ماهیت متنی رابطه ساختار خانواده/بزهکاری

Abstract It is well established that growing up in a nontraditional family represents a risk factor for delinquent behavior; however, the understanding of whether this effect is universal remains imperfect. The present study examined whether the link between nontraditional family structure and delinquency varies according to six distinct circumstances: gender, race, age, SES, family size, and place of residence. Regression analysis of a nationally representative sample of adolescents between the ages of twelve and seventeen (n = 3,499) suggests that gender, race, SES, and place of residence do not condition the family structure/delinquency relationship. Significant interactions, however, were discovered with respect to age and family size. Generally, living in a nontraditional family is more criminogenic for older adolescents, and for those from larger families. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction It is well known that children raised in traditional, two-parent families experience a lower risk of delinquency than children from alternative family types (Free, 1991 and Wells and Rankin, 1991); however, there is little agreement regarding whether factors like gender, race, SES, age, family size, and place of residence condition this relationship; and provided they do, what is the specific nature of the effects? While some recent studies had shown that the negative effects of familial disruption vary according to context (Price and Kunz, 2003 and Schwartz, 2006), others failed to find significant differences (Cookston, 1999, Kierkus and Baer, 2003 and Sokol-Katz et al., 1997). Moreover, when contextual effects were reported, they often varied in direction, and implied competing theoretical explanations. For instance, while some studies discovered that familial disruption was more stigmatizing in high SES settings, and consequently was more likely to be associated with antisocial behavior (Austin, 1978, Flewelling and Bauman, 1990, Johnstone, 1978 and Rosen, 1985), others found that disruption was most criminogenic in low SES families because poor single parents were less able to provide the basic necessities of life for their children (Goldstein, 1984 and Touliatos and Lindholm, 1980). Similarly, while certain authors (Austin, 1978, Bachman and Peralta, 2002 and Wilkinson, 1980) reported that girls were more adversely affected by familial disruption than boys (because females were more “family oriented” than males), others (Canter, 1982, Dornbusch et al., 1985, Peterson and Zill, 1986 and Schwartz, 2006) found that the process was more criminogenic for males. This body of literature suggested that boys experienced greater negative consequences for a variety of different reasons. For instance, Emery, Hetherington, and DiLalla (1985); Peterson and Zill (1986); Zaslow (1988); and Hoffman and Su (1997) all suggested that while females usually responded to familial difficulties with internalizing behavior (like depression, suicide, or substance abuse), males tended to exhibit externalizing behavior (like delinquency). Finally, with respect to race, many studies found that African American youth were more resistant to the negative effects of being raised in a nontraditional family structure than White adolescents (Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones, 2002 and Ruggles, 1994). These authors reasoned that African American communities often had stronger extended family structures in place which helped mitigate the negative effects of father absence. Conversely, a meta-analysis by Price and Kunz (2003) found that the criminogenic effects of familial disruption were greatest in African American families. While these authors did not offer a theoretical explanation for this finding, others have speculated that the effects may vary according to the specific type of family structure under consideration (i.e., single parent, stepfamily, cohabitating union, etc.) or the level of involvement of nonresident parents. Specifically, Furstenberg and Harris (1993); King (1994); Thomas, Farrell, and Barnes (1996); and Wilson (1987), have all argued that involvement by nonresident fathers is generally protective against delinquency for White adolescents, but criminogenic for African American youth (because nonresident African American fathers are more likely to have criminal records and be involved in criminal activity). The present study explored the contextual nature of the family structure/delinquency relationship using data from the National Survey of Adolescents in the United States (Kilpatrick & Saunders, 1995). Specifically, it aimed to develop a better understanding of whether six specific contextual variables condition the family structure/delinquency relationship. While it is unlikely this analysis will provide definitive resolutions to the debates presented above (as well as other contextual dilemmas), it should improve the state of knowledge in this area. Few studies within the family structure/delinquency literature have treated the issue of context as a central research question. Instead, gender, SES, race, and age were typically treated as peripheral control variables in analyses that focused on other research questions. In rare cases where authors did focus on the question of how and why the effects of family structure might vary according to particular circumstances (as Austin, 1978 and Wilkinson, 1980 did with respect to gender, and Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones (in multiple publications) have done with race), they tended to de-emphasize the effects of other plausibly relevant contextual variables. Consequently, it is unlikely that a comprehensive understanding of this issue will develop until researchers begin treating context as an important research question in its own right (one that may have important policy implications). The goal of this study was to begin this process.

