.

Similarly, Bryan and Freed (1982) found that corporal punishment in child discipline

practices caused damage to self-concept. One possible explanation is found in the

results of the stiuctural equation modelling analysis, which showed that in the male

sample, positive family relations significantly predicted high self-esteem. It seems that

in this sample, the type of family relations experienced by the male adolescents has a

greater impact on their self-esteem than the type of discipline style they perceived their

parent(s) to have used. This is consistent with Ellerman (1996) who reported a strong

relationship between family cohesion and high adolescent self-esteem.

The results of the stmctural equation modelling support the expectation that parental

discipline style predicts self-reported delinquency. While an inductive disciphne style

was the best predictor of low levels of self-reported delinquency in females, a punitive

discipline style best predicted high levels of self-reported delinquency in males.

Perhaps these findings reflect sex differences in respondents' experiences of discipline,

it being reported elsewhere that males receive more corporal punishment than females

(e.g. Bryan & Freed, 1982).

It was predicted that perceived family relationship problems would be related to

lower self-esteem and an extemal locus of control, which in turn would lead to higher

levels of self-reported delinquency. The results indicated a link between positive family

relations and high self-esteem in the male sample only, with no mediating effect evident

in both sexes. The results for males are in line with the findings of Demo, Small &

Savin-Williams, (1987) who found that self-esteem among males was more strongly

64

influenced by parent-adolescent interaction than it was for females. An explanation

provided by Demo and colleagues (1987) for this gender difference is that "adolescent

boys may express and communicate their self-esteem in ways that prompt parents to

respond (with support, control, or communication), while gfrls provide fewer or more

subtle expressions and thereby deny parents potential cues they need for appropriate

responses" (p. 713).

A ftirther explanation for the gender difference may be that females' self-esteem is

affected by family processes not included in the present study. For example, family

variables that could be considered in further research are the type and frequency of

verbal criticism used by parents, parental deviance, sibling relationships and, as Edgar

(1995) points out, parents' differential treatment of siblings. Furthermore, quite apart

from females' experience of their family, their perception of themselves (e.g. body

image) may affect their self-esteem to a greater extent than is the case for males in this

age group (e.g. Fumham & Radley, 1989).

Conttary to expectations, stmctural equation modelling found no mediating effect of

self-esteem and locus of control on family processes and self-reported delinquency.

Thus, Shaw and Scott's (1991) results of a mediating effect of locus of control between

the various parent discipline styles and self-reported delinquency was not replicated.

How is one to explain this difference? Shaw and Scott (1991) (i) used a larger sample

(n = 231, compared with the present sample, n = 111), (ii) 27% of their male sample

were adjudicated delinquents (there were no females in this category), and (iii) they

conducted their analyses with males and females combined, even though there was a

highly significant difference in delinquency scores between the sexes. Furthermore,

65

they analysed their data using regression analyses, whereas the present study used

stmctural equation modelling. This is not only a more sophisticated form of analysis,

but also more appropriate for rehably testing the links that exist between several

independent and dependent variables.

In summary, the stmctural equation modelling analysis suggests a good fit between

the hypothesised model and the data. The modest variance explained by the predictors

of self-reported delinquency in this study, however, indicates that other factors need to

be explored in future research (see below).

2.6.2 Implications of findings for clinical practice

It is evident from the results that certain forms of discipline are related to certain

forms of behaviour, for example, the development of antisocial and delinquent

behaviour. Since the type of discipline style used by parents has a direct effect on their

children's behaviour, it may be advisable to devise intervention strategies for children

and parents (e.g. Nelsen, 1987; Edgar, 1995).

Edgar (1995) suggests that parent education/information programs could be

conducted to raise the awareness of parents (and parents-to-be) regarding parenting and

communication skills. According to Patterson (1980), parenting skills carmot be

assumed. On the contrary, young parents are increasingly functioiung in isolation,

without appropriate models, information or support systems. Patterson (1980) describes

the set of operations that are included in parenting skills:

66

(a) notice what the child is doing; (b) monitor it over long periods; (c) model

social skill behaviour; (d) clearly state house rules; (e) consistently provide sane

punishments for transgressions; (f) provide reinforcement for conformity; and

(g) negotiate disagreements so that conflicts and crises do not escalate (p.81, his

italics).

Patterson's (1980) research provides evidence that parents can and do leam parenting

techniques and how to manage antisocial children.

Nelsen (1987) presents principles, based on Adlerian philosophy, which have

successfully provided parents with basic guidelines in parenting and practical

techniques. Parent-management fraining, which aims at reducing the use of physical

punishment in favour of more proactive forms of discipline, and developing clear

standards for child behaviour has demonstrated some effectiveness (e.g. Forehand,

Furey & McMahon, 1984; Webster-Sfratton, 1991). Functional family therapy, which

utilises behavioural techniques, social reinforcement, token economy, and cognitively

based interventions has been shown to be effective in improving family communication

and lowering recidivism (Alexander, Barton, Schiavo & Parsons, 1976; Alexander &

Parsons, 1973; Klein, Alexander & Parsons, 1977). Adherence to multisystemic

therapy (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland & Cunningham, 1998) aims to

have an impact on antisocial behaviour by inducing change in the multiple systems in

which the youth is imbedded. At the family level, it aims to increase family stmcture

and cohesion and provide parents with the skills and resources that are needed to

monitor and discipline their children effectively. The use of multisystemic therapy has

resulted in improvement in family cohesion, family functioning, and parent monitoring.

67

and associated with this, decreases in delinquent behaviour (Huey, Henggeler, Brondino

& Pickrel, 2000).

Programs can also be developed to teach teenagers prosocial behaviour. For

instance, an Adlerian Counselling program has been developed in the Uruted States

which appears effective in teaching parents and professionals how to assist children in

managing their misbehaviour, help them leam self-discipline, responsibility, problem-

solving skills and cooperation, based on Nelsen's (1987) principles. Likewise, The

Australian Guidance and Counselling Association has more recently conducted a

national project, "Teaching prosocial behaviour to adolescents", which identified

programs now in use in some Australian schools (Prescott, 1995). These programs

address issues such as social skilling, development of peer relations, conflict resolution,

anger management, assertiveness training, developing life skills, and many others.

Utilisation of interventions designed to enhance emotional support and bonding

among family members are considered by Bischof et al. (1995) to be appropriate for

most families of delinquents, as well as teaching them how to express their feelings

more directly, and increasing participation in social and recreational activities.

Furthermore, they suggest that a comprehensive understanding of the family would be

valuable in individual intervention planning. Research by Dunn and Plomin (1990)

identifies clear links between the child's perception of differential treatment of siblings

by parents (for example, affection and confrol), and outcomes such as antisocial

behaviour and depression.

68

fri light of this, (Edgar's (1995, p. 20) view is relevant: "The message for clinicians

is that it is the differences, not the similarities, in family behaviour towards each child

that matter. Parents need to understand that children are highly sensitive to differential

treatment of siblings and appreciation expressed for a child's unique combination of

intelhgences/competences will be more helpful than unjust comparisons or even

preferential tteatment."

2.6.3 Methodological limitations of the study

Gold's (1970) measure of delinquency was used in the present smdy to allow for

comparisons with previous studies, including Shaw and Scott (1991). However, the

scale has a relatively narrow definition of delinquent behaviour, focusing on

interpersonal violence, vandalism and theft. It does not include, for example, items

refening to illegal drag use, drank-driving, or unsolicited sexual activity. Changes in

government laws and community attitudes over time with regard to what is legal and

acceptable, puts into question the relevance of Gold's Scale.

An altemative measure - which may have the advantage of being more culmrally

relevant and applicable to contemporary Australian adolescents - would be Mak's

(1993) Australian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. This scale is more comprehensive

than Gold's, encompassing nine clusters of dehnquent acts. Mak (1993) provides

evidence of the scale's content, constract and concunent validity, as well as its intemal

consistency (alpha coefficients were 0.90 for males and 0.87 for females). It has been

successfully used in previous research (e.g. Heaven, 1993; Heaven et al., 2000; Mak,

1994, 1996b; Mak & Kinseha, 1996).

69

2.6.4 Implications for further research

Given that the variance in self-reported delinquency explained by the predictor

variables was not large, it is evident that the factors considered here do not provide a

complete explanation of this sample's self-reported delinquency. This is not surprising.

Previous writers have considered a wide range of factors in their investigation into

delinquency, including genetics, parental crinunahty, family size, low income or socio

economic status, separation from the family, the child's academic and social skills, peer

influences, personality characteristics, and ineffective parenting practices (e.g. Binder,

1988; Cole et al., 1989; Heaven, 1994a; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Patterson & Dishion,

1985; Sankey & Huon, 1999). Suhivan and Wilson (1995) proposed a conceptual

model of causal and interactional relationships between individual, family, community

and subcultural characteristics that may contribute to delinquency. It is clear from this

model that future studies need to consider these multiple factors in the investigation of

the etiology of delinquency. The results of the present study illustrate the important role

that one factor, namely parental discipline style, plays in determining self-reported

delinquency.

In terms of the role of personality, the present study indicates that in "normal-range"

adolescents, the lower-order personality factors of self-esteem and locus of control did

not act as mediators between family process and self-reported delinquency. Future

research should investigate the role of other personality factors, particularly higher-

order factors such as psychoticism, exfraversion and neuroticism, for thefr potential as

mediators.

70

Finally, the present study used "normal-range" high school sttidents. Thus,

conclusions about the etiology of delinquent behaviour are being drawn from young

people who are mainly involved in the serious delinquent activities. Future research

should therefore be conducted with "delinquent" samples.

2.7. Conclusion

The aim of this study was to expand existing research by investigating the effects of

various fanuly processes on self-reported delinquency, as well as the possible role of

two personality factors in mediating the effect of the family processes on self-reported

delinquency. While family processes, personality and self-reported delinquency were

shown to be associated, the results indicate that these links are not all causal. Female

and male delinquency was predicted by the type of discipline style used, and only in the

male sample did family relations have an effect on self-esteem. Implications of these

results for both parents, their children and young people were presented, and

suggestions for future research were made. Given the relationships between family

factors, personality factors and self-reported delinquency, further research must

continue to explore the extent to which these factors interact, since this has implications

for intervention. Thus, further exploration into the possible mediating role of

personality is needed. It is possible that a higher-order personality factor such as

Eysenck's P factor, may play an important mediating role in the relationship between

family climate and delinquency.

71

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY TWO

Family and personality influences on self-reported delinquency among delinquent

students

3.1 Introduction

Family process factors

The results of Study 1 provide further evidence of the significant role that parental

discipline style plays in shaping adolescent delinquency. It is clear that punitive, love-

withdrawal and inductive disciphne styles have far-reaching effects on young people.

The discipline meeted out by parents takes place within the context of a complex

relationship between parent and child. The "bond" between parent and child has

important consequences for adolescent behaviour and is another factor that has received

considerable attention in understanding and predicting delinquency (for example,

Biggam & Power, 1998; Goldstein & Heaven, 2000; Mak, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Mak &

Kinsella, 1996). As mentioned earher (section 1.4.3.3.2), Hirschi's (1969) social

control theory postulates that the adolescent's attachment to their parents is cracial in

bonding them to society and keeping their behaviour within conventional boundaries.

Furthermore, previous research (reviewed in section 1.4.3.3) provides evidence for the

central importance of the parent-child interaction in the development of delinquency.

72

fri an attempt to investigate the parent-child bond, Parker and colleagues (1979)

sought to develop an instrament which would aid in the stody of "optimal and distorted

parental bonding" (p. 9). fri particular, they wished to determine the parental

contribution to the parent-child bond. Parker and his feUow researchers (1979) defined

two dimensions identified from previous research: care and overprotection. The fust

dimension consists of items measuring the presence or absence of care. The items

reflect affection, emotional warmth, empathy and closeness at one pole of the

dimension, and emotional coldness, indifference and neglect at the other. The second

dimension consists of items measuring the presence or absence of overprotection. At

one pole of this dimension, the items reflect control, over-protection, intrasion,

excessive contact, infantilisation and prevention of independent behaviour, while items

at the other pole of the same dimension reflect the allowance of independence and

autonomy. The care and overprotection scales formed the Parental Bonding

Instrument, a measure of the quality of attachment or "bond" between parent and child.

The instrament has demonstrated reliability and validity (Parker et al., 1979; Parker,

1981).

Research has indicated that the Parental Bonding Instrament is a good indicator of

psychological adjustment. For example, depression in a non-clirucal sample was found

to be negatively conelated with parental care and positively conelated with parental

control (Parker, 1979). Similarly, patients with anxiety neurosis (Parker, 1981), with

obsessive-compulsive neurosis (Hafner, 1988), and with schizophrenia (Parker, Fairley,

Greenwood, Jurd & Silove, 1982) reported less parental care and greater parental

control. Overall, Parker (1990) suggests that "affectionless control" (that is, low care

and high control) is related to neurotic conditions, while "affectionate constraint" (that

73

is, high care and high control) is related to dependency, hypochondriasis, astiuna, and

panic disorders.

Given the cracial role that parent-child attachment plays in the emotional

development of children and adolescents, Canetti and colleagues (Canetti, Bachar,

Galili-Weisstub, Kaplan De-Nour & Shalev, 1997) sought to determine the relationship

between parental bonding and mental health in healthy adolescents. Their results

indicated that adolescents who reported high care and low control (that is, "optimal

bonding") also reported less psychiatric symptoms and distress, had a positive feeling of

well-being and felt supported by family and friends. Conversely, adolescents who

reported low care and high control ("affectionless control") showed psychological

symptomatology, lesser feeling of well-being, and reported less support from those

around them. These findings are consistent with those of McFarlane and colleagues

(McFarlane, Bellissimo & Norman, 1995) who found that better family functioning and

adolescent wellbeing were associated with "a style of parenting characterised as caring

and empathic, devoid of excessive intrasion and infantilisation" (p. 860). These results

provide support for Bowlby's attachment theory which postolates that normal

development is thwarted if the attachment between parent and child is not optimal

(Bowlby, 1969, 1988).

In line with these findings, research with Australian high school stodents indicated

that self-reported delinquency in both boys and girls was associated with low perceived

parental care and high over-protectiveness from both parents (Goldstein & Heaven,

2000; Mak, 1994). A comparison in parental bonding between Australian delinquent

and nondelinquent adolescents found that perceived parental protection was

74

significantiy higher among male and female delinquents than nondelmquents, and

perceived parental care was significantiy lower among male delinquents than male

nondelinquents, (but this did not hold for females) (Mak, 1996a). Thus, it is evident

that parenting that involves care and support, rather than confrol, has important

consequences for adolescent behaviour outcomes.

The role of psychoticism

Having discussed the significant role of parenting in the development of delinquent

behaviour, attention will be directed to another important confributing factor, namely

personality. Eysenck's psychoticism factor (P) has been shown to have a sfrong,

significant and consistent influence on self-reported delinquency (e.g. Emler, Reicher &

Ross, 1987; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Heaven,

1996a; Heaven et al., 2000). Eysenck describes a high scorer on his P scale as

aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, creative,

and tough-minded (Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989). In his recent work, Eysenck (1996b,

cited in Gudjonsson, 1997) suggests that psychoticism is linked with low cortical

arousal, poor conditionability, and ineffective socialisation, which in tum leads to the

development of antisocial behaviour. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1991),

socialization is a relatively alien concept to high P scorers, and notions of sensitivity to

other people, empathy, and feelings of guilt are unfamiliar to them.

Aggressive adolescents have been shown to have higher P scores than non-

aggressive adolescents (McCoUoch, Gilbert & Johnson, 1990). Furthermore, the

families of these adolescents showed higher levels of family conflict, negativity, and

75

anger than did control famihes. Thus, while personality factors are important, these

results point us to the importance of the parent-child relationship and family

environment. Recent research among Australian high school sttidents found a

relationship between fanuly functioning and psychoticism (Heaven, 1997). More

specifically, positive family communication was significantiy related to lower P scores,

while negative family conununication was significantiy related to higher P scores. A

recent study by Heaven and Virgen (2001) confirmed the importance of P as a predictor

of self-reported delinquency, and also showed that punitive and love-witiidrawal

discipline styles were significantiy related to higher P scores. Thus, it is evident that

perceptions of family life and parenting as well as P levels are closely connected with

joint effects on the self-reported delinquency of young people.

Some evidence suggests that P mediates the effect of family factors on self-reported

delinquency. An Australian study investigating the joint effects of perceptions of family

functioning, venturesomeness, anger, and Eysenckian psychoticism on adolescent

violence and vandalism/theft (Heaven, 1994a) found that perceptions of family

communication had an influence, through P, on delinquent behaviours. Overall,

negative family communication among girls increased the risk of delinquency, this

effect being mediated by P. That is, the significant relationship between negative

communication and violence was reduced to non-significance when the effects of P

were controlled. Thus, in this sample of female adolescents, P acted as an indirect

channel for family perceptions on delinquency.

76

3.2 Aims

Given the findings of a relationship between family processes and P (Heaven,

1994a, 1997; Heaven & Virgen, 2001), and the already demonsttated hnks between

family processes and delinquency (see also section 1.4.3.) and between P and

delinquency (see also section 1.4.2.), it is possible that P mediates the effect of other

important measures of family influence on self-reported delinquency.

While the majority of research in the area of delinquency utilises high school

student samples, the present study obtained its information from a delinquent sample.

As far as it is possible to establish, no research among adjudicated delinquents has

specifically examined the links between parental bonding and psychoticism. A

subsidiary aim was also to detennine whether the young people in the present study

(namely, delinquent students) differed from the young people in Study 1 (namely,

mainstream high school students) in their experience of parental discipline style.

3.3 Hypotheses

It was predicted that:

1. A punitive discipline style and love-withdrawal wtil be related to higher levels of

self-reported delinquency, while an inductive discipline style will be related to low

levels of self-reported delinquency (following Shaw & Scott, 1991).

77

2. Self-reported dehnquency will be associated with low matemal and paternal care

and high matemal and paternal overprotection (following Mak, 1996a).

3. Adolescents reporting "affectionless control" or "absent or weak bonding" will be

more dehnquent and have higher P scores than adolescents indicating experience of

"optimal bonding" (foUowing Heaven, 1997; Mak, 1994).

4. P will mediate the effects of perceived fanuly processes on self-reported

delinquency. More specifically, (i) greater evidence of a punitive discipline style,

parental love-withdrawal, low care, and high overprotection will be related to higher

P scores, which is likely to lead to higher levels of self-reported delinquency, and

(ii) parental induction will be related to lower P scores, which is likely to lead to

lower levels of self-reported delinquency (following Goldstein & Heaven, 2000;

Heaven & Virgen, 2001; Shaw & Scott, 1991).

5. Delinquent adolescents will differ from mainstream high school students in their

perceived parental discipline. More specifically, (i) delinquent adolescents will

have experienced higher levels of punitive and love-withdrawal discipline than

main-stream high school students, and (ii) delinquent adolescents will have

experienced lower levels of induction than mainstream high school students

(fohowing Carlo, Roesch & Melby, 1998; Heaven & Virgen, 2001).

78

3.4 Method

3.4.1 Respondents

The sample consisted of 39 delinquent adolescents (34 males; 5 females) aged

between 13 and 17 years of age (mean age = 14.22 years). They came from two schools

in New South Wales which provide schooling for young people who have been

suspended at least twice from their original main-stream high school and who have been

involved with drags, shoplifting, etc. Some students had court orders, some had

previously been in Juvenile Justice Centres, and some were known to the N.S.W.

Department of Community Services.

3.4.2 Measures

A battery of questionnaires was prepared in order to assess respondents' perceptions

of parental discipline style, perceptions of parental attitude and behaviours, their

participation in delinquent behaviour, and to assess their levels of psychoticism (see

Appendix D). The following were included:-

3.4.2.1 Parental discipline style (Shaw & Scott. 1991).

This is the same scale used in Study 1. On the present occasion, alpha coefficients

were parental punitiveness = 0.82 (after removal of two items), parental love-

withdrawal = 0.64, and parental induction = 0.76. High scores on each scale are

indicative of high levels of punitiveness, love-withdrawal, and induction.

79

3.4.2.2 Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker, Tupling & Brown.. 1979)

This 25-item questionnafre contains statements about parental behaviour to be

judged by the respondent as more or less applicable to the parent, using a four-point

scale. One form is completed for each parent. Two dimensions of parent-adolescent

bonding are assessed, namely, care and protection, thereby yielding two scores for each

parent. The care dimension includes items with content of affection and closeness at

one pole and of indifference and rejection at the other. The protection dimension

comprises items which suggest intrasiveness and control at the one extreme and items

encouraging autonomy at the other.

The scale has demonsttated good reliability and intemal consistency, and a number

of studies have found no evidence of response biases due to influences of mood (Parker,

1981, 1989; Parker et al., 1979). On the present occasion, Cronbach's alpha

coefficients were Mother Care = 0.85, Mother Overprotection = 0.76, Father Care =

0.90, and Father Overprotection = 0.88, indicating good intemal consistency. While

high scores on the matemal/patemal Care scales are indicative of parents being warm

and understanding, high scores on the matemal/patemal Protection scales suggest

excessive parental control and intrasion.

Parker et al. (1979) suggest that the parental care and protection scores can be

combined to examine four parenting styles: optimal bonding (high care, low

overprotection), absent or weak bonding (low care, low overprotection), affectionate

constraint (high care, high overprotection), and affectionless confrol (low care, high

overprotection).

80

3.4.2.3 Australian Self-Repori Delinquency Scale (Mak. 1993).

This measure was designed for use with Australian adolescents. It consists of 34

statements describing a range of marginally deviant to seriously delinquent activity that

the respondent may have engaged in during the previous 12 months, including theft,

vandalism, cheating, drag-taking, fighting, etc. Cronbach's alpha for Mak's (1993)

original sample was found to be .90 for males, 0.87 for females, and 0.88 for both sexes

combined. On the present occasion, the alpha coefficient was 0.94 for the whole

sample. Mak (1993) found that the scale was able to discriminate between official

delinquents and a matched conttol group, providing evidence for the concunent validity

of the scale.

3.4.2.4 Psychoticism (Eysenck, Eysenck & Barrett, 1985).

Coraha's (1990) revision of Eysenck's (Eysenck et al., 1985) short form of this

scale was used. It consists of 12 items. Alpha coefficients have previously been 0.68

for 14-year-old males and 0.73 for 15-year-old males (Coraha, 1990), and 0.63 among

an Australian high school sample (modal age = 16 years; Heaven et al., 2000). On the

present occasion, the alpha coefficient was 0.83.

3.4.3 Procedure

Students were provided with a letter from the researcher inviting them to participate

in a study aiming to understand young people's views of family-life, themselves and

various behaviours (see Appendix E for consent forms.) Once consent had been given

81

by the students and their parents/guardian, the questionnaire was admirustered during

school hours by the researcher. Students were assured of anonymity and confidentiahty

and that the information would be used for research purposes only. The questionnaire

took between 30 and 40 nunutes to complete.

Given the sensitivity of the delinquent population and the personal nature of the

questionnaire, it had been planned to administer the questionnaire through one-to-one

interviews. However, given the constraints that were operating in the institutions, a

number of students had to be seen together. Depending on the participant's reading

ability, the questionnaire was administered either one-to-one, or in small groups of two

to four. Some students (individually or in small groups) had the questionnaire read

aloud, while others elected to read the questionnaire for themselves.

3.5 Results


Mean scores, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for each of the measures

for the whole sample are presented in Table 1.

(i) Self-reported delinquency

The level of delinquent involvement reported in this sample of delinquent

adolescents was significantiy greater than that of mainstream male high school smdents.

More specifically, the self-reported delinquency of the present sample (M = 17.91, SD =

82

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Measures

SRD (range: 0 - 34)

Parental discipline style PUN (range: 18-72) LW (range: 9 - 36) IND (range: 10-40)

Parental bonding M-C (range: 0 - 36) M-P (range: 0 - 39) P-C (range: 0 - 36) P-P (range: 0 - 39)

Psych (range: 0 - 1 2 )

M

17.91

34.97 16.65 25.82

23.27 15.38 20.57 13.20

5.46

SD

9.51

8.16 4.69 5.74

7.52 6.94 9.60 9.05

3.36

Coefficient Alpha

0.94

0.82 0.64 0.76

0.85 0.76 0.90 0.88

0.83

SRD: Self-reported delinquency; PUN: Punitive discipline style; LW: Love-withdrawal; IND: Induction; M-C: Maternal-care; M-P: Maternal-protection; P-C: Paternal-care; P-P: Paternal-protection; Psych: Psychoticism

9.51) was significantiy higher than Heaven's (1993) sample of male high school

sttidents (M = 12.72, SD = 7.95; t = 3.99, p < 0.01) and Mak and Kinseha's (1996)

sample of Year 8 to 12 male high school students (M = 12.32, SD = 7.80; t = 4.24, p <

0.001). The mean score of the Lie items in the present sample is relatively high (M =

3.44, SD = 0.99) and lies between Mak's (1993) nondelinquent (M = 3.29, SD = 0.75)

and dehnquent samples (M = 3.63, SD = 0.61). High values of the lie scores indicate a

lower tendency towards social desirability. Thus, the scores of the present sample would

suggest that respondents were not presenting themselves unrealistically.

(ii) Parental bonding measure

It can be seen from Table 1 that matemal care and overprotection scores are higher

than paternal care and overprotection scores. Thus, mothers were perceived as more

83

caring and controlling than fathers. This result is consistent with previous research

(Biggam & Power, 1998; Canetti et al., 1997; Cubis, Lewin & Dawes, 1989; Mak,

1996a, 1996b; Mak & Kinseha, 1996). While the bond with the mother is closer ft is

also perceived to be more resfrictive. According to Canetti et al. (1997) this appears to

be a "universal phenomenon" (p. 392). Although men in modem society are

increasingly involved in child-rearing, there still appears to be a gap between the way in

which adolescents perceive the patemal and matemal bond.

In order to test for differences in parental bonding scores between delinquents and

nondelinquents, t-tests were conducted. Table 2 presents a comparison between the

delinquent male students of the present study and the nondelinquent male students of

Mak's (1996a) study.

Table 2 Parental Bonding scores of delinquent and nondelinquent male students

Measures

M-care M-protection P-care P-protection

M = Matemal, * ; 7 < . 1 0 , * * / j

P <

This study

Delinqu M

23.42 15.08 20.04 14.16

= Patemal .05

ents SD

1.24 5.65 9.05 9.23

Mak (1996a)

Nondelinc M

27.17 12.09 24.16 10.97

uents SD

6.01 6.73 6.73 6.48

t-tests

-2.579** 2.322**

-2.307** 1.791*

It is evident from Table 2 that perceived parental care was significantly lower

among male delinquents than among male nondelinquents, and that perceived parental

overprotection was significantiy higher among male delinquents than among male

84

nondelinquents. This is consistent with previous research (e.g. Mak, 1994, 1996a; see

also Goldstein & Heaven, 2000).

(iii) Psychoticism

Coralla (1990) provides norms for the EPQ-R short version for various ages. For his

13-, 14-, and 15-year old mainstream high school students the mean scores on the scale

were 3.85 (SD = 2.55), 4.46 (SD = 4.45), and 3.69 (SD = 2.60) respectively. For the

present sample of delinquent students the mean score was 5.46 (SD = 3.36) (Table 1).

This is significantiy higher than the 13- and 15-year olds in the Coraha study (t = 2.53,

p < .02 and t = 2.59, p < .01 respectively).

(iv) Comparison between Study 1 and Study 2 in parental discipline

Given that the majority of the present sample are male (namely, 87%), a

comparison of parental discipline style scores was made between the male

participants of this and the previous study. In order to detennine whether the two

groups differ significantiy in their experience of discipline style, a one-way

MANOVA was conducted, with study sample as the independent variable. Table 3

presents the means and standard deviations for both samples

Wilks' criterion showed that perceptions of parental discipline style were

significantiy affected by the group (Wilks' Lambda = .844, F(3,84) = 5.165, p<

' The means and standard deviations presented in Table 3 for Study 1 differ very slightly to those that were presented in Chapter 2 Table 3, (namely by 0.42 for the punitive measure, 0.19 for the love-withdrawal measure, and 0.08 for the induction measure), since the MANOVA analysis excludes students with missing data.

85

Table 3 Comparison between Study 1 and Study 2 means on parental discipline style measures for males only

Measures

Punitive discipline style Love-withdrawal Inductive discipline style

Study 1 (mainstream students)

M

44.10 15.87 28.69

SD

9.47 4.38 6.11

Sttidy (delinquent

M

38.45 17.00 26.80

2 smdents)

SD

7.72 4.51 6.06

Univariate F

5.941* 1.485 1.019

*p< 0.05

0.005). That is, delinquent adolescents experienced significantly lower levels of

purutive discipline than mainsfream adolescents (F(l,86) = 5.941, p < .05). This

finding is contrary to what was expected (hypothesis 4). While the mean love-

withdrawal scores for the delinquent sample was higher than that of the mainstream

sample as predicted, and inductiveness for the delinquent sample was lower than for

the mainsfream student sample as predicted, these differences are not significant.

