The Family as One Cause among Many
Many ideas about the nature and cause of delinquency and antisocial behavior
have been advanced. Major contexts, aside from the family, that have been
linked with delinquency include schools, peers, and neighborhoods. [83]
Given the many factors that have been linked with delinquency, it is likely
that even the broadest range of family variables will only partly explain
delinquency, and, in fact, this turns out to be the case. Using single
family predictors and traditional methods, we found it unusual to account
for more than 20 percent of the variance in delinquency, although, as noted,
studies combining family factors explain more variation. [84] Studies using
newer methods, including observational measures, generally find stronger
family effects.
In last decade, recognition of the multidetermined nature of delinquency
has come to predominate in the literature. [85] Two methods have been used
to assess the contribution of families relative to other factors, and different
findings flow from these methods. The first method involves using an index,
such as Relative Improvement over Chance, that evaluates the extent to
which a given predictor improves the classification of delinquent youth
over chance assignment across a range of studies. This approach suggests
that family factors are strong predictors among the field of factors. [86]
The other method for comparing the efficacy of different predictors involves
multivariate models of delinquency. There are several well-social-learning-based
model of Delbert Elliott and his colleagues, the social development model
of J. David Hawkins and associates, the coercion model of Patterson and
colleagues, the multisystemic model developed by Scott Henggeler, and Thoronberry's
interactional theory. Patrick Tolan also has emphasized the importance
of using a developmental-ecological framework in understanding antisocial
behavior. [87] Test of these models require data on multiple causes of
offending at multiple time points. It is clear from finding based on these
studies that multicomponent models provide an improved explanation of delinquency
over single-cause models.
Generally, multicomponent models do not show a strong role for family factors
compared with other factors, notably peer deviancy, lack of school success,
and early aggressiveness or troublesomeness. [88] However, methods and
measures vary widely, and cross-sectional multivariate studies tend to
suggest linear and additive relationships among variables. Therefore, it
may be that the role of family factors in a multivariate context is primarily
indirect: families might influence delinquency primarily through their
influence on the peer environment and on school involvement and achievement.
[89] For example, Patterson and colleagues indicate that early, poor parental
management is followed by low school achievement and poor peer relationships.
As peers reject a child who behaves aggressively, that child may turn to
other troubled and troublesome children, which then leads to associations
with a deviant peer group and eventually to delinquency. [90]
Finally, although multicomponent models tend not to highlight individual
characteristics, researchers have identified some psychological and biological
or temperamental characteristics associated with antisocial behavior and
aggression. The most significant evidence of a biological or temperamental
influence on aggression and antisocial behavior comes from studies showing
an increased risk of later conduct problems for attention-deficit, hyperactive
children. These individual psychological and temperamental characteristics
increase the likelihood that an aggressive youth will be rejected by socially
skilled peers and turn to deviant peers, increasing delinquency risk. Compared
with nonaggressive youth, aggressive youth have poorer communication and
social problem-solving skills and are more likely to perceive aggression
as a legitimate way to deal with conflict and gain self-esteem and peer
approval. [91] Antisocial youth also exhibit information-processing deficits;
they are more likely to perceive hostile intent in ambiguous situations
and to underestimate their own aggressiveness while simultaneously overestimating
the aggressiveness of their peers. [92] Ronald Slaby and Nancy Guerra found
that both very aggressive adolescent and violent adolescent offenders showed
significant problem-solving deficits and more frequently endorsed a set
of beliefs supporting the use of aggression than did less aggressive adolescents.
[93] The branch of research again suggests the interweaving of factors
that contribute to delinquency.
Implication for Intervention
 Delinquency and Antisocial （English)目次に戻る |
次のページへ進む |