UBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled INTEGRATED CAUSAL PATH MODELS OF DELINQUENCY: THE CASE OF SELECTED KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS presented by YOON HOLEE. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degreein CRIMINAL JUSTICE Wm WM / / - Major professor Date January 22, 1987 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 * WI"IIIIIINIIIIIIUIV' )V1531.1 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. W519” §n 20 EEC. . “WWW; ”4)me 9 ‘ ,v‘ - ~ I M’g'gg "EV 0 4 I999 . flay-e 9,300“ Avfighofi WW20512003 I INTEGRATED CAUSAL PATH MODELS OF DELINQUENCY : THE CASE OF SELECTED KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BY Yoon Ho Lee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ' School of Criminal Justice 1987 ABSTRACT INTEGRATED CAUSAL PATH MODELS OF DELINQUENCY : THE CASE OF SELECTED KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL BOYS By Yoon Ho Lee It has been argued that any uncritical application or replication of American theories and studies of crime and delinquency is inappropriate abroad. Thus, socio-cultural specific explanation of delinquency was tested within the uniques socio-cultural context of Korean society. In addition to this cross-cultural nature, this study was characterized by the integration of several thoeires into a single causal model, by drawing together the most useful and empirically tenable features of social control, social learning, and cultural deviance perspectives and incorporating them. The primary data were collected by a self-administered questionnaire to 533 llth grade male students from h randomly selected high schools in Seoul, Korea. The data were cluster-analyzed and path-analyzed. It was found that the proposed causal model based primarily on .American theories and findings was not supported by the current data, suggesting the development of alternative model. According to the best alternative model supported by the data, the variable hang out had the greatest direct causal influence on delinquency. Delinquent associates, discontent with home/school, and detraditionalization also played a role in generating delinquency. Youth culture, attachment to parents, and schOOZ origir harg c deTInc attacr with I SIidaI AII the SI In 53‘ Iient Tl‘ese deQTEI intergenerational conflict were also important, but delinquent definitions played only a minor role in the overall causal model. In sum, attachment to school was the causal element where the delinquent causal paths were originated and youth culture was the most salient causal element while hang out was the most proximate predictor variable. In other words, delinquency was originated by the failure at the school and subsequent attachment to youth culture that accentuate their conflicting relationship with their parents, which in turn leads them to delinquency learning social situations. Although it was assumed that the causal paths might be various across the subtypes of delinquency, the data showed no significant variation. In fact, both hedonistic and general delinquency models were virtually ,identicall, while the serious delinquency model was somewhat different. These differences were assumed to be related to either or both the degree of individual criminality and seriousness of delinquent act. If this dissertation means anything special, it should be dedicated to my wife, Jin Sook who has sacrificed everything for my study, to my son, Chang Wook who has always wanted me to play with him, to the members of my family and family-in-law in Korea who have provided me with everything for my study abroad, and to my second child who will be born in August, 1987. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation each and every one of those who have helped me go through. LISTS OF TABLES LISTS OF FIGURES VI. VII. VIII. VIIII. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS .... .................. I) Social Control Perspectives ............... 2) Social Learning Perspectives .............. 3) Cultural Deviance Perspectives ............ INTEGRATING THEORIES .......................... IDENTIFYING VARIABLES ......................... I) Cultural Deviance Variables ................ 2) Social Control Variables ................... 3) Social Learning Variables .................. . MODELING CAUSAL ORDER ......................... METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES .................... I) Research Design ............................ 2) Sampling Procedures ........................ 3) Measurement Scales ......................... A) Data Analysis .............................. THE RESULTS OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS ............... THE PREVALENCE OF DELINQUENCY ................. CAUSAL ANALYSIS ............................... I) Overview ................................... 2) The Test of Originally Proposed Causal Model 3) Best-Fitting Alternative Causal Model ...... FINDINGS ACROSS THE SUBTYPES OF DELINQUENCY ... 000000000000000000000000000000000000 I2 ........... l6 ........... 2‘ ........... 28 ........... 28 ........... 3, ........... ,1, . XI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................. IIIZ I) Summary ............................................. . 1A2 2) Discussion .......................................... 1&9 3) Policy Implications ................................. 153 A) Future Research Considerations ...................... I56 APPENDICES Appendix A : Grouping of Questionnaire Items .......... 159 B : Questionnaire(English) ................... I65 C : Questionnaire(Korean) .................... 180 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 198 Table I0. II. LISTS OF TABLES Frequency Distribution of A0 Delinquency Item Score Frequency Distribution of Index Scores for each Delinquency Cluster .................................... Inter-cluster Correlation Matrix(Pearson's r) for Delinquency indices .................................... Crosstabulations Among 3 Delinquency Clusters .......... Observed, Predicted, and Observed Minus Predicted Scale Correlations for the Proposed Total Delinquency Path Model ............................................. Reordered R-Matrix for II Independent Clusters and Total Delinquency Index Score(Corrected for Attenuation) Observed, Predicted, and Observed Minus Predicted Scale Correlations for the Alternative Total Delinquency Path Model .............. . ....... , ....................... Reordered R-Matrix for II Independent Clusters and 3 Delinquency CIusters(Corrected for Attenuation) ..... Observed, Predicted, and Observed Minus Predicted Scale Correlations for the Hedonistic Delinquency Path Model ................................ ‘ ............ Observed, Predicted, and Observed Minus Predicted Scale Correlations for the General Delinquency Path Model ............................................ Observed, Predicted, and Observed Minus Predicted Scale Correlations for the Serious Delinquency Path Model ............................................ Page 92 9h 96 97 103 I06 I09 128 I31 I33 I36 Figure dd—l-‘I—I DWN— Oko mummrwm— LISTS OF FIGURES Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering ............... ‘ ................... Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering .................................. Causal Ordering .................................. The . The . The . The . The . The Proposed Causal Path Model ................... Proposed Total Delinquency Path Model ........ Alternative Total Delinquency Path Model ..... Hedonistic Delinquency Path Model ............ General Delinquency Path Model ............... Serious Deiinquency Path Model ............... vi 109 I3I I33 I36 con thC res ecc cu] ste Pa] inI K0: de- in ad Cr ir P2 DJ at I. INTRODUCTION An enormous number of young people appear to be involved in some kind of delinquent acts during their adolescence. Indeed, a large proportion of youths are believed to have committed at least one delinquent act, although many of those offenses are relatively trivial. Apparently, they are responsible for a substantial part of total crime worldwide. Korea is not an exception in this regard. With rapid economic growth and industrialization and subsequent social cultural changes in recent years, Korea has witnessed a steady increase of delinquency. According to Korean White Paper on Youths (1982), Korea has experienced a continuous increase in delinquency since the middle of the 60's when Korea had just launched its first 5 year economic development plan. In 1981, juvenile delinquency marked an increase of 6w2 percent compared to the previous year. In addition, it was reported that about 10.5 percent of total crime in Korea in 1981 was committed.by juveniles. As a result, some practitioners and scholars became interested in and concerned about this ever increasing problem. Unfortunately, however, their understanding of the problem is still at the stage of infancy. Scholars who study delinquency in Korea usually imitate American models and theories without any modifications or even any justifications or tests of applicability in Korea, despite the fact that most criminological works are.Wbased almost entirely on research done in the United States and thus are primarily descriptive of American society" and therefore of Ameri Crin' emer deal of I foul 198 the and efifl di Fr 3P A1 American crime and delinquency (Clinard and Abbott, 1973). Criminological theories as dominated by Americans have emerged through times as culture-bound or culture-specific, dealing with individuals within the unique cultural context of.American societyu‘Unfortunately, such theories are mostly found to be inapplicable and inappropriate abroad (Friday, 1980). In the study in Argentina, DeFleur (1969) attacked the uncritical application of US based delinquency theories and proposed the development of culture-specific explanation. Downes (1966) was unable to support differential opportunity theory in the East of London and Friday (1972) found none of American theories to be applicable to Sweeden. This potential inapplicability of American theories has been found in India (Robertson and Taylor, 1973) and generally in underdeveloped countries (Summer, 1982). Therefore, it is quite necessary to "seek verified theories that have maximum. scope in.both the substantive and spatio-temporal sense" (Wallace, 1974:107) in explaining this socio-cultural specific phenomena of delinquency. In other words, it is very desirable that any given propositions including delinquency theories should be tested in different cultural settings in order to increase their scope of generality and universal applicability (Shelly, 1981; Przeworsky and Teune, 1970; Warwick and Osherson, 1973; Newman, 1977; Blazicek and Janekesela, 1978: Beirne, 1984). i Despite the recent increased concern about the family and par deI has re: COI f0 in at th du an su OI: re tt C1: C1 3 parental involvement in the prevention and treatment of delinquent in the United States, the role of family dynamics has received little attention in the 1960's, and has been neglected by American scholars and practitioners until recent years. However, it has occupied the minds of Korean counterparts. Sun (1984) explains the traditional nurturance for children in the Korean family and describes its importance to child's growth. Furthermore, Yu (1984) attributes the increase of juvenile delinquency in Korea to the chaos over standards and values among the Korean people due largely to a conflict between imported western values and traditional Confucian values. All this arguments suggests that those delinquency theories based mainly on the observation of the United States may or may not be fully relevant to or consistent with Korean delinquency. It is thus suggested that socio-culture specific explanation of delinquency be modeled and tested within the unique socio- cultural context of Korean society. In his recent work, Hoffman (1986) reports that family related variables are considered the most relevant to delinquency causation in Korea followed by some cultural factors. Through intensive personal interviews with professionals in the field and concerned parents, he finds that such variables as busy parents, broken family, improper child supervision, inability of parents to provide material needs of the child, parental inability to meet child's developmental needs, peers, fast cultural change, and improper sexual encounters of the child are considered important. Consequently, it becomes evident that most research done in the United States is limited in that the generality and applicability of the results and interpretations advanced by American studies are questionable in explaining Korean delinquency. In addition to using data collected in Korea, the present study is characterized by the integration of several theories into single causal model which has been largely neglected by most sociological research on juvenile delinquency; Instead, most work on delinquency in particular and crime in general has drawn on just one limited set of variables in the search for an understanding of the problem. Researchers tend to set up each causal theory against the others to determine which is true in a given research setting. However, no one set of theories or single level of analysis is adequate in'and of itself as an explanation of crime and delinquency. It is rather necessary to look at all levels of cause and the way in which each level affects delinquent behaviors (Friday and Hage, 1976). One of the reasons for the failure of delinquency research is therefore related to the unicausal theories of delinquency, since juvenile delinquency is rather complex to explain. The current competing explanations of delinquency are, thus, in need of further elaboration and integration (Sadoff, 1978; Earls, 1979; Fagan and Jones, 1984). This tendency of integration is based on the uncertainty to which theory comes closer to the true account of delinquency causation and ti most. and CI consi alter In again an in diffe 1979: PIOCI try 4 feat- inte agai tend Stat Stre a1 Stre EXP] intI exP: Var: and Joh erg S and the substantial confusion over which theory appears the most acceptable in explaining the variance. The uncertainty and confusion are derived mainly from the failure to consider the propositions of one theory with those of viable alternative theory (Aultman and Welford, 1978). Instead, rather than viewing each theory as competing against each other, some contemporary researchers advocate an integration which employes variables from seemingly different causal models (Hirschi, 1969; Elliott et al., 1979; Johnson, 1979). Since each theory explains certain processes that play a role in explaining delinquency, they try to draw together the most useful and empirically tenable features of each theory and incorporate them into a single integrated causal model rather than set up each theory against the others (Johnson,1979). The rational behind this tendency of integration is that any pure theoretical statements are partial explanations and therefore, can be strengthened and enhanced by the integration (Elliott et al., 1985). Since an integration incorporates the relative strength of each theory, it is believed to increase its explanatory power (Shoemaker, 1984). Therefore, an integrated theory seems to be best able to provide a valid explanation by incorporating both empirical test of the various theoretical perspective as well as multiple facts and correlates specific to the target population (Fagan and Jones,1984). Consequently, the present study is intended to be a cross-cultural replication and partial extension of American the exa the] cat um de theories of crime and delinquency; It aims to develop and examine the culture-specific causal model of Korean delinquency in terms of the directions and magnitudes of causal links in the path model. In order to further understand the factors and the processes involved in delinquency causation and further increase the explanatory power, an integrated model is developed by incorporating the various theoretical perspectives and the multiple factors and correlates into the model which is most relevant to Korean delinquency and provide the best explanation for Korean delinquency. The extent to which this integrated path model including variables derived from different theories explains Korean delinquency among high school boys is examined. II. cri dif the att lea 198 int per beh. int. 197I dal; dev: Proc exp; 1984 5m Per: int: d‘31: Ame: amo] Cu11 C0ng 9t II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS As discussed above in Chapter I, the recent tendency in criminological theory development has been to integrate different models of delinquency