|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study by Mak was to explore the relationship between perceived maternal and paternal neglect and parental overprotection, interaction effects, and self-reported delinquency in an Australian youth sample.
METHODOLOGY:
The author conducted a primary analysis of quasi-experimental, cross-sectional data obtained from 793 secondary students attending nine Government schools in Canberra, Australia. 405 males and 387 females participated in the study. Youths' mean age was 15.6 years (SD=1.2 years). All participants were under the age of 18. The author stated that approached schools ranged in socioeconomic status and academic performance.
The author utilized two study measures. 1) Mak's (1993) Australian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale: a 34 item, self-report scale that measured the delinquent activities (ranging from marginally deviant to profoundly delinquent) the respondents participated in during the past year. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 34. The author stated that substantial construct and criterion-related validity had been reported for the measure. Internal consistency was estimated to be .88. The author also stated that a factor analysis revealed nine delinquency subscales. These included: "Cheat (cheating), Status (underage purchase and use of alcohol, and abscondence from home), Fight (fist and weapon fight), Vehicle (thefts associated with vehicle parts and bicycles), Drugs (using LSD and barbiturates), Theft (shoplifting and stealing money), Harm (beating others and blackmail), Driving (driving-related offenses), and Disturb (vandalism and disturbing others on the telephone)." 2) Parker et al.'s, Parental Bonding Instrument (1979); a 50 item questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which particular characteristics were representative of the respondents' mothers (or mother figure) and fathers (or father figure), as they were growing up. A four point Likert scale was used to measure these descriptions. The author stated that low scores on the maternal/paternal care scales reflected parental neglect and rejection; high scores reflected warmth and understanding. High scores on the maternal/paternal protection scales reflected extreme parental intrusion and control; low scores represented parental sanctioning of participants' autonomy and independence. The author reported that possible scores ranged from 0 to 36 for the care scales, and 0 to 39 for the protection scales. It was stated that Parker (1981) reported reasonable test-retest reliability and validity for the instrument (specific statistics were not provided). The current questionnaire also examined participants' age, gender, home stability, and fathers' education (as an indicator of socioeconomic status). Participants completed the questionnaire in class while the teacher was absent. Confidentiality was assured. The author hypothesized that 1) delinquency would be significantly related to high parental overprotection and low maternal/paternal care, and 2) delinquency would be more prevalent among adolescent males and females who had reported an affectionless control maternal/paternal style, than among adolescents who had reported optimal parental bonding. The author also examined interactions between perceived parental characteristics (e.g., between care and protection) and participants' gender, and delinquency, using a multiple regression analysis.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author found that, consistent with research hypotheses, delinquency was significantly related to lower maternal and paternal care (pearsons r=-.28 and -.22 for females; -.25 and -.16 for males), and higher maternal and paternal protection scores (pearsons r=.20 and .19 for females; .14 and .09 for males), for both sexes. The author stated that further analyses revealed an inverse association between almost all delinquency subscale scores and maternal care. These associations existed for both males and females. Details of these analyses were not provided but were claimed to be available, from the author, for further inspection. Based on previous research the author combined parental care and protection scores as representation of various parenting styles. These were described as 1) affectionless control (in which subject's had low maternal care and high maternal protection scores), 2) weak bonding (low care and low protection), 3) affectionate constraint (high care and high protection), and 4) optimal bonding (high care and low protection). Paternal parenting styles were represented similarly. According to the author, Parker (1983) claimed that a blend of perceived parental neglect and overprotection (i.e. affectionless control), in childhood and adolescence, contributed to the development of delinquent behavior.
The author reported that oneway analyses of variance, conducted on the relationship between delinquency and maternal/paternal parenting styles, revealed that there were significant differences between the four parenting styles and delinquency involvement levels. These existed for both males and females. The author found that the affectionless control group invariably self-reported higher delinquency more often than the optimal bonding group (maternal parenting style, F=6.07, p<,001: paternal parenting style, F=5.78, p<.001, for males; maternal parenting style, F=4.80, p<.01: paternal parenting style, F=7.01, p<.001, for females). The author stated that significant differences were also found between weak and optimal bonding groups for maternal styles among male youths, and paternal styles among female youths. Further, the author reported a significant difference between the affectionless paternal control group (mean square root=2.89) and affectionate paternal constraint group (mean square root=2.25) among males.
The author conducted a stepwise regression analysis of delinquency against several parental care and protection factors, gender and their interactions. Home stability and father's education level were included as factors previously stated as being related to delinquency. The results revealed five significant main effects, and 1 significant interaction effect. The author found that this combination of predictors yielded a closing multiple R of .35; R squared value of 12.48%. Decreasing beta values were provided as: 1) low maternal care (beta=-.20; F=50.26, p<.001), 2) being male (beta=-.14; F=38.78, p<.001), 3) coming from a broken home (beta=.12; F=30.03, p<.001), 4) low paternal care (beta=-.10; F=20.47, p<.001), 5) having a less educated father (beta=-.08; F=24.41, p<.001), and 6) an interaction effect between males and low paternal care and high paternal protection (beta=.08; F=17.88, p<.001). The author stated that the significant interaction effect was indicative of higher levels of delinquent behavior among these males. The author concluded that the current study results reflected findings from previous research; that parental neglect may put children at risk of developing behavioral and emotional disturbances in adolescence and adulthood.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author stated that the current study was cross-sectional and self-reported by youths involved in only minor delinquency behavior. It was suggested that in the future, researchers use formal delinquency measures that have the ability to recognize more seriously delinquent youths. Further, other types of adjustment problems, such as depression and eating disorders, should be focused on. The author also called for the assessment of parental attitudes and behaviors in future research, since children's reports about parents' characteristics may be inaccurate or hyperbolized. Further research on children's perceptions of parenting was recommended.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Australia
Countries Other Than USA
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Female
Juvenile Male
Male Delinquency
Male Offender
Female Delinquency
Female Offender
Delinquency Causes
Delinquency Risk Factors
Child Abuse-Delinquency Link
Child Abuse Effects
Child Abuse Victim
Child Neglect Effects
Child Neglect Victim
Juvenile Victim
Domestic Violence Effects
Domestic Violence Victim
Parent as Risk Factor
Parent Child Relations
Parental Monitoring
Parental Permissiveness
Mother as Risk Factor
Mother Child Relations
Mother Protectiveness
Father as Risk Factor
Father Child Relations
Parental Overprotection
Family Relations
Family Risk Factors
07-04 |