3.5.2 Correlational analyses

Pearson conelations are presented for the whole sample in Table 4. It is evident

that an inductive discipline style was significantiy related to lower self-reported

delinquency providing partial support for hypothesis 1 (r = -0.43, p < 0.05). As

predicted in hypothesis 3, P was significantiy related to higher levels of self-

reported delinquency (r = 0.57, p < 0.01). Parental induction, matemal care and

patemal care were significantiy related to lower levels of P, partly supporting

hypothesis 3 (r = -0.43, p < 0.05; r = -0.51, p < 0.01; r = -0.39, p < 0.05,

86

respectively). Furthermore, a punitive disciphne style was sigruficantly related to

lower matemal care and higher matemal overprotection, and parental love-

withdrawal was significantly related to lower patemal care and higher matemal

overprotection.

Table 4 Pearson correlations between measures

1

l.SRD

2.PUN -0.13

3.LW 0.20 0.64**

4.IND -0.43* 0.22

5.M-C -0.21 -0.42*

0.35

-0.32

6.M-P -0.30 0.48* 0.56 * *

7.P-C

8.P-P

-0.23 -0.30 -0.51 =

0.17 0.18 0.35

0.23

0.37

-0.02

0.35

-0.40

0.42* -0.22

-0.26 0.24

9.Psych. 0.57** 0.02 0.17 -0.43* -0.51** -0.01

-0.54**

-0.39* 0.08

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

l.SRD: Self-reported delinquency 2.PUN: Punitive discipline style 3.LW: Love-withdrawal 4.IND: Inductive discipline style 9. Psych.: Psychoticism

5.M-C: Matemal-care 6.M-P: Maternal-protection 7.P-C: Patemal-care 8.P-P: Paternal-protection

87

3.5.3 Parental groups and adolescent adjustment

Analyses were conducted to determine whether delinquent adolescents reporting the

various matemal and patemal parenting styles differ in terms of thefr participation in

delinquent activities and in terms of their P scores. Using mean splits, tiie four

parenting style groups (namely, optimal bonding, absent or weak bonding, affectionate

constraint, and affectionless control) were formed. The cell sizes were too small to

conduct one-way MANOVAs or one-way ANOVAs. Thus, t-tests were conducted to

test for differences in self-reported delinquency and P between the exfreme parenting

groups (that is, between affectionless control and optimal bonding, as well as between

absent or weak bonding and optimal bonding). Table 5 presents the mean self-reported

delinquency and P scores for the four different parenting styles described by Parker et

al. (1979).

Table 5 Mean delinquency and P scores for the different parenting styles


It can be seen from Table 5 that delinquent adolescents in the "affectionless confrol"

and "absent or weak bonding" groups reported higher levels of delinquency and P

scores than those in the "affectionate constraint" and "optimal bonding" groups. T-tests

indicated that the only significant difference between the parenting styles groups was in

P levels between patemal absent or weak bonding and patemal optimal bonding (t =

2.24, p < .05). That is, adolescents who reported absent or weak bonding with their

fathers had higher P scores than those who reported optimal bonding with their fathers.

While the mean delinquency and P scores are in the expected direction, (that is, those

who have experienced optimal bonding have lower self-reported delinquency and P

scores than those who have experienced weak bonding or affectionless control), the

differences are not significant due to the small number of respondents in each cell.

These findings provide some support for hypothesis 3.

3.5.4 Regression analyses

(i) Factors predicting self-reported delinquency

Given that parental induction and P were significantiy conelated with self-reported

delinquency, a standard regression analysis was conducted in which self-reported

delinquency was regressed on these two predictor variables (Table 6). The assumptions

underlying the use of regression analysis were examined and met, namely, having the

minimum requirement of "5 times more cases than independent variables"(Coakes &

Steed, 1996, p. 130). In addition, the assumptions regarding multicolhnearity and

singularity were met. The overall model was significant (F(2,21) = 6.297, p < .01). The

results showed that only P significantiy predicted self-reported delinquency, explaining

89

37.5% of the variance of delinquency among this sample of delinquent adolescents.

When additional regression analyses were conducted including the punitive and love-

withdrawal disciphne styles and/or the parental bonding measures, the models were not

significant.

Table 6 Multiple regression analyses

2 Dependent variable Predictors B t R

Self-reported delinquency Induction -.270 -1.375 Psychoticism .435 2.215* .375

*/?<.05.

(ii) Checking for mediation

To demonstrate a mediating effect from regression analysis, Baron and Kenny

(1986) have identified certain criteria that need to be met: (i) the predictor variable(s)

and the mediating variable correlate with each other and with the dependent variable,

and (ii) the relationship between the predictor variable and the dependent variable is

reduced to non-significance when the effects of the mediating variable are partialled

out.

From the conelational analyses, it is evident that parental induction and P conelate

with each other and with the dependent variable, self-reported delinquency, satisfying

the first criteria. The results of the multiple regression analysis (Table 6) indicate that

the effects of parental induction are reduced to non-significance in the regression

model, while the effects of P remain significant. These results, presented

90

diagrammatically in Figure 1, support the prediction that P mediates the effect of

inductive parental practices on delinquent behaviour, providing support for the third

hypothesis. Thus, in this sample of delinquent adolescents, P is an important link

between perceptions of parental discipline style and delinquency.

(r =

Inductiveness

43*)

r

Psychoticism

\ \ N

N \ \ \

B =

\ fr = -\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

N

w W

B = .44* (r=.57*)

-.27 43*)

Self-Reported Delinquency

Figure 1 Mediation of parental induction by psychoticism

Beta weights are shown, with conelations in brackets. *;7<.05

3.6. Discussion

This discussion will focus on (1) the general findings of the second study, (2)

implications of the findings for clinical interventions, (3) the methodological linutations

of the study, and (4) directions for further research.

91

3.6.1. General findings

The aim of this study was to investigate, within a delinquent sample, the

relationship between two fanuly process factors and self-reported delinquency, and to

determine whether P mediates these effects. Furthermore, it aimed to compare

perceptions of parental discipline within a delinquent sample and a mainstream high

school sample. The results of this study partly support and extend previous research,

providing further support for the cracial role of parental discipline style in the

development of delinquency, and confirming the importance of the higher-order

personality factor P.

Correlational analyses

As expected, and consistent with previous research, (i) an inductive form of parental

discipline was significantly related to lower levels of self-reported delinquency (e.g.

Goldstein & Heaven, 2000; Shaw & Scott, 1991; Study 1), and (h) P was significantiy

related to higher levels of self-reported delinquency (e.g. Emler et al., 1987; Eysenck &

Gudjonsson, 1989; Fanington, 1992; Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Heaven & Virgen,

2001; Heaven etal., 2000).

Contrary to what was expected and inconsistent with previous research, the results

indicated that punitive and love-withdrawal discipline styles and parental bonding

measures were not sigruficantly related to self-reported delinquency. These findings are

somewhat surprising. A possible explanation may lie in the small sample size and

consequently, in reduced statistical power. A further explanation may lie in the order of

92

the questionnaires in the Survey booklet. The parental discipline style questionnafre

was the first set of questions presented to the respondents. Given that the parenting

experiences for many of these young people are often fraught with tension and

difficulty, these questions may have been somewhat confronting to begin with, resulting

in a decreased willingness to admit aspects of their parenting experience.

On the other hand, while the respondents may very well have experienced low

levels of punitiveness and love-withdrawal, it might be the case that they may also have

experienced lax discipline and neglect. This is reflected in the result of a negative

relationship between induction and self-reported delinquency. That is, higher levels of

self-reported delinquency were associated with the experience of low levels of inductive

parenting, a parenting style which relies on reasoning with the young person.

Moreover, the results of further analyses indicated that adolescents reporting

affectionless control (i.e. a combination of parental neglect and overprotection) and

absent or weak bonding reported higher levels of delinquency than those reporting

optimal bonding or affectionate constraint. It has been shown that lax parenting and

neglect are also predictive of self-reported delinquency (Hirschi, 1983; Stice, Banena

& Chassin, 1993; Weatherbum & Lind, 1997; Wilson, 1980). These aspects of

discipline, or lack thereof, are not covered in the parental discipline style measure

utilised in this study.

It is noteworthy that a punitive discipline style was negatively conelated with self-

reported delinquency although not significantly so. This is contrary to what was

expected based on the results of Study 1 and previous research (e.g. Shaw & Scott,

1991; Heaven & Virgen, 2001). Furthermore, the results of the multivariate analysis of

93

variance comparing Study 1 and Study 2 in adolescents' experience of parental

discipline style indicated, unexpectedly, that dehnquent students had experienced

significantly lower levels of punitive discipline than mainstream smdents. How is one

to explain these findings?

A number of factors already mentioned may have contributed to this result. Firstly,

the young people may have felt confronted by the nature of the first set of items.

Consequently, they may have been defensive in their responses, and not willing to

admit experiences of punitive forms of discipline. Secondly, rather than experiencing a

punitive form of discipline, this sample may have had a greater experience of "cool"

parenting, lax discipline, or neglect. Thirdly, they may have been trying to present

themselves in a socially desirable way. The Survey did contain a Lie scale, the mean

score indicating that the students were not presenting themselves unrealistically.

However, it occuned much later in the survey, by which time the respondents may have

been more at ease and less defensive.

Regression analyses

The results of the regression analysis indicated that P was the only significant

predictor of self-reported delinquency in this sample of delinquent adolescents,

accounting for 37.5% of the variance. Unexpectedly, induction was not a significant

predictor. Further regression analyses including the remaining discipline style and

parental bonding measures found these not to be significant predictors. Thus, for this

sample of adolescents P was tiie most potent predictor of self-reported delinquency.

94

providing further support for its importance (e.g. Eysenck 1985; Eysenck &

Gudjonsson, 1989; Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Heaven et al., 2000).

While the results suggest that the family process measures are not significant

predictors of self-reported delinquency, the small sample size and subsequent reduced

statistical power may have contributed to this result. For example, it is worth

mentioning that, while not significant, the MANOVA indicated differences between

delinquents and nondelinquents in reported love-withdrawal and induction that were in

the expected direction. That is, delinquent adolescents of the present study reported

higher levels of parental love-withdrawal and lower levels of parental induction than the

nondelinquent adolescents of Study 1. This result may well have been significant within

a larger sample. Furthermore, the comparison between the delinquent male youth of the

present study and the nondelinquent male youth of Mak's (1996a) study, indicated as

expected, that (i) perceived parental care was significantly lower among male

delinquents than among male nondelinquents, and (ii) perceived parental protection was

significantly higher among male delinquents than among male nondelinquents. Thus,

caution is needed when interpreting the findings of the regression analyses. What is

striking is that, in spite of the small sample size, psychoticism still stands as a strong

predictor of self-reported delinquency.

It was predicted that the family factors would be related to P, which, in mm, would

be related to higher self-reported delinquency. Taken together, the results of the

conelational and regression analyses indicated that P acts as a mediator between

parental induction and self-reported delinquency. That is, where low levels of inductive

parenting are experienced, high P scores are likely, which is likely to lead to

95

delinquency. Thus, P acts as an indirect charmel for perceptions of parental disciphne

style on delinquency. Consequentiy, the work of Shaw and Scott (1991) is extended by

providing support for a further personality factor as a mediator between discipline style

and self-reported delinquency. Furthermore, Heaven (1994a) found P to mediate the

effect of adolescents' perceptions of family communication on self-reported

delinquency. Thus, the present study extends this research by the demonstration of a

mediating effect of P between parental induction and self-reported delinquency. In

addition, while the research of Heaven (1994a) was conducted with mainstream high

school students, the present study demonstrated the mediating effect of P within a

delinquent sample of adolescents.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide additional support for the cracial role that P plays

in delinquent behaviours. Not surprisingly, young people who can be described as

aggressive, cold, egocenttic, impersonal, impulsive, unempathic and tough-minded

(Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989) will be more likely to be involved in dehnquent

behaviours. From Eysenck's perspective (1996a, 1996b, cited in Gudjonsson, 1997), a

number of factors are responsible for the development of P, namely, low cortical

arousal, poor conditionability, poor conscience development, and ineffective

socialization. The present results suggest that not only does P have a direct effect on

self-reported delinquency, but it also mediates the effect of parenting practices on

delinquency.

96

When children and young people are raised in a climate of emotional coldness,

indifference and neglect, or where harsh punishment is the norm, psychological

symptomatology results (e.g. Canetti et al., 1997, McFarlane et al., 1995). Sadly, the

environment these young people are raised in is minored in themselves. Thus, it is not

surprising that the results of the conelational analyses indicated parental purutiveness

and parental love-withdrawal to be significantly related to lower levels of matemal care

and patemal care respectively which in tum were significantiy related to higher levels

of P. Furthermore, the conelational analyses indicated that parental induction was

significantly related to lower levels of P as well as lower levels of self-reported

delinquency. Taken together, it is evident that in this small sample of delinquent youth,

family process factors are related in their association with P. This is not surprising

given Eysenck's (1977a, 1996a, 1996b, cited in Gudjonsson, 1997) view that

psychoticism is partly a resuh of poor socialisation. Overall, these results provide

support for the important role of parenting in the development of delinquency - whether

directiy (seen in the conelational analysis) or indirectiy (seen in the regression

analysis).

3.6.2. Implications of findings for clinical practice

Regarding psychoticism

From a clinical perspective, it would be valuable to intervene as early as possible in

the development of ttaits characteristic of the P personality dimension. Traits that can

be targeted in children include aggression, impulsivity, antisocial behaviour, hostility,

and lack of empathy. Eysenck (1996a) recognises that high P is an important hindrance

97

to effective socialization. Thus, work should begin on developing appropriate skiUs

with children who are exhibiting behaviours reflecting the P dimension. For example,

in terms of aggression, cognitive-behaviour therapy is effective in addressing

"the deficient and distorted social-cognitive processes in aggressive children,

including distortions in their perceptions of others' and their own behaviour,

biases in their attribution of the hostile intention of others, and oveneliance on

nonverbal direct action solutions, and underreliance on verbal assertion

solutions" (Lochman, White & Wayland, 1991).

Programs for children can include developing skills in self-monitoring, social

perspective taking, social problem-solving, training in self-instinction, affect labelling,

and relaxation. Eysenck (1977a) recommended that positive aspects of behaviour

should be strengthened, for example, through token economies. In this way the desired

behaviour is rewarded and reinforced (Eysenck, 1997).

High scorers on psychoticism have been found to extemally atfribute blame for their

criminal acts. That is, offenders report extemal justification for their crime such as

blarrung the offence on provocation or on social factors (Gudjonsson, 1984; Gudjonsson

& Singh, 1989). According to Gudjonsson (1997), "emotional coldness and lack of

empathy are probably the most relevant characteristics to extemal attribution of blame"

(p. 157). Gudjonsson (1997) suggests that treatment techniques should be developed

that focus specifically on overcoming high P scorers' attitudinal problems, the most

effective possibly being cognitive therapy techniques. However, given differences in

personality and the needs of individuals, Gudjonsson (1997) stresses the importance of

matching the tteatment to the individual. Furthermore, Eysenck (1997) points out the

98

importance of not assessing the P dimension in isolation, but rather in the context of the

other dimensions of their personality.

It is important to note that high P scorers have been shown to be particularly

resistant to conventional psychotherapy or counselling (Lane, 1987; Rahman &

Eysenck, 1978). They are paranoid and suspicious, emotionally cold and tough-

minded. According to Rahman and Eysenck (1978), these characteristics create a

barrier which makes it hard to establish a therapeutic relationship. Furthermore, these

people are known to fail appointments, resist treatment, and switch therapists

frequently. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that cogrutive therapy techniques may

be the most effective form of treatment with clients who are difficult to manage

(Davidson & Tyrer, 1996).

Given that some behaviours have a biological basis (e.g. Eysenck, 1983; Matthews

«fe Deary, 1998), they may be resistant to change. Thus, in extreme cases where

psychotherapeutic and behavioural techniques are proving completely ineffective,

Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) and Eysenck (1997) suggest that psychopharmacological

interventions may be necessary for change.

Regarding parenting factors

The results of the conelational analyses indicated that the experience of an inductive

discipline style was significantiy related to lower levels of P. Furthermore, perceptions

of matemal and patemal care were also significantiy related to lower levels of P . Given

the sfrong relationship between P and self-reported delinquency (seen in the results of

99

the conelational and regression analyses), these resufrs provide further support for the

importance of raising parent-awareness regarding parenting and commurucation skiUs

(as discussed in Chapter Two, section 2.6.2) as well as the potential implications of

parenting on children's overall health. As Shucksnuth, Hendry and Glendinning (1995)

indicate: "...young people's subjective perceptions of their relationships with their

parents...has important consequences for psychosocial development in adolescence..."

(p. 269). Further support for the importance of intervention with parents comes from

the finding that induction, through P, has an effect on delinquency. Thus, directly and

indirectly, the important role of parenting to the development (or not) of delinquent

behaviour is underlined.

3.6.3. Methodological limitations of the study

The primary limitation of the present study is the small sample size and the

subsequent decrease in statistical power. While a larger sample was initially planned,

the difficulty in gaining access to this population, resulted in a smaller sample.

A second limitation of the study is the way in which the questionnaires were

administered. Given the sensitivity of this population, it had been planned to administer

the questionnaires through one-to-one interviews. However, circumstances in the

institutions did not allow for this, and students were seen in small groups of one to four.

The presence of peers may have influenced their responses. Furthermore, given the

generally lower reading age of this population, it was planned to read the questionnaire

to the students and to note their responses. While some students had the questionnafre

read to them individually or in small groups, other students indicated that they could

100

read the questionnafre themselves. This request may have been affected by the presence

of their peers. Thus, it is possible that some of the respondents did not conectiy read or

understand the questionnaire items.

A third linutation is the order of the questionnaire. The first questionnaire in the

Questionnaire Survey was the parental discipline style measure. Given the sensitive

nature of this questionnaire, fr is possible that having it at the beginning was too

confronting for the delinquent adolescents. Respondents may have felt "on the spot"

and defensive, not wanting to admit to some aspects of their parenting experience.

3.6.4. Implications for further research

Based on the linutations of the present study a number of recommendations follow:

Firstly, it is recommended that the proposal of P as a mediator between various family

factors and self-reported delinquency be examined within a larger delinquent sample.

Not many such studies have been conducted with delinquent samples, (the majority use

high school student samples), and an increase in sample size would improve statistical

power. Secondly, where possible, future research should include a larger female sample

in order to make comparisons between male and female delinquents on the various

measures. Previous studies have found differences between males and females (e.g.

Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Heaven, 1993).

It is recommended, thirdly, that qualitative as well as quantitative research be

conducted with delinquent youth utilising one-to-one interviews. Qualitative research

would allow for greater rapport to be established with the respondent, and the open-

101

ended style of questioning would allow the researcher to delve more deeply into the

young person's explanations of their behaviour in a way which stracmred questions do

not allow. Lastiy, the order of the measures in the Questionnaire Survey need to be

more sensitive to the nature of this sample. Rather than starting the Survey with a

questionnaire that could be "confronting", the Survey could begin with a filler

questionnaire, such as asking respondents what young people in general do for fun,

what sports the respondent participates in, what hobbies and interests they have, etc.

It is evident that there is an inconsistent pattem in the results of research

investigating the relationship between parent discipline style as measured by Shaw and

Scott (1991) and self-reported delinquency. Research is thus needed to clarify the use

of Shaw and Scott's (1991) measure within different samples (namely, nondelinquent

and dehnquent), across different ages and genders, and utilising various research

techniques. Furthermore, while the questionnaire is very thorough, the inclusion of

questions relating to the experience of lax discipline and neglect would be of added

benefit.

Finally, the present study provides further support for the strong relationship

between P and delinquency. Given this, continued research is needed in the area of

intervention with young people displaying high levels of psychoticism.

3.7. Conclusion

The present study aimed to build on the first study by investigating the intervening

effect of P on family process factors and self-reported delinquency within a delinquent

102

sample. The results supported the expectation that P acts as a mediator between parental

induction and self-reported delinquency. Important contributions of the present smdy

are: (i) evidence for the cracial role that P plays in the development of delmquent

behaviours within a delinquent sample of adolescents, (ii) demonstration that, within a

small sample of delinquent youth, parenting factors are closely related to P, and (iii)

while the small sample size made it difficult to accurately determine the way in which

the factors interact in influencing delinquency, the results serve to confirm the

proposition (based on previous research) that parental discipline style is cracial to an

understanding of adolescent delinquency. Given that a small minority of offenders are

responsible for a large percentage of crime (e.g. Farrington, Ohlin & Wilson, 1986;

Wolfgang, Figio & Sellin, 1972), the present study provides further support for the need

to intervene where young people exhibit traits characteristic of P. Furthermore, the

results provide additional support for the need to raise parents' awareness regarding

parenting skills.

103

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY THREE

Perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours.

4.1 Introduction

If family and parenting factors determine and shape the views, perceptions,

behaviours and adjustment of its members (e.g. Bartol & Bartol, 1998; Scott & Scott,

1987, 1998), then it is likely that links exist between parental disciphne styles and

adolescents' perceptions of dehnquent behaviours. If punishment in general is designed

to draw attention to the unacceptability of a particular form of behaviour, then the style

of discipline experienced by a young person must by implication affect and shape their

views about behaviour. The purpose of this study is to discover the nature of the

relationship between perceptions of parental discipline style and perceptions of the

seriousness of delinquent behaviours.

As mentioned previously (Chapter One) Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) identified

and described three types of parental disciphne. An inductive style of discipline consists

of the parent reasoning with thefr child about the causes and effects of thefr behaviours,

and involves "the parent's focusing on the consequences of the child's action for

others" (Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967, p. 45). On the other hand, a punitive discipline

style includes techniques such as physical punishment and material deprivation, a style

of power assertion "in which the parent capitalises on his power and authority over the

child" (Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967, p.45). Parental love-withdrawal involves "direct

104

but non-physical expressions of anger and disapproval" (Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967, p.

45). Overall, it is suggested that an inductive style of discipline, as compared with the

punitive and love-withdrawal styles, would be most effective in developing adolescents'

sense of what is right and wrong, and consequentiy which behaviours are serious

offences.

4.1.1 Study rationale

Issues arising from Study I

Looking more closely at the responses to the Self-Reported Delinquency measure in

Study 1, a number of issues arise. Table 1 presents the proportion of Study 1

respondents who, through the medium of Gold's (1970) questionnaire, admitted

involvement in various delinquent acts. The fact that most mainstream high school

teenagers in the sample answered "never" for each item indicates that they can be

described as "normal range" adolescents. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a

sizeable number of respondents admitted to engaging in some of these behaviours "once

or twice" or even "sometimes". This raises the important matter of whether young

people (and, indeed, their parents) perceive "delinquent" behaviours as serious offences

or whether they are regarded as acceptable. The importance of asking adolescents is

that they are the peers of so-called "delinquents". Once "delinquent" behaviours have

been identified as serious offences by adolescents, engaging in these acts can be seen as

breaching peers' norms and values rather than adults' social norms and values.

Table 1 Percentage of respondents engaged in certain behaviours

105


106

4.2 Background literature regarding perceptions of delinquent behaviours

Research into the perceptions of the seriousness of crimes has been conducted

for over seventy years, beginning with Thurstone in 1927. Scales have been developed

to investigate offence seriousness (for example, SeUin & Wolfgang, 1964) and have

been used in a number of replication studies with a variety of cross-cultural subject

groups. One reason for this research interest is that the way in which criminal

behaviours are viewed by the public and legislators has implications for policing and

sentencing policy.

Past research has shown that there is consistency in the way people rate the relative

seriousness of offences (eg. Figho, 1975; Levi & Jones, 1985; Corbett & Simon, 1991;

O'Connell & Whelan, 1996). This is especially trae for those behaviours that are the

most severe. There are also group differences in the way seriousness is rated and

various factors have been shown to influence such perceptions. These include level of

education and age (Davis, Severy & Kraus, 1993), the amount of television news

watched (Gebotys, Roberts & DasGupta, 1988), whether the respondent is generally

conservative or liberal (Davis et al., 1993), and whether the respondent is an offender or

not (Figlio, 1975). While agreeing on the most serious offences, police and the public

differ in their ratings of the less severe offences, with the public rating minor offences

more seriously than do pohce (Levi & Jones, 1985; Corbett & Simon, 1991).

Sex differences in seriousness ratings have also been observed. For example,

Gebotys et al., (1988) found that females gave higher seriousness ratings than males to

offences involving violence or the threat of violence (assault, sexual assault, robbery).

107

They argued that tius may be due to the fact that women perceive tiiemselves as being

more vulnerable to such offences and are therefore fearful of victimisation.

Research into adolescent perceptions of seriousness has been scarce. A notable

exception is a recent study of adolescents' perceptions of the seriousness of juvenile

offending (Tyson & Hubert, 1998). This study focused on cultural differences in

adolescents' perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours. Significant

differences were found between young Indigenous Australians/Aborigines and those

who identified themselves as white Australian, Vietnamese and Chinese. Furthermore,

the students rated the more severe behaviours as serious and, consistent with previous

research in adult samples, differed on items with lower rankings. Males tended to have

lower ratings overall. Students who knew someone who had been in trouble with the

law viewed most behaviours as less serious.

Through their research Tyson and Hubert (1998) provide an insight into adolescent

perceptions of the seriousness of behaviours, indicating cultural, gender, and ranking

differences. However, their research did not indicate whether these perceptions possess

a particular stracture, or whether the perceived seriousness of behaviours will vary

depending on who (boy or girl) is engaging in the behaviour.

Thus, the first aim of the present study was to examine both adolescents' and adults'

perceptions of the seriousness of "delinquent" behaviours. The second aim of was to

extend existing research by determining whether the perceived seriousness of

behaviours varies depending on the sex of the individual engaging in the behaviour (the

"target").

108

Hypotheses

1. Given that Mak (1993) found the items of her scale to cluster together into various

groups, it was predicted that adolescents' and adults' perceptions of dehnquent

behaviours possesses a particular stracture.

2. It was predicted that females will rate offences involving violence or bodily harm as

more serious than will males (Gebotys et al., 1988).

3. Given prevailing gender-role stereotypes suggesting that females, more than males,

are expected to be warm, caring, and considerate (Golombok & Fivush, 1994), it

was predicted that respondents will rate behaviours as more serious when conducted

by female targets and the same behaviours as less serious when conducted by male

targets.

4.3 The influence of family climate

Having discussed the results of research into perceptions of offence seriousness,

attention will be turned to an important confributing factor in the development of

dehnquency, namely, the family environment. Since this factor has already been

discussed in some detail, a brief summary follows.

fr has been well documented that family functioning affects and has a significant

impact on the functioning of its members (e.g. Scott & Scott, 1987, 1998). There is

extensive research evidence that a sfrong relationship exists between fanuly functioning

109

and the development of dehnquent behaviour (eg. Bischof et al., 1995; Krohn et al.,

1992; see also research reviewed in chapter one). For example, Bischof and coUeagues

(1995) found that groups of delinquents perceived thefr families to be less cohesive, less

expressive, with lower levels of independence among members, higher levels of conttol,

and participated in fewer social and recreational activfries. In particular, parenting

factors have been shown to be related to the development of delinquent behaviours of

adolescent offspring, including parental practices such as poor supervision, poor

monitoring, extensive use of coercive discipline, and passive or neglectful parenting

(for example, Bryan & Freed, 1982; Gorman-Snuth et al., 1996; Loeber & Stouthamer-

Loeber, 1986; Patterson et al., 1989; Scholte, 1999).

As has been noted previously, one aspect of family functioning that has received

specific research attention is parental discipline style. Evidence shows that parental use

of corporal and other punishment is significantly related to self-ratings of aggression

(e.g. Bryan & Freed, 1982; Lefkowitz et al., 1978), while enatic or harsh discipline has

been found to be related to juvenile delinquency and anti-social behaviour (e.g. Carlo et

al., 1998; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Rankin & WeUs, 1990; Rutter & Gtiler, 1983).

Further support for the role of parental discipline style in the development of self-

reported delinquency is provided by the results of Study 1 and of Study 2 which

indicated that adolescents' perceptions of the discipline style they experienced are

related to their involvement in delinquent behaviours.

Given that parental styles have been shown to have a direct influence on adolescent

delinquent behaviours, it is therefore possible that parental discipline styles will shape

the perceptions that young people have of different behaviours.

no

Thus, the third aim of the present study was to explore whether adolescents' and

adults' perceptions of various behaviours are linked to their fanuly experiences. More

specifically, the aim was to investigate whether adolescents' and adults' perceptions of

the seriousness of behaviours are related to the discipline style they reportedly have

experienced (adolescents) or used (adults).

Hypothesis 4

Given that:

(i) an inductive discipline style involves reasoning and discussion of consequences

thereby fostering a positive and constractive relationship between parent and

child (Balson, 1991; Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967), while parental punitiveness

involves physical punishment, and parental love-withdrawal involves non-

physical expressions of anger and disapproval, both creating fear,

discouragement and at times, further resistance (Balson, 1991; Hoffman &

Saltzstein, 1967), and that

(ii) the discipline style experienced by young people is related to their involvement

in delinquent behaviour, with punitive and love-withdrawal styles associated

with self-reported delinquency (for example. Heaven & Virgen, 2001; Shaw and

Scott, 1991; and the results of Study 1),

it is suggested that an inductive style of discipline, as compared with the punitive and

love-withdrawal styles, would be most effective in developing adolescents' sense of

what is right and wrong, and consequentiy which behaviours are serious offences.