causation by incorporating the most useful features of each theoretical model in an attempt to improve our understanding of the etiological path leading to delinquency (Johnson, 1979; Segrave and Hastad, 1983). As a complex social phenomenon including interactional, individualistic, and environmental perspectives, deviant behavior in general and delinquent behavior in particular can be seen as the products of both internal and external properties of individuals (Sadoff, 1978; Earle, 1979). Furthermdre, the current development in delinquency theory tends to move toward understanding deviant and delinquent behavior as an integrated, sequential process rather than simply conceptualizing separate explanations (Farrel and Nelson, 1978; Fagan and Jones, 1984). This integrated theoretical model expands and synthesizes variables associated with various theoretical perspectives into a single explanatory paradigm which takes into account multiple causal paths to sustained patterns of delinquency. The most commonly integrated theoretical explanations of American delinquency have been some kind of combinations among social control theory, social learning theory, and cultural deviance theory (Akers et al., 1979; Jensen, 1972: Conger, 1976; Hepburn, 1977: Hawkins and Weis, 1980: Elliott et al., 1979; Matsueda, 1982; Johnson, 1979; Fagan and Jor 19' a1. (1‘. KO WE Ce th CC ir SC Jones, 1984, Elliott and Voss, 1974; Eve, 1978; Rankin, 1977: Cernkovich, 1978; Friday and Hage, 1976: Simons et al., 1980; Farrel and Nelson, 1978: Aultman, 1979). .As Yu (1984) pointed out, the rapid increase of delinquency in Korea has been due in part to a conflict between imported western values and traditional, Confucian Korean values. Cernkovich (1978) and Segrave and Hastad (1983, 1985) found that subterranean value orientation operationalized by commitment to such youth culture value standards as short- run hedonism, excitement, trouble,and toughness tend to induce involvement in delinquent acts. The further theoretical rational for the integration of social learning, social control, and cultural deviance theories is that even though social control theory is currently the most widely employed and supported theory, it is far from complete. Social control theory can not explain how the dissatisfaction of youth with social control institutions oCcurs or what weakens the already established social control mechanisms. Fortunately, however, it is believed that cultural deviance perspectives explain why juveniles become disappointed at, dissatisfied with, and uncommitted.and.unattached.to conventional social institutions such as parents and school. Unfortunately, however, neither social control nor cultural deviance can adequately and independently explain why a youth selects delinquent behaviors when he is dissatisfied with and unattached to those conventional social institutions. At th: wi‘ lee Ch: to th st‘ an SY vi re th 9 this point, social learning perspective can be connected with social control and cultural deviance, because social learning perspectives provide the explanations for the choice of delinquent behavior by youths who are unattached to those conventional social institutions. In this regard, therefore, the proposed theoretical model in the present study attempts to integrate social control, social learning, and cultural deviance perspectives. It expands and synthesizes the various concepts and variables associated with these three theoretical orientations. This chapter reviews the causal models contained in those three theoretical perspectives. l). SOCIAL CONTROL PERSRECTIVES Most theories of crime and delinquency suggest that some special forces drive people to commit crime. They mostly try to explain what factors drive people to commit crimeu For them, their main question is "Why does people commit crime?". Social control theory, on the contrary, takes the opposite stand. Social control theorists try to answer the question of "Why don't all the people commit crime?". Their explanation is that it is an individualus bonds to society that make the differences. They firmly believe that people commit crime because of weakened forces restraining them from doing so, but not because of the forces driving them to do so. Their beliefs are based mainly on the assumption that for the delinquency tendency to be repressed or restricted, human beings should be held in check or controlled, because the tendency of delinquency or de ar 15 IO deviance is universal. That is, all human beings are animal and all capable of committing crime (Hirschi, 1969; Conklin, 1981; Shoemaker, 1984). Furthermore, their second assumption is that delinquency is the result of a deficiency or absence of working control mechanism and there is always a general societal consensus concerning conventional beliefs and norms. According to Hirschi (1969), we all are bonded to society throughout attachment, commitment, belief, and involvement with conventional elements of society; To the extent that this bond is weakened, we are free to deviate. We in the society are all tied together by a common value system. Our behavior is due to natural human impulses which remain unconstrained by a strong and lasting bond to the norms of a united society. Delinquency is not caused by beliefs that require delinquency but by the absence of effective beliefs that forbid delinquency. Therefore, delinquent boys do not hold the norms that require delinquency but lack the norms that strongly oppose such behavior. Hirschi (1969) argues that the absence of such prescriptive norms is related to the lack of attachment to conventional social institutions such as family and school. Even though the motive to deviate is relatively constant .across individuals, the strength of bonds that an individual has to the conventional society varies (Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978; Empey, 1982). According to Hirschi(1969), it varies in the degree to which individuals respond to the opinions and expectations of others (Attachment), in the payoff conven contex social behavj commi' are n< commi conve' Ho Shoul thee: othem about even effec RuttE Comm Conv. does inhi] inte. Pets Putt can.x behe acts the II payoffs individuals receive from their involvement in the conventional lines of actions (Commitment), and in the context to which individuals subscribe to the prevailing social norms (Beliefs). Those who engage in delinquent behaviors are free of intimate attachment and short of commitment that bind them to a law-abiding life. Delinquents are not so much forced into delinquency as they are free to commit delinquent acts because they lack ties to the conventional orders. However, some critiques argue that social control theory should be modified. The assumption that social control theory makes about human nature and social order are open to other interpretations and many questions remain unanswered about the role of subcultural and peer group influence, even though the family and the school" and the overall effects of social change require consideration (Empey, 1982; Rutter and Giller, 1983). Although the fact that people commit crime because of their weakened ties or bonds to the conventional society may be true, social control theory does not indicate what type of conventional ties best inhibit criminality but only addresses the problem of interaction of ties to both conventional and unconventional persons (Linden and Hackler, 1973; Shelly, 1983, 1985). Furthermore, the weakened bonds and the lack of restraint can not account for the specific form or content of behavior. It should include the concept that delinquent acts have the social meaning which is rewarded in someway by the social groups in which it occurs (Elliott at al., 1979). I2 In other words, the assumption of social control theory that delinquents are the unsocialized predators underestimates the role of peers in generating supports for delinquent conduct but overestimates the importance of acquired beliefs as the barrier to delinquent behavior (Empey, 1982). According to Conger (1980), social control theory fails to provide some additional impetus to deviate and is limited to the concept of behavioral restraint. In other words, social control theory does not specify the motivations that give rise to the violations of the law but rather looks at some institutions that creates the barriers to the expression of the deviant motivations (Conklin, 1981). The freedom to deViate does not cause deviance to occur. Therefore, there must be something that motivates a person to use this freedom to deviate in order for the deviant acts occur. In this regard, social learning theory provides us with the explanations for the motivations to deviate in terms of peer group influences. 2). SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVES While social control theory assumes that human nature is inherently antisocial, social learning theory argues that human nature is plastic and subject to change. Human behavior is also flexible and changes according to the circumstances and situations. Human self is seen as nothing more than a process that undergoes constant change and modification (Empey, 1982: Shoemaker, 1984). Accc organiz values entirel are exp value 3 necessa social not an kind 0f Shoemak delinql the ong 13 According to social learning theorists, society is not organized by a set of universal consensus or conventional values but some people hold contradictory values, which is entirely opposite to the social control assumption. People are exposed to both deviant and conforming traditions of value system” The society where a delinquent lives is not necessarily deviant but delinquency arises from the same social conditions as does nondelinquent behavior. Whether or not an individual becomes delinquent depends largely on the kind of group in which he participates (Empey, 1982: Shoemaker, 1984). Based on the assumption that most delinquency is committed in a group, they argue that it is the ongoing process of interaction but not the permanent antisocial impetus that motivates people to deviate. People are not born with the repertories of deviance but they learn it by the observation and reinforcement through their intimate association with people who are deviant (Bandura, 1977) . . The social learning theory of delinquency, therefore, aims at understanding how people acquire a certain type of delinquent behavior. According to the general social learning theory, any behavior is acquired by the observation of what others do and the outcomes their acts produce for them. Through their observations, individuals are more likely to perform those behaviors that are socially rewarded by significant others while avoiding those behaviors that are punished (Bandura, 1977). In other words,_ social behavior is learned by conditioning in which beha occu bala beha soci. eXplI beha‘ 0f d: deli: expel the 5 Prime the s is tt ViOla IA behavior is shaped by the consequences of behaviors. The occurance of any behavior is, therefore, determined by the balance of rewards and punishments attached to the different behaviors. Derived mainly from this assumption of broad and general social learning theory, Sutherland and Cressey (1974) explained the process by which the criminal values and behaviors are learned and enacted by employing their theory of differential association. Their major arguments are that delinquent behavior is learned through the collective experience as well as the specific situational events within the small, informal, intimate groups» In other words, the primary groups provide the major social context in which all the social learning variables operate. In sum, delinquency is the response to the excess of definitions favoring the violations of law or norms attained in association with others of intimate groups. Human beings are not predisposed to the delinquent behavior but they violate the law because they have learned to do so. It is the symbolic learning of deviant values, attitudes, norms, and techniques that lead people to commit delinquent behaviors. Since the delinquent behavior is the property of groups but not of individuals, however, delinquent ideas are not carried out unless they receive the necessary supports from the intimate group of associatesa Therefore, whether or not an individual becomes delinquent depends largely on what he learns from the gr co de l'lO st de. in le. vi. teI mo be] paI raI dig the beh wh ,- ass Seq the ind. 15 groups he encounters and how the groups define the legal codes. He becomes delinquent if his contacts with the delinquent patterns exceed his contacts with the nondelinquent patterns. In sum, we all are confronted with the contradictory standards for behavior. Whether or not we become delinquent depends mainly on the groups with which we associate. The intimate contacts with a group of delinquent companions may lead to the excessive definitions favorable to the violations of law; Through the associations, we learn the techniques for committing crimes and acquire the necessary motivations and rationalizations by which delinquent behavior is made possible. Delinquent behavior presupposes a pattern of social relationships through which motives, rationalizations, techniques, and rewards can be learned and maintained (Burgess and Akers, 1966: Akers, 1977: Bandura, 1973). Therefore, delinquent behavior is seen as the behavior which has social meaning and must be supported and rewarded by the significant social groups. While social learning theories in general and differential association theory in particular with regard to the crime and delinquency stress the fact that criminal behavior is learned, they do not explain the processes by which an individual becomes delinquent, despite the assumption that delinquency results from a series of sequential processes. They lack the specificity on just how the antisocial behavior is acquired and why there are such individual differences in behavior (Empey, 1982). In detail, the the de] poi exc God Vha law int the att. del; att; EWe] m‘acI not th:, Oat. Un i‘ and I6 they can not explain the sequential series of events: how the‘membershipiin the delinquent groups occurs, how the delinquent behaviors are learned and reinforced, and at what point the definitions favorable to the violations of law exceed the definitions unfavorable to it (Hirschi and Godfredson, 1980: Liska, 1978). In addition, there remain the unanswered questions about what accounts for the learned positive definitions of the law violations or in what situations those definitions come into play and what causes individuals to act in accord with the beliefs (Shelly, 1985). They suggest that the beliefs, attitudes, and rationalizations provide the motive for delinquent behavior. But Deutscher (1966) argues that attitudes are poor predictors of actual human behavior. Even though social learning theory may identify the mechanisms by which criminal behavior is learned, it can not explain the distirbutions of definitions and behaviors throughout the society. Therefore, it ignores the major structural variables. In addition, the fact that the concept of differential social organizations accounts for some variations in association is totally lost (Shelly, 1985: Shoemaker, 1984). 3) CULTURAL DEVIANCE PERSPECTIVES Cultural deviance perspectives assume that human nature is inherently social. Delinquent behavior is a universal tendency to behave in accordance with the values and beliefs of one's own culture. Thus, delinquency is the no th 19 £0 so Wh di; (SI 5421 re< of SDI. bet the mo: beh nor Ace dis C111 adu You as tra ten C111 thy: 17 normal behavior for the particular subculture and learned in the same way as any other form of social behavior (Empey, 1982). Most cultural deviance theorists recognize that some forms of delinquent behavior constitute an accepted part of social activities of adolescents (Rutter and Giller, 1983). While human nature is essentially good, the social order is disrupted if the compelling cultures are formed in it (Sellin, 1938). Delinquents are socialized into the cultural settings which justify, make attractive, and eventually require delinquent behavior; However, the various versions of cultural deviance perspectives differ in indicating the source of delinquent traditions. Based on the assumptions that most law violating behaviors among adolescents are committed in groups and there are some discontinuities between the generations, most cultural deviance theorists suggest that delinquent behavior is the result of adolescents'Iconformity to the norms which are in conflict with.the conventional norms. According to Eve (1975), adolescents maintain a separate and distinctive set of values and norms from adults. These youth