ارزیابی مجدد ارتباط خانواده-بزهکاری: آیا نوع خانواده، فرآیندهای خانواده، عوامل اقتصادی باعث تفاوت هستند؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38560||2007||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 35, Issue 1, January–February 2007, Pages 51–67
Abstract The present study drew on four competing theoretical perspectives to examine the relationship between family structure and juvenile delinquency. Using data from the Add Health Study, the authors examined nonserious and serious delinquent behavior across youth from different types of households and also considered how the association between family structure and delinquency might be conditioned by family processes and economic factors. Results from negative binomial regression analyses indicated that, in general, type of household was not a significant predictor of nonserious or serious delinquency. Rather, maternal attachment emerged as the most important determinant of delinquent behavior among youth from all family types. The results are discussed within the context of Hirschi's original interpretation of social control theory and future directions for research are suggested.
Introduction Various versions of social disorganization theories (e.g., Sampson, 1992 and Shaw and McKay, 1932), social control theories (e.g., Hirschi, 1969 and Nye, 1958), subcultural theories (e.g., Lewis, 1961 and Miller, 1958), and life-course perspectives (e.g., Sampson and Laub, 1993 and Thornberry, 1987) cite family as a major factor in the explanation of delinquent behavior. Much of the research literature on the subject indicates that the family generally encourages conformity of youth by monitoring behavior, applying consistent discipline, and developing parent–child attachments (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 and Patterson, 1982). Scholars are not in agreement, however, as to whether single parents are as effective as two parents in their ability to do these things (e.g., Demo, 1992, Hetherington and Kelly, 2002, Popenoe, 1996, Rebellon, 2002, Stacey, 1996 and Wilkinson, 1974). There is some evidence that single-mothers place fewer maturity demands on their children, engage in less monitoring, and use less effective disciplinary strategies than families with two parents (e.g., Simons, Simons, & Wallace, 2004). Moreover, some research also lends support to the idea that compared to children from intact families, children living in single-parent families participate in more delinquency (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1985, Juby and Farrington, 2001, Rodgers and Pryor, 1998 and Simons and Chao, 1996), have lower educational achievement, and demonstrate poorer overall adjustment as adults (e.g., Acock and Kiecolt, 1989, Amato, 2000, Amato and Keith, 1991, Loh, 1996, McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994, Rankin and Kern, 1994 and Wells and Rankin, 1991). The relationship between family structure and delinquency appears to be particularly significant when official data is used rather than self-report measures and for certain types of conduct problems, such as status offending (e.g., Free, 1991, Hirschi, 1969, Nye, 1958, Rankin and Kern, 1994, Rosen and Neilson, 1982, Van Voorhis et al., 1988 and Wells and Rankin, 1991). Despite a number of studies on the topic, several issues regarding the relationship between family structure and delinquent behavior remain unresolved. One underlying concern is the conceptualization of the single-parent household and the role that family processes and social structure may have on tempering its relationship with delinquency. Prior research, for example, has often characterized the single-parent home in simplistic terms by using the traditional methodological practice of collapsing all single-parent households into a single category (i.e., non-intact or broken homes). Treating all single-parent families as theoretically and empirically equivalent is problematic, however, for several reasons. Most important, it ignores differences that might exist between households that experience divorce, death, or no marriage, especially in terms of family bonds and resources that may condition involvement in delinquency relative to one another and to intact households (Cernkovich and Giordano, 1987, Juby and Farrington, 2001, Sprey, 1967 and Wells and Rankin, 1991).1 The present research attempted to address this weakness of the existing literature by using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to examine in greater detail the extent to which family type, family process variables, and economic factors impact participation in nonserious and serious delinquency. More specific, the study considered whether differences existed in the relationship between family types (i.e., intact, divorce, death, or never married) and delinquency, and if this association was mediated by family processes (i.e., attachment, supervision, and control) and/or economic variables (i.e., membership in the underclass and maternal employment status).