Results Basic analyses: family structure and delinquency These analyses demonstrated that nontraditional family structures were related to increased odds of every type of delinquent behavior under consideration. The relationships were virtually unaltered by the inclusion of control variables, therefore, for the sake of parsimony, only the coefficients from the models including control variables are presented (see Table 1). Table 1. Increased odds of four types of delinquent behavior, relative to families headed by both natural parents. Type of delinquency Wald/significance for family structure Odds for single parent family Odds for single parent + stepparent family Odds for single parent + other relative family General delinquency 59.7 (p < .0001) 2.58 (p < .0001) 2.45 (p < .0001) 2.99 (p < .001) Violent crime 58.9 (p < .0001) 2.41 (p < .0001) 3.06 (p < .0001) 3.13 (p < .001) Property crime 42.0 (p < .0001) 2.51 (p < .0001) 2.18 (p < .001) 3.81 (p < .0001) Substance abuse 53.1 (p < .0001) 2.05 (p < .0001) 1.52 (p < .01) 1.97 (p < .02) Table options With respect to general delinquency, living with a single parent alone, a single parent + a stepparent, or a single parent + another relative, all increased the odds of delinquent behavior by a factor of between 2.45 and 2.99, controlling for gender, age, SES, place of residence, and the number of people residing in the family home. With respect to violent and property crimes, the results were remarkably similar: the odds of these behaviors increased by factors of between 2.45 and 3.87 for all three types of nontraditional family structures. All of the relationships discussed so far were significant at p < .001 or better. The results with respect to substance use were similar, although slightly weaker. Controlling for demographic factors, living with a single parent increased the odds of substance abuse by a factor of 2.05, living in a stepfamily increased them by a factor of 1.52, and living with a biological parent and another family member increased them by a factor of 1.96. In general, all three types of nontraditional family structures appeared to be associated with delinquent behavior and there was no indication that these relationships were spurious to the six contextual variables considered in this study. There was also no clear indication that any one specific family structure was “the worst,” or that the relationships were strongest for one type of delinquent behavior (though they did appear to be marginally weaker for substance abuse). Contextual analysis: gender None of the gender based interaction terms reached statistical significance (p < .05). The conclusion was that the effect of nontraditional family structure on all four types of delinquency under consideration was statistically indistinguishable from zero. Contextual analysis: socioeconomic status None of the interaction tests for family structure by socioeconomic status were statistically significant. The conclusion was that the relationship between family structure and delinquency was essentially invariant to SES. Contextual analysis: race/ethnicity None of the four interaction tests for family structure by race/ethnicity reached the .05 level of statistical significance. This result was somewhat surprising. The literature review implied that this study should have found that nontraditional family structure had a greater criminogenic effect within certain groups (i.e., Whites and Latinos) than among others (i.e., African Americans). The relationship that came the closest to achieving significance was the test on the dependent variable of property crime, which reached a significance level of only p = .318. 