cultural norms and values stand in the basic opposition to adult cultural norms and values and this conflict may lead youths to delinquency. Parsons (1964) sees the youth culture as integrated into the modern society and argues that the transition from the family to the adult world induces the tension in the adolescents. One of the functions of youth culture is to allow a psychological outlet for the tension through the rebellious behaviors. yc it 14 g: e) wi di 19 po se ki to de‘ C01 Se! The no; (G1 the rep P1111 18 According to England (1960), cultural deviance among the youths begins with the ill-defined status of adolescents in industrialized and developing societies. Due largely to the lengthened period of compulsary education, the youths are granted even longer adolescent periods (Flack, 1971). This extension of adolescent periods deactivates the youths without clearly defining their status and function and diminishes their contacts with the adult world (Coleman, 1961). Thus, they do not posess a clearcut and responsible position in the society (Coleman, 1974). With this separation from the adult world, they perceive themselves a kind of minority. It eventually becomes intolerant for them to be different from their peers (Parsons, 1951). They develop a shared set of definitions of proper conduct, common values, and other characteristics of a relatively separate culture from prevailing adult cultural patterns. The more they interact exclusively with each other, the more their culture becomes different from adult culture (Glaser, 1971: Coleman, 1974). So extreme is the gap between the generations that parents and their adolescent children represent different subcultures. Despite the disagreements over the uniqueness of youth culture, most concerned theorists agree that this youth subculture produces an adolescent world of hedonism and irresponsibility, and that the more they are involved in their subculture, the more likely they are to become delinquent (Empey, 1982). its acc sub inf the is fro irr of car The the not eCCI del. mEli: eSte I9 However, an ethos of irresponsible hedonism is not in itself productive of delinquent motivations. Since youths accomplish their needs for status affirmation by their subculture, they reject influences from adults but accept influences supporting their own culture. The only reason the youth subculture leads the youths to delinquent behavior is the adoptive process in which the youths would extract from the adult world the values of strong hedonism and irresponsibility and the consequent result that these values of youth subculture consist of the distorted and caricatured fragments from adult culture (England, 1960). Those highly selected and altered values motivate and give _the directions to the youths. However, most adult culture not only can not understand but also is baffled and annoyed by the youth subculture. Nearly all youth behavior of an eccentric kind tends to be regarded by the adults as delinquents Such a wholesale condemnation helps produce and maintain the type of rebellion against the already established order (Gibbens and Ahrenfeldt, 1971). According to cultural deviance perspectives, it would be the exceptional adolescent who is not programmed to follow the hedonistic nature of adolescent subculture. There exist difference between the generations, although the values, norms, and practices of adolescents are neither uniformly hedonistic and irresponsible nor uniformly conforming and responsible. Furthermore, most cultural deviance theorists agree that the more adolescents are involved in their subculture, the more likely they are to become delinquent , 20 based on the asumption that delinquency is a group phenomenon and peers play an important role. However, it is an oversimplification to assume that the single most important source of direction and acceptance for adolescent is that afforded by peers, because conventional adults and institutions can also perform a socializing role. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the conditions under which some adolescents resist the temptations from the youth subculture but remain attached to the conventional culture while others accept the youth subcultural temptations but reject the conventional alternatives. III. pers theo deli deli int: dif: EXp (Sh int den as: in th in a! IT a: III. INTEGRATING THEORIES Through the review and critique of each theoretical perspective in Chapter II, it has become apprent that no one theory can explain all delinquency or even certain types of delinquency. The most recent tendency in the development of delinquency research is an attempt to synthesize or integrate the various concepts and approaches that may be different but complementary because each approach may explain a different aspect of the same problem, delinquency (Shoemaker, 1984). The most notable example of this tendency is to integrates the social control approach with cultural deviance and social learning approaches. This chapter is assinged to integrate these three theoretical perspectives into a single paradigm that accounts for delinquency. To do this, however, the strong points of each approach and the interconnection between each should be noted because they are not necessarily mutually exclusive but complementary. The integration is attempted at the individual level (Cohen and Short, 1976: Short, 1979). Furthermore, since it is necessary to reconciliate the different basic assumptions and clarify the key theoretical concepts (Elliott, 1985), the integration of multiple theories may require some modifications and extensions of original theoretical perspectives being integrated. In any case, however, any original theoretical perspectives can be seen as the partial explanations that can be strengthened and enhanced by the integrations. 21 The I control alone is delinque causes c producir control of delir delinque delinque facilita (ShoemaI Sutficiq Icint o, delinqu¢ it8e1f < ad°Ptat1 delinqu, convent: b0nds wI delinque behavioI One c th°°ry I v"? the aSSUmeS IndiVidu 22 The proposed integration centers around the social control explanations. However, this social control approach alone is far less than sufficient to account for all delinquency. Since there exist the multiple correlates and causes of delinquency operating within the delinquency producing social processes (Hawkins and Weis, 1980). social control theory alone can not explain this complex phenomenon of delinquency. In other words, we can not explain delinquency only by considering the factors that restrain delinquency, but we must also locate those factors that facilitate the occurance of delinquency at the same time (Shoemaker, 1984). The weak conventional bond itself is not sufficient enough to cause delinquency rather it is the joint occurance of weak conventional bonds and strong delinquent bonds. An absence of restraints on behavior by itself can not account for any resulting behavioral adaptation. It just fails to account for the variations in delinquent behaviors among those who have the weak conventional bonds. Only those with the weak conventional bonds who are also bonded to the groups that reinforce delinquency are expected to adopt a delinquent pattern of behavior. One of the most serious criticisms of the social control theory is that it does not deal with any factors that may ‘vary the motives to deviate (Kornhauser, 1978). It simply assumes the constant metive.for the deviance across individuals even though the motivations of deviance are not the cont com: (Con thec deli pers devi thou unat noti enab fail. 23 the same for all human beings and deviant behaviors. Social control theory just does not explain why an individual commits delinquent behavior and what motivates him to do so (Conger, 1980: Shoemaker, 1984). That is, social control theory can not explain why an individual selects delinquency when he is unattached to the conventional persons and institutions. Furthermore, the freedom to deviate does not always cause the deviance to occur. Even though an individual is free to deviate since he is unattached to the conventional society, still he must be motivated to use his freedom to deviate (Gibbs, 1975). At this point, however, social learning perspectives may enable us to explain the factors that social control theory failed to explain. According to social learning appraoches, an