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Findings Comparing family type by family processes and economic resources Recall that three of the perspectives discussed, the social control/parental absence, the family crisis, and the economic strain models, indicated that because of either having only one parent present or experiencing a disruption, differences should be evident among family types in parental/child attachment, supervision, or economic resources. According to the social control/parental absence model, for example, non-intact households should reveal lower levels of attachment relative to intact households because the parent will be in a more difficult position to meet the needs of their child in terms of love, affection, and supervision (e.g., Rebellon, 2002). The family crisis model acknowledges this possibility, but contends that differences will exist across different types of non-intact households. Most notably, lower levels of attachment, supervision, and control should be present in divorced households relative to those that experienced death or that never married (e.g., McLanahan, 1985). Finally, the economic strain model contends that lack of financial resources, more so than weak parent/child attachment, is of greatest importance and may be more evident among divorced families than other types of single-parent households, especially those created by widowhood (Faust and McKibben, 1999, Holden and Smock, 1991 and Umberson and Slaten, 2000). In contrast to these positions, is Hirschi's original interpretation of social control theory that posited quality of attachment between a parent and child is central to determining delinquency involvement rather than the composition of the family per se. In the present study, the authors found support for this latter view and minimal credence for the social control/parental absence model, the family crisis perspective, or the economic strain perspective. In Table 2, for example, contrary to expectations derived from each perspective except Hirschi's original formulation of social control, no differences existed by family type in levels of attachment (column 1) and just a few were present for parental control (column 3). It is apparent, however, that youth from non-intact families evidenced less maternal supervision than those from intact households and when comparisons were made among non-intact households, those who experienced divorce scored the lowest (column 2). Differences were also evident when households were compared on the economic indicators, in particular, the underclass variable. Youth from non-intact families were poorer than those from intact homes (column 4), and among non-intact households, surprisingly the poorest were those from households where marriage never occurred. Table 2. Regression coefficients representing models for family processes and economic factors by family type comparisons Family processes Economic factors Maternal attachment Maternal supervision Parental control Underclass Maternal employment Comparison (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Non-intact to intact − 0.05 − 0.20⁎⁎ 0.25⁎ 2.18⁎⁎ − 0.11 Divorce to intact − 0.03 − 0.40⁎⁎ 0.15 1.86⁎⁎ 0.35⁎ Death to intact − 0.07 0.26 0.43 1.53⁎⁎ − 0.52 Never to intact − 0.12 0.07 0.36⁎ 2.93⁎⁎ − 0.61⁎⁎ Death to divorce 0.03 0.63⁎⁎ 0.36 − 0.34 − 0.77 Never to divorce − 0.13 0.38⁎⁎ 0.19 1.36⁎⁎ − 0.75⁎ Never to death − 0.38 − 0.08 − 0.12 1.14⁎⁎ 0.39 Note: Read first family type with sign of each dependent variable; all models include control variables. ∗ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options In short, there were no significant differences by family types in maternal attachment, and to a lesser extent, this held true for parental control as well. Divorced households, however, scored lower on maternal supervision and households where marriage never occurred were the poorest. Next, negative binominal regression was used to assess the extent to which these findings remained significant once the effects of family type, family processes, and economic factors were considered together to predict both nonserious and serious delinquency. Effects of family type, family processes, and economic factors on delinquency To fully capture the effects of family type, family processes, and economic factors on delinquency, the authors conducted the analyses in several steps. First, the direct effects of family type on nonserious delinquency were examined. Next, to assess the potential mediating effects of the family processes and economic variables on the family type/delinquency relationship, separate models were estimated for each (i.e., family processes and economic factors) that also included family type. The last step involved modeling for the effects of family type, family processes, and economic factors on nonserious delinquency concurrently. The analysis was then repeated for serious delinquency. The standardized survey-weighted negative binomial regression coefficients for equations predicting nonserious delinquency are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Negative binominal regression coefficients representing models for nonserious delinquency Part A Direct effects Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable (1) (2) (3) Family type Non-intact to intact − 0.96 Divorced to intact 1.00 Death to intact − 0.92 Never to intact − 0.91 Death to divorced − 0.84 Never to divorced − 0.73⁎ Never to death 1.08 Family processes Maternal attachment − 0.81⁎⁎ Maternal supervision − 0.95⁎ Parental control 1.05 Economic factors Underclass 0.81⁎⁎ Maternal employment 1.15 Part B Mediating effects Family type and family processes Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type − 0.95 − 0.99 − 0.94 − 0.88 − 0.89 − 0.72⁎ 1.04 Maternal attachment − 0.81⁎⁎ − 0.81⁎⁎ − 0.80⁎⁎ − 0.80⁎⁎ − 0.89⁎ − 0.83⁎⁎ − 0.79⁎⁎ Maternal supervision − 0.94⁎⁎ 0.94⁎⁎ − 0.94⁎⁎ − 0.95⁎⁎ − 0.92 − 0.95 1.03 Parental control 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 − 0.96 1.06 1.08 