شخصیت، ادراک تأثیرات خانواده و همسالان، و بزهکاری خود گزارشی مردان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38542||2001||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||3842 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 30, Issue 2, 19 January 2001, Pages 321–331
Abstract The aim of this research was to assess the joint influences of personality factors (extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and psychoticism (P)), family control (parental inductiveness, punitiveness, and love withdrawal), and delinquent companionship on males’ self-reported delinquency. Respondents were two groups of 13-year-olds (n=110 and n=89). Structural equation modelling showed that personality and delinquent companionship consistently had direct effects on self-reported delinquency. It is concluded that this study provides important evidence on the interplay between personality and environmental factors on delinquency.
1. Introduction What are the most significant predictors of self-reported delinquency, personality factors or environmental influences such as those involving family and peers? The psychology of delinquency continues to enjoy considerable research attention by behavioural scientists. This research effort has most notably been dominated by the study of personality influences (see, for example, Binder, 1988, Eysenck, 1977, Eysenck and Gudjonsson, 1989, Feldman, 1977, Furnham and Thompson, 1991, Gudjonsson, 1997, Heaven, 1993, Heaven, 1996, Lane, 1987, Putnins, 1982, Rigby et al., 1989 and Weaver and Wootton, 1992), although there is growing interest in the role of major environmental factors such as the effects of family processes (Baumrind, 1967, Conger et al., 1994, Deater-Deckard et al., 1996, Lamborn et al., 1991, McFadyen-Ketchum et al., 1996, Shaw and Scott, 1991 and Peiser and Heaven, 1996) and delinquent peers (see Emler & Reicher, 1995 for a recent integrative approach). The present research was designed to assess the joint effects of the major personality domains, perceptions of parental discipline style, and association with delinquent companions on levels of self-reported delinquency among male youth. As far as we can establish, these joint effects have not yet been investigated. 1.1. The role of personality This perspective posits that delinquency is the result of fixed and biologically determined personality factors. Most (but certainly not all) research relating personality to delinquency has adopted the approach of Eysenck (e.g., Eysenck, 1977 and Eysenck and Gudjonsson, 1989), who proposed that the major personality domains psychoticism (P), neuroticism (N), and extraversion (E) are crucial in predicting delinquency and criminality. Those high on E are said to be cortically under-aroused and are therefore more likely to engage in thrill- and sensation-seeking behaviours. While it is suggested that N is linked to anxiety which acts as a drive ensuring that delinquent behaviours are amplified, high P scorers have been described as anti-social, aggressive, cold, and unempathic (Claridge, 1981 and Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). Thus, perhaps not surprisingly, P has been found to discriminate between criminals and non-criminals. Whereas early theorising gave prominence to the role of E and N, several studies employing both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs suggest that P is more influential in predicting criminality (e.g., Gudjonsson, 1997, Heaven, 1993, Heaven, 1996, Lane, 1987 and Putnins, 1982). This may be due, in part, to the fact that the impulsiveness component of E has been shifted to P, while N seems sensitive to the age of respondents (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985, Furnham and Thompson, 1991 and Gudjonsson, 1997). 1.2. The role of family processes It is well established that family functioning affects the emotional and behavioural outcomes of children (Noller & Callan, 1991). Schaefer (1959) proposed his well known two-dimensional model of parental behaviour patterns (autonomy–control vs hostility–love) suggesting that each had differential outcomes for youth. Baumrind (1967) differentiated different parenting styles and showed that an authoritative style was most likely to lead to behavioural and emotional competencies in children. In an early British longitudinal study (West & Farrington, 1973) it was shown that parental psychopathology is linked to childrens’ maladjustment and delinquency. Likewise, Patterson and colleagues (Patterson, DeBarsyshe & Ramsey, 1989) reported that anti-social parents tend to raise anti-social teenagers. In this research we were specifically