individual may become attached to either conventional or unconventional persons and institutions. Therefore, he may receive the meaningful social reinforcements for either conventional or unconventional behavior. Since delinquent motives, techniques, and rationalizations are learned only through meaningful social relationships, only those who are attached to those groups that provide meaingful social rewards and reinforcements for delinquent behaviors would become delinquent. In other words, since a person does not always perform all the behaviors he has learned, any behaviors including delinquent behavior should have important social meaning and be supported and rewarded by significant social groups (Elliott et al., 1979). Delinquents are, therefore, those youths who have been socia of tI conve delir socia costs to ex uncon Si delin norma Perfo atten 5°Cie conte delin Combi delin rastr 2A socialized into the unconventional social groups as a result of their weak conventional bonds and consequent weak conventional restraints, developed the stronger bonds to delinquent groups, and thus learned that their anticipated social rewards for delinquency outweigh the anticipated costs. In this sense, social learning perspectives enable us to explain the choice of delinquency by the unattached and uncommitted youths. Since there is the variation in both the motivation for delinquency (social learning approach) and the restraints on normative behaviors (social control approach), the actual performance of delinquent behavior is contingent upon the [attenuation of individuals' commitment to the conventional society and participation in the prodelinquent social group contexts. Therefore, the youth most vulnerable to delinquency are those who are characterized by the combination of high motivation for but weak restraints for delinquency. Those who have high motivations but weak restraints for delinquency are most likely to commit delinquent acts. At this point, we should be able to explain the processes by which an individual becomes delinquent or his motivation for committing delinquent acts (through social learning approaches) and why he has the association he has right now or why he has weak restraints on his behavior’(through social control approaches) by integrating both social control and social learning approaches together. Since indivic are deI influeI bonds compan by the societ' uncomm believ thus e contro explai conven Condit We are here, apPrOa unatta 25 individuals"bonds to conventional institutions and persons are determined prior to their exposure to delinquent influences in their peer groups and the strengths of these bonds may have an effect on individuals' selection of their companions, their bonds to delinquent peers are conditioned by the strengths of their prior bonds to conventional society. Therefore, it is assumed that those who are uncommitted or unattached to conventional society are believed to be socialized into delinquent peer groups and thus expected to commit delinquent acts. Neither social control nor social learning approaches, however, can explain how and why individuals become unattached to conventional society (Shoemaker, 1984), which is necessary condition for delinquency to occur. In this regard, however, we are fortunate to have cultural deviance perspectives here, simply because it seems that cultural deviance approaches can explain how and why individual youths become unattached or uncommitted to conventional society. Empey (1978) argues that a part Of delinquent behavior is due to the ambiguous status of adolescents. It is the expression of their ambiguous status and of attempt to establish themselves in our social context in which their status became ambiguous. According to England (1960), this ambiguous, uncertain, or even confused status of youths is due mainly to the existence of youth subcultures characterized as hedonistic and irresponsible. Since these hedonistic and irresponsible values and activities of youth subculture are against those of adults, the gap or conflict be ex un si ye mc wh tr 1i ta cu be cu ab. CO] ap] 1e, Prc of Phi v i a int the Rev. and “hi. 26 between the youths and conventional adults are easily expected. As a result, youths become unattached or uncommitted to their conventional social contexts. In fact, since Korea has been rapidly westernized during the past few years, most Korean youths have been heavily exposed to and mostly adopted a variety of western cultures and values which are somehow different and even contradictory to our traditional Confucian cultures that most adult Koreans still live by. In addition, high school students who are the target populations in this study are most exposed to culture_and most likely to adopt this western influences because of their easy and frequent access to the western culture in their western style education and English ability. In this sense, cultural deviance approaches can be connected with social control and social learning approaches. As a whole, the integration of social control, social learning, and cultural deviance approaches, therefore, provides us with the opportunities to understand the causes of delinquency via social control approach and the manner in which those causes operate in the context of socialization via social learning and cultural deviance approaches. The integration of social control and social learning describes the processes that govern both the socialization and development of delinquent behavior (Hawkins and Weis, 1980) and specifies the motivational components (Conger, 1980), while cultural deviance explains the processes or specific cond That vari cont. soci. thei deli: fact! prim conv bond soci deli PIOb 27 conditions that strengthen or weaken conventional bonds. That is, cultural deviance is apparently an exogenous variable which affects the development of weakened social controls.'Those who become unattached to their conventional society are free to associate with and be influenced by their delinquent peers, which is the most proximate cause of delinquency (Wiatrowski et al., 1981). Therefore, the factors associated with cultural deviance are seen as the primary causes of weak conventional bonds. This weakened conventional bond leads some youths to seek out and become bonded to their peer groups that provide the meaningful social reinforcements and rewards for and modeling of delinquent behavior. This delinquent bond leads to a high probability of delinquency involvement. d1 Sc Y: “I IV. IDENTIFYING VARIABLES l) CULTURAL DEVIANCE VARIABLES Despite the fact that some theorists argue that certain cultural deviance variables such as youth culture may have a direct effect on delinquency (England, 1960: Vaz, 1967), two additional variables concerning cultural deviance perspectives such as detraditionalization and intergenerational conflict seem to be more like intervening than determinant variables in this study. Both variables are believed to have some indirect effects on delinquency through social control and social learning. Specifically, both variables are seen as the primary causes of weak conventional bonds leading to delinquent association and delinquent behavior. Cultural deviance variables are summed to provide some supports in explaining why an individual becomes unattached. Therefore, these variables will be considered as intervening or mediating rather than determinant variables of delinquency in this study. (DETRADITIONALIZATION: The Cavans (1968) hypothesized that the greater the degree of industrialization, modernization, and urbanization, the higher the rates of delinquency and criminality. In their study of delinquency among Eskimos, they also found that with the increase of social contact with non-Eskimos and consequent breakdown of traditional social structure, delinquency among Eskimo youths increased. Similarly, Rahav (1981) found that urbanization which involves cultural changes contributes the. most to the rates of delinquency in Israel. 28 grouI cauSI brouI mode mode pref. trad, the I a SiI main mOde deli Valu betw thro trad huma libe Stat ego“ exch indu “Ode trad rela 29 In Taiwan, Lin (1958) defined the two types of delinquent groups, Liu-mang and Tai-pau. According to Lin, Tai-pau is caused mainly by the existence of subculture which have been brought about by modernization and subsequent contacts with modern western cultures.