I l l

Thus, it was predicted that experience of a particular discipline style (adolescents)

or use of a particular discipline style (aduhs) is related to perceptions of the seriousness

of delinquent behaviours. More specifically,

(a) adolescents who have experienced a punitive or love-withdrawal discipline style

(that is, physical or non-physical expressions of anger and disapproval) will

perceive the more unacceptable behaviours as less serious compared to those who

have experienced an inductive discipline style (that is, a style which involves

discussion and reasoning and is not based on power-assertion), and similarly

(b) adults who have used a punitive or love-withdrawal discipline style will perceive the

more unacceptable behaviours as less serious compared to those who have used an

inductive discipline style.

4.4 Method

4.4.1 Respondents

The adolescent sample consisted of 321 high school students (45.5 % male and

54.5% female), between 15 and 16 years of age (mean age = 15.1 years). The students

came from six high schools (four government and two private) located in the hlawana

region (population about 280,000) of New South Wales, Ausfralia. The adufr sample

consisted of 193 parents (19.7% male and 80.3% female), ranging in age from 32 to 74

years (mean age = 42.7 years).

Students were asked to provide information about the education and cunent

occupation(s) of their parent(s). Similarly, adult respondents were asked for their own

112

education and cunent occupation, as well as that of thefr partner (if applicable). The

occupations were categorised according to Daniel's (1983) prestige scale for Ausfrahan

occupations, from high prestige (1.2) to low prestige (6.9).

Table 2 shows the occupational prestige of both parents of the adolescent sample.

Although they are involved in a wide range of occupations, it is evident that the sample

has a middle class bias.

Table 2 Parents' occupational prestige of the adolescent sample

Parents' occupations*

1-1.9 2 -2 .9 3-3 .9 4 - 4 . 9 5-5 .9 6-6 .9 Retired/unemployed Housewife Unanswered

Father (n:

Frequency

1 22 88

105 52 16 10 /

27

= 294)

%

0.3 6.9

27.4 32.7 16.2 5.0 3.1

/

8.4

Mother (n:

Frequency

/

5 87 75 33 14 12 49 46

= 275)

%

/

1.6 27.1 23.4 10.3 4.4 3.7 15.3 14.3

* Prestige categories (Daniel, 1983): 1-1.9 = e.g. judge, medical specialist; 2-2.9 - e.g. architect, accountant, solicitor; 3-3.9 = e.g. teacher, small businessperson, trained nurse, computer programmer, draftsperson; 4-4.9 = e.g. tradesperson, poice constable, technician, caterer, industrial foreman; 5-5.9 = e.g. driver (taxi, bus), linesman, gardener, nurse aid, postal clerk, housewife; 6-6.9 = e.g. railway worker, factory worker, labourer, process worker.

Table 3 presents the occupational prestige of the adult sample. Again, while the

adults are involved in a range of occupations, there is a middle class bias. It is not

suggested that the sample is completely representative of the Australian population,

however, it appears sufficientiy heterogeneous for the purposes of this study.

113

/

1 74 44 20

4 5

42 3

/

0.5 38.3 22.8 10.4 2.1 2.6

21.8 1.6

Table 3 Occupational prestige of the adult sample

Parents' occupations* Frequency %

1-1.9 2 -2 .9 3 -3 .9 4 - 4 . 9 5-5 .9 6-6 .9 Retired/unemployed Housewife Unanswered

* Prestige categories (Daniel, 1983): 1-1.9 = e.g. judge, medical specialist; 2-2.9 = e.g. architect, accountant, solicitor; 3-3.9 = e.g. teacher, small businessperson, trained nurse, computer programmer, draftsperson; 4-4.9 = e.g. tradesperson, poice constable, technician, caterer, industrial foreman; 5-5.9 = e.g. driver (taxi, bus), linesman, gardener, nurse aid, postal clerk, housewife; 6-6.9 - e.g. railway worker, factory worker, labourer, process worker.

4.4.2 Measures

Respondents were each provided with a test booklet containing the following

measures (see Appendix F and Appendix G):

(i) Perceived seriousness of delinquent behaviours

Using the items of Mak's (1993) Ausfralian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale and

two items from Gold's (1970) Self-Reported Delinquency Scale, students were asked to

rate tiie seriousness of each behaviour. Responses were indicated on a Likert scale

where responses were coded 1 ("Not a serious offence") to 5 ("A serious offence").

Students were randomly assigned to receive one of two fonns of the booklet, hi one

form (« = 168) students were asked about these behaviours if committed by "boys of

114

your age", while in the second fomi sttidents (« = 153) had to judge the behaviours as

committed by "giris of your age". (Appendix F contains the questionnafre as it relates

to girls.)

Responses to both fonns of the questionnaire were combined and subjected to a

principal components analysis with oblimin rotation (that is, simplifying factors by

minimising cross products of loadings; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Five components

with eigenvalues greater than unity were extracted, in total explaining 53% of tiie

variance. The rotated factor loadings are shown in Table 4.

The first factor deals with minor offences, such as not paying the proper fee for

activities or watching an R-rated (restricted) film. The second factor deals with theft

offences (eg. shoplifting, break-and-enter with the intention of stealing something, etc.),

while the third factor deals with physical aggression (eg. purposefully hurting

someone, using a weapon, etc.). The fourth factor comprised items dealing with

driving offences, while the fifth factor is a vandalism factor (eg. purposefully

damaging others' property). The first hypothesis was therefore supported for the

student sample.

Parents similarly received one of two forms of the booldet. In one form they were

asked whether or not they considered each behaviour as a serious offence for Year 10

boys to do (n = 96), while in the second form they had to judge the behaviours as

committed by Year 10 girls (n = 97). (Appendix G contains the questionnaire as it

relates to boys.)

115

Table 4 Rotated factor loadings for the perceived seriousness of behaviours

Factor

Item 1 2 3 4 5

How serious an offence for a boy/girl your age:

1. -drive an unregistered car. -.086 -.067 -.015 .709 -.207

2. - drive a car or a motor bike on the road without a licence. .035 -.020 -.020 .738 .002

3. -driving a car or bike when drunk or over the legal alcohol limit.-.120 .250 .186 .544 .268

4. -racing with other vehicles while driving a car or motor bike

on the road. .079 .068 .132 .556 .050

5. -taking and driving a car or motor bike that belonged to

someone else without the owner's consent. -.059 .470 -.012 .516 .229

6. -stealing things or parts out of a car or motor bike. .086 .441 .211 .302 .295

7. -stealing a bicycle or parts from a bicycle. -283 .422 .194 .131 .187

8. -going to see an R film in a cinema -756 -.244 -.125 .111 .049

9. -buyingbeer, wine, spirits or other kinds of liquor. .409 .092 -.092 .479 -.191

10.-drinking alcohol in a public place, eg. disco/pub/tavem/bistro. -.353 .125 -.017 .454 -.132

11 -going onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, disco, etc.,

without paying the proper fee. -681 098 .077 .039 .085

12.-not attending classes or wagging school. -544 .052 .050 .145 -.089

13.-running away from home (at least overnight). -516 .047 .027 -.031 .058

14.-shoplifting from supermarkets, department stores or shops. .145 .663 -.002 .118-.043

15. -stealing money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops,

school, locker rooms, home, people's milk money, etc. .171 .740 -.060 .014 -.088

16.-stealing money of $10 or more in one go. -066 .782 .013 -.120 -.164

17. -breaking into a house or building with the intention of

stealing something, eg. money, exam papers or other things. -.120 .763 .006 .111 .023

18.-cheating or stealing food, drinks, etc. from dispenser machines. .714 .128 .005 -.057-.124

19.-obtainingfree games from coin-operated game machines. .688 -008 .036 -.152 -.132

20.-purposely messing up other people's property. 167 .379 .146 .021 -.322

116

Table 4 (continued)

21.-purposely damaging property by starting a fu-e. .241 .401 .211 .159 -.295

22.-purposely damaging things in public places. .005 .429 .180 .018 -.542

23.-purposely damaging school desks/windows/other school property..209 .164 .168 .141 -.522

24.-putting graffiti on walls/toilet doors^us panels/public places. .181 .130 .095 .110 -.572

25. -taking part in a fist fight in which a group of people was

against another group. .254 -.323 .394 .292 -.235

26. -purposely hurting or beating up someone. .054 -.060 .715 .009 -.208

27.-using a weapon of some sort, eg. knife, stick, bottle in a fight -.201 -.128 .741 .168 -.086

28. -using or threatening to use force to get money or things from

another person. -.019 .086 .672 -.068 -.253

29.-using marijuana (also called grass, dope, hash). .488 -.027 -.013 .403-.120

30.-using LSD (also called acid). .352 .148 .112 .299 -.043

31.-abusing barbiturates by not following proper medical advice. .375 .180 .069 .241 -.073

32. -forcing someone to do sexual things when they did not want to. .003 .134 .611 -. 104 .281

33.-tricking someone on the telephone eg. false restaurant booking. .418 .122 .208 .019 -.129

34.-making abusive phone calls eg. saying nasty or obscene things. .302 .163 .502 .045 .103

35.-hitting a teacher. .194 -.029 .624 .026 .027

36. -going onto someone's land or into some house or building

when not supposed to be there. -454 .189 .329 -.067 -.007

Alpha coefficient

Eigenvalue

% variance accounted for

.79 .83 .80 .76 .76

11.46 2.72 1.95 1.64 1.30

31.8 7.6 5.4 4.6 3.6

Note. Loading > 0.50 regarded as significant

Once again responses to both forms of the questionnaire were combined and

subjected to a principal components analysis witii oblinun rotation. Five components

with eigenvalues greater than unity were exttacted in total explaining 59% of the

variance. The rotated factor loadings are shown in Table 5.

117

Table 5 Rotated factor loadings for the perceived seriousness of behaviours

Item

Factor

1 2 3

How serious an offence for a Year 10 boy/girl to do: " '—~~

1. -drive an unregistered car. .246 -.034 -.383 .431 .216

2. - drive a car or a motor bike on the road without a licence. -.159 .119 ..683 .246 021

3. -driving a car or bike when drunk or over the legal alcohol limit. .018 .042 -.857 -.059 .027

4. -racing with other vehicles while driving a car or motor bike

on the road. .156 053 -.258 .101 .549

5. -taking and driving a car or motor bike that belonged to

someone else without the owner's consent. .161 -.151 -.537 .329 196

6. -stealing things or parts out of a car or motor bike. .603 -.101 -.193 .234 .255

7. -stealing a bicycle or parts from a bicycle. .524 .002 -.246 .379 .061

8. -going to see an R film in a cinema -.124 .519 -.027 .292 -.084

9. -buying beer, wine, spirits or other kinds of liquor. .105 .138 -.086 .650 .032

10. -drinking alcohol in a public place, eg. disco/pub/tavem/bistro. .174 .156 .072 .661 118

11 -going onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, disco, etc.,

without paying the proper fee. .038 .746 .149 .228 -.086

12.-not attending classes or wagging school. .143 .605 .092 .258 -.020

13.-running away from home (at least overnight). .117 .476 .077 .165 .043

14.-shoplifting from supermarkets, department stores or shops. .315 .264 -.390 .221 -.049

15. -stealing money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops,

school, locker rooms, home, people's milk money, etc. .457 .367 -.268 .066 -.023

16.-stealing money of $10 or more in one go. .478 .255 -.455 .085 -.043

17. -breaking into a house or building with the intention of

stealing something, eg. money, exam papers or other things. .115 .052 -.798 -.087 .021

18.-cheating or stealing food, drinks, etc. from dispenser machines. .035 .684 -.292 -.029 -.093

19.-obtaining free games from coin-operated game machines. .180 .723 -.106 -.135 .006

20.-purposely messing up other people's property. 106 .567 -.163 -.200 .137

118

Table 5 (continued)

21.-purposely damaging property by starting a fire. .441 ..025 -.391 -.043 287

22.-purposely damaging things in public places. .278 .175 -.537 -.211 .251

23.-purposely damaging school desks/windows/other school property..172 .324 -.415 -.192 .312

24.-putting graffiti on walls/toilet doors/bus panels/public places. .043 .579 -.197 -.083 .179

25. -taking part in a fist fight in which a group of people was

against another group. .119 .goi -.156 -.063 .077

26.-purposely hurting or beating up someone. .258 .217 .086 -.173 .590

27.-usingaweaponofsomesort, eg. knife, stick, bottle in a fight .294 -.002 -.074 -.101 .602

28. -using or threatening to use force to get money or things from

another person. .230 -.038 .029 .022 .705

29. -using marijuana (also called grass, dope, hash). -.040 .356 .029 .209 .384

30.-using LSD (also called acid). -.119 .038 -.058 .129 .790

31. -abusing barbiturates by not following proper medical advice. -.206 -.067 -.023 .117 .731

32.-forcing someone to do sexual things when they did not want to. .025 -.138 -.113 -.032 .766

33.-tricking someone on the telephone eg. false restaurant booking. .129 .401 .025 .070 .262

34.-making abusive phone calls eg. saying nasty or obscene things. .363 .182 .066 .132 .343

35.-hitting a teacher. .370 .212 .109 -.094 .557

36. -going onto someone's land or into some house or building

when not supposed to be there. -009 .587 .066 .030 .267

Alpha coefficient .82 .86 .86 .84 .86

Eigenvalue 13.90 2.66 1.95 1.56 1.24

% variance accounted for 38.6 7.4 5.4 4.3 3.4

Note. Loading > 0.50 regarded as significant

The first factor deals witii vehicle theft offences (e.g. stealing parts of a car/motor

bike/bicycle). The second factor deals with minor offences such as not paying the

proper fee for activities or watching an R-rated (resfricted) film, while the third factor

119

comprised items dealing with driving offences (e.g. drink-driving) and theft (e.g.

brealcing into a house to steal). The fourth factor deals with alcohol offences (e.g.

buying beer, wine, spirits or other liquor), while the fifth factor comprises items dealing

with physical aggression (e.g. purposely hurting or beating someone up) and dmg

offences (e.g. using LSD). The first hypothesis was therefore supported for the adult

sample.

Comparison between student and parent factors

The student and parent factors are similar in two factors, namely, perceived

seriousness of nunor offences and perceived seriousness of physical aggression. There

is overlap of two student factors (namely, perceived seriousness of theft offences and

perceived seriousness of driving offences) with one parent factor (namely, perceived

seriousness of driving offences and theft). They differ in that students have a factor

dealing with perceived seriousness of vandalism, while parents have factors dealing

with perceived seriousness of vehicle theft and perceived seriousness of alcohol

offences. Noticeable is the lack of a student factor involving dmg offences. This is a

result of having chosen the five-factor solution as compared with the six-factor solution

which did include a factor dealing with dmg offences. The reasons for opting for the

five-factor solution were that it was a "tidier solution", and easier to interpret. Given

that the student and parent factors differ considerably, further statistical comparisons

could not be made.

120

(ii) Parental discipline style (Shaw and Scott, 1991)

This is the same measure used in the previous studies. On the present occasion,

alpha coefficients for the student sample were parental punitiveness = 0.88, parental

love-withdrawal = 0.77 (after removal of question 2.d), and parental induction = 0.83.

For the parent sample the questionnafre was modified slightly by asking them for their

perceptions of the type of disciplinary techniques they had used. Alpha coefficients for

the three discipline styles were parental pumtiveness = 0.75, parental love-withdrawal =

0.67(after removal of question 2.d), and parental induction = 0.78.

(iii) Social Desirability Scale (Hays, Hayashi and Stewart, 1989)

This five-item scale measures the tendency to fake good. Fifteen smdent

respondents and 16 adult respondents with social desirability scores in the top 5% of the

respective samples were onutted from analysis.

4.4.3 Procedure

Students were invhed to participate in a study of perceptions of various behaviours

engaged in by young people as well as thefr perceptions of some aspects of family life

(see Appendix H for student and parent consent fonns). Once parental and student

consent had been obtained, the questionnaire was administered during school hours by

the researcher. Smdents were assured of anonymity and confidentiality and that the

infomiation would be used for research purposes only. The questionnaire took between

20 and 40 nunutes to complete.

121

At the initial student visit, sttidents were also given a sealed envelope for thefr

parent/guardian inviting them to participate in the research, independent of thefr

child's/ward's participation (see Appendix I for consent fonn). They were assured

of anonymity and confidentiality and that the information would be used for

research purposes only. They were also provided with a pre-stamped envelope in

which to retum their completed questionnaire to the researcher.

4.5 Results


(i) Means and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness factors for students

Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness

factors for female and male students as they responded to the behaviours being

conducted by boys and by girls.

In order to determine whether the sex of the respondent and sex of the target had a

significant effect on the perceptions of seriousness of the behaviours, a 2 x 2 MANOVA

was conducted on the factor scores. Wilks' criterion showed that perceptions of

seriousness were significantiy affected by the sex of respondent (Wilks' Lambda = .906,

F(5, 284) = 5.912, p < .001). Univariate analyses showed that females perceived

physical aggression as significantiy more serious than did males, F(l, 288) = 14.868, p

< .001. This provides support for the second hypothesis.

122

Table 6 Mean scores and standard deviations on perceived seriousness factors for female and male student respondents as they relate to female and male targets.

Perceived seriousness factors

Minor offences (range: 6-30)

FEMALES

TARGET Boys Girls

M SD M SD

12.71 5.02 13.57 4.73

MALES

TARGET Boys Girls

M SD M SD

Univariate F values

11.91 4.62 14.02 4.87 4.494*

Theft 15.80 3.18 15.36 3.87 (range: 4-20)

Physical aggression 24.87 3.80 23.57 5.10 (range: 6-30)

15.04 4.14 15.68 4.01

21.91 4.72 22.15 5.80 14.868**

Driving offences 18.85 4.43 19.54 3.88 18.36 4.33 19.07 4.97 (range: 5-25)

Vandalism 9.96 2.98 10.12 3.13 9.78 2.87 10.67 2.84 (range: 3-15)

*/?<.05, **/?<.001

Wilks' criterion also showed that perceptions of the seriousness of minor offences

(factor 1) was significantiy affected by tiie sex of target (Wilks' Lambda = .949, F(5,

284) = 3.070, p < .05). That is, minor offences were rated as more serious when

conducted by giris than by boys, F{\, 288) = 4.494, p < .05. This lends some support to

tiie third hypothesis. There were no other significant main effects or interactions.

123

(ii) Means and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness factors for parents

Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness

factors for female and male parents as they responded to the behaviours being

conducted by boys and giris. fri order to detennine whether the sex of tiie respondent

and sex of the target had a significant effect on the perceptions of seriousness, a 2 x 2

MANOVA was conducted on the factor scores. No significant main effect was found

for tiie sex of respondent (Wilks' Lambda = .980, F (5, 148) = .6U,p> .05). Thus, the

second hypothesis was not supported in the adult sample. Furthermore, no significant

main effect was found for the sex of target (Wilks' Lambda = .997, F (5, 148) = .078, p

> .05), thereby not providing support for the third hypothesis in the adult sample. There

were no significant interactions.

Table 7 Mean scores and standard deviations on perceived seriousness factors for female and male parent respondents as they relate to female and male targets.

FEMALES MALES

TARGET Boys Girls

TARGET Boys Girls

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Perceived seriousness factors

9.24 1.42 9.37 1.32

30.59 7.78 30.99 6.12

Vehicle theft (range: 2 - 10)

Minor offences (range: 9 - 45)

Driving & theft offences 18.48 3.24 19.20 2.19 (range: 5 - 25)

Alcohol offences 8.18 2.01 8.17 1.81 (range: 2-10)

Physical aggression & dmg offences 37.70 3.32 37.74 4.25

(range: 8 - 40)

9.42 1.25 9.36 0.92

31.78 6.64 30.60 7.82

19.57 0.84 19.18 1.17

7.58 2.38 8.00 1.73

38.74 2.47 38.27 2.15

124

(Hi) Comparison between students and parents on the perceived seriousness items

From Table 8 it is evident that parents consider all the behaviours as

significantly more serious than students.

Table 8 Mean scores and standard deviations on the perceived seriousness of behaviours items for students and parents

Item Students Parents Student - How serious an offence for a boy/giri your age: Parent - How serious an offence for a Year 10 boy/girl to:

1. -drive an unregistered car. M = 3.41 M = 4.42 9.757* SD=1.23 SD=1.04

2. -drive a car or a motor bike on the road without a M = 3.60 M = 4.57 10.127* licence.

3. -driving a car or bike when drunk or over the legal M = 4.35 M = 4.85 6.059* alcohol limit.

4. -racing with other vehicles while driving a car or M = 3.53 M = 4.71 13.404* motor bike on the road.

5. -taking and driving a car or motor bike that belonged M = 4.07 M - 4.76 8.291' to someone else without the owner's consent.

6. -stealing things or parts out of a car or motor bike. M = 3.88 M = 4.76 10.899* SD=1.20 SD = 0.61

7. -stealing a bicycle or parts from a bicycle. M = 3.42 M = 4.55 11.785* SD=1.28 SD = 0.86

8. -going to see an R film in a cinema. M = 1.71 M = 2.44 6.358* SD=1.10 SD=1.27

9. -buying beer, wine, spirits or other kinds of liquor. M = 2.88 M = 4.04 10.512* SD=1.37 SD=1.06

10.-drinking alcohol in a public place, eg. disco/pub/ M^=2.85^ M^=4.05^ 10.924* tavern/bistro.

11 -going onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, M^=2.19 M^=2.9^^ 6.339* disco, etc., without paying the proper fee. " ' '" ^^ , ^

12.-not attending classes or wagging school. M = 2.37 M = 3.20 7.104* SD=1.20 SD=1.24

13.-running away from home (at least overnight). M^=2.18^ M^=3.14^ 7.981

14. -shoplifting from supermarkets, department stores M = i./b svi = ^.JO 9.005*

15. -stealing money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops, M = 3.47 ^^^'^^^ ^'^'^''* school, locker rooms, home, people's milk money, etc. S p = L 1 6 ' ' ^

16. -stealing money of $10 or more in one go.

17. -breaking into a house or building with the intention of stealing something, eg. money, exam papers or other things.

18. -cheating or stealing food, drinks, etc. from dispenser machines.

19. -obtaining free games from coin-operated game machines.

20. -purposely messing up other people's property.

21. -purposely damaging property by starting a fire.

M = 3.41 SD=1.23 M = 3.60 SD=1.23 M = 4.35 SD=1.17 M = 3.53 SD=1.27 M = 4.07 SD=1.20 M = 3.88 SD= 1.20 M = 3.42 SD=1.28 M=1.71 SD=1.10 M = 2.88 SD=1.37 M = 2.85 SD=1.35 M = 2.19 SD=1.12 M = 2.37 SD=1.20 M = 2.18 SD=1.20 M = 3.76 SD=1.20 M = 3.47 SD=1.16 M = 3.88 SD=1.17

M = 4.34 SD=1.13 M = 2.57 SD=1.18 M = 2.03 SD=1.12 M = 3.24 SD=1.22 M = 4.37 SD = 0.96

M = 4.42 SD=1.04 M = 4.57 SD = 0.90 M = 4.85 SD = 0.69 M = 4.71 SD = 0.70 M = 4.76 SD = 0.67 M = 4.76 SD = 0.61 M = 4.55 SD = 0.86 M = 2.44 SD=1.27 M = 4.04 SD=1.06 M = 4.05 SD=1.05 M = 2.91 SD=1.22 M = 3.20 SD=1.24 M = 3.14 SD= 1.30 M = 4.58 SD = 0.83 M = 4.36 SD = 0.91 M = 4.53 SD = 0.77

M = 4.77 SD = 0.75 M = 3.85 SD=1.12 M = 2.72 SD=1.13 M = 3.97 SD=1.07 M = 4.83 SD = 0.65

7.46r

5.137*

11.841*

6.415*

6.893*

6.407*

125

Table 8 (continued)

22. -purposely damaging things in public places. M = 3.83 M = 4.78 12 586*

, , . SD=1.14 SD = 0.54 23. -purposely damaging school desks/windows/other M = 3.21 M = 4.63 16 150*

school property. SD = 1 23 — -.--. SD = 0.73 24. -putting graffiu on walls/toilet doors^us panels/ M = 3.04 M = 4.12 10 557*

public places. SD=1.25 SD = 0.98 25.-taking part in a fist fight in which a group of people M = 2.74 M = 3.98 11.295*

was against another group. SD = 1.26 SD = 1.10 26.-purposely hurting or beating up someone. M = 3.63 M = 4.78 13.922*

SD=1.22 SD = 0.63 27. -using a weapon of some sort, eg. knife, stick, bottle M = 4.35 M = 4.86 7.277*

in a fight SD=1.02 SD = 0.56 28.-using or threatening to use force to get money or M = 3.94 M = 4.78 10.985*

things from another person. SD = 1.09 SD := 0.63 29.-using marijuana (also called grass, dope, hash). M = 2.75 M = 4.02 10.810*

SD=1.44 SD=1.14 30.-using LSD (also called acid). M = 3.66 M = 4.73 12.019*

SD=1.31 SD = 0.69 31.-abusing barbiturates by not following proper M = 3.38 M = 4.43 10.781*

medical advice. SD = 1.22 SD = 0.94 32. -forcing someone to do sexual things when they M = 4.34 M = 4.83 6.357*

did not want to. SD=1.17 SD = 0.56 33.-tricking someone on the telephone eg. false M = 2.78 M = 3.93 10.134*

restaurant booking. SD = 1.37 SD = 1.10 34.-making abusive phone calls eg. saying nasty or M = 3.24 M = 4.13 9.218*

obscene things. SD = 1.21 SD = 0.91 35.-hitting a teacher. M = 3.70 M = 4.71 11.747*

SD=1.30 SD = 0.62 36.-going onto someone's land or into some house M = 3.00 M = 3.88 8.363*

or building when not supposed to be there. SD = 1.24 SD = 1.04

Note: High scores indicate perceptions of greater seriousness. * p < 0.001

(iv) Means and standard deviations on the discipline style measures for students

Table 9 presents the means and standard deviations on the discipline style measures

for female and male students. In order to test for significant gender differences in

perceptions, a one-way MANOVA was conducted with sex of respondent as the

independent variable. Wilk's criterion indicated no significant differences between

male and female respondents in their perceptions of the parental discipline style

experienced (Wilks' Lambda = .977, F (3, 265) = 2.081, p > .05).

126

Table 9 Mean scores and standard deviations on parent discipline style measures for female and male students

Females Males

Measures M S.D. M S.D.

Punitive 43.62 10.95 42 03 9 85 (range: 18-72)

Love-withdrawal 16.85 5.27 15.70 4.80 (range: 9 - 36)

Inductive 29.38 6.35 28.40 6 43 (range: 10-40)

(v) Means and standard deviations on the discipline style measures for parents

Table 10 presents the means and standard deviations on the discipline style

measures for female and male parents. In order to test for significant gender differences

in alleged use of these styles, a one-way MANOVA was conducted with sex of

respondent as the independent variable. Wilk's criterion indicated no significant

differences between male and female respondents in their use of discipline style (Wilks'

Lambda = .959, F (3, 146) = 2.099, p > .05).

Table 10 Mean scores and standard deviations on parent discipline style measures for female and male parents

Females Males

M S.D. M S.D. Measures

Punitive 22.78 5.01 22.06 5.15 (range: 18-72)

Love-withdrawal 15.53 3.65 16.38 3.92 (range: 9 - 36)

Inductive 35.72 3.87 35.27 3.73 (range: 10 - 40)

127

(vi) Comparison between students and parents on the discipline style measures

In comparing the mean perceived discipline style scores for smdents (Table 9)

and parents (Table 10), a striking difference is evident in thefr perceptions of

punitiveness. Smdents report having experienced a much higher level of

punitiveness than parents report having used (students: M^ ™^®^ = 43.62, SD = 10.95;

jyjmaies ^ 42.03, SD = 9.85 Compared with parents: M^^"' "' = 22.78, SD = 5.01;

jyjmaes _ 22.06, SD = 5.15). Furthermore, while not as large a difference, it is

evident that parents tended to report having used a higher level of induction than

students report having experienced (parents: M ""* ' = 35.72, SD = 3.87; M""^ ' =

35.27, SD = 3.73 compared with students: M "" "" = 29.38, SD = 6.35; M"" "" =

28.40, SD = 6.43). These results would suggest that parents' perceptions of their

disciplining is more favourable than that of their children, consistent with Garbarino

and Guttman (1986).

4.5.2(i) Correlational analyses for the student sample

Pearson correlations are presented for the male smdent sample in Table 11. Among

male students, those who experienced parental love-withdrawal were less likely to view

vandalism (factor 5) among giris as serious. An experience of parental induction was

significantiy related to a greater perceived seriousness of physical aggression (factor 3)

when conducted by giris, and significantiy related to a greater perceived seriousness of

driving offences (factor 4) when the behaviours were conducted by both boys and gfrls.

Pearson correlations for tiie female student sample are presented in Table 12. Among

female students parental induction was significantiy related to a greater perceived

128

seriousness of theft (factor 2) and a greater perceived seriousness of physical aggression

(factor 3) when conducted by giris. These resufrs provide support for tiie fourth and

fifth hypotheses.

4.5.2(ii) Correlational analyses for the parent sample

Pearson conelations are presented for the male adult sample in Table 13. Among

male parents the punitive discipline style was significantiy related to a lower perceived

seriousness of alcohol offences (factor 4) when the behaviours were conducted by girls.

Pearson conelations for the female adult sample are presented in Table 14. Among

female parents the punitive discipline style was significantiy related to a lower

perceived seriousness of vehicle theft (factor 1), a lower perceived seriousness of

driving and theft offences (factor 3), and a lower perceived seriousness of physical

aggression and dmg offences (factor 5) when conducted by boys. Love-withdrawal was

significantly related to a lower perceived seriousness of driving and theft offences

(factor 3) when conducted by girls. These results provide support for the fourth and

fifth hypotheses.