interested in the role of parental discipline style which has been the focus of recent studies (e.g., Ge et al., 1996, Peiser and Heaven, 1996, Pettit et al., 1997 and Shaw and Scott, 1991). Grounded in earlier theorising regarding social control (Hirschi, 1969) and moral development (Hoffman, 1963), researchers distinguish between power assertive and psychological techniques of parenting. On this basis, Shaw and Scott (1991) constructed three measures of discipline style, namely, punitive, love withdrawal, and inductive. The punitive style is a power assertive technique and employs physical punishment, whereas the latter two are described as psychological techniques: love withdrawal incorporates shaming and assumes that children become anxious over the possible loss of parental love, while inductiveness emphasises the explanations by the parent about the effects of the child’s behaviour on others. Inductiveness (or calm discussion) has been shown to be negatively related to maladjustment (including delinquency) among young people (Peiser and Heaven, 1996 and Pettit et al., 1997), while a punitive style predicts anti-social behaviour (Shaw & Scott, 1991). Poor discipline styles, but not parental warmth, have been shown to be related to conduct disorders among high school youth (Ge et al., 1996). 1.3. The role of peer influence Although criminologists and social psychologists have in the past made ample reference to group norms and the influence of ‘peer pressure’ on adolescent behaviours, such an approach has lacked a coherent theoretical framework. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides such a focused theoretical approach, and refers to “… those aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself belonging” (p. 16). This approach allows one to explore more deeply and reliably the nature of the groups within which the individual functions. Similar social identities have ‘shared cognitive constructs’ (Hogg & Abrams, 1988), implying a sharing of norms, behaviours, attitudes, and values within groups. According to social identity theory, delinquent behaviours are seen as a natural outcome of the social categorisation process and ensuing group identity. Members of delinquent groups view their group as a source of companionship, anonymity, security, reputation management and behavioural norms (Emler & Reicher, 1995). These functions are closely linked to delinquent behaviour, and facilitate the context for group members to engage in those sorts of behaviours, to explore personal relationships, and to strengthen their sense of group belonging. This approach is therefore diametrically opposed to the view that a particular personality configuration leads to delinquency. Rather, this approach emphasises the collective character of delinquency. Recently, Heaven and colleagues (Heaven, Caputi, Trivellion-Scott & Swinton, 2000) found support for at least two dimensions, namely, delinquent norms and delinquent companionship among two samples of Australian high school students. Reliable and valid scales were constructed to tap these constructs. In both samples, psychoticism was found to have significant direct effects on delinquency, while the indirect effects through companionship were found to be weaker. 1.4. Aims and rationale of the present study The present research sought to assess the extent to which three clusters of psychological variables predict males’ self-reported delinquency. These include personality (P, E, and N), perceptions of parental discipline style (inductiveness, punitiveness, and love withdrawal), and delinquent companionship. The following hypotheses guided the study: 1. Psychoticism will be significantly related to males’ self-reported delinquency (Gudjonsson, 1997, Heaven, 1996 and Lane, 1987). 2. Delinquent companionship will be significantly related to males’ self-reported delinquency (Emler & Reicher, 1995). 3. Perceptions of inductiveness will be significantly negatively related to males’ self-reported delinquency (Peiser and Heaven, 1996 and Pettit et al., 1997). 4. Perceptions of punitiveness will be significantly positively related to males’ self-reported delinquency (Shaw & Scott, 1991). It is also reasonable to argue that personality factors and perceived family influences may be exacerbated by a youth’s interactions with a particular group. Thus, delinquent friends may play a mediating role on delinquent behaviour patterns in those cases where youth score high on the P dimension or have experienced a punitive discipline style. These relationships, which will be tested below, are illustrated in Fig. 1. Model showing hypothesised links between predictor variables and delinquency. Fig. 1. Model showing hypothesised links between predictor variables and delinquency.