‘Therefore, Tai-pau is seen as modern, westernized, and uprooted delinquent group» They prefer western dress and style, have no interest in traditional affairs but in modern recreations, and manifest the westernization of society. Lin regarded this Tai-pau as a sign of the growing modern and western subcultures due mainly to the rapid industrialization, urbanization, and modernization. By the same token, Yu (1984) attributes the increase of delinquency in Korea to the chaos over the standards and values among Korean youths and sees it as a conflict between the recently imported western cultural values through modernization and industrialization and the traditional Confucian Korean cultural values such as humanism and collectivism. Since World War II and consequent liberation from Japanese occupation in 1945, the United States has been most visible in Korea in terms of military, economic, social, cultural, and political influences and exchanges. Such US presence coupled with the recent industrialization and subsequent urbanization, modernization, and westernization has affected the traditional Korean value systems. Yu (1984), therefore, relates the problem of this value confusion to the West. Accor oppor Chang persc pare: is O] deli] y. deli cult of} PERJE Ow“ Eff Iflje axnk ctr: Ivcn tJI, Fuel ‘ttiI Se- lrca I91: 19 30 According to him, this western influence has offered the opportunities and made the demands for diverse social changes. In addition, in his recent study through intensive personal interviews with concerned professionals and parents, Hoffman (1986) found that the fast cultural change is one of most influential variables associated with delinquency in Korea. YOUTH CULTURE: According to cultural deviance theorists, delinquent behavior is the expression of conformity to the cultural values and expectations that run counter to those of larger society (Empey, 1978). Delinquents are just behaving in accordance with the values and norms of their own particular groups. The recent social and economic changes gave rise to an affluent but highly institutionalized society. As a result, the status of youths becomes more and more uncertain and ambiguous.'This uncertain and ambiguous position of youth in our contemporary society separates the youths from the adult world. This ill-defined youth status has been lengthened by the longer periods of compulsary education. This lengthened periods of ill-defined youth status has further diminished the contacts of youths with the adult world (Flacks, 1971: Vaz, 1969: Empey, 1982: England, 1960: Coleman, 1961). This separation of youths from the adult world has made the youths easily available to one another and forstered the proliferation of peer groups and cultures (Vaz and Casparis, 1971)..Along with the influence of mass media, the increased discretionary purchasing power of the youths and the 3i material wealths of an affluent society due to the industrialization and consequent economic development has contributed much to the development of the distinctive features of youth culture (England, 1960: Vaz and Casparis, 1971). The values of this distinctive culture, however, center around the short-run, hedonistic, irresponsible pursuit of fun and pleasure in the company of peers. Host youth culture activities on the part of inexperienced, immature youths often have the potential to develop into delinquency (Gibbons, 1981), since the youth culture emphasis on the irresponsible hedonism results in the transformation of adult values by the youths. These trnasformed values serve to motivate and give the direction to‘the youths in ways that adults define as delinquent (England, 1960: Coleman, 1961: Glaser, 1971). In short, the more the youths interact exclusively with each other, the more their values and norms become different from those of adults (Glaser, 1971). The more they conform to these values and norms of their own culture, the more likely they are to become delinquent by the hedonistic, irresponsible characteristics of youth culture. Wiatrowski et al. (1981) noted that dating was strongly related to delinquency, by reporting that those boys who dated more often were involved in a greater extent with delinquency. Agnew (1984) also found that the frequency of dating and smoking had an significant relationship to delinq smoke AustiI asser aloco signi addit SmokI more than (198 act: Sean; ting: Sfldcfl 383 50c Var an: Edgc Dre t11€ SSE 1\lt 1:1: the 32 delinquency, meaning that those who date more often and smoke more cigarettes are more likely to become delinquent. Austin (1980) provides an additional support for this assertion by reporting that smoking cigarettes, drinking alocoholic beverages, dating, and riding around in cars had significant Gamma coefficients with delinquency. In addition, West and Farrington (1977) reported that the heavy smoker, drinker, gambler, drug abuser, and those who are more sexually active were more likely to become delinquent than their respective counterparts. Elliott and Morse (1985) also reported the relationships between sexual activity and delinquency, meaning that those who are more sexually active are more likely to become delinquent..All these findings suggest that some features of youth culture such as smoking, dating, and drinking are significantly associated with delinquency. INTERGENERATIONAL CONFLICT: As discribed above, the social separation of the youth from the adult world for the various reasons results in the cultural differentiation among the two groups (Glaser, 1971). Yoths come to interact exclusively with each other, reject the adult standards, press for their autonomy, and develop unusual regards for the underdog (Coleman, 1974). They eventually develop a separate set of their own cultural values and norms. Although they are still under the constant control of and influenced by the demands and expectations of their adults, the youth culture itself is such as to create the frictions and tensions between the youths and the adults such as the gene] diffe theiI type: out i that hedo 1978 cult PrOd gene Cont San, and 33 generation gap in which parents and adults represent different subcultures once the youths develop and involve in their own.subculture (Gibbons, 1970). Since the dominant types of youth culture activities such as drinking, staying out late, gambling, smoking, and engaging in sex are things that were somewhat unknown to the adult generations in the hedonistic moments of their own adolescent periods.(Empey, 1978), the adult generations can not understand those youth cultural activities. In this sense, the generation gap is produced by the effective socialization of the next generation into a new value system, since there exist the conflicts between preserving the traditional culture and preparing the emerging culture (Acock, 1984). i According to Sellin (1938), some behaviors considered normative by one culture sometimes constitute deviant behaviors when viewed from the other culture. The divergency between different cultures constitutes the contributing factors concerning delinquency among some subcultural populations (French, 1977). For instance, some adolescent behaviors are considered deviant just because adults simply do not approve of those behaviors (Hoffman, 1984). Host developing countries including Korea have experienced the rapid increase in youth crime. Gibbens and Ahrenfeldt (1971) attributed this increase in delinquency in both Taiwan and Japan to the social tension between the generations as affected by the importation of foreign ideas and customs from the west. Coupled with the influence of 3A mass media, the better education and subsequent better English ability and better economic conditions for the youths produce the groups of western oriented youths. Furthermore, in general, the youths are quick to accept the new cultures while the adults are slow to accept them and even reluctant to change at all. The youths with western stereotypes may be in a state of rebellion against or at least conflict with their traditional parents. 