برداشت از خانواده، بزهکاری، و سازگاری عاطفی در میان جوانان

Abstract This study explored the relationships between perceived family processes (parental bonding and parental discipline styles) and adolescent emotional and behavioural adjustment among a sample of youth. Respondents were 92 (53 female, 39 male) high school students, aged 13–17 years. Significant sex differences were noted regarding levels of self-reported delinquency and parental induction style. After controlling for sex, perceptions of low care and love withdrawal were significantly related to delinquency, while low care, overprotectiveness and love withdrawal were found to be related to poor well being. Structural equation modelling was used to further assess the relationships between perceptions of family life and the outcome variables. It was concluded that adolescent perceptions of family processes form a coherent and integrated network with implications for behavioural and emotional adjustment.

1. Introduction Given the challenges posed by the adolescent years (Barnes, 1995), it is hardly surprising that teenagers have been earmarked as a group at risk for problem behaviour and emotional distress (Hendry, Shucksmith, Love, & Glendinning, 1993). Family environment is acknowledged to be of critical importance when considering the behavioural and emotional well-being of adolescents (see also Bahr, 1991, Downey and Coyne, 1990 and Noller and Callan, 1991). The present research investigates the extent to which adolescents’ perceptions of parental bonding and parental discipline styles are related to their levels of self-reported delinquency and general emotional adjustment.

. Results 5.1. Means and standard deviations Mean scores and standard deviations on each of the variables for males and females are presented in Table 1. In order to examine sex differences a one-way MANOVA with sex as the independent factor was computed. Wilks’ criterion showed that the combined dependent variables were significantly affected by sex, F(7, 68)=6.47, p<0.001. Males scored significantly higher than females on the self-reported delinquency measure, F(1, 74)=26.25, p<0.001, while females experienced significantly higher levels of parental induction, F(1, 74)=7.47, p<0.01. These sex differences on the delinquency measure support those obtained by Shaw and Scott (1991). There were no other significant sex differences. Table 1. Mean scores and standard deviations across sex groups Males Females M SD M SD F Parental care 25.49 6.14 24.21 7.97 0.79 Overprotection 23.33 6.54 23.83 6.28 0.24 Punitive discipline 40.64 9.08 40.67 10.10 0.10 Inductive discipline 26.03 5.99 28.71 6.01 7.48∗ Love withdrawal 16.98 4.76 16.42 5.13 0.47 GHQ 24.45 6.00 25.74 6.64 2.81 Delinquency 22.47 6.52 17.56 3.74 26.25∗∗ ∗ p<0.001. ∗∗ p<0.0001. Table options 5.2. Correlation analyses There was no significant relationship between scores on the GHQ and delinquency measure, r(86)=0.04, n.s. The correlations between the independent and outcome variables are shown in Table 2 for males and females separately. Fisher’s z-tests were also computed to test for the significance of differences between each pair of correlations. These analyses show that the pattern of correlations did not differ significantly across the sex groups except with respect to the relationship between inductiveness and general well being, z=6.93, p<0.01. Among females, an inductive parenting style was significantly related to emotional well being (r=−0.38, p<0.05), with this relationship significantly stronger than that observed among the male respondents (r=−0.06, n.s.). Table 2. Correlations with self-reported delinquency and general health questionnaire for males and females Delinquency GHQ Family scales Males Females z Males Females z Low care 0.31 0.42∗∗ 0.57 0.48∗∗ 0.21 1.43 Overprotection −0.09 0.03 0.27 0.35∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.43 Inductiveness −0.01 −0.29∗ 1.31 −0.38∗ −0.06 6.93∗∗ Love withdrawal 0.15 0.42∗∗ 1.35 0.47∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.41 Punitiveness 0.17 0.40∗ 1.14 0.01 0.32∗ 1.46 ∗ p<0.05. ∗∗ p<0.01. Table options Table 3 presents the zero-order and partial correlations (controlling for sex) between the predictor variables, self-reported delinquency and the GHQ. After controlling for sex, low care and overprotection were significantly related to low well being in accordance with hypothesis 1(a). Low care was significantly related to delinquency scores which partly supports hypothesis 1(b). Love withdrawal, but not punitiveness, was significantly associated with both delinquency and low well being (both ps <0.01), which lends only partial support to hypotheses 2(a) and 2(b). Finally, inductiveness was not significantly related to either delinquency or well being which does not support hypothesis 3(a) or 3(b). Table 3. Correlations with self-reported delinquency and general health questionnairea Delinquency GHQ Care 0.36∗∗ (0.40∗∗) 0.25∗ (0.25∗) Overprotection −0.04 (0.02) 0.40∗∗ (0.40∗∗) Inductiveness −0.28∗ (−0.19) −0.09 (−0.16) Love withdrawal 0.23∗ (0.34∗∗) 0.42∗∗ (0.35∗∗) Punitiveness 0.10 (0.09) 0.21 (0.22) a Note: Partial correlations controlling for sex are shown in brackets. ∗ p<0.05. ∗∗ p<0.01. Table options 5.3. Structural equation modelling The interrelationships between the variables were further examined by subjecting the data to a covariance structure analysis using SPSS Amos (version 3.6). The model yielding the best fit indices and lowest chi-square value is shown in Fig. 1, where the Goodness of Fit Index=0.972, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index=0.932, Root Mean Square Residual=0.00, Comparative Fit Index=1.00 and X2 (15)=11.27, p=0.73. These indices are quite favourable and suggest a good fit between the observed model and data. Model predicting relationships between perceptions of family and adjustment. Fig. 1. Model predicting relationships between perceptions of family and adjustment. Figure options According to these data low care, love withdrawal and overprotectiveness have significant and direct effects on self-reported delinquency. Love withdrawal and overprotectiveness have direct and significant effects on poor emotional well being. In addition, respondents’ sex (female) was found to have significant effects on inductiveness as well as GHQ scores, while male sex predicted delinquency scores.