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results Participants who scored more than two standard deviations above the mean on the lie scale were eliminated from their respective samples. Ten students were eliminated for sample 1, while four were eliminated from sample 2. 3.1. Mean scores on dependent variable The mean scores (and standard deviations) on the delinquency measure for samples 1 and 2 were 24.61 (6.67) and 28.92 (10.04), respectively. Given that this difference is significant [t(185)=3.36, p<0.001], further analyses were done on the two groups separately. 3.2. Correlations Table 1 presents the correlations between the variables for both samples. Delinquency was significantly related to psychoticism for both groups as well as to companionship and love withdrawal (all ps<0.01). Delinquency was significantly related to punitiveness (r=0.61, p<0.01) and neuroticism (r=0.28, p<0.01) in sample 1 only. Self-reported delinquency was not significantly related to inductiveness for both samples. None of the other personality or discipline style measures were significantly related to delinquency. Table 1. Partial correlations among variables for samples 1 and 2a Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Companionship – 0.57∗∗ −0.05 0.06 0.27∗ 0.11 0.47∗∗ 0.24∗ 2 Delinquency 0.69∗∗ – 0.10 0.06 0.49∗∗ 0.04 0.65∗∗ 0.19 3 Extraversion −0.12 −0.10 – 0.03 −0.22∗ −0.34∗∗ 0.09 0.16 4 Inductiveness 0.08 0.05 0.07 – 0.42∗∗ 0.05 0.08 −0.30∗∗ 5 Love withdrawal 0.54∗∗ 0.60∗∗ −0.02 0.16 – −0.11 0.37∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 6 Neuroticism −0.24∗ 0.28∗∗ −0.19 −0.31∗∗ 0.27∗∗ – −0.18 −0.33∗∗ 7 Psychoticism −0.52∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.19 0.11 0.33∗∗ −0.15 – 0.02 8 Punitiveness 0.57∗∗ 0.61∗∗ −0.05 −0.26∗ 0.78∗∗ −0.28∗∗ 0.31∗∗ – a Lie scores have been partialled. Sample 1 is given below the diagonal. ∗p<0.05, ∗∗p<0.01. Table options 3.3. Structural equation modelling In order to test the model proposed in Fig. 1, each data set was subjected to a covariance structure analysis (SPSS, 1999 — Amos 3.6). Table 2 presents the results for the proposed model for both samples and lists the goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and chi-square. A good fit of the data to the model is indicated by the GFI, AGFI and CFI being as close to 1 as possible (usually >0.90) and chi-square not being significant (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1992). It is clear that, in both cases, model fit was weak with both chi-squares highly significant (both ps<0.0001) and the GFIs being too low. The inclusion of either neuroticism, extraversion or love-withdrawal as single additional variables in both samples did little to improve overall fit. Indeed, in each case model fit was weakened. Table 2 shows the changes in indices when adding these variables to the proposed model. The indices of the best-fitting models (indicated as final model) are also shown in Table 2 and illustrated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. In both samples P was found to have a significant direct effect on self-reported delinquency as well as an indirect effect through companionship. However, the indirect effects of P were observed to be weaker than the direct effects (0.14 in sample 1 and 0.16 in sample 2). As expected, companionship had direct significant effects on delinquency in both samples. In sample 1 perceptions of punitiveness had direct effects on delinquency (0.31) while in sample 2 punitiveness had a weak indirect effect (0.08) on delinquency through companionship. Table 2. Results of structural equation modelling for sample 1 and sample 2a GFI AGFI CFI Chi-square df Sample 1 Proposed model 0.85 0.62 0.74 48.19∗∗ 6 Add: N 0.80 0.59 0.64 79.42∗∗ 10 Add: E 0.86 0.70 0.74 52.22∗∗ 10 Add: Love withdrawal 0.74 0.45 0.53 131.42∗∗ 10 Final model 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.45 2 Sample 2 Proposed model 0.86 0.66 0.64 38.36∗∗ 6 Add: N 0.84 0.67 0.56 55.44∗∗ 10 Add: E 0.88 0.74 0.65 42.16∗∗ 10 Add: Love withdrawal 0.76 0.50 0.47 93.16∗∗ 10 Final model 0.98 0.94 1.00 3.51 4 a Note: ∗∗p<0.0001. Table options Model showing links between predictor variables and self-reported delinquency in ... Fig. 2. Model showing links between predictor variables and self-reported delinquency in sample 1 (n=110). Figure options Model showing links between predictor variables and self-reported delinquency in ... Fig. 3. Model showing links between predictor variables and self-reported delinquency in sample 2 (n=89).