Part C Mediating effects Family type and economic factors Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type 1.03 1.03 − 0.98 1.03 − 0.89 − 0.76 1.08 Underclass − 0.81⁎ − 0.79⁎⁎ − 0.74⁎⁎ − 0.78⁎⁎ − 0.84 1.03 1.01 Maternal employment 1.15⁎ 1.13⁎ 1.10 1.11 1.77⁎ 1.86⁎⁎ 1.63⁎⁎ Part D Full effects Family type, family processes, and economic factors Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type − 1.00 1.02 − 0.99 1.00 − 0.91 − 0.73⁎ 1.04 Maternal attachment − 0.81⁎⁎ − 0.82⁎ − 0.80⁎⁎ − 0.80⁎⁎ − 0.88⁎ − 0.82⁎⁎ − 0.78⁎⁎ Maternal supervision − 0.96 − 0.95⁎ − 0.95⁎ − 0.96 − 0.97 − 1.00 1.08 Parental control 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.07 − 0.96 − 1.07 1.07 Underclass − 0.82⁎ − 0.80⁎⁎ − 0.74⁎⁎ − 0.78⁎⁎ − 0.87 − 1.06 1.01 Maternal employment 1.09 1.06 1.03 1.05 1.76 1.86 1.64⁎ Note: Read independent variable with sign of dependent variable; all models include control variables. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options In Part A, column 1, of Table 3, it was found that family type, for the most part, did not have direct effects on nonserious delinquency. Contrary to expectations, of the seven family type comparisons made, only one was statistically significant. Youth from never married households reported lower levels of nonserious delinquency than their divorced counterparts. As anticipated, however, inverse relationships were evident for maternal attachment and maternal supervision with the dependent variable (column 2). Also, a positive effect existed between being poor and involvement in nonserious delinquency (column 3). Controlling for the effects of both family type and the family process measures revealed similar results (Table 3, Part B). Only the never married family relative to the divorced household comparison produced a statistically significant effect on nonserious delinquency once family processes were considered (column 6). Once again, it was an inverse relationship. The negative relationship between maternal attachment and to a lesser extent maternal supervision, and the dependent variable remained significant. Regardless of non-intact family type, youth who indicated lower attachment with their mother reported more delinquency than their counterparts who reported higher levels of attachment (columns 1 through 7). Recall that the results in Table 2 showed that youth from divorced households also scored lower on maternal supervision relative to youth from other non-intact family types. Despite this difference, no statistically significant differences in maternal supervision among youth from single-mother households emerged to explain nonserious delinquency (columns 5 though 7). Still, youth from each type of non-intact households experienced lower levels of maternal supervision than youth from intact homes (columns 1 through 4). Next, the economic measures were substituted for the three family process variables, and for the most part, this produced parallel findings (Table 3, Part C). None of the family type comparisons produced significant effects on nonserious delinquency. Surprisingly, the positive effect of being poor on participation in nonserious delinquency was reversed once family type was included in the model. Youth that were classified as underclass or poor reported less rather than more involvement in nonserious delinquency and the effect existed when comparisons were made between each of the non-intact households relative to intact households (columns 1 through 4). The underclass measure had no effect on the dependent variable, however, when each non-intact household type was compared relative to one another (columns 5 through 7). Maternal employment status was also a contributing factor to involvement in nonserious delinquency. A positive effect existed with the dependent variable when comparisons were made between youth from non-intact and intact homes (column 1), between youth from divorced and intact families (column 2), and among comparisons between youth from each type of single-parent household (columns 5 through 7). Up to this point in the analyses, no evidence of mediating effects of family type on nonserious delinquency by family processes or economic resources was found. With one exception, family type had no direct effects on nonserious delinquency. The measures for the family processes and economic resources, however, were shown to be statistically significant predictors of the dependent variable. Although not as pronounced or consistent as anticipated, nor always in the expected direction, these relationships varied to some extent when non-intact households were differentiated and compared. As a whole, however, few differences were observed. Next, full models were estimated that included family type comparisons, the family processes measures, and the economic indicators. These results are presented in Part D of Table 3. The results are similar to those that have been discussed throughout the analyses. The only family type comparison involving a significant effect on the dependent variable was never married relative to divorced. Once again, youth from the former type of home reported less delinquency than youth from the latter household (column 6). While the effects of maternal supervision on nonserious delinquency, for the most part, disappeared, with the exceptions of comparisons between divorced to intact and death to intact (columns 2 and 3), the significant impact of maternal attachment on nonserious delinquency remained significant (columns 1 through 7). This was