4.5.3 Multiple Regression Analyses

(i) Student sample

In order to investigate tiie links between smdents' perceptions of the seriousness of

tiie behaviours and their perceptions of the parental discipline style they reportedly

experienced, multiple regression analyses were conducted. Separate hierarchical

S

o

!

14)

-a en

o

Si

H

Ji '>> CO

«^ <0

. , - H » - ^

0 .tr 3 0

73 .23

0 3

T3 0

00

0 PQ

draw

al

J3 4 - »

1

0)

> 0

^

on 0) c

sci

• 1-i

1/5

Gir

M

Boy

 '4—* • 1—1

13 (X,

(U

• 4 - '

C/D

(U « i H

^ 4 • •—4

0 U3 . ^ H

Q

l y j

Gir

0 0

Boy

00 (U

c 1/1 13 O

.—4 i - i 0) Ol

T3 (U

(U o

CO

o C4

d

0

d

29*

0

'^

d

0

d »n » - H

d

* * 00 CN

d

* * CO CN

d

0

d 1

ON 0

d 1

CN d

1

1 - H

d 1

30*

0 1

CN r-H

d o d d

o d

CO

d

CO 1—(

d

NO

0 d

1 - H

d

CO

0 d

^

d

vo d

00

0 d

CO

0 d

o o d

c o 00

O C

O ,4-> (4-1

X !

0 0 0 0

p I-I bO bO c«

ica

1/0

>^ J2

a,

0 0

(U 0

feni

( 4 - 1

0 bO C

• ^H

> U i

T3

S C/3 • ^ H

"3 73 c >

(N CO

PU

o d V a, * in

o d V CI4

o

0^

l>3

03 S

!<. (U (n

Ci4

c a

.On

a

H

->; C/D

D

. ^ •,=i

•5 Q

o

00

o CQ

o CN

* CN <N o o cs

d

cS (U ^-S

o

00

c •»-H

'o 00

0

d 1

CO

d 0

d I

T-H

0 d

o d

1/1

o PQ

in

o d

NO o d

d

00 o d

o o

NO o d

d

o

r~~

d

o d

s OH

4-"

c

o liO

Q

on T4

O

1/1 >> o

PQ

o o d

NO 1—1

0

d

CO

0 d

CN O

d

o T-H

d

NO

o 00 T-H

d o in

o d

(/3 1/3 D C oo 3 O

. . — < kH (U 00

T3

0) O ft U

O H [ I H

CO (U O C

(4-1

o bH

o

I 1-H <N

C 0

' 0 0 1/1 <o bO bO oJ

"cS _o '1/1

>-. C14

CO

GO <D O G

(4-1

o bO C

I d

P H

G

>

PL;

o d V

•X-

* in

o d V

Si

<3

is

a

K S o 03

"^ <i)

(W

Ci4

c

Co

l>3

o

Si

c3 CO 1—(

CH

H

00

G

ti CI4 O G

a

c/3 >. O

PQ

d

o d

CN

d

00 o d

CN

d

CN

d 00 o

CO 1—1

d 1-H

d CO

c ; D4 •4—» -I—(

G ^ 3 -—i

c« TH . - H

O

c« >^ O

PQ

00 (N

d

in 0

d

ON CO

d

ON

0 d

«n ON NO

d

00 NO CO

o I

CN CO

d

CN '—'

d

00 CN

d

CO CN

d (N O

4) G c« 3 O

•c c«

T3 00

.CH hH <D O O -S (U «3

OH PH

-G . 4 — *

_^

> I

PH

00

o G

Ui O G

I CN

p:

(4d <D

x: 4-4 Td G S bO G

tn n p:

O d V CL,

•X-* in O d V Q4

*

Si <4)

53

t '^)

53

e Co S

•2 (U

;:

Si

• ^

C o

O ^

~C> Co

K

Si

a ii>

CQ

H

(U

'>^ 00

- X 1 > ^ G ?»• ' . H . - H —H

3 O

oo

o

c« >> o

PQ

in

o o d

o

cd 1-4

X I

<D

CO

G

' &

c/3

. — 4

o

oo

O

PQ

o d

in

o o

o I

o r—1

d

ON

o d

d

CN

d

o d

CO

o

* NO (N CS

O (N

(N (N d

o o oo

o d

4-> CO

.!-> . . H

C c/3

3 '-^

;H • r H

o

IZI

o PQ

in

o CN O

o 1-H

d o d

(N O

* * r CO

d

in CN d

* in CO

d

CO CN d

CO

d

c/3 c « D G 0 0 3 O

.»H kH 0) C/3

T3

> .1—1

G CJ

PL, PL4I

T G

• • H

x:

P H

c/3

o G

.'^ (4-4 O u> O G

I CN PL

(S 

Td G cd bO C

'>

CO

(I> 0 G

(4-1 (4-1

0

hol

0 kH

Td

CO

PU

13

G

.2 ^ c« O P G bO (45 bO<+:^ CO O

- S '^ CO 3

> . ' 7 d

D4 CO

I i n

o d V a, * * in

o d V CL,

*

133

regression analyses with sets of independent variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) were

conducted for males and females. The assumptions underlying the use of regression

were exanuned and met, namely, having the appropriate ratio of cases to independent

variables (44:1 for the male sample and 37:1 for the female sample). In addition, the

assumptions regarding multicoUinearity and singularity, and skewness and kurtosis

were also met.

The perceptions of delinquent behaviours were each regressed on the sex of

target (in block one) as well as the discipline style measures (in block two) using the

entry method. Table 15 presents the main significant results for male students. Four

regression models were found to be significant for the male respondents (perceived

seriousness of minor offences, perceived seriousness of theft, perceived seriousness

of physical aggression, and perceived seriousness of driving offences). One model

approached significance for the female respondents (perceived seriousness of theft:

F(2,144) = 2.881, p = .059). Thus, the fifth hypothesis was partially supported.

Sex of target was the only significant predictor of perceived seriousness of minor

offences for boys: minor offences were perceived as more serious when conducted by

ghls than by boys. Inductive discipline style was a significant predictor of perceived

seriousness of theft for boys as well as a significant predictor of perceived seriousness

of physical aggression and perceived seriousness of driving offences. Thus, male

students who had experienced an inductive style were more likely to rate these

behaviours as serious. In addition, love withdrawal was also a significant predictor of

perceived seriousness of physical aggression among boys, h was found that male

students who had experienced love-withdrawal were less likely to view physical

134

aggression as a serious offence, hi all instances, the percentage of variance explained

by the predictors was small, suggesting that other factors are also implicated in shaping

adolescent perceptions of behaviours.

Table 15 Multiple regression analyses for male students

Dependent variable

Perceived seriousness of minor offences^

Perceived seriousness of theft''

Perceived seriousness of physical aggression'^

Perceived seriousness of driving offences'*

Predictors

Target sex

Inductive discipline


Love-withdrawal


B

.208

.243

.246

-.186

.286

R'

.043

.059

.056

.090

.082

t

2.262*

2.685**

2.715**

-2.056*

3.173**

Overall model significant: F(l , l 13) = 5.116, p< .05. Overah model significant: F(l, l 15) = 7.207, p < .01. Overall model significant: F(2,l 11) = 5.521, ;? < .01. Overall model signi

p < . 0 5 . **p<.01.

b

'' Overah model significant: F(l,113) = 10.066, p < .01.

(ii) Parent sample

In order to investigate the links between adults' perceptions of the seriousness of

the behaviours and their perceptions of the parental discipline style they use,

multiple regression analyses were conducted. Hierarchical regression analyses with

sets of independent variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) were conducted for the total

sample given the sex disparity (83% of the sample was female). The assumptions

135

underlying the use of regression were examined and met, namely, having tiie

appropriate ratio of cases to independent variables (48:1 for the total sample). In

addition, the assumptions regarding multicolhnearity and singularity were also met.

The perceptions of delinquent behaviours were each regressed on the sex of

target (in block one) as well as the discipline style measures (in block two) using the

entry method. One regression model was found to be significant (perceived

seriousness of driving and theft offences: F(2,138) = 3.668, p < .05). A punitive

discipline style was the best predictor of perceived seriousness of driving and theft

offences {R^ = .05, B = -.188, f = -2.267, p < .05). Thus, those parents who reported

that they had used a punitive discipline style were less likely to rate these behaviours

as serious. This provides some support for the fifth hypothesis.

4.6. Discussion

This discussion will focus on (1) the theoretical implications of the third study, (2)

implications of the findings for clinical interventions, and (3) directions for further

research.

4.6.1. General findings and theoretical implications

The aim of this study was to examine both adolescents' and aduhs' perceptions of

the seriousness of "delinquent" behaviours and to detennine whether tiie perceived

seriousness of behaviours varies depending on who (boy or girl) is engagmg in the

behaviour. The present study also aimed to explore whether perceptions that

136

adolescents and parents have of different behaviours are linked to their family

experiences; more specifically, whether adolescents' experience of and adults' use of a

particular discipline style is related to their perceptions of the seriousness of behaviours.

(i) General findings relating to the student sample

Consistent with previous research (eg. Tyson & Hubert, 1998; O'Conneh &

Whelan, 1996), adolescent perceptions of delinquent behaviours are multi-dimensional

with certain groups of behaviours being perceived as more serious than others. As

predicted, a significant difference was found between boys and girls in their perceptions

of the seriousness of physical aggression, with females perceiving physical aggression

more seriously than boys, lending support to Gebotys et al. (1988). Furthermore, minor

offences were rated as significantiy more serious when conducted by girls than by boys.

An important contribution of the present study is the demonstration that perceptions

of parental discipline styles are related to adolescents' views about the seriousness of a

range of different behaviours, hi particular, experience of an inductive style was found

to predict several groups of perceptions among males (eg perceived seriousness of

minor offences, perceived seriousness of theft, perceived seriousness of physical

aggression, and perceived seriousness of driving offences), and approached significance

in predicting perceived seriousness of theft among females. Thus, inductiveness

appears to be particularly important in shielding boys from the idea that participating in

a variety of deviant behaviours may be attractive. These results are in line with those

reports that suggest that democratic child-rearing practices promote psychological well-

being in young people (eg. Lambom, Mounts, Steinburg & Dombusch, 1991).

137

These data suggest that the experience of certain types of discipline style shapes the

way that young people think about various behaviours. This is not surprising, given that

"the family is, after all, the principal context in which human development takes place"

(Bartol & Bartol, 1998). These findings fit with research that indicates that family

functioning and parenting affect adolescent adjustment (eg. review by Heaven, 1994b;

Scott & Scott, 1987, 1998). In the present study, those adolescents who experienced an

inductive style of discipline seem to have a much lower tolerance for delinquent

behaviours. Consistent with this finding, research indicates that the experience of harsh

and inconsistent discipline is related to adolescent involvement in delinquent behaviours

(e.g. Fanington, 1992; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996; Loeber & Dishion, 1983).

One notable feature of the present results is the fact that the discipline styles were

not particularly important in predicting the perceptions of female respondents. The

regression analyses did indicate that an inductive discipline style approached

significance in predicting females' perceptions of the seriousness of physical

aggression, while conelational analyses indicated that female students who experienced

parental induction were more likely to view theft and physical aggression among giris

as serious. Thus, it appears from these resuhs that females' perceptions of behaviour

seriousness were not unaffected by the discipline style they had experienced. However,

given that males receive more corporal punishment than females (e.g. Bryan & Freed,

1982), it is possible that family factors other than parental discipline style have a greater

effect on the perceptions of female adolescents. For example, parental bonding (Parker

et al., 1979) may be a more significant family factor contributing to females'

perceptions. Such a possibility needs empirical verification.

138

(ii) General findings relating to the parent sample

In line with previous research (e.g. Figlio, 1975; Levi & Jones, 1985; Corbett &

Simon, 1991), adults' perceptions of delinquem behaviours possesses a particular

stmcmre with certain behaviours being perceived as more serious than otiiers.

hiconsistent with earlier findings (e.g. Gebotys et al, 1988) female parents did not

perceive physical aggression more seriously than did male parents. Furthennore,

female and male parents did not perceive behaviours as more serious when conducted

by female targets than by male targets. While the sample was relatively large (namely, a

sample of 193 parents), the greater percentage was female (80.3% compared with

19.7% male). Thus, further research which includes a larger percentage of male parents

should be undertaken in order to determine whether a predominantly female sample

affected the results.

Of particular interest is the finding that adults' perceptions of the discipline styles

they have used are related to their views about the seriousness of various behaviours.

More specifically, those parents who had used a punitive discipline style were less

likely to rate driving and theft offences as serious. Thus, it seems that parents using a

power-assertive form of discipline are less likely to consider these behaviours as serious

offences. This is reflected to a certain degree in the adolescent data. While the

behaviour groupings are not exactly the same for parents and adolescents and therefore

cannot be directly compared, young people who had experienced an inductive discipline

style were more likely to perceive theft as a serious offence (male and female

adolescents) and driving offences as serious offences (male adolescents). These results

would suggest that the type of discipline used by parents is not only related to theh own

139

perceptions of behaviour-seriousness, but also to those of theh offspring. This is not

surprising given that parents, in raising their children, consciously and unconsciously

share their values, standards and beliefs with them.

(iii) Implications of family processes

Research by Garbarino & Guttman (1986) indicated that families at high risk for

adolescent maltreatment were reported to have parents who were neglectful and

emotionally abusive. Adolescents from these families reported feeling unloved and

worthless. The high-risk group perceived more marital and familial conflict,

including conflict about child-rearing practices. Furthermore, high-risk families

reported higher levels of discipline than low-risk families, with less support and

more punishment.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, one of the ways that parents transfer information and

knowledge to their children is via discipline. Discipline informs the young person of

the parent's view of the behaviour they have been engaging in. There are various

forms that discipline can take. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) identify three

discipline styles:

power assertion, in which the parent capitalises on his power and authority

over the child; love-withdrawal, i.e. direct but non-physical expressions of

anger, disapproval, etc.; and induction, consisting of the parent's focusing on

the consequences of the child's action for others (p. 45).

140

While each of tiiese styles of discipline informs the child or young person of tiie

parent's view of tiieh behaviour, the manner in which the disciphne is given has

different effects. For example, the punitive discipline style is one-way, thereby not

allowing discourse between the parent and young person. On the other hand, the

inductive discipline style is two-way, it is dynamic and allows discussion between

the parent and young person. Furthermore, the punitive parenting style imposes a

view on the young person - the parent's view, while inductive parenting results in a

negotiated view of the world. Given this, it is not surprising that the type of

discipline a parent uses influences their child's views and behaviours.

Children and young people brought up in homes where conflict, anger and

aggression are common, where discipline is inconsistent, where punishment is harsh,

where there is neglect, or where emotional abuse is experienced, cannot be

unaffected. The research findings of Garbarino & Guttman (1986) indicate this to

be the case: young people from these environments are adversely affected. More

specifically, youth from high-risk families have significantiy more internalising and

externalising problems and less competencies than young people from low-risk

famihes. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that young people and parents living in

these situations view "delinquent" behaviours as less serious than those hving in

homes where inductive parenting is occurring. Neither is it surprising that young

people with these parenting experiences are involved in delinquent activities.

The results of this study provide further support for the critical role that is played

by parents as tiiey raise tiieh children. The manner in which parenting occurs has

141

far-reaching implications for tiie offspring. And this influence begins at buth. As

Lawson (1994) points out:

K human babies are to develop into psychically healthy, independent and

society-nunded adult individuals, they absolutely depend on being given a

good start. This good start is assured if a mother can property love and care

for her chtid (p. 20).

Summary

In summary, this study supports the notion that adolescent and adult perceptions of

the seriousness of delinquent behaviours are multi-dimensional. It extends previous

research by indicating that female adolescents perceive physical aggression more

seriously than male adolescents and, that young people's views of the seriousness of

minor offences vary according to the gender of the culprit. An important contribution

of the present study is the demonstration that young people's perceptions of the

discipline style they have experienced are related to their views about the seriousness of

various behaviours. This supports the idea that adolescents' perceptions of what

constitutes "delinquent" behaviour are partly shaped by the way they are disciplined in

the home. Furthermore, parents' perceptions of the discipline style they have used are

closely related to their views about the seriousness of certain delinquent behaviours and

may consequently influence the perceptions and behaviours of theh children.

4.6.2. Implications of findings for clinical practice

Research has indicated that family factors have an important influence on many

aspects of the emotional, attitudinal and behavioural life of young people (e.g.

142

Bischof et al., 1995; Emery, 1982; Krohn et al., 1992; Scott & Scott, 1987, 1998).

Previous research including the results of Study 1 and Shidy 2 indicate that young

peoples' perceptions of the discipline style they have experienced are related to theh

involvement in delinquent behaviours. Furthennore, the present study has indicated

that young peoples' experiences of parental discipline style are linked to their

attitudes, namely, their views of the acceptability of various delinquent behaviours.

Thus, the discipline style used by parents potentially shapes both the perceptions

that young people have of delinquency as well as their involvement in delinquent

behaviour.

Given the above, we would be well advised to share this knowledge with parents

as well as prospective parents so that their awareness is raised regarding the

potential impact of their own behaviours on the perceptions of their offspring, both

directiy and indirectiy. Most parents are left in the dark about the results of

psychological research. Unlike most professions, the important "job" of parenting

does not legally demand training before a person is qualified for the job. Thus,

opportunities for sharing information with parents and prospective parents, and

developing their awareness should be available from early in the parenting process

(eg. most new parents attend ante-natal classes).

There are numerous ways in which information can be shared with parents. For

example, pamphlets and booklets could be distributed to midwives in antenatal

chnics, maternity wards of hospitals, family planning clinics, psychologists and

social workers in community centres, the consulting rooms of general practitioners

and psychiatrists, the school office of primary and high school counseUors, and

143

child-care centres. These pamphlets could also include a list of references dealmg

with parenting and parenting issues, as well as advice as to where parents can seek

help regarding disciplinary matters in later years when their chtidren are much older.

Information could also be made available to parents, guardians and grandparents

through school newsletters, local and suburban newspapers, and radio programs.

Specific programs have been developed to assist parents in parenting. For

example, Dinkmeyer and colleagues (Dinkmeyer, McKay, Dinkmeyer &

Dinkmeyer, 1997a, 1997b, Dinkmeyer, McKay, McKay & Dinkmeyer, 1998) have

developed three STEP programs (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting)

which share the same philosophy but are adapted to suit parents with children of

various ages. The program is based on the democratic principle of mutual respect

between individuals, including between parent and child. The STEP programs

introduce parents to fundamental skills of effective parenting. An Australian

parenting program, PACE (Parenting Adolescents, a Creative Experience!) has been

designed by Jenkin and Bretherton (1994) to help parents explore the ways a family

can productively handle the issues that arise as children reach out for autonomy and

independence. Most recentiy, Drent (2001) produced a stmctured, accessible and

well-trialled Australian parenting program: Parenting Today.

The findings of the present study could also inform health professionals working

with young people and parents, providing a clearer insight into the hnk between

parenting practices and the attitudes of their offspring. The resuhs could also

provide valuable insight for psychologists and otiier healtii professionals working

witii juvenile delinquents. In particular, the knowledge that adolescents' perceptions

144

of the discipline style they have experienced are related to theh views about tiie

seriousness of behaviours could contribute to their intervention with juveniles,

particularly where attitude-change is being sought. One-to-one counselling with

delinquents in juventie justice centres, schools, or other institotions could use the

insights gained in the exploration of adolescents' experience of parental discipline,

and the way they perceive their behaviour.

4.6.3 Implications for further research

The results of this study show that the variables considered here do not provide a

thorough explanation of the factors contributing to adolescent and parent perceptions

of the seriousness of behaviours. Thus, future studies need to consider what other

factors may be involved. The present study illustrates the important role that one

factor, namely, perceived parental discipline style, plays in determining perceptions

of seriousness of delinquent behaviours.

On the one hand perceived parental discipline style has been shown to predict

adolescents' involvement in delinquent behaviour. On the other hand, this smdy has

provided evidence of a link between perceived parental discipline style and

adolescents' perceptions of delinquent behaviours. Thus, future research is needed

to verify whether there is a dhect relationship between young people's perceptions

of behaviours and theh involvement in these same behaviours. The results could

provide further support for (i) the cmcial role of parental discipline style in

adolescent development, and (ii) furtiier support for the importance of educating

parents and parents-to-be about parenting.

145

As mentioned previously, the adult sample comprised mainly of female parents.

Thus, further research is needed to detennine the perceptions of a sample including a

greater number of male parents.

Often there are differences between the two parents of a family in tiieir disciplining

styles. How does this inconsistency between parents affect their child's attitudes and

behaviour? Which parent "wins" in their influence on their offspring? Furtiier research

is needed to investigate the relationship between adolescents' experience of both tiieir

mother's discipline style and their father's discipline style on the development of their

attitudes and behaviours. The results of this research could fiuther inform parenting

programs.

4.7. Conclusion

The main aim of the present study was to explore whether perceptions that

adolescents and parents have of different behaviours are linked to theh family

experiences. The results supported the expectation that (i) adolescents who had

experienced an inductive discipline style would be more likely to rate various

offences as serious, and (ii) parents who had used a punitive discipline style were

less likely to rate similar behaviours as serious. So, not only does parental discipline

style affect participation in delinquent behaviour (as was seen in Study 1 and Study

2), but it also significantiy affects the attimdes that young people hold towards these

behaviours. This has important implications for working with parents and

adolescents, once again reinforcing the critical need to raise parents' awareness

regarding the potential impact of their parenting on their offspring.

146

CHAPTER FIVE

GENERAL DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

By its very nature, adolescent delinquency demands world-wide attention.

While the factors contributing to delinquency are many and varied, poor fanuly

management practices have been shown to have a cmcial role in its development.

Thus, the overarching goal of this thesis was to investigate the effect of family

factors - in particular parental disciplinary style - on (a) self-reported delinquency,

and (b) adolescents' and parents' perceived seriousness of juvenile offences. The

possible mediating effects of individual differences in parental influences on self-

reported delinquency were also examined. Three studies were conducted, with the

results confimung previous findings as well as extending the research to date.

This discussion will present: (i) a brief summary of the findings, (ii) the

theoretical implications of the research, (iii) implications of the research for

intervention and clinical practice, (iv) directions for fiiture research, and (v) thesis

conclusion.

147

5.2 Summary of the findings

(i) Study I

This study set out to investigate the links between perceived fanuly

relationships, parental discipline style, locus of control, self-esteem and self-reported

dehnquency among Australian high school smdents. The prediction that locus of

control and self-esteem would mediate the effects of family process on delinquency

was tested using stmctural equation modelhng. Although there appeared to be a

good fit between the data and the proposed model, the amount of variance explained

by the predictor variables was not large. Among females, the best predictor of low

levels of self-reported delinquency was an inductive discipline style, whilst for

males high levels of self-reported delinquency were best predicted by a punitive

discipline style. Among males, positive family relations was a significant predictor

of high self-esteem. No mediating effects of self-esteem and locus of control were

observed.

(ii) Study 2

While self-esteem and locus of control did not have a mediating effect on

parental discipline and self-reported delinquency, links found in previous research

between family process factors, psychoticism (P) and self-reported delinquency,

offered tiie possibility tiiat P would act as a mediating factor between two family

process factors and self-reported delinquency. Thus, the aim of the second smdy

was to build on Study 1 by investigating, witiun a delinquent sample, the

relationships between perceptions of parental discipline style, perceptions of

parental bonding, P, and self-reported delinquency, and to determine the intervening

148

effect of P on family process factors and self-reported delinquency. The results

suggested that not only does P have a direct effect on self-reported delinquency

among adolescent delinquents, but it also mediates the effect of parenting practices

on delinquency. In particular, the experience of low levels of inductive parenting

increased the risk of delinquency, with this effect being mediated by P.

A further aim was to compare perceptions of parental discipline style between a

delinquent sample and a mainstream high school sample. The results indicated,

unexpectedly, that the delinquent adolescents of the present smdy reported

significantly lower levels of punitive discipline than the mainstteam adolescents of

Study 1. While the mean love-withdrawal scores for the delinquent sample were

higher than those of the mainstream sample, as predicted, and the inductive scores

were lower than the mainstream students, as predicted, these differences were not

significant. Possible reasons for these results were discussed.

(iii) Study 3

The aims of this study were (i) to investigate adolescents' and adult's

perceptions of the seriousness of behaviours identified as "delinquent", (ii) to

determine whether these perceptions vary depending on the sex of the individual

engaging in the behaviour, and (iii) to examine whether a link exists between

perceptions of parental discipline style and perceptions of the seriousness of the

behaviours. The resuhs indicated that adolescent and adult perceptions of delinquent

behaviours are multi-dimensional, possessing a particular stmcmre. Among

students, females perceived physical aggression more seriously than did males.

Minor offences were rated as more serious by young people when seen to be

149

conducted by giris than boys. This was especially tme of male respondents. Female

and male parents did not perceive behaviours as more serious when conducted by

female targets than by male targets.

A significant relationship was found between young people's perceptions of the

seriousness of various behaviours and the type of discipline style they reported

having experienced. That is, male students who had experienced an inductive

discipline style were more likely to perceive minor offences, theft, physical

aggression, and driving offences as serious offences. Among female smdents, the

result of the analysis indicated that parental induction as a factor approached

significance in predicting perceptions of the seriousness of physical aggression.

Within the parent sample, those who had used a punitive discipline style were less

likely to rate driving and theft offences as serious.

5.3 Theoretical implications

(i) Parenting factors

Adolescent emotional health is shaped by family process factors (e.g. review by

Heaven, 1994b; Parker et al., 1979; Scott & Scott, 1987, 1998). Extensive research

evidence indicates a sttong relationship between family functioning and parenting,

and tiie development of delinquency (e.g. Bischof et al., 1995; Farrington, 1989;

Krohn et al., 1992). hi particular, the style of discipline used by parents has been

consistentiy related to dehnquency, specifically harsh and inconsistent discipline, as

wen as lax discipline (e.g. Carlo et al., 1998; Goraian-Smith et al., 1996; ffirshi.

150

1983; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Patterson et al., 1989; Shaw & Scott, 1991; Wtison,

1980). The results of the present series of studies provide further evidence for the

significant role that parental discipline style plays in adolescent self-reported

delinquency.

Researchers and theoreticians emphasize the cmcial role that parenting plays in the

development of delinquency. According to Hirschi (1969) good child-rearing

techniques and proper discipline are the main ways of preventing and conttolling

delinquency. According to social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), the closeness of the

adolescent to their parents and their respect and identification with their parents, is

cracial in bonding the young person to society and keeping their behaviour within

conventional boundaries. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggest that ineffective child-

rearing affects the individual's ability to restrain themselves from acting on their

immediate impulses. Thus, from this position, low self-conttol has its origins in low

social control during the early childhood years.

Discipline is a form of knowledge-ttansfer, with the parent transferring knowledge

of the acceptability and unacceptability of particular forms of behaviour to their

offspring. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) identified three types of disciphne: an

inductive style, which consists of the parent reasoning with theh child about the causes

and effects of their behaviour, focusing on tiie consequences of the child's behaviour; a

punitive discipline style, which includes techniques such as physical punishment and

material deprivation, with the parent capitalising on his power and authority; and

parental love-withdrawal, which involves non-physical expressions of anger and

disapproval. Each of tiiese discipline styles informs the child/young person of theh

151

parent's view of theh behaviour. However, the effect of each style is different. The

inductive style is a two-way dynamic, allowing discussion between parent and young

person, thereby resulting in a negotiated sense of the worid. The punitive style on the

other hand, is one-way, imposing the parent's view of the worid on their offspring.

Given this, it is not surprising that the type of discipline chosen by a parent influences

their offspring's views and behaviours.

The environment in which parents live affects their parenting. Parents who live

in poverty without adequate social supports are more likely to neglect or reject their

children (Weatherbum & Lind, 1997, 2001). Research by Larzelere and Patterson

(1990) indicates that parents from low socioeconomic status backgrounds were more

likely to engage in harsh, enatic and inconsistent discipline. Low income has been

shown to be related to depression in parents (Dore, 1993) which, in tum, has been

found to lead to a lowered tolerance for misbehaviour in children and the use of

highly authoritarian, over-controlhng responses (Lahey, Conger, Atkeson & Treiber,

1984). According to Weatherbum and Lind (2001), unemployment influences crime

through its conosive effects on parenting

The way in which a parent disciplines their child teaches the child how to behave.

Thus, aggressive methods of discipline set up aggressive models for children to observe

and model (e.g. Bartol & Bartol, 1998; Eron, Huesmann & Zelli, 1991; Neapolitan,

1981). According to Lawson (1994), aggression is a "/earner?behaviour. ... Aggression

is absolutely taught to the child by the child's parents" (p. 23). Patterson (1982, 1986b)

indicates tiiat young people socialised in an environment of explosiveness, tiireats, and

inconsistent follow-through resulting in aggression between parent and child, leads to

152

the young person using aggressive methods outside the home, rejection by peers and

teachers, and ultimately involvement in delinquency. Isolated from theh school peers,

and with weak attachments to theh family, the young person is eashy drawn into the

delinquent peer group where companionship, anonymity, security, and behavioural

norms are provided (Emler & Reicher, 1995).