7 Therefore, one could not reject any of the null hypotheses, and the conclusion reached was that for the outcome measures considered, the relationship between family structure and delinquency was statistically invariant to race/ethnicity. Contextual analysis: place of residence None of the interaction tests for family structure by place of residence (urban or rural) proved to be statistically significant. The conclusion was that the relationship between family structure and delinquency was essentially invariant to where one lived. Contextual analysis: age One of the four interaction tests for family structure and age reached statistical significance (see Table 2). This occurred on the dependent variable of substance use (p < .0001). The results suggested that older adolescents living with single parents, and those living in stepfamilies, were at particularly high risk of using intoxicating substances. The magnitude of the effect was pronounced. For each additional year of age, the odds of illicit substance use for an adolescent living in a single-parent family increased by 69 percent. In stepfamilies, the corresponding increase per year of age was 58 percent. Table 2. Logistic regression equation examining the interactive effect of family structure and age on substance abuse. B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Family structure 57.414 3 .000 Single - 7.125 1.013 49.469 1 .000 .001 Single + step - 6.413 1.810 12.552 1 .000 .002 Single + other - 4.327 2.742 2.489 1 .115 .013 Gender - .143 .086 2.776 1 .096 .866 Race 22.844 3 .000 African American - .690 .150 21.322 1 .000 .501 Latino .007 .147 .002 1 .962 1.007 Other .093 .184 .257 1 .612 1.098 Age .105 .033 10.346 1 .001 1.110 SES 3.086 2 .214 Under $20,000 - .178 .138 1.671 1 .196 .837 $20,000-$50,000 - .155 .096 2.630 1 .105 .856 $50,000+ - .187 .091 4.272 1 .039 .829 Family size - .052 .034 2.356 1 .125 .949 Family size × age 70.355 3 .000 Single × age .526 .067 61.301 1 .000 1.691 Single + step × age .460 .120 14.641 1 .000 1.583 Single + other × age .335 .181 3.447 1 .063 1.398 Constant - 2.473 .517 22.874 1 .000 .084 Table options Contextual analysis: family size With respect to family size, the analysis revealed two statistically significant results: on the dependent variables of general delinquency (p = .011) and violent crime (p = .005) (see Table 3 and Table 4). The “optimally criminogenic” situations appeared to be those where a single parent, or a single parent and a stepparent, were trying to raise large families. In the case of single parents, the odds of general delinquency increased by an additional 35 percent, and the odds of violent crime increased by an additional 37 percent for each extra person living in the household. In the case of stepparent families, the increase in odds for general delinquency was 31 percent, and for violent delinquency, it was 48 percent. Table 3. Logistic regression equation examining the interactive effect of family structure and family size on general delinquency. B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Family structure 2.655 3 .448 Single - .278 .416 .445 1 .505 .758 Single + step - .289 .688 .176 1 .675 .749 Single + other 1.305 1.036 1.585 1 .208 3.686 Gender - 1.095 .126 75.146 1 .000 .335 Race 16.010 3 .001 African American .372 .163 5.243 1 .022 1.451 Latino .661 .176 14.031 1 .000 1.937 Other .143 .251 .325 1 .568 1.154 Age .020 .011 3.376 1 .066 1.020 SES .657 2 .720 Under $20,000 .084 .174 .234 1 .628 1.088 $20,000-$50,000 - .044 .135 .105 1 .746 .957 $50,000+ - .312 .127 6.037 1 .014 .732 Family size - .160 .071 5.031 1 .025 .853 Family structure × family size 11.227 3 .011 Single × family size .297 .096 9.651 1 .002 1.345 Single + step × family size .269 .148 3.287 1 .070 1.308 Single + other × family size - .072 .254 .081 1 .775 .930 Constant - 1.770 .372 22.651 1 .000 .170 Table options Table 4. Logistic regression equation examining the interactive effect of family structure and family size on violent crime. B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Family structure 1.937 3 .586 Single - .436 .431 1.023 1 .312 .647 Single + step - .624 .669 .872 1 .351 .536 Single + other .455 1.042 .190 1 .663 1.576 Gender - .871 .127 47.141 1 .000 .419 Race 34.009 3 .000 African American .735 .160 21.224 1 .000 2.086 Latino .843 .179 22.307 1 .000 2.324 Other .408 .248 2.713 1 .100 1.503 Age .034 .010 11.699 1 .001 1.034 SES .550 2 .760 Under $20,000 .133 .180 .548 1 .459 1.143 $20,000-$50,000 .059 .142 .176 1 .675 1.061 $50,000+ - .394 .134 8.677 1 .003 .674 Family size - .153 .073 4.352 1 .037 .858 Family structure × family size 12.865 3 .005 Single × family size .312 .098 10.038 1 .002 1.366 Single + step × family size .389 .140 7.694 1 .006 1.475 Single + other × family size .152 .243 .393 1 .531 1.164 Constant - 2.297 .377 37.078 1 .000 .101