also true in regard to the inverse effect of being poor on nonserious delinquent involvement (columns 1 through 4). After controlling for the effects of family type, the family process variables, and the underclass measure, the positive effect maternal employment had on nonserious delinquency, with one exception, disappeared (column 7). In short, family structure, and more specifically, type of single-parent household had little bearing on youth participation in nonserious delinquency. Of the four theoretical perspectives guiding the research, the most support was provided for the social control model as originally posited by Hirschi (1969). Youth that had low maternal attachment, regardless of household type, reported higher levels of involvement in nonserious delinquent behavior than their counterparts who had higher levels of attachment. This finding was consistent with results of previous studies, including those reported by Demuth and Brown (2004). The only evidence to support the family crisis model was discovered for comparisons involving youth from never married households relative to divorced households where the former family type indicated less involvement in nonserious delinquency than the latter. This finding remained fairly constant throughout the analyses. Being a member of the underclass predicted participation in nonserious delinquency when comparisons were made between non-intact and intact households and when each of the non-intact homes was individually compared to their intact counterparts. The effect, however, was contrary to expectations as posited by the economic strain model. Youth categorized as underclass reported less nonserious delinquency than those not viewed as poor. Once family type, the family process variables, and the economic measures were controlled, maternal employment had almost a nonexistent effect on the dependent variable. Next, the analyses were repeated to examine the effects that family type, as well as family processes and economic factors, had on serious delinquency. These results are presented in Table 4, and for the most part, paralleled those reported for nonserious delinquency. Table 4. Negative binominal regression coefficients representing models for serious delinquency Part A Direct effects Family type Family processes Economic factors Variable (1) (2) (3) Family type Non-intact to intact 1.13⁎ Divorced to intact 1.12 Death to intact 1.20 Never to intact 1.15 Death to divorced 1.05 Never to divorced − 0.96 Never to death 1.28 Family processes Maternal attachment − 0.86⁎⁎ Maternal supervision 1.01 Parental control 1.06 Economic factors Underclass − 1.16⁎ Maternal employment 1.02 Part B Mediating effects Family type and family processes Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type − 1.12⁎ 1.11 1.18 1.12 1.06 − 0.94 1.23 Maternal attachment − 0.86⁎⁎ − 0.87⁎⁎ − 0.87⁎ − 0.87⁎⁎ − 0.83⁎⁎ − 0.83⁎⁎ − 0.79⁎⁎ Maternal supervision 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 − 0.93 − 0.93 1.02 Parental control 1.06 1.06 1.03 1.03 1.27⁎⁎ 1.26⁎⁎ − 0.98 Part C Mediating effects Family type and economic factors Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to Intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type 1.09 1.09 1.19 1.09 1.04 − 0.92 1.22 Underclass 1.12 1.14 1.06 1.10 1.12 1.28 1.19 Maternal employment 1.02 1.16 − 0.99 1.02 0.95 1.32⁎ 1.08 Part D Full effects Family type, family processes, and economic factors Non-intact to intact Divorced to intact Death to intact Never to intact Death to divorced Never to divorced Never to death Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Family type 1.08 1.08 1.16 1.07 1.07 0.89 1.16 Maternal attachment − 0.86⁎⁎ − 0.87⁎⁎ − 0.87⁎⁎ − 0.87⁎⁎ − 0.82⁎⁎ − 0.83⁎⁎ − 0.79⁎⁎ Maternal supervision 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 − 0.92 − 0.92 1.00 Parental control 1.06 1.06 1.03 1.03 1.27⁎ 1.28⁎⁎ − 0.99 Underclass 1.13 1.15⁎ 1.07 1.11 − 1.21 1.37⁎⁎ 1.22 Maternal employment 1.02 1.01 0.99 1.03 0.93 1.27⁎ 1.08 Note: Read independent variable with sign of dependent variable; all models include control variables. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Similar to the findings reported earlier, family type did not have any statistically significant effects on serious delinquency once the family process variables and economic measures were controlled. Initially, an effect was evident involving non-intact households compared to intact households with the dependent variable (Table 4, Part A, column1, Part B, column 1) and remained until economic factors were considered (Table 4, Part C) and the full model was estimated (Table 4, Part D). Once again, the most consistent effect involved maternal attachment and the dependent variable and this effect was present for all family type comparisons (Table 4, Part A, column 2, Part B, columns 1 through 7, Part D, columns 1 through 7). Isolated effects were evident for parental control and the economic measures but the effects were not consistent. Therefore, similar conclusions were arrived at as those for understanding the relationships between family type, family processes, economic factors and nonserious delinquency. Support was provided for the contention of the original interpretation of social control theory that emphasized the role of attachment as a more important determinant of delinquency than family composition. Consequently, no evidence was found to support the other theoretical perspectives commonly used to explain the family structure and delinquency relationship.