It is not surprising that young people brought up in homes where conflict, anger, and

aggression are common, where discipline is inconsistent, where punishment is harsh,

where there is neglect, or where emotional abuse is experienced, are adversely affected

(e.g. Garbarino & Guttman, 1986). Given that adolescent well-being is associated with

"a style of parenting characterised as caring and empathic, devoid of excessive intrasion

and infantilisation" (McFarlane et al., 1995, p. 860), it is not surprising that home

environments as described by Garbarino and Guttman (1986) have negative

consequences for young people's behaviour. Neither is it surprising that young people

and parents living in these situations view "delinquent" behaviours as less serious than

those living in homes where inductive parenting is occuning. It seems that the

experience of an inductive style of parenting is most effective in developing an

adolescent's sense of what is right and wrong and, consequentiy, which behaviours are

serious offences.

The results of the present research support tiie position of Hirschi (1969) who

asserts that child-rearing practices and proper discipline are critical in preventing

delinquency.

153

(ii) Personality

The results of the second sttidy provide partial support for Eysenck's position

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976, 1985; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989) that delmquency is

related to particular personality dimensions, namely psychoticism, neuroticism, and

exfraversion. According to Eysenck and Gudjonsson, (1989) "criminality is related

to certain dimensions of personality, in particular that labelled psychoticism..." (p.

88). Physiologically, this is seen to be a result of a link between psychoticism and

low cortical arousal, poor conditionability, poor conscience development, and

ineffective socialisation, which in tum leads to antisocial behaviour (Eysenck,

1996b, cited in Gudjonsson, 1997).

Using a sample of delinquent adolescents, the results of the second study add

further support to the findings of previous research which indicated a strong,

significant and consistent influence of P on self-reported delinquency (e.g. Emler et

al., 1987; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; Fumham & Thompson, 1991; Heaven,

1996a; Heaven et al., 2000). Furthermore, the results indicated that P has an

important mediating effect on parental discipline style and self-reported

delinquency. That is, where low levels of inductive parenting are experienced by

adolescents, high levels of P are likely, which in tum leads to higher levels of

adolescent delinquency.

Research has indicated that aggressive adolescents have higher P scores than

non-aggressive adolescents, and the families of tiiese adolescents have higher levels

of family conflict, negativity, and anger tiian conttol families (McColloch et al..

154

1990). When children and young people are raised in an environment of emotional

coldness, indifference and neglect, psychological symptomatology results (e.g.

Canetti et al., 1997; McFariane et al., 1995). While acknowledging that P partly has

a physiological basis (Matthews & Deary, 1998), it seems that adolescent behaviour

reflects the environment that has helped to shape them. Not surprisingly, Eysenck

(1996b, cited in Gudjonsson, 1997) perceives psychoticism as partly due to

ineffective socialization.

(iii) Contributions of the present research to existing knowledge

Using a comprehensive measure of parental discipline style, the first study

illusttated the important role that parental discipline style plays in determining self-

reported delinquency. This supports previous research which has tended to use less

comprehensive measures.

The majority of research in the area of delinquency uses mainstream high school

student samples. The second study obtained its data from a delinquent sample of

students. The results of this study provide further support for the cmcial role that P

plays in the development of delinquency. Furthermore, the results indicated a

relationship between P and family process factors, in particular, parental induction

and parental care, and a mediating effect of P on parental discipline style and

delinquency. This finding supports and extends previous research (e.g. Heaven,

1994a, 1997; Heaven & Virgen, 2001; Shaw & Scott, 1991).

155

The important contribution of the third study is in addressing the relationship

between adolescents' and adults' perceptions of the seriousness of dehnquent

behaviours and parental discipline style. No research to date has explored this

relationship. If the home provides an environment of aggression, conflict, neglect,

or emotional abuse, it is hardly surprising that its parents and children will view

delinquent behaviours differentiy than those living in a home environment of

discussion, consistent discipline, supervision, and care. Furthermore, if punishment

in general is designed to draw attention to the unacceptability of a particular form of

behaviour, then the style of discipline experienced by a young person must by

implication affect and shape their views about behaviour, as discussed in 5.2(i). The

third study suggests this to be the case.

Overall, the present research highlights the cracial role of parental discipline

style in the development of adolescents' views and behaviours. Not only does

parental discipline style have an impact on adolescents' participation in delinquent

behaviour (seen in Study 1 and Study 2), but it also significantly affects the attitudes

that young people hold towards these behaviours (seen in Study 3). These results

have important implications for intervention.

5.4 Implications for intervention and clinical practice

Since the results of the cunent research relate to parenting factors and the

personality factor P, suggestions for intervention will focus specifically on these

areas. According to Weiner (1992) attention in delinquency prevention has been

156

shifting toward home-based interventions which involve stmctured fanuly therapy,

parent management training, and social skiUs ttaining for adolescents.

(/) Parenting factors

"Long term trends predict the likelihood that tiie family will continue to be

an unstable social unit. Present findings draw attention to the importance of

parental style which supersedes family stmcture in terms of influencing

adolescent well being and healthy family functioning. Rather than focusing

efforts to strengthen the fanuly, results suggest that efforts to sttengthen

parenting will ultimately be of more value."

(McFarlane, Behissimo and Norman, 1995, p. 861)

According to Patterson (1980), young parents are increasingly ftmctioning in

isolation, without appropriate models, information or support systems. Parents can

be assisted in their parenting through (a) strategies to raise parents' awareness, (b)

parent management training programs, and (c) stmctured family therapy.

(a) Given that, for most parents, their only model of parenting is the example of

their own parents, raising parents' awareness about parenting and its implications for

the overall health of their offspring is cracial. The results of research in the area of

parenting needs to be shared with the public, with parents, prospective parents, and

health professionals.

157

As discussed in Chapter four, there are numerous ways by which infomiation

can be made available. For example, pamphlets and booklets could be distributed to

midwives in antenatal clinics, maternity wards of hospitals, family planning clinics,

psychologists and social workers in community centres, the consulting rooms of

general practitioners and psychiatrists, the school office of primary and high school

counsellors, child-care centres and play-groups. These pamphlets could also include

a list of references dealing with parenting and parenting issues, such as Lawson's

(1994) The consequences of "NOT GOOD ENOUGH" PARENTING, Balson's

(1991) Becoming Better Parents, McFadden's (1988) The Simple Way to Raise a

Good Kid, and Fuller's (2000) Raising Real People: A Guide for Parents of

Teenagers, among others. Advice as to where parents can seek help regarding

parenting and disciplinary matters could also be included. Further ways by which

information could be made available to parents, guardians and grandparents is

through articles in school newsletters, local and suburban newspapers, and

magazines, through radio programs, and through short informative presentations at

schools, community centres, play-groups, etc.

The findings of the present research could also inform health professionals

working with young people and parents, providing a clearer insight into the link

between parenting practices and the attitudes and behaviours of their offspring. The

results could also provide valuable insight for psychologists and other health

professionals working with juvemie delinquents.

(b) The objective of parent management fraining programs is to guide parents in

their interactions with their children, increasing tiieir awareness of problematic

158

behaviours, and teaching them ways to monitor and manage their child's conduct

(Weiner, 1992). Parents are encouraged to use the strategies and techniques at

home, reinforcing socially appropriate behaviour, and using appropriate sanctions

for inappropriate behaviour (Herbert, 1998). Research has indicated effectiveness of

these efforts (e.g. Forehand et al., 1984; Kazdin, 1987; Webster-Stratton, 1991). A

study with young offenders (Bank, Patterson & Reid, 1989) indicated that parent

management training had positive effects on family relationships and family

communication, as well as indicating a reduction in offending.

An example of a parent education program developed for high- and low-risk

parents is the Family Interaction Project (FIP), adapted from a skills-training

program Parenting (Guemey, 1980). The FIP course has two major thmsts: the first

is dhected to the affective dimension of relationships with empathy as the key skill;

the second addresses the conttol dimension, ainung to teach parents discipline

altematives. Other programs include the STEP programs (Systematic Training for

Effective Parenting) developed by Dinkmeyer and coUeagues (Dinkmeyer et al.,

1997a, 1997b, 1998) and the PACE program (Parenting Adolescents, a Creative

Experience!) designed by Jenkin and Bretherton (1994).

(c) Stmctured family therapy basically aims to modify the family unit's

interaction patterns so that improved communication results, as well as increased

positive reinforcement, and more effective problem-solving among family members

(Tavantzis, Brown & Rohrbaugh, 1985; Weiner, 1992). Behavioural family therapy

focuses on dysfimctional family interactions. Contingency conttacting has been

used as a way of changing such interactions in fanulies of young offenders, with

159

success in reducing offending (e.g Smmphauzer, 1976). A ftirther sttidy by

Henderson (1981) used behavioural, cognitive, and behavioural family therapy

methods in a program that successfiilly reduced stealing.

(ii) Psychoticism

From a clinical perspective, it is important to identify as early as possible ttaits

characteristic of the P personality dimension. For example, traits such as aggression,

impulsivity, antisocial behaviour, hostility, and lack of empathy can be targeted in

children. Given that P is a hindrance to effective socialization (Eysenck, 1977a),

work should begin on developing appropriate skills with children who are exhibiting

behaviours reflecting high P.

Young people can be accessed within the school environment. A national

project conducted by The Austtalian Guidance and Counselling Association,

"Teaching prosocial behaviour to adolescents", identified programs in use in

Australian schools (Prescott, 1995). Applied within the school context, the

programs address issues such as social skilling, development of peer relations,

conflict resolution, anger management, assertiveness ttaining, developing life skills,

and many others.

Social skills ttaining is a cognitive-behavioural approach which focuses on

increasing the young person's repertoire of interpersonal social skiUs, using

exercises involving modelling, role-playing, rehearsal, and other stmctured tasks

(e.g. Ladd, 1984; Ronan & Kendall, 1990). This form of ttaining has been shown to

160

be effective in improving interpersonal relations in young people, and reducing

aggressive and impulsive behaviour in non-clinical groups of school children. In the

case of delinquent adolescents, effectiveness of social skills training is increased

when parents also participate (e.g. Colhngwood & Genthner, 1980; Sema,

Schumaker, Hazel & Sheldon, 1986).

Aggression and poor control are two aspects of the behaviour of high P scorers.

Thus, therapeutic work with young people could focus on their attributional

processes (for example, misinterpreting others' intentions), cognitive distortions (for

example, their aggression does not have injurious consequences), negotiating

conflict situations, labelling affect appropriately, social-skills deficits, and general

problem-solving strategies (Herbert, 1998). Individual programs that have been

successfully used with delinquent youth include: self-instraction ttaining (e.g.

Snyder & White, 1979), anger-control training (e.g. McDougall, Bamett, Ashurst &

Wihis, 1987), training in self-goveming behaviour (e.g. Fixsen, Phillips & Wolf,

1973), moral reasoning development (Gibbs, Amold, Chessman & Ahlbom, 1984),

role-taking and perspective-taking (e.g. Chandler, 1973; Chalmers & Townsend,

1990), problem-solving skihs training (Kazdin, Bass, Siegel & Thomas, 1989;

Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson, French & Unis, 1987), and social-skiUs training (e.g.

Hollin, 1990).

Treatment techniques addressing emotional coldness and lack of empathy should

focus on overcoming high P scorers' attitudinal problems (Gudjonsson, 1997). While

cognitive therapy techniques are most effective, the treatment must be matched to the

individual. High P scorers are particularly resistant to conventional psychotherapy or

161

counselling (e.g. Lane, 1987). They may fail appomtments, resist tteatment, and switch

therapists. Nevertheless, the therapy shown to be most effective is cognitive therapy

(Davidson & Tyrer, 1996).

5.5 Directions for future research

The present research utilised quantitative research methods. It is suggested that

qualitative research be conducted with delinquent youth, since this method of data

collection would do away with the need for language-laden questionnaires. One-to-

one interviews would allow for rapport to be established with the respondent, and

the open-ended style of questioning would provide an opportunity to delve more

deeply into the individual's experiences, attitudes and reasoning for behaviour. The

information gathered could include:- a retrospective account of their childhood; self-

perceptions; adolescent behaviour and involvements; family life (e.g. siblings,

family conflict, parenting, neglect and/or abuse, financial situation, criminality and

drags of parents and siblings); peer groups and peer relationships; school

experiences (including academic, sport, other activities, bullying or being bullied by

students, relationships with teachers); and, community experiences. The biographies

of respondents could be compared in order to determine if common themes and

intenelationships emerge. Finally, the biographies of delinquent youth could be

compared with those of non-delinquent adolescents to estabhsh whehter there are

differences in the identified factors.

Given that the delinquent sample of the second study was small, additional

research is needed to validate tiie findings. Furtiieraiore, since most of the sample

162

was male, research is needed to determine the extent to which the results are

applicable to a female sample.

The present research focused on personality variables as mediators between (a)

family influences and (b) adolescent self-reported delinquency. Given the

relationship between delinquency and association with delinquent peers and/or the

development of a rebel social identity (see Section 1.4.3.2), further research could

explore the possible mediating effect of such factors. Furthermore, it is possible that

personality factors may act as moderator rather than mediator variables (for

example. Baron & Kenny, 1986; lessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa & Turbin,

1995; Windle, 1992). Thus, future research should also investigate the possible

interactions between personality dispositions and family influences as predictors of

dehnquency.

The present studies focused on family and personality factors. In order to

deepen our understanding and to aid us in prevention and intervention, research is

needed with dehnquent samples which explores multiple factors associated with

delinquency, and their interaction with each other. For example, Sullivan and

Wilson (1995) proposed a conceptual model of causal and interactional relationships

between individual, family, community and subcultural characteristics that

contribute to delinquency, to be measured using "multiple measured variables"

(p.ll).

The present research has highlighted the critical need to raise parents' awareness

regarding the potential impact of their parenting on their offspring, ft has been

163

suggested that infomiation could be shared with parents through pamphlets and

booklets, to be distributed to various places used by the general public (including

antenatal classes, doctor's rooms, community centres, child-care centtes, etc.).

Thus, future research needs to be directed at the develoment of these pamphlets.

5.6 Thesis conclusion

The implications of these smdies strongly suggest that, if we are to reverse the

increasing trend of delinquency in our society, we need to pay special attention to

the findings of this thesis. While personality factors will always be an important

contributing factor to delinquent behaviour, parenting factors clearly have a major

role in the development of delinquency. If we are to tackle the wonying problem of

delinquency in any meaningful way, we will need to use strategies to support the

family, and in particular, to encourage inductive forms of discipline. The dynamic

nature of this style of discipline requires a subtle and complex form of parenting

which cannot be achieved without the wider support of the community. This must

include govemment policy which tackles the underlying economic and social causes

of child neglect and abuse. The insights gleaned from this thesis should not only be

seen as valuable in their contribution to existing knowledge, but in terms of their

utility for clinical practice.

164

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1995). Testing the leading crime theories: An altemative strategy

focusing on motivational processes. Joumal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32,

363-398.

Alexander, J. F., Barton, C , Schiavo, R. S. and Parsons, B. V. (1976). Systems-

behavioral intervention with families of delinquents: Therapist characteristics, family

behavior and outcome. Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchology, 44, 656-664.

Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. (1973). Short-term behavioral intervention

with delinquent families: Impact of family process and recidivism. Joumal of Abnormal

Psvchology, 81, 219-225.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (4^^ ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Amett, J. (1992). Reckless behaviour in adolescence: A developmental

perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339-373.

Balson, M. (1991). Becoming Better Parents (3rd ed.). Austtaha: ACER Press.

Bank, L., Patterson, G. R. and Reid, J. B. (1989). Delinquency prevention

through training parents in family management. Behavior Analyst, 75-82.

Baron, S. W. and Hartnagel, T. F. (1998). Stteet youth and criminal violence.

Joumal of Re.search in Crime and Delinquency, 3_5(2}, 166-192.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Concepmal, sttategic, and statistical considerations.

Joumal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 51_, 1173-1182.

165

Bartol, C. R. and Bartol, A. M. (1998). Delinquency and Justice: A Psychosocial

Approach (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Benda, B. B. and Corwyn, R. F. (2000). A test of the validity of delinquency

syndrome constract in a homogeneous sample. Joumal of Adolescence. 23, 497-511.

Biggam, F. H. and Power, K. G. (1998). The quality of perceived parenting

experienced by a group of Scottish incarcerated young offenders and its relation to

psychological distress. Joumal of Adolescence. 2i, 161-176.

Biglan, A., Metzler, C. W., Wirt, R., Ary, D. Y., Noell, J., Ochs, L., French, C.

and Hood, D. (1990). Social and behavioural factors associated with high-risk sexual

behaviour among adolescents. Joumal of Behavioural Medicine. 13, 245-261.

Binder, A. (1988). Juvemie delinquency. Annual Review of Psychology. 39,

253-282.

Bischof, G. P., Stith, S. M. and Whitney, M. L. (1995). Fanuly environments

of adolescent sex offenders and other juvenile delinquent. Adolescence, 30, 157-

170.

Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W. and Mann, B. J. (1989).

Individual, family and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive

offenders. Developmental Psychology, 25, 846-855.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth

Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human

developemnt. New York: Basic Books.

Brier, N. (1995). Predicting antisocial behaviour in youngsters displaying poor

academic achievement: A review of risk factors. Developmental and Behavioral

Pediafrics, 16, 271-276.

166

Bryan, J. W. and Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative data

and sociological and psychological conelates in a community college population.

Joumal of Youth and Adolescence. H , 77-87.

Byme, B. M. (1983). Investigating measures of self-concept. Measurement and

Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 115-126.

Campbeti, A. (1984). The giris in the gang. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York: Basic Books.

Canetti, L., Bachar, E., Gahli-Weisstub, E., Kaplan De-Nour, A. and Shalev, A.

Y. (1997). Parental bonding and mental health in adolescence. Adolescence, 32, 381-

394.

Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C. and Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative relations of

parenting and temperament to prosocial and antisocial behaviours in adolescence.

Joumal of Early Adolescence, 18, 266-290.

Chalmers, J. B. and Townsend, M. A. R. (1990). The effects of ttaining in

social perspective taking on socially maladjusted girls. Child Development, 61, 178-

190.

Chandler, M. J. (1973). Egocentticism and anti-social behavior: The

assessment and training of social perspective-taking skills. Developmental

Psychology, 9, 326-332.

Chen, C , Greenberger, E., Lester, J., Dong, Q. and Guo, M. S. (1998). A cross-

cultural study of family and peer conelates of adolescent misconduct. Developmental

Psychology, 34,770-781.

Chiu, L. H. (1988). Testing tiie test: Measures of self-esteem for school-age

children. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 298-301.

Cloud, J. (1999, May 31). Just a routine school shooting. TIME, 22-27.

167

Coakes, S. J. and Steed, L. G. (1996). SPSS for Windows: Analv.si.s without

anguish. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The cultore of the gang. Glencoe, IL:

Free Press.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Apphed multiple regression / conelation

analysis for the behavioural sciences (2" * Edn). Hihsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cole, P. G., Chan, L. K. S. and Lytton, L. (1989). Perceived competence of

juvenile delinquents and nondelinquents. The Joumal of Special Education. 23, 194-

302.

Coleman, J. C. and Hendry, L. (1990). The Namre of Adolescence. London:

Routledge.

Colhngwood, T. R. and Genthner, R. W. (1980). Skihs ttaining as treatment

for juvenile delinquents. Professional Psychology, 11, 591-598.

Conger, J. J. and MiUer, W. C. (1966). Personality, social class and delinquency.

New York: Wiley.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L. and

Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment

of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.

Corbett, C. and Simon, F. (1991). Police and pubhc perceptions of the

seriousness of ttaffic offences. British Joumal of Criminology, 31, 153-164.

Corcoran, K. and Fisher, J. (1987). Measures for clinical practice: A

sourcebook. New York: Free Press.

Cortes, J. and Gatti, F. (1972). Delinquency and Crime: A Biopsychosocial

Approach. New York: Seminar Press.

168

Comlla, W. J. (1990). A revised version of the Psychoticism Scale for children.

Personality and Individual Differences, H , 65-76.

Cubis, J., Lewin, T. and Dawes, F. (1989). Australian adolescents' perceptions

of their parents. Australian and New Zealand Joumal of Psychiatry, 23, 35-47.

Cummings, S. (1977). Family socialization and fatalism among black

adolescents. The Joumal of Negro Education, 46, 62-75.

Dahlquist, L. M. and Ottinger, D. R. (1983). Locus of control and peer stams: A

scale for children's perceptions of social interactions. Joumal of Personality

Assessment, 47,278-287.

Daniel, A. (19831. Power, privilege and prestige: Occupations in Austtalia.

Melboume: Longman Cheshire.

Davidson, K. M. and Tyrer, P. (1996). Cognitive therapy for antisocial and

borderiine personality disorders: Single case study series. British Joumal of Clinical


Davis, T. L., Severy, L. W., Kraus, S. J. and Whitaker, J. M. (1993).

Predictors of sentencing decisions: The beliefs, personahty variables, and

demographic factors of juvenile justice personnel. Joumal of Applied Social


Demo, D. H., Small, S. A. and Savin-Wilhams, R. C. (1987). Family relations

and the self-esteem of adolescents and their parents. Joumal of Maniage and the

Family, 49, 705-715.

Dinitz, S., Frank, R., Scarpitti, C. and Reckless, W.C. (1962). Delinquency

vulnerability: A cross-group and longittidinal analysis. American Sociological Review,

27,515-517.

169

Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., Dinkmeyer, J. S. and Dinkmeyer, D. (1997a).

Early Childhood STEP: Systematic Training for Effective Parenting of Children Under

Six. U.S.A.: American Guidance Service.

Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., Dinkmeyer, J. S. and Dinkmeyer, D. (1997b).

STEP: Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. U.S.A.: American Guidance

Service.

Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., McKay, J. L. and Dinkmeyer, D. (1998).

STEP/Teen: Systematic Training for Effective Parenting of Teens. U.S.A. :American

Guidance Service.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M. and Skinner, M. L. (1991).

Family, school, and behavioural antecedants to early adolescent involvement with

antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27, 172-180.

Dore, M. M. (1993). Family preservation and poor famihes: When

"homebuilding" is not enough. Families in Society: The Joumal of Contemporary

Human Services, 545-556.

Dombusch, S. M., Carlsmith, J. M., Buschwall, S. J., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman,

H., Hastorf, C. and Gross, R. T. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the

control of adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341.

Drent, A. (2001). Parenting Today. Austtalia: ACER Press.

Ducette, J. and Wolk, S. (1972). Locus of control and extreme behavior. Journal

of Consulting and Chnical Psychology, 39, 253-258.

Dunham, R. G. and Albert, G. P. (1987). Keeping juvenile delinquents in

school: A prediction model. Adolescence, 22,45-57.

Dunn, J. and Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Whv sibhngs are so different.

New York: Basic Books.

170

Edgar, D. (1995). Family impacts on the development of the child. Austtalian

and New Zealand Joumal of Psychiatry, 29, 14-22.

Edwards, W. J. (1996). A measurement of delinquency differences between a

delinquent and nondelinquent sample: What are the implications? Adolescence, 31,

973-989.

Ehrlich, P. R. (2000). Human Namres: Genes, Cultures, and the Human

Prospect. U.S.A.: Island Press.

Ellerman, D. A. (1996, September). Adolescent self-esteem in relation to family

processes and parental self-esteem. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the

Austtalian Psychological Society, Sydney, Australia.

Elliott, D. S. and Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and

divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-330.

Entier, N. and Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and Delinquency: The collective

management of reputation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Emler, N. Reicher, S. and Ross, A. (1987). The social context of delinquent

conduct. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 99-109.

Erikson, . (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton and

Company.

Emst, C. and Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: hs influence on personality. Berlin:

Springer-Verlag.

Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R. and Zehi, A. (1991). The role of parental variables

in the leaming of aggression. In D. J. Pepler and k. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development

and treatinent of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

171

Evans, R. C , Levy, L., Sullenberger, T. and Vyas, A. (1991). Self-concept and

delinquency: the on-going debate. Joumal of Offender Rehabihtation. 16, 59-74.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield: Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1977a). Crime and Personality. (Revised ed.). London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H. J. (1977b). You and Neurosis. London: Maurice Temple Smith.

Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Psychophysiology and Personality: Exttaversion,

Neuroticism and Psychoticism. In A. Gale and J. A. Edwards (Eds.), Physiological

Conelates of Human Behaviour: Vol. Ill: Individual Differences and Psychopathology.

London: Academic Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1985). The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire.

Harmondsworth: Viking.

Eysenck, H. J. (1996a). Personality and crime: Where do we stand? Psychology,

Crime & Law, 2, 143-152.

Eysenck, H. J. (1996b). Personality and the biosocial model of anti-social and

crinunal behaviour. Paper presented at A Nato Advanced Study Institute on biosocial

bases of violence: Theory and research. Rhodes, Greece, 12-21 May, 1996.

Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personahty

Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a Dimension of

Personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS

Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of

crinunahty. New York: Plenum.

172

Eysenck, H. J. and Levey, A. (1972). Conditioning, introversion-extraversion,

and the strength of the nervous system. In V. O. Nebylitsyn and J. A. Gray, (Eds.),

Biological Bases of Individual Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

Eysenck, S. B. G. (1997). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. In H.

Nyborg (Ed.) The Scientific Study of Human Namre: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at

Eighty. Denmark: Pergamon. Chapter 6.

Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J. and Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the

Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.

Fabrega, H. and Miller, B. (1995). Adolescent psychiatry as a product of

contemporary Anglo-American society. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 881-894.

Farrington, D. P. (1986). Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In D.

Olweus, J. Block and M. R. Yanow (Eds.). Development of antisocial and prosocial

behaviour (pp. 359-384). New York: Academic Press.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and aduh

violence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100.

Farrington, D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early

precursors and later life outcomes, hi D. J. Pepler and K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The

development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hihsdale, NJ.:Erlbaum.

Farrington, D. (1992). Juvenile delinquency. In Coleman, J. (Ed), The

School Years: Cunent Issues in tiie Socialization of Young People (2nd Edn.).

London: Routiedge, pp. 123-163.

Farrington, D. P., Ohlin, L. E. and Wilson, J. Q. (1986). Understanding and

controlling crime. New York: Springer-Veriag.

Fasick, F. (1984). Parents, peers, youth cultare and autonomy in adolescence.

Adolescence, 19, 143-157.

173

Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of stracttiral equation modeUing m counsehng

psychology research. Joumal of Counseling Psychology. 34,425-436.

Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T. and Horwood, L. J. (1996). Factors associated

with continuity and changes in disraptive behavior pattems between childhood and

adolescence. Joumal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 24, 533-553.

Fener, M. and Krantz, M. (1987). Self-control, locus of control and social status

in children. Psychological Reports. 60, 355-358.

Fife-Yeomans, J. (1995, March 25-26). Joumey through a mother's nightmare.

The Australian Magazine, 20-27.

Figlio, R. M. (1975). The seriousness of offenses: An evaluation by

offenders and nonoffenders. The Jounal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 66(2),

189-200.

Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L. and Wolf, M. M. (1973). Achievement Place:

Experiments in self-govemment with pre-delinquents. Joumal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 6, 31-47.

Forehand, R., Furey, W. M. and McMahon, R. J. (1984). The role of matemal

distress in parent ttaining to modify child noncompliance. Behavioral Psychotherapy,

12, 93-108.

Fuller, A. (2000). Raising Real People: A Guide for Parents of Teenagers.

Australia: ACER Press.

Fumham, A. and Radley, S. (1989). Sex differences in the perception of male

and female body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 653-662.

Fumham, A. and Thompson, J. (1991). Personahty and self-reported

delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 585-593.

Gabel, E. (1999, May 31). Pattems of violence. TIME, 24-25.

174

Garbarino, J. and Guttmann, E. (1986). Characteristics of high-risk famihes:

Parental and adolescent perspectives. In J. Garbarino, C. J. Schellenbach and J. M.

Sebes (Eds.), Troubled Youth, Troubled Families: Understanding Families At-Risk for

Adolescent Maltreatment (pp. 121-148). New York: Aldine de Gmyter.

Gavin, L. and Fumham, W. (1989). Age differences in adolescents' perceptions

of their peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 827-834.

Ge, X., Conger, R. D., Cadoret, R. J., Neiderhiser, J. M., Yates, W., Troughton,

E. and Stewart, M. A. (1996). The developmental interface between nature and nurture:

A mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors.

Developmental Psvchology, 32, 574-589.

Gebotys, R. J., Roberts, J. V. and DasGupta, B. (1988). News mdeia use and

pubhc perceptions of crime seriousness. Canadian Joumal of Criminology, 30, 3-16.

Gibbs, N. (1999, May 3). Special Report; The Littieton Massacre. TIME, 24-40.

Gibbs, J.C, Amold, K.D., Chessman, F. L. and Ahlbom, H. H. (1984).

FacUhation of sociomoral reasoning in delinquents. Joumal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 52, 37-45.

Gibbs, S. and Mercer, N. (2001, January 31). Boy, 13, held over toddler's death.

The Sydney Moming Herald, pp. 1,4.

Gibson, H. B.. (1969). Early dehnquency in relation to broken homes. Joumal of

Child Psvcholnpy and Psychiatry, 10, 195-204.

Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent Behaviour in an American City. Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Goldstein, M. and Heaven, P. C. L. (2000). Perceptions of the family,

delinquency, and emotional adjustment among youth. Personahty and hidividual

Differences, 29, 1169-1178.

175

Goldstein, A. P. and Soriano, F. I. (1994). Juvenile gangs. In L. D. Eron, J. H.

Gentry and P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence

and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Golombok, S. and Fivush, R. (1994). Gender Development. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, D. A. (1977). Children's behefs in intemal-extemal conttol and self-

esteem as related to academic achievement. Joumal of Personality Assessment, 41, 383-

386.

Gorman-Snuth, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelh, A. and Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The

relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Joumal

of Fanuly Psychology, 10, 115-129.

Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.

Gove, W. and Cratchfield, R. D. (1982). The family and delinquency. The

Sociological Quarteriy, 23, 301-319.

Gray, N., Pickering, A. and Gray, J. (1994). Psychoticism and dopamine D2

binding in the basal ganglia using single photon enussion tomography. Personality and

hidividual Differences, 17,431-434.

Griffore, R. J., Kallen, D. J., Popovich, S. and Poweh, V. (1990). Gender

differences in conelates of coUege students' self-esteem. College Student Joumal, 24,

287-291.

Grinneh, R. M. and Chambers, C. A. (1979). Broken homes and middle class

dehnquency. Criminology, 17, 395-400.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). Atttibution of blame for criminal acts and its

relationship with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 53-58.

176

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). Crime and Personality, hi H. Nyborg (Ed.) The

Scientific Sttidy of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans J. Evsenck at Eighty (Chapter 8).

Denmark: Pergamon.

Gudjonsson, G. H. and Singh, K. K. (1989). The revised Gudjonsson Blame

Attribution Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences. 10, 67-70.

Guemey, L. (1980). Parenting: A skills training manual. State CoUege, PA:

Ideals, Inc.

Hafner, R. (1988). Obsessive-compulsive disorder: A questionnaire survey

of a self-help group, hiternational Joumal of Social Psychiatty, 34, 310-315.

Hammond, W. R. and Yung, B. R. (1994). African Americans, hi L. D. Eron, J.

H. Gentry and P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspectives on

violence and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Hare, R. D. (1978). Electtodermal and cardiovascular conelates of psychopathy.

In R. D. Hare and D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research

(pp. 107-144). New York: Wiley.

Harris, S. (1998, May 17). Give me all your money, the 6-year-old armed bandit

told the security guard. The Sunday Telegraph, p. 7.

Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T. and Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of

socially desirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,

629-636.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1993). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency.

Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 67-76.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1994a). Family of origin, personality, and self-reported

delinquency. Joumal of Adolescence, 17, 445-449.

177

Heaven, P. C. L. (1994b). Contemporary Adolescence: A Social Psychological

Approach. Austtalia: MacMiUan Education.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1996a). Personality and self-reported delinquency: A

longitudinal analysis. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 37, 747-751.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1996b). Personality and self-reported delinquency: Analysis of

the "big five" personality dimensions. Personality and Individual differences, 20,47-54.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1997). Perceptions of family influences, self-esteem and

psychoticism: A two year longitudinal analysis. Personality and Individual Differences.

23, 569-574.

Heaven, P. C. L., Caputi, P., TriveUion-Scott, D. and Swinton, T. (2000).

Personality and group influences on self-reported delinquent behaviour. Personality and

hidividual Differences, 28, 1143-1158.

Heaven, P. C. L. and Virgen, M. (2001). Personality, perceptions of family and

peer influences, and males' self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30, 321-331..

Hemming, J. H. (1981). Electrodermal indices in a selected prison sample and

students. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 37-46.

Henderson, J. Q. (1981). A behavioral approach to stealing: A proposal for

tteatment based on ten cases. Joumal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental

Psychiatry, 12,231-236.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D. and

Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children

and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.

Hennessy, M., Richards, P. J. and Berk, R. A. (1978). Broken homes and middle

class delinquency: A reassessment. Crinunology, 15, 505-528.

178

Henry, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E. and Stiva, P. A. (1996). Temperamental and

fanulial predictors of violent and nonviolent criminal convictions: Age 3 to age 18.

Developmental Psychology. 32, 614-623.

Herbert, M. (1998). Adolescent conduct disorders. In P. Graham (Ed.),

Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy for Children and Families. U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.

Hilmi, F. (1988). The self-concept of delinquent and non-delinquent Saudi

juveniles. Psychologia: An International Joumal of Psvchology in the Orient. 31,47-51.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of Califomia

Press.

Hirschi, T. (1983). Crime and family policy. Joumal of Contemporary Studies.

Winter, 3-16.

Hoffman, M. L. and Saltzstein, H. D. (1967). Parent discipline and the chtid's

moral development. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 45-57.

Hollin, C. R. (1990). Social skiUs training with delinquents: A look at the

evidence and some recommendations for practice. British Joumal of Social Work, 20,

483-493.

Huey, S. J., Henggeler, S. W., Brondino, M. J. and Pickrel, S. G. (2000).

Mechanisms of change in multisystemic therapy: Reducing delinquent behavior through

therapist adherence and improved family and peer functioning. Joumal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 68, 451-467.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F. and Weiher, A. W. (1991). Are there multiple paths

to delinquency? The Joumal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82, 83-118.

Jenldn, C. and Bretiierton, D. (1994). PACE: Parenting Adolescents, a Creative

Experience! Australia: ACER Press.

179

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vandenyn, J., Costa, F. M. and Turbin, M. S.

(1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and

developmental change. Developmental Psychology. 31, 923-933.

Johnson, R E. (1986). Fanuly stmcture and delinquency: General pattems and

gender differences. Criminology. 24, 64-80.

Johnson, B. L. and Kilmann, P. R. (1975). The relationship between recalled

parental attitudes and intemal-extemal control. Joumal of Clinical Psvchology. 31, 40-

42.

Kandel, D. B. (1985). On processes of peer influence in adolescent drag use: A

developmental perspective. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 4, 139-163.

Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Increase in self rejection as an antecedent of deviant

responses. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 281-292.

Kaplan, H. B. (1977). Increase in self rejection and continuing discontinued

deviant responses. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 77-87.

Kaplan, H. B. (1978). Deviant behavior and self-enhancement in adolescence.

Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 253-277.

Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Deviant behavior in defense of self New York: Academic

Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behaviour in children: Cunent

status and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102,187-203.

Kazdin, A. E., Bass, D., Siegel, T. and Thomas, C. (1989). Cognitive

behavioural therapy in tiie tteattnent of children refened for anti-social behaviour.

Joumal of Clinical and Consulting Psvchology, 57, 522-535.

180

Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N. H. and Unis, A. S. (1987).

Problem solving skills training and relationship therapy in the treatment of anti-social

child behavior. Joumal of Consulting and Chnical Psychology. 55,76-85.

Keilitz, I. and Dunivant, N. (1986). The relationship between leaming disability

and juventie delinquency: Cunent state of knowledge. Remedial and Special Education,

7, 18-26.

KendaU, P. C , Finch, A. J., Jr., Little, V. L., Chirico, B. M., and Ollendick, T.

H. (1978). Variations in a constract: Quantitative and qualitative differences in

children's locus of control. Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 590-592.

Klein, N. C. C , Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. (1977). Impact of family

systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: A model of primary

prevention and program evaluation. Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45,

469-474.

Klinteberg, B. A., Andersson, T., Magnusson, D. and Stattin, H. (1993).

Hyperactive behavior in childhood as related to subsequent alcohol problems and

violent offending: A longitudinal study of male subjects. Personality and Individual

Differences, 15, 381-388.

Krohn, M. D., Stem, S. B., Thombeny, T. P. and Jang, S. J. (1992). The

measurement of family process variables: The effect of adolescent and parent

perceptions of family life on delinquent behaviour. Joumal of Quantitative

Criminology, 8,287-315.

Ladd, G. W. (1984). Social skihs fraining with children: Issues in research

and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 307-337.

181

Lahey, B. B., Conger, B. M., Aticeson, B. M. and Treiber, F. A. (1984).

Parenting behavior and emotional status of physically abusive mothers. Joumal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 52. 1062-1071.

Lambom, S., Mounts, N., Steinburg, L. and Dombusch, S. (1991). Pattems

of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,

indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development. 62, 1049-1065.

Lane, D. A. (1987). Personality and antisocial behaviour: A long-term study.

Personality and Individual Differences. 8, 799-806.

Larzelere, R. E. and Patterson, G. R. (1990). Parental management: Mediator of

the effect of socioeconomic status on eariy delinquency. Crinunology. 28, 301-323.

Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schunun, W. R. and Alibrando, S. A. (1989).

Relations of spanking and other parenting characteristics to self-esteem and perceived

faimess of parental discipline. Psychological Reports. 64, 1140-1142.

Lawson, T. E. (1994). The consequences of "NOT GOOD ENOUGH"

PARENTING. (Revised ed.). Australia: The Omega Press.

Le Blanc, M. (1992). Family dynamics, adolescent delinquency and adult

criminality. Psychiatry Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 55, 336-353

Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of conttol: Cunent trends in theory and research.

New York: Erlbaum.

Lefkowitz, M. M., Huesmann, L. R. and Eron, L. D. (1978). Parental

punishment: A longimdinal analysis of effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35,

186-191.

Levi, M. and Jones, S. (1985). Public and pohce perceptions of crime

seriousness in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 25, 234-250.

182

Levy, K. S. C. (1997). The contribution of self-concept in the etiology of

adolescent delinquency. Adolescence. 32, 671-686.

Liska, A. E. and Reed, M. D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and

delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 50, 547-

560.

Lochman, J. E., White, K. J., and Wayland, K. K. (1991). Cognitive-

Behavioural Assessment and Treatment with Aggressive Children. In P. C. Kendall

(Ed.) Child and Adolescent Therapy: Cognitive-Behavioural Procedures. New York:

The Guilford Press

Loeber, R. and Dishion, T. L. (1983). Early predictors of male adolescent

delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

Loeber, R. and Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders:

Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. London: SAGE Publications.

Loeber, R. and Hay, D. F. (1996). Key issues in the development of aggression

and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,

371-410.

Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as conelates

and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In N. Morris and M.

Tony (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research. Vol. 7. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1987). Prediction, hi H. C. Quay (Ed.),

Handbook of iuvenile dehnquency (pp. 325-382). New York: John Wiley.

Maccoby, E. E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood. In D. Olweus, J. Block

and M. Radke-Yanows (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviour.

Oriando, FL: Academic Press.

183

MacDonald, A. P., Jr. (1971). Intemal-extemal locus of control: Parental

antecedents. Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchology. 37, 141-147.

Maggs, J. L. and Galambos, N. L. (1993). Altemative stracttiral models for

understanding adolescent problem behaviour in two-eamer fanulies. Joumal of Early


Mak, A. (1990, May). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian

adolescents. Paper presented to the 19*'' Annual Meeting of Australian Social

Psychologists, McLaren Vale, South Australia.

Mak, A. (1991). Psychosocial control characteristics of dehnquents and

nondelinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 287-303.

Mak, A. (1993). A Self-Report Delinquency Scale for Austtalian Adolescents.

Australian Joumal of Psvchology, 45, 75-79.

Mak, A. (1994). Parental neglect and overprotection as risk factors in

delinquency. Australian Joumal of Psychology, 46, 107-111.

Mak, A. (1996a). Adolescent delinquency and perceptions of parental care and

protection: A case conttol study. Joumal of Family Studies, 2, 29-39.

Mak, A. (1996b). Parental neglect and overprotection as risk factors in

delinquency. Australian Joumal of Psvchology, 46, 107-111.

Mak, A. and KinseUa, . (1996). Adolescent drinking, conduct problems, and

parental bonding. Austtalian Joumal of Psychology, 48, 15-20.

Matthews, G. and Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality Traits. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

McColloch, M. A., Gilbert, D. G and Johnson, S. (1990). Effects of situational

variables on the interpersonal behaviour of families with an aggressive adolescent.

Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1-11.

184

McCord, J. (1979). Some child rearing antecedents of criminal behaviour m

adult men. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 1477-1486.

McCord, W., McCord, J. and Zola, I. K. (1959). Origins of crime: A new

evaluation of the Cambridge-SomerviUe study. New York: Columbia University Press.

McDougah, C , Bamett, R. M., Ashurst, B. and WiUis, B. (1987). Cognitive

control of anger. In B. J. McGurk, D. M. Thomton and M. Williams (Eds.), Applying

Psychology to Imprisonment: Theory and Practice, (pp. 120-1443). London: HMSO.

McFadden, J. (1988). The Simple Way to Raise a Good Kid. Australia: Nectar.

McFarlane, A. H., Bellisimo, A. and Norman, G. R. (1995). Family stracture,

family functioning and adolescent well-being: the transcendent influence of parental

style. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 847-864.

McGuffin, P. (1979). Is schizophrenia an HLA-associated disease?

Psychological Medicine, 9, 721-728.

McGuire, S., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M. and Plomin, R.

(1994). Genetic and environmental influences on perceptions of self-worth and

competence in adolescence: A study of twins, full siblings and stepsiblings. Child

Development, 65,785-799.

Melges, F. T. and Weisz, A. E. (1971). The personal fumre and suicidal

ideation. Joumal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 153, 244-250.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social stracture and anomie. American Sociological

Review, 3, 672-682.

Moffitt, T. E. and Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency, neuro

psychological deficit, and history of attention deficit disorder. Joumal of Abnonnal

Child Psychology, 16, 553-569.

185

Neapolitan, J. (1981). Parental influences on aggressive behaviour: A Social

Leaming Approach, Adolescence. 16, 831-840.

Nelsen, J. (1987). Positive Discipline. New York: Ballantine Books.

Newman, B. A. and Munay, C. (1983). Identity and family relations in early

adolescence. Joumal of Early Adolescence. 3,293-303.

Nowicki, S. and Roundtree, J. (1971). Conelates of locus of control in a

secondary school population. Developmental Psychology. 4,477-478.

Nowicki, S. and Segal, W. (1974). Perceived parental characteristics, locus of

control orientation, and behavioral conelates of locus of control. Developmental

Psychology, 10, 33-37.

Nowicki, S. and Schneewind, K. (1982). Relations of family climate variables to

locus of control in German and American students. The Joumal of Genetic Psychology,

141, 277-286.

Nowicki, S. and Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children.

Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154.

NSW Department of Juvemie Justice (1998). Information Package for 1997/98.

Information Management and Technology.

O'Conneh, M. and Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously: Public

perceptions of crime seriousness. British Joumal of Crinunology, 36, 299-318.

O'Connor, T. G., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M. and Plomin,

R. (1998). Genetic contributions to continuity, change, and co-occunence of antisocial

and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

39, 323-336.

Olweus, D. (1979). Stabihty of aggressive reaction pattems in males: A review.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852-875.

186

Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of

positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociolnpir^l

Review. 59. 391-407.

Parker, G. (1979). Parental characteristics in relation to depressive disorders.

British Joumal of Psychiatry. 134 138-147.

Parker, G. (1981). Parental representations of patients with anxiety neurosis.

Acta Psvchiatrica Scandinava. 63, 33-36.

Parker, G. (1989). The Parental Bonding Instmment: Psychomettic properties

reveiwed. Psychiatric Development. 4, 317-335.

Parker, G. (1990). The Parental Bonding Instmment: A decade of research.

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 25, 281-282.

Parker, J. D., Bagby, R. M. and Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confiraiatory factor

analysis of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual

Differences. 15, 463-366.

Parker, G., Fairiery, M., Greenwood, J., Jurd, S. and Silove, D. (1982). Parental

representations of schizophrenics and their association with onset and course of

schizophrenia. British Joumal of Psychiatry, 141, 573-581.

Parker, G., Tupling, H. and Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrament.

British Joumal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.

Panott, C. A. and Sttongman, K.T. (1984). Locus of control and delinquency.

Adolescence. 19, 459-471.

Patterson, G. R. (1980). Children who steal. In J. A. Inciardi and Akers, R. L.

(Series Eds.) and T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson (Vol. Eds.), Sage Research Progress

Series in Criminology: Vol. 18. Understanding Crime: Cunent Theory and Research,

(pp. 73-90). London: Sage Publications.

187

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process: A Social Leammg Approach

(Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.

Patterson, G. R. (1986a). The conttibution of sibhngs to training for fighting: A

microsocial analysis. Li D. Olweus, J. Block and M. Radke-Yanow (Eds.),

Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviour. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Patterson, G. R. (1986b). Performance models for antisocial boys. American

Psychologist. 41,432-444.

Patterson, G. R., De Baryshe, B. D. and Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental

perspective on antisocial behaviour. American Psychologist. 44, 329-335.

Patterson, G. R. and Dishion, T. (1985). Contributions of famihes and peers to

delinquency. Criminology, 23, 63-79.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J. and Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A

process model of deviance training. Aggressive Behaviour, 10,253-267.

Perlmutter, B. F. (1987). Delinquency and leaming disabilities: Evidence for

compensatory behaviour and adaptation. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 89-95.

Pepler, D. J. and Slaby, R. G. (1994). Theoretical and developmental

perspectives on youth and violence. In L.D. Eron, J. H. Gentry and P. Schlegel

(Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pike, A., McGuire, S., Hetherington, E. M., Reiss, D. and Plomin, R. (1996).

Family environment and adolescent depressive symptoms and antisocial behavior: A

multivariate genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 32, 590-603.

Pooley, E. (1999, May 10). Portrait of a deadly bond. TME, 22-28

Prescott, K. (Ed.). (1995). Teaching Prosocial Behaviour to Adolescents: A

Directory of Processes and Programs used in Austtalian Schools. South Australia:

Australian Guidance and Counselling Association Ltd.

Rahman, M. A. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1978). Psychoticism and response to

treatment in neurotic patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 16, 183-189.

Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: Crimtinal behaviour as a

clinical disorder. San Diego, CA: Acadenuc Press.

Raine, A. (1997). Classical conditioning, arousal, and crime; A biosocial

perspective. In H. Nyborg (Ed.) The Scientific Study of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans

J. Eysenck at Eighty (Chapter 7). Denmark: Pergamon..

Raine, A., Rogers, D.B. and Venables, P.H. (1981). Factorial validity of the

CNS-IE. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 758-765.

Raine, A. and Venables, P. H. (1981). Classical conditioning and socialization -

a biosocial interaction? Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 273-283.

Raine, A., Venables, P. H. and WiUiams, M. (1990). Relationships between

CNS and ANS measures of arousal at age 15 and criminality at age 24. Archives of

General Psychiatty, 47, 1003-1007.

Raine, A., Venables, P. and WiUiams, M. (1995). High autononuc arousal and

electrodermal orienting at age 15 years as protective factors against criminal behaviour

at age 29 years. American Joumal of Psychiatry, 152,1595-1600.

Ralph, A., Menalls, L., Hart, L., Porter, J. S. and Tan Su-Neo, A. (1995). Peer

interactions, self-concept, locus of conttol, and avoidance of social situations of early

adolescents. Austtalian Joumal of Psychology, 47, 110-118.

189

Rankin, J. H. (1983). The family context of delinquency. Social Problem.s. 30,

466-479.

Rankin, J. H. and WeUs, L. E. (1990). The effect of parental attachments and

direct controls on delinquency. Joumal of Research in Crime and delinquency 27,

140-165.

Reber, A. S. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin

Books.

Reicher, S. and Emler, N. (1985). Delinquent behaviour and attitudes to formal

authority. British Joumal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 24. 161-168.

Reid, J. B. and Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of antisocial behaviour

pattems in chtidhood and adolescence. European Joumal of Personality. 3, 107-119.

Reiss, D. (1995). Genetic influence on family systems: Implications for

development. Joumal of Maniage and the Family. 57, 543-560.

Reiss, D., Hetherington, M., Plomin, R., Howe, G. W., Simmens, S. J.,

Henderson, S. H., O'Connor, T. J., BusseU, D. A., Anderson, E. R. and Law, T. (1995).

Genetic questions for environmental studies: Differential parenting and

psychopathology in adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 925-936.

Rice, F. (1992). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture.

Boston: AUyn and Bacon.

Ronan, K. R. and Kendall, P. C. (1990). Non-self-conttoUed adolescents;

Applications of cognitive-behavioural therapy. In S. C. Feinstein (Ed.), Adolescent

psychiatry (Vol. 17, pp. 478-505). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.

190

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C and Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem and

adolescent problems: Modelling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review. 54,

1004-1018.

Ross, L. E. (1994). The impact of race-esteem and self-esteem of dehnquency.

Sociological Focus, 27. 111-129.

Ross, L. E. (1996). The relationship between rehgion, self-esteem, and

delinquency. Joumal of Crime and Justice. 19. 195-214.

Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social leaming and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rowe, D. C. and Flannery, D. J. (1994). An examination of environmental and

trait influences on adolescent delinquency. Joumal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency. 31, 374-389.

Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M. and Hagglof, B. (1999). Hopelessness, loneliness,

self-esteem, and personality in Russian male delinquent adolescents versus controls.

Joumal of Adolescent Research, H, 466-477.

Rushton, J. P. and Chrisjohn, R. (1981). Extroversion, neuroticism and

psychoticism and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 2,

11-20.

Rutter, M. and GiUer, H. (1983). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives.

New York: Guilford Press.

Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of

delinquency: A new look at sttncture and process in a classic smdy. Child

Development, 65, 523-540.

Sankey, M. and Huon, G. F. (1999). Investigating the role of alienation in a

multicomponent model of juvenile delinquency. Joumal of Adolescence, 22, 95-107.

191

SAS Technical Report p-200. (1990). SAS/STAT software; CALIS and

LOGISTIC procedures. Release 6.04. Cam, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.

Scarpitti, F. R., Munay, E., Dinitz, S. and Reckless, C. (1960). The good boys I

high delinquency areas: Four years later. American Sociological Review, 25, 555-558.

Schafer, W. E. and Polk, K. (1967). Delinquency and the schools. Task force

report: Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington:U.S. Govemment Printing

Office.

Scholte, E. M. (1999). Factors predicting continued violence into young

adulthood. Joumal of Adolescence, 22, 3-20.

Scott, W. and Scott, R. (1987). Individual pathology and family pathology.

Australian Joumal of Psychology, 39, 183-205.

Scott, R. and Scott, W. A. (1998). Adjustment of Adolescents: Cross-cultural

sinularities and differences. London: Routiedge.

Sellin, T. and Wolfgang, M. (1964). The Measurement of Delinquency. New

York: Wiley.

Sema, L. A., Schumaker, J. B., Hazel, J. S. and Sheldon, J. B. (1986).

Teaching reciprocal social skills to parents and their delinquent adolescents. Joumal

of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 64-77.

Shaw, C. R. and McKay, H. D. (1931). Social factors in juvenile dehnquency. hi

Report on the causes of crime, (Vol. 2). Washington: National Commission on Law

Observance and Enforcement.

Shaw, J. M. and Scott, W. A. (1991). Influence of parent discipline style on

delinquent behaviour: The mediating role of control orientation. Austtalian Joumal

of Psychology, 43, 61-67.

192

Shore, M. F., Massimo, J. L. and Ricks, D. F. (1965). A factor analytic smdy of

psychotherapeutic change in delinquent boys. Joumal of Chnical Psychology. 21, 208-

212.

Short, J. F. and Sttodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shucksmith, J., Hendry, L. B. and Glendinning, A. (1995). Models of parenting;

Implications for adolescent well-being within different types of family contexts. Joumal

of Adolescence, 18, 253-270.

Simons, R. L., Robertson, J. F. and Downs, W. R. (1989). The nature of the

association between parental rejection and delinquent behaviour. Joumal of Youth and


Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D. and Conger, K. (1991). Parenting

factors, social skills, and value commitment as precursors to school failure, involvement

with deviant peers, and delinquent behavior. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 20,

645-663.

Singh, O. P., Verma, R., Arora, M. and Agrawal, P. (1986). Self image of

institutionalised male delinquent adolescents. Joumal of Human Development, 22, 7-13.

Smith, D. J. (1995). Youth Crime and Conduct Disorders; Trends, Patterns and

Causal Explanations. In: M. Rutter and D. J. Smith, (eds.) Psychosocial Disorders in

Young People: Time Trends and theh Causes, 389-490. Chichester, U.K: John WUey &

Sons.

Snyder, J. and Patterson, G. R. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent

behaviour. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency (pp. 216-243). New

York; Wiley.

193

Snyder, J. J. and White, M. J. (1979). The use of cognitive self-instraction in

the tteatment of behaviourally disturbed adolescents. Behavior Therapy. 10, 227-

235.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of

adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development. 58, 269-275.

Stice, E. Banena, M. and Chassin, L. (1993). Relation of parental support and

control to adolescents' extemalising symptomatology and substance use: a longitudinal

exanunation of curvilinear effects. Joumal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 21, 609-629.

Stoolmiher, M., Patterson, G. R. and Snyder, J. (1997). Parental discipline and

child antisocial behavior; A contingency-based theory and some methodological

refinements. Psychological Inquiry. 8, 223-229.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. and Loeber, R. (1988). The use of prediction data in

understanding delinquency. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 6, 333-354.

Stumphauzer, J. S. (1976). Elimination of steahng by self-reinforcement of

altemative behavior and family contracting. Joumal of Behavior Therapy and

Experimental Psychiatry, 7, 265-268.

Sullivan, R. and Wilson, M. F. (1995). New directions for research in prevention

and treatment of delinquency: A review and proposal. Adolescence, 30, 1-17.

Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (4rd

ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Tavantzis, T. N., Tavantzis, M., Brown, L. G. and Rohrbaugh, M. (1985).

Home-based stmctured family therapy for delinquents at risk for placement. In M. P.

Mirkin and S. L. Korman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescents and family therapy, (pp.

69-88). New York: Gardner Press.

194

Thompson, D. (Ed,). (1995). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Cunent Enghsh

(9th ed.). Oxford; Clarendon Press.

Thombeny, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency.

Criminology, 25, 863-891.

Thurstone, L. L. (1927). Method of paired comparisons for social values.

Joumal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400.

Tutty, L. M. (1995). Theoretical and practical issues in selecting a measure of

family functioning. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 80-106.

Tyson, G. and Hubert, C. (1998). Adolescent perceptions of acts of

delinquent behaviour. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Society of

Ausfralasian Social Psychologists, Christchurch, New Zealand, 16-19 April.

Van Biema, D. (1999, April 5). Should all be forgiven? TIME, 54-58.

Vondra, J. I. (1990). Sociological and ecological facts, hi R. T. Ammerman and

M. Hersen (Eds.), Children at Risk: An Evaluation of Factors Conttibuting to Child

Abuse and Neglect. New York: Plenum Press.

Vuchinich, S., Bank, L. and Patterson, G. R. (1992). Parenting, peers, and the

stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 28,

510-521.

Weatherbum, D. and Lind, B. (1997). Social and economic .stress, child neglect

.nrl ]nve.ni1e dehnouency. Austtaha: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Weatherbum, D. and Lind, B. (2001). Detinquent-Prone Communities.

Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Webster-Sttatton, C. (1990). Stress; A potential disraptor of parent perceptions

and family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19. 302-312.

195

Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). Annotation; Strategies for helping famihes witii

conduct disordered children. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 32, 1047-

1062.

Weiner, I. B. (1992). Psychological Disturbance in Adolescence (2nd ed.). New

York; John Wiley & Sons.

WeUs, L. E. and Rankin, J. H. (1988). Direct parental controls and dehnquency.

Criminology, 26, 263-285.

West, D. J. and Fanington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London:

Heinemann.

West, D. J. and Fanington, D. P. (1977). The dehnquent way of life. London:

Heinemann.

Wilson, H. (1980). Parental supervision: A neglected aspect of delinquency.

The British Joumal of Criminology, 20, 203-235.

Wilson, J. Q. and Hermstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York:

Simon and Schuster.

Windle, M. (1992). Temperament and social support in adolescence:

Intenelations with depressive symptoms and delinquent behaviors. Joumal of Youth

and Adolescence, 21, 1-21.

Winters, C. A. (1997). Leaming disabilities, crime, delinquency, and special

education placement. Adolescence, 32,451-462.

Wolf, T. M., Sklov, M. C , Hunter, S. M. and Berenson, G. S. (1982). Factor

analytic study of the children's Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 42, 333-337.

Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R, M. and Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth

cohort. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.

196

Yates, B. T., Hecht-Lewis, R., Fritsch, R. C. and Goodrich, W. (1994). Locus of

control in severely disturbed adolescents: Loci for peers, parents, achievement,

relationships, and problems. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 289-314.

Zwi, A. B. and Rifkin, S. (1995). Violence involving children. British Medical

Joumal, 311, 1384.

197

APPENDICES

Page

A. Smdy 1 Joumal publication 198

B. Study 1 Questionnaire 211

C. Study 1 Consent Forms 222

D. Study 2 Questionnaire 225

E. Study 2 Consent Forms 239

F. Study 3 Questionnaire - Student sample 242

G. Study 3 Questionnaire - Parent sample 253

H. Study 3 Consent Forms - Student sample 264

I. Study 3 Consent Forms - Parent sample 267

198

APPENDIX A

Study 1 Journal publication

/T?

Journal of Adolescence 1996, 19, 557-568

Please see print copy for pages 200 - 210

211

APPENDIX B

Study 1 Questionnaire

212

UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG Department of Psychology

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read all instructions carefully, and answer the questions as honestly and spontaneously as possible. There are no right or wrong answers; just give your honest opinion. Please make sure that you answer all the questions.

PERSONAL DETAILS

How old are you? years months

Are you male or female?

FAMILY DETAILS

Do you live at home with: (tick which applies to you) both your mother and father mother father mother and partner father and partner guardian

PARENTS

What was the highest year of schooling that your father completed?

What is your father's current occupation?

What was the highest year of schooling that your mother completed?

What is your mother's current occupation?

213

These questions are designed to measure the way you feel about your family as a whole. It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers. Answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by placing a number beside each one as follows:

1 = Rarely or none of the time 2 = Alittleofthetime 3 = Some of the time 4 = A good part of the time 5 = Most of the time

1. The members of my family really care about each other.

2.1 think my family is terrific.

3. My family gets on my nerves.

4.1 really enjoy my family.

5.1 can really depend on my family.

6.1 really do not care to be around my family.

7.1 wish I was not part of this family.

8.1 get along well with my family.

9. Members of my family argue too much

10. There is no sense of closeness in my family.

11.1 feel like a stranger in my family.

12. My family does not understand me.

13. There is too much hatred in my family.

14. Members of my family are really good to one another.

15. My family is well respected by those who know us.

16. There seems to be a lot of friction in my family.

17. There is a lot of love in my family.

18. Members of my family get along well together.

19. Life in my family is generally unpleasant.

20. My family is a great joy to me.

214

1 = Rarely or none of the time 2 = A little of the time 3 = Some of the time 4 = A good part of the time 5 = Most of the time

21.1 feel proud of my family.

22. Other families seem to get along better than ours

23. My family is a real source of comfort to me.

24.1 feel left out of my family.

25. My family is an unhappy one.

Here follow some general statements about yourself. If a statement is true for you, circle T (True). If it is not true for you, circle F (False).

26. Generally, I feel satisfied with myself.

27. There are times when I just don't feel good enough.

28.1 feel that I have some good qualities.

29.1 can do things just as well as most other people.

30.1 feel that I don't have much to be proud of.

31. Sometimes I feel utterly worthless.

32.1 feel that I am a person of value, equal to others.

33.1 wish I could have more respect for myself.

34.1 have a positive attitude to myself.

35. Generally, I feel that I am a failure.

36. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.

37.1 sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way.

38. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener.

39. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.

40. I'm always willing to admit when I make a mistake.

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

T/F

215

Parents use many different methods to discipline and socialize their children. The following items describe some disciplinary techniques that your parents may have used in response to different situations, as you were growing up. Please answer each item by circling one number.

41. When you broke or spoiled something at home, how often did your parents

a. smack or scold you.

b. say that they liked the broken or spoiled item and explain why you should be more careful in future.

c. tell you that they didn't like you for being so careless or destructive.

Never Rarely Some- Usually times

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

42. If you had a temper tantrum, how often did your parents

a. give you a smack.

b. yell at you to stop.

c. suggest altemative ways that you could use to get what you wanted.

d. isolate you in a room away from the rest of the family until the tantrum stopped.

43. If you did not come home at the agreed time after playing with friends, how often did your parents

a. not allow you to play for several days or weeks.

b. say that they were worried and explain why you should keep to the agreed time in future.

c. show their anger and refuse to listen to your excuses.

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

216


44. If you got into trouble with your friends at school, how often did your parents

a. punish you by withdrawing some privilege (for example no television for a week).

b. say that they were disappointed and suggest ways that you could stay out of trouble in future.

c. refuse to speak to you until you had apologised to the teachers at the school.

45. If you refused to help or co-operate at home, how often did your parents

a. punish you by refusing something that you wanted from them.

b. tell you how disappointed they were and remind you that they couldn't do everything themselves.

c. say that they would send you away (for example, to boarding school) if you did not co-operate.

46. If you were rude, or said something nasty to your parents, how often did they

a. give you a good smack and tell you never to speak that way again. 1 2 3

b. show that they were hurt and explain that rudeness never helps things. 1 2 3

c. say that they did not like children who showed such disrespect for their parents. 1 2 3

217


47. If you physically hurt another child, how often did your parents

a. hurt you right back.

b. say that they felt sorry for the child who was hurt and point out that the other child was probably feeling bad.

c. say that they did not want to live with someone who did such horrid things.

48. If you took something that did not belong to you, how often did your parents

a. ask you to explain why you took the thing. 1 2 3 4

b. say that they expected you to retum it. 1 2 3 4

c. give you an angry look and walk away. 1 2 3 4

49. If you wanted to stay up late on a school night to watch T.V., how often did your parents

a. yell at you for suggesting such a thing.

b. explain to you that getting a good night's sleep was more important than watching T.V.

c. look coldly at you so that you would get the message that they did not approve.

50. As you were growing up, about how often did you get belted by your parents?

Never Once a year Once a month Once a week Almost every day.

218

51. As you remember your mother, for each statement, place a number beside each one as follows:

1 = Completely false 2 = Somewhat false 3 = Somewhat tme 4 = Completely tme

a) Never punished me. b) Rarely got mad. c) Wouldn't hurt me for anything. d) Was always cross with me. e) Never punished me physically.

52. As you remember your father, for each statement, place a number beside each one as follows:



Consider the following questions from your own point of view. Make a circle around one number after each question.

No, Not Usually Yes never often always

59. Are you often blamed for things that just aren't your fault?

60. Do you feel that most of the time it does not pay to try hard because things never turn out right anyway?

61. Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say?

62. When you get punished, does it usually seem it is for no good reason at all?

219

63. Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friend's opinion?

64. Do you feel that it is nearly impossible to change your parent's mind about anything?

65. Do you feel that when you do something wrong there is very little you can do to make it right?

66. Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to think about them?

67. Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there is little you can do to stop him or her?

68. Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no reason at all?

No, Not Usually Yes never often always

69. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today?

70. Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at home?

71. Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy there is little you can do to change matters?

72. Do you usually feel that you have little to say about what you get to eat at home?

73. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things tum out better?

74. Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to say about what your family decides to do?

220

Strongly Some- Some- Strongly agree what what disagree

agree disagree

75. Most problems will solve themselves if you just don't fool with them.

76. When bad things are going to happen they just are going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them.

77. When someone does not like you there is little you can do about it.

78. It is almost useless to try in school because most other children are just plain smarter than you are.

Below is a list of things that people might do. People engage in a variety of activities and might break some rules from time to time. We want to get a true picture of the things that young people do in Australia. Answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by placing a number beside each one as follows:

1 = Never 2 = Once or Twice 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often

79. Have you ever hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or a doctor?

80. Have you ever got into a serious fight with a student at school?

81. Have you ever got something by telling a person something bad would happen to them if you did not get what you wanted?

82. Have you ever hit a teacher?

83. Have you ever taken part in a fight where a group of your friends are against another group?

84. Have you ever used a knife or a gun or some other thing to get something from a person?

85. Have you ever taken a car that didn't belong to someone in your family without permission of the owner?

86. Have you ever taken something not belonging to you worth less than $50?

221

1 = Never 2 = Once or Twice 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often

87. Have you ever gone onto someone's land or into some house or building when you were not supposed to be there?

88. Have you ever set fire to someone else's property on purpose?

89. Have you ever damaged school property on purpose?

90. Have you ever taken something from a shop without paying for it?

91. Have you ever taken something not belonging to you worth more than $50?

92. Have you ever taken an expensive part of a car without permission of the owner?

* THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Remember, all your answers are confidential and will not be revealed to anyone.

222

APPENDIX C:

Study 1 Consent Forms

223


SURVEY OF ADOLESCENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF HOME-LIFE AND THEIR ATTITUDES

This research project is being conducted as part of a PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree supervised by Dr Patrick Heaven in the department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

The following questions have been designed to investigate various aspects of adolescents' home-life and their attitudes. The questionnaire will take approximately 25 minutes to complete.

Although you will be completing this survey in class, the information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will not be seen by your school or your parents. The completed questionnaires are completely confidential. (Note that your name is not to be written on any of the pages.) You are free to withdraw from the research at any time.

If you have any queries regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics CorMnittee on 213079.

Thank you for your help in this important area of research.

Nadine Peiser

STUDENT CONSENT

I am willing to participate in the present study, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researcher's understanding of adolescents' perceptions of home-life and their attitudes.

Signed:

Date:

224


Dear Parent/Guardian,

I am conducting research as part of my PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Dr Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong. I am investigating the relationship between student behaviours and the various aspects of their perceptions of family-life and their atttitudes.

The information I am collecting will be used for research purposes only, and will be treated with the strictest confidence.

Students from various high schools will be asked to complete questionnaires anonymously during class time. Your child has been selected to participate in this study. If you approve of your child participating in this research, please sigh below and retum to the school's secretary.

If you have any queries regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on 213079.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely.

Nadine C. Peiser

PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT

I am willing for my son/daughter/ward to participate in the present study, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researchers' understanding of adolescents' perceptions of various behaviours done by young people.

Signed:

Date:

225

APPENDIX D:


226



PLEASE CIRCLE: MALE FEMALE

YOUR AGE: Years Months

NB: DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTION PAGES

There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers are what YOU think.

NO-ONE will see this questionnaire. It will not be shown to your parents or your teachers.

O Z O H U

•ts ^

0)

</)

13 3 c/3

^

«5 (U

s .4-.»

5 a o 00

>. p ;-• c3

Oi

Ui (U > <D

:z;

"^ 3 <y>

D

1/) (D

s • »—1 4 - >

<D S o

C/)

_>>

"S CO

oi

>-( (D

> 

(D

g O

CO

> 1 ^ - H

(U

u 0^

t-c (D > (U

z

{3

ea a I i

o

-a e a> o o

s o *^ c

o

O o

© o

X!

in

o '^

3

1/1 1/1

13

o 1/3

a

O

M

i o

a

1/3 > - .

-a

O 1/3

 0)

;z:

13 3 1/3

l::

1/3

(D

.a •4—»

CD

a o 1/3

^ 13 13 c<

Ui (D > ^ "p ^ C^

kH D > (U

z

c -•a <D c

13 3 GO

D

c«

? a . ^ H

. « - ' 1^

a o 00

^ 13

a;

b.1 D •

> (U

Z

\

i2 s 9i U CO ©^

our]

>) •o

end

i

> C M

O

^ ©

.e «s

CA

"O

3 c/3

P

C/3 

(U

a o 00

^ 13

Oi

u, <D > (U

z

13 3 C/l

o c/3

u a • * M

'4--»

(D

a o 00

>, 13 CO

C

M (U > (U

z

^—1

3 c/3

D

c/3 <L)

a <^>> D

a o 00

> 1

Di

U i u z

rt ^

en C S-i CQ

a

©

4)

© ,13

« o

Is -o > -a <=*

©

O c/l

O

3 O

13

§ • 3

^ ^ ^ •§ t3 cS

(U t ^ c« O

o 

C8

«: CQ

i t3

V

CQ

J3

O o

o a .s c3 " (U

O

13 3 O >-. 0)

on

a 2

on

S .22 iS

O T3

3 O c/i

C« . - H

>-. J3 -o ^ 13 « P 3 c/l T 3 li; ^ 2 S

^ ^ .a

3 ^ ""

0 > 'S

1 - & o a Q 3 c« .S

CQ

B ©

,£3

B ©

O C -a

©

c/l (U c/l 3 o X <o

3 o

3

1) c/3

a T3 3

(U (SO 3 c3

O - 3

c/3

O

f<l r^

13 3 c/l

on

a

13 3 c/l

D

c/3

a

13 3 c/3

P c« D

a

13 3 c/3

t/i

E

13 3 c/3

D c/3 (D

a

3 c/l

D

c/l

a

a 3 c/l

D

c/l 0)

Cj 3 c/l

p

c/l (U

z

CO 3 00

P

c/l U

a •»-H

D

a o 00

p^

<D U i cd

ai

Uc (U > ^ (U ;-! cd Cii

l-c (U > 

a o 00

>

(D a o

00

i Pi

u<

>

o oo

1)

g o 00

J3

>

z

a o

00

0)

Di!

kH

>

z

a o 00

0)

J3 Di

>

z

a o 00

>

z

0)

a o 00

0)

!3 Di

Z

I 4; u CQ

©

© a X o

XI ^ • © ^ o X! u

3 o > •c3 aJ

- 3 - 3

c/l O

rt -a

WO

^ ( H I

£3 a o 00

s .a ^

1 i ^ .t^ = « ^ g

X ! J ^ ' * - ' 3 X> 3

is o .52 5 J3 ^

e .^ 13

© I ? ©

S c4

c/l (U bO bO 3 c/l

TJ 3

3 ' -

1-s

^ o

^ ^ >^ o <D ^

J 3 > . *-' a c3 ^ -B '^ Ki O c« O

3 O

3 3

O O

> o 2 o *^ c« -^

CO t3

2 S2 1/1 ..3

.a a

o

S3

CQ

s « ^ © 6 *" -o a X I

©

3 O

3

bO 3

O X )

^ ^ a © 3 p

© 5 5> - f i bO ^

"cQ 2 ^

2 a ^ Q. c/l (U

O bO 3 © « •?;

©

c/l

2

If ^ ^ C —1

©

t X <D

2 . o • 5 - 3 6 .a ^ o ^ ;3 3 > . ' 3 ' O

^ I «> S^ O O Q >^

"^ ^ ^

s ^ 8 S >>-3 O iKi O O c/l c/l

c .a « c3 bO

O

o

©

; « CO si <o Qt CXi

5 2 © >

> > «

* ^ 3

SS ^

S3 •!->

•S 3 V CO

5ft S

-C 3 • M 1/3

CQ _ - |

fe O © ba

aJ" co a o fc- > .

a ©

NH CO

C/l bO 3

« X^ • 3 "is

c/l

13 X ! i-i D > 3 c/3 C/l <D 3 0)

^3

o <u OH c/l

Si T3 X I o 3 C/l

T3

O

x: c/l O

X I

CO

•s 3 CO

X P <D ^

•73 33 3 X I CO O

t i P X ! ^

- 1 (D 3 ^ T3 cfl

"5 o c3

* j CO (U ^ - ^ X3

X i CO p c/3 c/ l ^ - 1

c«

a CQ

a u a ©

a

o

o

CO X !

3 O

O Cl,

3 CO

t i 3

X i c/ l CO

O X! CO

X )

3

X CJ 3 in

O X3 ^

3 O <D

a o c/l

2 .s ^ • 3 "-Ti 111

o CO

X bfl

X> O

X! u b<

.a o a CQ

*•> a x:

I ^ rt 3

a ©

H CO X )

X (U O (U o ' * -

X -4—>

2 ^ > 2 O on c« c3

U-l " O

>'"'3

- 3 • "

•^ o CO X

>^ O

3 CO

^ . 4—t

O 3

- 3

'-B .

if ^ • § CO 2 c/3 X

IT) se

CO 3 c«

p c/l

5

CO 3 c/l

p c/l <D

CO 3 c/3

P

C/l (U

3 c/l

p c/l

3 c« P c/3 P

CO 3 c/l

P

c«

a o

00

a o

00

a o

00

a o

00

a o

00

a o

00

CO

Di

S-i

>

z

Ift

a CQ

a hi a ©

a

5.a

a ex

If a ©

H H CO

00

2 CO

Ul

>

Z

O bO >> 3

2 :a o-a x a © -^ 3

^ 8 -3 O >%

(J

ex X 0 )

X! 4-1

1o -B >^ CO c/3

CO Di Di

>

z

>% CO

CO

13

u M O O

bO 3 CO

3 O > o > bO

o

CO

Di

a *-i

i > S.Z a ©

Di

a

©

©

H .a w

• * ^

CQ ©

CO

Di

l-l S-I

> >

z z

3 CO

O

t D O

c/l CO

cx

4.J CO

X *-> D bJO CO c/l c/3 p

X

X!

•a *= - •§ -a 2 O -3

XI '^ « X tfl c3 3

c« bO 3

CQ

a ©

Ol bO a 3 > > "

Is SB u

a ©

X3 bo ^H 3

- d o o bO CO

bO 3

0) bO

4)

boc--CO >

3 bO P 3 ^ X O o

"OH a X X

3 O ^ 3 O

to XI o c/l

3

CO Q

Ta ex 'o "

^ 3

5 0 ; ^

CO X o

a

CQ

a u a © >>

'O

"3 X • ^ ^

a ©

a 9i

©

CO

• 3

D >

c/3

O

a

CO

o 3 O

3 Q

a © .a CQ

a

CO

. . o bO 3 c O

1 ©

<2 W D ' flj <4-l

u o

a ©

tft .3

k-i CO 0)

CO

<D O 3

o l-l

>

z

a ©

b«

«2 -tot

Ui

o

cft ©

(J

a

©

X

13

*w

a B CQ

a x:

©

X w ©

-4^ M

Ov

k l a ©

0) X

B

a ©

13

O U

CO

X

a H o

0 0

CO

X

o 00

c/l

13

&13 a i^ o

U

0)

- 3

X c/l

3 3 ex l-l

z CO

a ^ o

u

o

CO

X

Id a H o

oo CO

X

a o

00

c/3

13 PH

&13 a p o

u

- 3 CO

a .4—t

o bO

13 Ui

CO

D^

mpl

ete'

o U

4 - " CO

X

mew

o oo

4 - *

CO X ^

o 0 0

> u 4—»

%, a o u

ng?

:a 4 . ^

> 3 CO

l-l O

M-H

a

n't

hurt

- 3

c.

Wou

l

Tru

e ru

e

H

c/3

Fal

c/l

13 UH

mpl

ete]

o U

4—1 CO

X (U

a o 0 0

4 - )

CO X

^

ome

0 0

>. 

a -3

puni

she

l - l

d.

Nev

e

Tru

e ru

e

H

en 13 PL.

0) c/l

13 PH

• •

43 .4iJ CQ

U

a ©

mem

be

9»

As

you

r

mpl

ete]

o U

1o X

3 a o

0 0

4 - J

CO X ^

ome

0 0

>. (D

4 - "

-3 "HI

a o u

o-U

a - 3

puni

she

l - l

e.

Nev

e

Tru

e ru

e

H

c/l

Fal

c/l

13 Pu

mpl

etel

o U

to X

5i a o

0 0

4—» CO

X

^

ome

0 0

^ 13 4—*

Tru

e

g H

c/l

Fal

c/l

'o^H a o

U

o-T i

got

ma(

>>

f. R

arel

PL.

mpl

etel

o U

4-1 CO

X

a o 0 0

4 ~ t CO

X ^

ome

0 0

^ 13 4 - "

" U i

a o U

ng?

X 4 - >

>> 3 CO

l-l O

t f5

1

n't

hurt

- 3

g.

Wou

l

Tru

e

2 H

c/l

Fall

c/l

'S PH

mpl

etel

T

rue

o U

4 - * CO

X

a H o 0 0

•4-^ CO

X

^ P

ome

Fal:

0 0

>-. 13 S ^ &il3 a PH o u

ly?

13 u 'i-i

X cx (U

a - 3

puni

she

1—1

h.

Nev

e]

o H Z O H U

a ©

a CA

CQ

.a

8 © a CA

4> . CQ

d j CA

^ % OS CQ

Oi.jg

CA X3

.!§ S x: © a>

^ ^ ns tS a &£ «Q a CA : a

2 " "eo "^ ^ a a (u © .t3 fe •«

CQ a ©

a u

5A

a § S2

a > IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e in

like

3

•der

atel

y

o :^

p

"3 3 >> IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e in

like

3

dera

tely

o S -. IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S > IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S (U

•T-H

's 3 >. IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S (D ^

"3 3 >. IH

(U >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S o ^

"s 3 >^ IH 0) >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S <L) ;i4

'3 3 >. IH (U

>

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y lik

e nl

ike

3

dera

tely

o S <L>

lik

3 3 >. IH 0) >

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y li

ke

nlik

e

3

dera

tely

o S D ^

"3 3 >-. i_i 

Ver

y lik

e M

oder

atel

y li

ke

nlik

e

3

dera

tely

o S u ^

"c 3 >. ;-! (D >

" 3 (U

- 3 <D 1 ) 3

c/3 CO

X! O 3

c/l CO

<D

P . 1)

X 4 . ^

o 3

• 3 •1 -H

Q

bO 3

• •H O

- 3 - 3

c/l bO 3

a o

4.J

o

^ 13 3 O c/l

O X

13 "X a o

m

73

U 00

c/l

o

-3

X o IH

ex

- 3 3 CO

4—> C/l I H 

IH

3 O o

4 - . O

o 3

- 3 •1-H

Q od

T3 .2H

o CO > IH CX

a B - 3

CO > 3

D

IH

> o c/l bO 3

bO 3

13 - 3 D >. O

'c'

O N —' —'

M

I H

>

4 - * CO I H

(U " 3 O

>

0)

4—1 CO I H

<o o

I H

>

t3 I H

T3

o

like

ery

>



P ^

•1-H

ery

>

(U M

like

ery

>

(U M

like

I H

>

D -VI

like

ery

>

<D . i ^

like

Very

^

>^ 13 to I H (U

73 O

S S ^ S

4 . ^ CO I H <D

" 3 O

4 - J CO I H (D

O

m i-rt ra <^ ^ T 3 T ! i •*—*

13 4—* CO I H (U

T3 O

CO I H (U

T3 O

I H

>

(D

I H

>

CO I H <D

- 3 O

CO I H



CO I H

- 3 O

I H

>

CO Ut (U

T3 O s s g s s s s s s

' 3 3

4—> CO I H - 3 O

•T-H

' 3 3

t3 I H (U

- 3 O ^ S

M • * - l

3

4—> CO u,

<o o

M •1-H

3

- ^ 13 4 - ) CO I H (U

" 3 O

(U M • ^ 3

CO Ui

^ 13

4 . ^ CO I H D

- 3 O

"3 3

P i : _P <u 

U

CO

- 3

c/l

I—H 4 - ' 3 (L> 3

cr

(U

•1-H

3 > I H

>

-§ o

4 — '

T3 (D

- 3 3 (U

H CO

-Vj •1-H

"3 3

>

- 3

2 3 CO

I H

o - 3

(U - 3



O 3

- 3 • 1-H

Q

0) -Vj • »-( "3 3

>

c/l

I H . 0

- 3 • ^ H

O o -3

' 3 3

I H

>

- 3 0)

4 - J

C/l C b O c/l 3 I S

X ^

(4-1

P

"3 CO

^ %

M ' 1 - H

'B 3 > H

>

CX 3 c/l CO

3

- 3

I H <D

4 - * 4-> (D

X

13 C 4 - 1

(D

a CO

a "3 o U

-V! •T^<

3

I H

>

X

o

i I H

> a

13

m VO

• 3 • ^ H

Q

"3 3 >^ I H

>

I H (U

X

3 O

4 - J

3 <D

73 3 O CX (U

T3 1)

CO

O -^ 3 • 3

I H

H

-Vi • 1—I

"3 3

> - 3 3 3 O

1/3 CO

X c/l c/l c/l

' 3 3

t4-l - - H (U c/l >->

I H 1 )

CO

.VI

o

o 3 i3 a 3

PL,

d

" 3 3

0) >

• 3 0)

4—>

3 CO

c/l CO

o - 3 (D

, • - 1

X o 3

a c/l CO (D

a

<N

"3 3

>

T3 (U . ^ 3 CO

a ^ 3

c/l CO

4 H

3 O O bO (U

-VI •T-H

"a 3

I H

>

(U

'•Ui O

> -1-H

o o I H

& > o c/l CO ^ ^

.VI •T-H

3 3 >% I H

>



T3 <D c/l CO

H I

CO

3 CO

c«

I H

T3

c/l

'cO I H CX

4 - J

o c id

- 3 .w • - H m

Q P »n

-VI

I H

>

-VI

.VI

>> I H

> CD

-VI

P

I H

>

P .Vi

-Vj • y - (

I H

>

-V!

-Vi

I H

>

-V)

-Vi • ^ H

I H

>

-VI

I H

>

-Vi

0 ) -VI

I H

>

OJ

-VI •1-H

I H

>

-Vi

-Vi

>

-Vi

>

.VI

I H (U

.Vi

-VI

I H

> >

-VJ

to I H

(U T3 O

P

-VI • 1-H

3

4—> CO I H

-3 o

^ ^ ^ 2 B ^ CO

- 3 O

1) -V! ' T - H

3

to I H

D - 3 O

(U J:«i •^ " 3 3

4—> CO I H (U

• 3 O

CO I H <L>

- 3 O

P .V! • 'B 3

to l - l (U

- 3 O

CO I H <L>

" 3 O

S S S ^ ^

P .VI •T-H

'B 3

4—* CO I H (U

- 3 O

% ^ % ^

CO I H 4)

" 3 O

-Vi •»-H

3

0 ) 4—t CO I H

<D - 3 O

CO I H CO

I H

1) - 3

o

U 4 . ^ CO

I H

D " 3 O

1 ) M »—H

8 3

- ^ 13 4 - > CO I H (U

• 3 O

13 4—> CO I H

(U - 3 O

S S

s s :

" 3 3

13 4 - 1 CO I H 

-Vi » — < 3 3

CO I H

(U - 3 O

S (U

-V! • T ^ j

"s 3

4 - J CO I H > I H

>

•T-H

" 3 3

>% I H

>

-V! •T-H

3

I H

-VI

• "3 3 I H D

>

-VI •T-H

" 3 3

>

-Vi

" 3 3

I H

>

-Vi •1-H

'B 3 I H

>

p

'B 3

I H

>

0) -VI

• <—( " 3 3

I H

>

3 >. I H

>

-VI

• 3

I H

>

-VI •T-<

"a 3

I H

>

-i»i • ^ H

" 3 3

>% I H



(U .Vi • ^ H

3

I H

>

2 CQ <V >-. CA

u

CQ (£< U

a ©

« M

©

a

6 a ©

p

P .Vi o cx

00

u -3 <D 0 )

3 c/3 CO

-3 o 3 CO

CO

• t S P

»- X O w

ex -« - 3 ^ 4-<

O 3

" 3 • 1-H

Q

bO 3

'o "3 Xf P

-V^ c/l bO 3

(D c/l O

X

o •3

i CN

I •w 'Ui'

O o

a o

• ^ H

o S (D

T3

a (U (D

00

C O

c/l

•a o

" 3 3 CO

-3H X O I H

CX

- 3 3 CO

4 - ^ c/l I H (U

- 3 3 3

- 3

13 ex cx

<

(D

I D

to 3 O

. - H 4—>

< 4 - l CO

C/ l

CO

W-)

c/l 3 O

O 0 )

• 3

3

O

a (U

. V ! CO

(D a

-3 U

-VI

V O

cx

3

O I H

bO P

a " I H .,_,

4 - J

o 3

T3 •T-H

Q

-3

H H

bO 3

 O

4-»

I H (D > U

o I H 4 - '

3 O o o

4-"

-3 113

Tri

(

>. o CO

> . - H I H

CX

a - 3 <L) -3 CO

> 3

1—1

c/l bO 3

• 1-H - 3 H—)

bJO 3

. - 1

-Vi ^—H

CO 4-1

•3 (U o

Enj

<D

a • 4 — * = 6

- 3 3 (U '^

:3 > .

a - -^ o

oo

3 (U 3 3^ l U I H

PL,

O —1 Os > — I . — I

- 3 (U

- 3 3 (U

H C O

-3 <u -^^ 3 CO

O - 3

<U - 3 D D 3

CO

X ^

- 3 3 CO

4—t Vi I H

<u -3 3 3

(D c/l

4—»

o 3

- 3 • ^ H

Q

Ver

y lik

e

p -Vi • »-H

Mod

erat

ely

•T—j

3 3

irat

ely

^ I H



thin

gs f

or m

ysel

f.

o X )

e de

cii

a H—>

^ i n

Ver

y lik

e

p .Vi • ^ H

Mod

erat

ely

-VI • v - H

3 3

rate

ly

cu T3 O

S (U

-Vi •T -H

a 3

>> I H

1) >

I w

asn'

t w

ante

d.

, - H

(U

mef

e ad

e

% vd

Ver

y lik

e

0) -Vi • ^ H

Mod

erat

ely

3 3

rate

ly

(U - 3 O

^

P -VI • ^ H

3 3

>. I H

<o

was

ups

et.

V

me

feel

bet

ter

whe

n I

Cou

ld m

ake

r-

Ver

y li

ke

' ^ H

Mod

erat

ely

(D

3 3

rate

ly

(U X3 O

S P

-Vi

3 3

>. I H

(U >

ith m

e ve

ry m

uch.

^

ot ta

lk

3 X)

Q od

Ver

y lik

e lik

e M

oder

atel

y

3 3

rate

ly

(D X ) o

^

p .Vi

3 3

>. I H

(U >

a

me

depe

nden

t on

hi:

(D J ^

to m

a ie

d

I H

O N

Ver

y lik

e -Vi

Mod

erat

ely

]

3 3

rate

ly

<D X I O

^

<o .VI • »-H

3 3

>> I H

<D

inle

ss h

e w

as a

roun

d. V

t

look

aft

er m

ysel

f u

o 3

coul

d

1—1 4 - >

3 PL. o CN

Ver

y lik

e lik

e M

oder

atel

y ]

4)

3 3

rate

ly

(U X ) o

^

<D -Vi •T-H

3 3

>-, I H

(U

nted

. V

Li

ch f

reed

om a

s I w

a

a

me

as

Gav

e

- - H

CN

Ver

y li

ke

ike

Mod

erat

ely

1

(D -VJ • ^ H 1—H

3 3

rate

ly

(L> - 3 O

S (U

-Vi

3 3 >, I H



as o

ften

as

I w

ante

d

4—)

3

eg

oo

a ^ CN CN

Ver

y lik

e

-VI

Mod

erat

ely

1

3 3

rate

ly

D X I O

S

<D -VI

3 3 > I H



Ctiv

e of

me.

4—*

n

)ver

pr(

CJ

c/l CO

^ CO CN

Ver

y lik

e

-Vi

Mod

erat

ely

1 . - H

3 3

rate

ly

u T3 o S (D

-VI

3 3 > I H

(U >

i . l-l (U

>

ti an

y w

ay I

ple

ased

.

• — 1

Vi

e dr

es

a H—>

^ »n <N

JS CQ <U

u

CA

a CQ 0) CA CQ

CA a ©

CQ

a 8

'53 Ui

X H Z O H

4)

CQ . 8 9i

Xi • * ^

, 8 61)

a ©

l a ^ ^

a "

CQ '*• '

3 . 2

.S -8 1 « V a a a

— CA _ 0) V (-1

«2 « .a a €

® W)

?:§ CQ O 2 Z 8 L

.2 ©

to 5/5

^ 8

0 . 2 H cr

O Z

00

-VI

3 O

3. o D cx bo a

•T-H

t; 3

X >-. o

• ? D 3 O o

Q

O Z

00

Si S

CA I H

<o 3

X) o o bO

> CO

X

u o cx

a

o z 0 0

m

3< o u ex 3

X CA P

i o CA

3 O o t3 X 4-1

CA

P -VI o CO

o •1-H

I H

CX >^ o

• ? o 3 o

3 o

O Z

00

CA 4 - ' X bO

o c/3

o

^ ^

bO

CA

3 O

o Q

O O z z 00 00

(U x(

X

3 |

2 - 3

CN CO

CA

CO

3 - 5 H

3< o ex

3 O

X 00

i n

CA X3

I H

X

CA O

3 CO

X

o

o o

X o CA

4-^ CO

-3H X 3 O l - l

4—»

o 4—»

3 . - H 4-..»

<o bJO 3 O o

Q

i n

O

z 00

o o

X o CA

4—» CO

CA X3 •I-H -VI

I H (U

X

3 CO

X a t=

CA I H (U

X o CO (U

4-> I H 3 O

X

3 O

- 3 <D

-VI o

(D bO

3 O

o Q

O Z

00

e s

I H

> o

3 (U (D

X 4-J CA 3

• • — )

CA CO

X 4—* CO

X

CO O

I H O ba o

X) CO 1 )



O

z 00 pq

CA I H (D

X

3 O CA

-i4 3 CO I H

ex bO 3

•^H >%

3 4 0)

-Vi

3 O ?-. o

Q

oo

o Z oo

3 <D I H

X o I H (U

X

CA CO

X ! 3 CO

3 X

CA

a o CA 3 O

o Q

O

Z

00

S S

CA

3

3 CO

bO a

'cA CO

-Vi

CA

a o CA 3 O

o

(3N - ^

o z 00 PJ

<D bO CO

I H 3 O

X

3 CO

X

X bO

3

a D (D I H

bO CO CA

o

o 4-J

a

bf l

D (U CA

3 O

o Q CN

o z

00

O Z

o z o I-H

H

CZ3

o Z 00

•

a ©

fory

is

tru

e ns

e th

at

©

resp

a JS

. 8

ire

O Z

r Y

ES

01

a> .8

nsw

er e

th

is s

ecti

on, p

leas

e a

a

• • (A

2 m

onth

av

e yo

u, i

n th

e pa

st 1

X

O

z

YE

S

dear

? D

rive

n an

unr

egis

tere

^

oo

S

mit

? pe

r ir

's

r a

lear

ne

o

ence

o

ver'

s li

•a X)

>uta

X -4—>

e ro

ad w

i

JH •w

a

Dri

ven

a ca

r or

a m

otor

bik

e o

CN

O

z

YE

S

' ^ H

coho

l 1

lal

lega

1) X

or o

ver

t

-i CA a o o rr^

^ ow

ner':

-a

;e w

itho

u

i ^ j

onee

(U

to s

om

X3

bO 3

3 X

bike

that

V H

O 4->

o

Tak

en a

nd d

rive

n a

car

or a

m(

i n

O

z

YE

S

ike?

X I H

or a

mot

o

S3 o

out o

f a

Stol

en t

hing

s or

par

ts

vd

O Z

YE

S

cycl

e?

•1-H

X CO

rts

from

St

olen

a b

icyc

le o

r pa

i >

O

z

? Y

ES

CO

a (13

in a

cin

< G

one

to s

ee a

n R

film

od

O

z 00 P-l

ise?

Y

Fa

iled

to k

eep

a pr

omi

) -H

o z

YE

S uo

r?

.2"

• kin

ds o

f

) H

X 4—> 0 JO

SJIJI

Bou

ght b

eer,

win

e, s

p

a^

O Z

YE

S

i ^ . . ,OJJSI(

-o

tave

rn o

r pu

b.

o"

e.g.

a d

isc

ice,

ub

lic

pla

'. D

runk

alc

ohol

in

a p

o

(D <4H

rope

r

ex

X 4—*

bO

out p

ayin

X

., w

it

o is

co, e

t

P'l

poo

bO 3

., sw

imm

i

cu

a

nto

a ci

n .

Gon

e on

to a

bus

or

ii

"~

o z 00

o o X I

Vi

X3 (U bO bO CO

^ I H

O CA



to 4->

o Z CN

O

z 00

. 3 bO

> o

4 - *

CA CO

CO

a o X

o , > H C4-<

CO

I 3 3

CO

o z 00

S 2

O

z 00

4—»

<D > (U 3 O

a -Vi

B 3 4

o cx a o

X

o o I H

I H

l ) .VI o o

o o

X o CA

CA~

CX O

X CA

O <4-H

bO (U 3 O

O

X3 4 - » CA CA

o 0) 3 O

,2 a 3

00

o Z 00 PL)

O bO O 3 O 3

(U I H O

I H

o

,x «A o 3 O

bO oi bb a

•1-H

X 4—»

a o CA

bO a

W .5 >^ 3

o a o

. - H 4 - J

a a a

X

bO a

3 X

I H

O

<U CA 3 O

X CO O

3 (U

-Vi

2

CA

3 •1-H

- 3

X 4 - »

bo 3

• 1-H

bO

I H

O bo 3

X

bb (J CA"

3 •1-H X o CO

CA 3 D CX CA

O . • H

CA

X3

§o t^Z I H

4) X o t ^ I H

O c/T .a = -s.a

.. o X3 O O

2 3

bO 3 O I H

o:a T3 bO (U 3 CO CO

-i I H

O CA O -I H /—.^ (U CA

T3 <a ^ a

.a bo

CO

CA I H (D

-VI o CO I H

o I

(U I H

<4-l

o bO a B

CA~ a I H 4-> CX <L> CO CO

3 CX-Ci C' X J> 1o C X - - ; iH -P

X 4 - *

o cx 3

" 3 (U CA CA

X

2 bO

a a 3

X

i n ^ ^ r~- 00 - H , - H ^ — I ^ H

_ CA

CA r a o J3 &a

CL, . a

d <N

o z

00

CO bO

a

X3 <D bO CO

a CO

X I

3 CA

o & 3

CLH

(N

o z

00

o

CA

CX

PJ 3

JO

X3 CO O

CO 3 bO

I H

CA D X O

X <L) 3 O

X CX B a3

CA

>-. X

Vi 1) cx o & I -S

bp OJ c/T D CJ

3 4 _o

X 3 CX 3

. —H

CA

bO 3

X5 (U bO CO

a CO

X I

3 CA

o & 3

cu CN <N

o z 00 PQ

CO

D X D 4-J

CA

O X bO

a

o

bJD dj

>>

t; ^ 3

CA

o 3

O H

CO CN

o z

lie p

lace

s?

YE

S

X 3 CX

her

, bu

s pa

nels

, or

ot

CO I H O O

s, t

oile

t d

Put

gra

ffiti

on

wal

l

i^t CN

1 do?

Y

ES

N

O

o 4—*

3

ts d

id n

ot w

ant y

o

a 1

at y

our

pi

Don

e so

met

hing

th

O

YE

S

N

Lgai

nst a

noth

er g

roup

?

ca CA CO

OJ

h a

grou

p of

peo

p:

figh

t in

wh

Tak

en p

art i

n a

fist

i n CN

O

z

eone

? Y

ES

a o CO

leat

en u

p Pu

rpos

ely

hurt

or b

vd CN

o z CO

ottle

in

a fi

ght?

Y

E;

X I H O

ns.

. kn

ife,

stic

k, c

hai

bO

OJ

som

e so

rt

Use

d a

wea

pon

of i

r- CN

O

z c/3

m a

noth

er p

erso

n?

o

ings

fr

0 ge

t mon

ey o

r th

rc

et

to u

se f

o U

sed

or th

reat

ened

o6 <N

o z 00

S

s, d

ope,

or

hash

)?

CA CO I H

bfi

SO c

alle

d U

sed

mar

ijua

na (

al

ON CN

YE

S

NO

ca

lled

acid

) U

sed

LSD

(al

so c

a

d CO

O Z

e?

YE

S

Uow

ing

med

ical

adv

ic

t S C 4 - 1

perl

ba

rbs)

by

not p

ro]

- 3 OJ

s (a

lso

ca

Abu

sed

barb

itur

ate

^ CO

0 z

not w

ant t

o?

YE

S

T3 X I

son

ngs

whe

n th

at p

er

• 1-H

X 4—)

do s

exua

F

orce

d so

meo

ne t

o

CN CO

0 z 00

W >^

c -CJ

4 - > OJ

x ' a 0

X r j

-in

orts

of

fire

a

okin

g, g

ivin

g fa

lse

rep

0 X •4—t

one

e.g.

fal

se re

stau

ran

X cx

n th

e te

le

Tri

cked

som

eone

0

CO CO

ings

? Y

ES

N

O

X 4—1

OJ

;cen

ay

ing

nast

y or

obs

CA

bi

Mad

e ab

usiv

e ph

one

calls

, e

T f CO

0 z

did?

Y

ES

or

som

ethi

ng t

hat y

ou

C4-H

^ OJ bfi I H CO

wit

hout

bei

ng c

h;

• 4 — *

3 x^

he p

olic

e W

. B

een

war

ned

by t

OH

did?

Y

ES

N

O

3 0

4-> CO

X

irt f

or s

omet

hing

t

= 3 0 U

hild

ren'

s .

App

eare

d in

the

C

u u

0 z 00

Tol

d a

lie t

o so

meo

ne?

Y]

>

239

APPENDIX E:

Study 2 Consent Forms

240


SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY-LIFE, THEMSELVES, AND VARIOUS BEHAVIOURS

Research conducted by NADINE PEISER

This research project is being conducted as part of a PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Associate Professor Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

1. The questionnaire I have prepared is aiming to understand young peoples' attitudes and their behaviours, such as their views of family-life and themselves. Your answers may help to provide better understanding of the needs of young people.

2. You will be completing the survey in class-time; it will take approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete.

3. The information you give me will be used for research purposes only and will not be seen by any school staff or your parents/guardian. Nobody else will see the information you give me. Note that your name is not to be written on any of the pages. The unidentifiable information received from you will be used for publishing a PhD thesis.

4. Your participation in this research is voluntary; you are free to refuse to participate and you are free to withdraw from the research at any time. If there are any particular questions that you do not wish to answer, you do not have to. If you choose not to participate or if you withdraw, you will not be penalised in any way.

If you would like to discuss this research further please contact Nadine Peiser on (02) 4221 4513 or Associate Professor Patrick Heaven on (02) 4221 4070. If you have any questions regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on (02)42214457.

Thank you for your help in this important area of research. Research Title: Survey of vounp people^s attitudes and behaviour

I (your name) consent to participate in the research conducted by Nadine Peiser as it has been described to me in the information sheet. I understand that the data collected will be used to explore young people s ideas about family-life and themselves and their attitudes to various behaviours, that it will be analysed by Nadine Peiser and will be part of her PhD Thesis wnte-up. I consent for the data to be used in this manner. My consent is voluntary and 1 understand that all information will be handled in the strictest confidence and that my name will not appear in any reports. I further understand that there is^o penalty

or prejudice of any kind for not participating in the smdy and that I can withdraw at

anytime. . Signature of participant i^ate /•

241



I am conducting research as part of my PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Associate Professor Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong. The questionnaire I have prepared is aiming to understand young people's attitudes and their behaviours, such as their views of family life and of themselves.

Your child's school has been chosen to participate in this study. The questionnaires will be completed anonymously during class time.

The information I am collecting will be used for research purposes only, and will be treated with the strictest confidence. It will not be seen by the school staff Your child will be requested not to write his/her name on the questionnaire. The information received, will be used for publishing a PhD thesis.

If you approve of your child/ward participating in this research, please sign below and give it to your son/daughter/ward to retum to the appointed staff member.

If you would like to discuss this research further please contact Nadine Peiser on (02) 4221 4513 or Dr Patrick Heaven on (02) 4221 4070. If you have any questions regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on (02) 4221 4457.

Thanking you for your help in this important area of research.

Yours sincerely.

Nadine Peiser


I am willing for my son/daughter/ward to participate in the present smdy, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researchers' understanding of young people's attitudes and behaviour. Further, I understand that the information will be used for research purposes only, and will be treated with the strictest confidence.

Signature Date. ./ /.

242

APPENDIX F:

Student sample


243



Please read all instructions carefully, and answer the questions as honestly and spontaneously as possible. There are no right or wrong answers; just give your honest opinion. Please make sure that you answer all the questions.

PERSONAL DETAILS



FAMILY DETAILS

PARENTS

What was the highest year of schooling that your father completed?

What is your father's current occupation? (Please do not give the name of his employer or work-place.)

What was the highest year of schooling that your mother completed?

What is your mother's current occupation? (Please do not give the name of her employer or work-place.)

244

Young people get into trouble for various behaviours. We are interested in whether or not you consider it a serious offense for a girl of your age to do each of the listed behaviours. Please answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by circling the number on the scale for each behaviour mentioned.

1. A girl of your age driving an unregistered car.

a serious 1 2 3 4 5 not a serious offense offense

1. A girl of your age driving a car or a motor bike on the road without a driver's licence or a learner's permit.


2. A girl of your age driving a car or a bike when drunk or over the legal alcohol limit.


3. A girl of your age racing with other vehicles while driving a car or a motor bike on the road.


4. A girl of your age taking and driving a car or a motor bike that belonged to someone else without the owner's consent.


6. A girl of your age stealing things or parts out of a car or a motor bike.


7. A girl of your age stealing a bicycle or parts from a bicycle.


8. A girl of your age going to see an R film in a cinema.


245

9. A girl of your age buying beer, wine, spirits or other kinds of Uquor.


5. A girl of your age drinking alcohol in a public place, e.g. a disco, pub, tavern or bistro.


6. A girl of your age going onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, disco, etc., without paying the proper fee.


12. A girl of your age not attending classes or wagging school.


13. A girl of your age running away from home (at least overnight).


14. A girl of your age shoplifting from supermarkets, department stores or shops.


15. A girl of your age stealing money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops, school, locker rooms, home, people's milk money, etc.


16. A girl of your age stealing money of $10 or more in one go.


17. A girl of your age breaking into a house or building with the intention of stealing something, e.g., money, exam papers, or other things.


246

18. A girl of your age cheating or stealing food, drinks, or other goods from dispenser machines, e.g. by tilting or bnging the machines, or using the "wrong" coins.


19. A girl of your age obtaining free games from coin-operated space invaders or other games machines (not including reward of good performance by machines in the form of bonus games).


20. A girl of your age purposely messing up other peoples' property, e.g., turning on water taps in people's gardens, letting off fire-crackers in mail boxes, burning rubbish bins, etc.


21. A girl of your age purposely damaging property by starting a fire.


22. A girl of your age purposely damaging things in public places, e.g., telephone boxes, street signs, road lamps, etc.


23. A girl of your age purposely damaging school desks, windows, or other school property, e.g., kicking holes in the wall.


24. A girl of your age putting graffiti on walls, toilet doors, bus panels, or other public places.


25. A girl of your age taking part in a fist fight in which a group of people was against another group.


247

26. A girl of your age purposely hurting or beating up someone.


27. A girl of your age using a weapon of some sort, e.g., knife, stick, chams, or bottle in a fight.


28. A girl of your age using or threatening to use force to get money or things from another person.


29. A girl of your age using marijuana (also called grass, dope, or hash).


30. A girl of your age using LSD (also called acid).


31. A girl of your age abusing barbiturates (also called barbs) by not properly following medical advice.


32. A girl of your age forcing someone to do sexual things when that person did not want to.


33. A girl of your age tricking someone on the telephone e.g., false restaurant booking, giving false reports of fire alarm, bombs, etc.


34. A girl of your age making abusive phone calls, e.g., saying nasty or obscene things.


248

35. A girl of your age hitting a teacher.


36. A girl of your age going onto someone's land or into some house or building when not supposed to be there.


Here follow some general statements about yourself. Please circle the most appropriate number.

37.1 am always courteous even to people who are disagreeable.

1. definitely false 2. mostly false 3. don't know 4. mostly true 5. definitely true



39.1 sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget




249


1. definitely false 2. mostly false 3. don't know 4. mostly tme 5. definitely true

Parents use many different methods to discipline and socialize their children. The following items describe some disciplinary techniques that your parents may have used in response to different situations, as you were growing up. Please answer each item by circling one number.


42. When you broke or spoiled something at home, how often did your parents

a. smack or scold you. 1 2 3 4

b. say that they liked the broken or spoiled item and explain why you should be more careful in future. 1 2 3 4

c. tell you that they didn't like you for being so careless or destructive. 1 2 3 4

43. If you had a temper tantrum, how often did your parents

a. give you a smack.

b. yell at you to stop.

c. suggest altemative ways that you could use to get what you wanted.

d. isolate you in a room away from the rest of the family until the tantrum stopped.

250

44. If you did not come home at the agreed time after playing with friends, how often did your parents

a. not allow you to play for several days or weeks.

b. say that they were worried and explain why you should keep to the agreed time in future.

c. show their anger and refuse to listen to your excuses.

45. If you got into trouble with your friends at school, how often did your parents

a. punish you by withdrawing some privilege (for example no television for a week).

b. say that they were disappointed and suggest ways that you could stay out of trouble in future.

c. refuse to speak to you until you had apologised to the teachers at the school.

46. If you refused to help or co-operate at home, how often did your parents

a. punish you by refusing something that you wanted from them.

b. tell you how disappointed they were and remind you that they couldn't do everything themselves.

c. say that they would send you away (for example, to boarding school) if you did not co-operate.


1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

251


47. If you were rude, or said something nasty to your parents, how often did they

a. give you a good smack and tell you never to speak that way again. 1 2 3 4

b. show that they were hurt and explain that rudeness never helps things. 1 2 3 4

c. say that they did not like children who showed such disrespect for their parents. 1 2 3 4

48. If you physically hurt another child, how often did your parents

a. hurt you right back. 1 2 3 4

b. say that they felt sorry for the child who was hurt and point out that the other child was probably feeling bad. 1 2 3 4

c. say that they did not want to live with someone who did such horrid things. 1 2 3 4

49. If you took something that did not belong to you, how often did your parents

a. ask you to explain why you took the thing. 1 2 3 4

b. say that they expected you to retum it. 1 2 3 4

c. give you an angry look and walk away. 1 2 3 4

50. If you wanted to stay up late on a school night to watch T.V., how often did your parents

a. yell at you for suggesting such a thing. 1 2 3 4

b. explain to you that getting a good night's sleep was more important than watching T.V. 1 2 3 4

c. look coldly at you so that you would get the message that they did not approve. 1 2 3 4

252

51, As you were growing up, about how often did you get belted by your parents?


52. As you remember your mother, for each statement, place a number beside each one as follows:

1 = Completely false 2 = Somewhat false 3 = Somewhat true 4 = Completely tme


53. As you remember your father, for each statement, place a number beside each one as follows:




253

APPENDIX G:

Parent sample


254



Please read all instmctions carefully, and answer the questions as honestly and spontaneously as possible. There are no right or wrong answers; just give your honest opinion. Please make sure that you answer all the questions. Remember, all your answers are confidential and will not be revealed to anyone.

PERSONAL DETAILS



What was the highest year of schooling that you completed?

What is your current occupation? (Please do not give the name of your employer or work-place.)

If applicable, what was the highest year of schooling that your partner/spouse completed?

What is your partners'/spouse's current occupation? (Please do not give the name of their employer or work-place.)

255

We are interested in your perceptions of the following behaviours done by young people, that is, whether or not you consider it a serious offense for Year 10 boys to do each of the listed behaviours. Please answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by circling the number on the scale for each behaviour mentioned.

1. Year 10 boys driving an unregistered car.


2. Year 10 boys driving a car or a motor bike on the road without a driver's licence or a learner's permit.


3. Year 10 boys driving a car or a bike when drunk or over the legal alcohol limit.


4. Year 10 boys racing with other vehicles while driving a car or a motor bike on the road.


5. Year 10 boys taking and driving a car or a motor bike that belonged to someone else without the owner's consent.


6. Year 10 boys stealing things or parts out of a car or a motor bike.


7. Year 10 boys stealing a bicycle or parts from a bicycle.


8. Year 10 boys going to see an R film in a cinema.


256

9. Year 10 boys buying beer, wme, spirits or other kinds of liquor.


9. Year 10 boys drinking alcohol in a public place, e.g. a disco, pub, tavern or bistro.


10. Year 10 boys going onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, disco, etc., without paying the proper fee.


12. Year 10 boys not attending classes or wagging school.


13. Year 10 boys running away from home (at least overnight).


14. Year 10 boys shoplifting from supermarkets, department stores or shops.


15. Year 10 boys stealmg money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops, school, locker rooms, home, people's milk money, etc.


16. Year 10 boys stealing money of $10 or more in one go.


17. Year 10 boys breaking into a house or building with the intention of stealing something, e.g., money, exam papers, or other things.


257

18. Year 10 boys cheating or stealing food, drinks, or other goods from dispenser machines, e.g. by tilting or bnging the machines, or usmg the "wrong" coins.


19. Year 10 boys obtaining free games from coin-operated space invaders or other games machines (not including reward of good performance by machines in the form of bonus games).


20. Year 10 boys purposely messing up other peoples' property, e.g., turning on water taps in people's gardens, letting off fire-crackers in mail boxes, burning rubbish bins, etc.


21. Year 10 boys purposely damaging property by starting a fire.


22. Year 10 boys purposely damaging things in public places, e.g., telephone boxes, street signs, road lamps, etc.


23. Year 10 boys purposely damaging school desks, wmdows, or other school property, e.g., kicking holes in the wall.


24. Year 10 boys putting graffiti on walls, toilet doors, bus panels, or other public places.


25. Year 10 boys taking part in a fist fight in which a group of people was against another group.


258

26. Year 10 boys purposely hurting or beating up someone.


27. Year 10 boys using a weapon of some sort, e.g., knife, stick, chains, or bottle in a fight.


28. Year 10 boys using or threatening to use force to get money or things from another person.


29. Year 10 boys using marijuana (also called grass, dope, or hash).


30. Year 10 boys using LSD (also called acid).


31. Year 10 boys abusing barbiturates (also called barbs) by not properly foUowing medical advice.


32. Year 10 boys forcing someone to do sexual things when that person did not want to.


33. Year 10 boys tricking someone on the telephone e.g., false restaurant booking, giving false reports of fire alarm, bombs, etc.


34. Year 10 boys making abusive phone calls, e.g., saying nasty or obscene things.


259

35. Year 10 boys hitting a teacher.


36. Year 10 boys going onto someone's land or into some house or building when not supposed to be there.


Here follow some general statements about yourself. Please circle the most appropriate number.

37.1 am always courteous even to people who are disagreeable.

1. definitely false 2. mostly false 3. don't know 4. mostly tme 5. definitely tme



39.1 sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.




260



Parents use many different methods to discipline and socialize their children. The following items describe some disciplinary techniques that you may have used in response to different situations, as your children were growing up. Please answer each item by circling one number.


42. When your children broke or spoiled something at home, how often did you

a. smack or scold them. 1 2 3

b. say that you liked the broken or spoiled item and explain why they should be more careful in fiiture. 1 2 3

c. tell them that you didn't like them for being so careless or destmctive. 1 2 3

43. If your children had a temper tantrum, how often did you

a. give them a smack.

b. yell at them to stop.

c. suggest altemative ways that they could use to get what they wanted.

d. isolate them in a room away from the rest of the family until the tantmm stopped.

1 2

1 2

261


44. If your children did not come home at the agreed time after playing with friends, often did you

a. not allow them to play for several days or weeks.

b. say that you were worried and explain why they should keep to the agreed time in future.

c. show their anger and refuse to listen to their excuses.

45. If your children got into trouble with their friends at school, how often did you

a. punish them by withdrawing some privilege (for example no television for a week).

b. say that you were disappointed and suggest ways that they could stay out of trouble in future.

c. refuse to speak to them until they had apologised to the teachers at the school.

46. If your children refused to help or cooperate at home, how often did you

a. punish them by refusing something that they wanted from you. 1 2

b. tell them how disappointed you were and remind them that you couldn't do everything yourselves. 1 2

c. say that you would send them away (for example, to boarding school) if they did not co-operate. 1 2

262


47. If your children were rude, or said something nasty to you, how often did you

a. give them a good smack and tell them never to speak that way again. 1 2 3

b. show that you were hurt and explain that mdeness never helps things. 1 2 3

c. say that you did not like children who showed such disrespect for their parents. 1 2 3

48. If your children physically hurt another child, how often did you

a. hurt them right back. 1 2 3

b. say that you felt sorry for the child who was hurt and point out that the other child was probably feeling bad. 1 2 3

c. say that you did not want to live with someone who did such horrid things. 1 2 3

49. If your children took something that did not belong to them, how often did you

a. ask them to explain why they took the

thing. 1 2 3 4

b. say that you expected them to retum it. 1 2 3 4

c. give them an angry look and walk away. 1 2 3 4

263


50. If your children wanted to stay up late on a school night to watch T.V., how often did you

a. yell at them for suggesting such a thing.

b. explain to them that getting a good night's sleep was more important than watching T.V.

c. look coldly at them so that they would get he message that they did not approve.

51. As your children were growing up, about how often did you belt them?



264

APPENDIX H:

Study 3 Consent Forms - Student sample

(i) Student

(ii) Parent/Guardian

265


SURVEY OF ADOLESCENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF VARIOUS BEHAVIOURS DONE BY YOUNG PEOPLE

This research project is being conducted as part of a PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Dr Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

We are interested in understanding what adolescents' perceptions are of various behaviours done by young people. For example, how serious are the behaviours? We are also interested in how young people view some aspects of family life. It will take approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Although you will be completing this survey in class, the information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will not be seen by your school or your parents. The completed questionnaires are completely confidential. (Note that your name is not to be written on any of the pages.) The unidentifiable information received from you, will be used for publishing a PhD thesis. You are free to withdraw from the research at any time.

If you have any queries regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on (02) 4221 4457.


Nadine C. Peiser

STUDENT CONSENT

I am willing to participate in the present study, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researchers' understanding of adolescents' perceptions of behaviours done by young people and their perceptions of some aspect of family life.

Signed:

Date:

266



I am conducting research as part of my PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Dr Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong. I am investigating what adolescents' perceptions are of various behaviours done by young people. For instance, how serious are the behaviours? I am also interested in how young people view some aspects of family life.

The information I am collecting will be used for research purposes only, and will be treated in the strictest confidence. It will not be seen by the school and your child will be requested not to write his/her name on the questionnaire. The unidentifiable information received, will be used for publishing a PhD thesis.

Students from various high schools will be asked to complete questionnaires anonymously during class time. Your child has been selected to participate in this study. If you approve of your child participating in this research, please sign below and give it to your son/daughter/ward to retum to the appointed staff member.

If you have any queries regarding the conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on (02) 4221 4457.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

Nadine C. Peiser


I am willing for my son/daughter/ward to participate in the present study, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researchers' understanding of adolescents' perceptions of various behaviours done by young people, and their perceptions of some aspect of family life.

Signed:

Date:

267

APPENDIX I:

Study 3 Consent Forms - Parent sample

268


Dear Parent/Guardian

I would like to invite you to participate in a research project currently being conducted by myself as part of a PhD (Clinical Psychology) degree, supervised by Dr Patrick Heaven in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

You may or may not have chosen to give permission for your child/ward to participate in this research project. Irrespective of that decision, it would be appreciated if you would participate, as we are interested in investigating both adolescents' and parents' perceptions of (1) various behaviours done by young people, and (2) some aspects of family life.

The information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will not be seen by anyone other than the researcher and supervisor. The information you provide will be treated confidentially. Note that your name is not to be written on any of the pages. The unidentifiable information received from you, will be used for publishing a PhD thesis. You are free to withdraw from the research at any time.

If you are willing to participate, please indicate this in the space provided at the bottom of this page and retum to the school with your child. The questionnaire I am asking you to complete is enclosed in the envelope. Once you have answered the questions, please retum it in the pre-stamped envelope that is provided, to the University of Wollongong Psychology Department. It would be helpful if you did not discuss the questionnaire with your child until they themselves have completed a similar questionnaire.

If you have any queries regarding the; conduct of the research please contact the Secretary of the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee on (02) 4221 4457.


Nadine C. Peiser

WILLINGNESSj:aPARTICIPATE

I am/am not willing to participate in the present study, and understand that the data collected will be used to further researchers' understanding of adults' perceptions of behaviours done by young people, and their perception of some aspect of family-life.

Signed:

Date:

the impact of family relations and personality factors on delinquent behaviours among youth

Documents