2) SOCIAL CONTROL VARIABLES As discussed in previous chapters, delinquency occurs only when both the freedom to deviate and the motivation to commit delinquent acts are simultaneously combined together. The freedom to deviate is one of the critical elements of delinquency producing processes. That is, the freedom to deviate is a necessary though insufficient condition for delinquency to occur. It is assumed that delinquency begins with this freedom to deviate. Without this freedom to deviate, an individual can never commit delinquent acts no matter how much he is motivated to commit delinquent acts. This freedom to deviate is hypothesized to result primarily from social control variables. According to social control theory, this freedom to deviate is made possible or obtained by the absence or at least lack of restraints en individualls behaviors, which become available by the weakened or loosened attachment to conventional institutions such as family and school. INADEQUATE FAMILM ENVIRONMENT: The theoretical literature on the relationships between the family and 35 delinquency focuses on how problematic characteristics of the family are causally related to delinquency. The evidence that the family plays a critical role in delinquency is one of the strongest and most frequently replicated findings in delinquency research (Gove and Clutchfield, 1982). Since it is believed that the family is the most important socializing agency for the youths, most researchers consider its structure, dynamics, and characteristics as significant causal variables (Gibbons, 1976: Sandhu, 1977: Trojanowicz, 1978). Like many other studies which focus on multiple influences of family variables on delinquency (McCord, 1979: Johnstone, 1978, 1980: Canter, 1982), inadequate family environment in this study reflects such family elements as family integration or cohesiveness, family normlessness or criminality, broken home, and socioeconomic disadvantages of family. According to DeVoss (1980), family interaction is a very telling differentiation in terms of relationship between the family and delinquency. Regardless of economic circumstances or other difficulties, strong family cohesion leads to the expression of affection toward the children and more proper forms of descipline and supervision, which all are the most -critical factors associated with delinquency. In the case that a boy finds the sufficient capacity to draw the strength from his family relationship, he will not tend to develop either negative, hostile or antisocial attitudes or deviant behaviors. Based on his studies in Japan and Italy, 36 DeVoss (1980) empirically supports his above mentioned arguments. In Japan, none of nondelinquent families but 35 percent of delinquent families were rated as unintegrated or lacking in cohesion. In Italy, 31 out of 45 delinquent families but one nondelinquent family showed noncohesion. In his research, Rutter (1977) argues that tension and disagreement among family members lead to more negative feelings which in turn leads to the conflict between family members. In summarizing the relationships between the family and delinquency, Rutter and Giller (1983) note that frequent and prolonged quarreling, family discord, expressed hostility and negative feelings between family members, and rejecting attitudes toward children all contribute to delinquency. However, of more importance is negative and unpleasant family atmosphere. According to DeVoss (1980), delinquency is inversely related to the bonds or attachments within the family and to the ties to the family. In sum, it seems that the internal pattern of family interaction is more important than family structure. In addition, some consider both the lack of joint family leisure activities and the lack of intimate communication as contributing to delinquency. Gold (1963), Johnstone (1978, 1980), and West and Farrington(1973) related the family that is not sharing in joint activities during their leisure time to delinquency. Some others indicate the lack of intimate communication between child and parents as another contributing factor. According to this argument, children may not talk over their plans or problems with their 37 parents (Hirschi, 1969: Rutter et al., 1976). Or their parents may not typically explain the rules or help their children to understand things questioned. Consequently, parents feel that they can not get through to their children and children feel that they are not a part of their family. As far as family normlessness or criminality is concerned, the focal concerns are such social difficulties as excessive drinking and criminality among family members. It is believed that families with such problems provide less satisfactory pattern of upbrining and manifest a model of delinquent behavior. Canter (1982) provides an empeirical support for this line of argument, by reporting that family normlessness has the highest correlation of a number of family variables with all types of delinquent acts across sex. Almost every empirical study on this subject indicates that boys with criminal father acquire more delinquency records than boys with noncriminal father (West and Farrington, 1973). They claimed that criminality in either parents much increased the risk of delinquency in children. In their study, Robins et al. (1975) also confirmed this finding by reporting that 45 percent of the sons of criminal fathers but only 9 percent of the sons of noncriminal fathers were delinquents. Farrington et al. (1975) also found that among their sample of white working class urban families, 39.5 percent of the sons of fathers with more than 'two convictions but only 8.4 percent of the sons of father wit cri PM and del cri pat ins wit Pd]: cot Of! the GIL Sir de] fir res SCa del and 38 with no conviction were recidivists. In addition to family criminality, negative parental behavior (Gordon, 1979), physically aggressive parents (Walters and Grusec, 1977), and alcohol abuse (DeVoss, 1980) also attributed to delinquency in children. Therefore, it is not only family criminality but also persistent social difficulties, pathological behaviors, and incompetence in social and institutional behaviors that are significantly associated with delinquency. Based on the assumption that physical separation of parents is related to the expression of love and family cohesion and to some forms of negative social attitudes of .offsprings, a number of study indicated that broken home is the most significant predictor of delinquency since the Gluecks (1950). Broken home, defined mostly as a home with single parent is associated with the higher rate of delinquency. The reason that this is the most consistent finding is because it is true for official delinquency research (Glueck and Glueck, 1950: Rosen, 1970: Datesman and Scarpetti, 1975; Norland et al., 1979), for unofficial delinquency research (Nye, 1958: Berger and Simon, 1974), and for official and unofficial conbined delinquency research (Empey and Lubeck, 1971). Many theorists assume that the actual breaking up of the home is preceded by other family variables associated with delinquency such as disruption, disorganization, and tension. The break up of family, therefore, is associated with delinquency (Porter and O'Leary, 1980: Hetherington et al., 1979: Hess and 39 Camera, 1979: Walterstein and Kelly, 1980)..After the Gluecks found that the higher proportion of delinquents are from homes typified by parental separation, numerous studies compared broken homes vs intact homes in terms of delinquency rate (Andrew, 1976: Datesman and Scarpetti, 1975). Recently, Canter (1982), and Save and Clutchfield (1982) provided additional empirical supports in their respective studies. According to them, broken homes are necessarily followed by economic hardship, loss of some affections, loss of proper role models necessary for socialization, and fewer barriers to the development of friendship with delinquents. According to Canter (1982), youths from broken homes engage in significantly more delinquent acts. Gove and Clutchfield (1982) also note that boys from broken homes or homes with.poor marital relationship exhibit higher rates of delinquency. After reviewing 15 studies done between 1932 and 1975 in the same field, Rosen and Neilson (1978) noted the association between the broken home and male delinquency. Since the early days of delinquency research, there has been widespread controversy about the relationship between social class and delinquency. Many self-reported studies have found that delinquency is unrelated or very slightly related to one's social class position (Berger and Simon, 1974: Williams and Gold, 1972: Kelly and Pink, 1973: Frease, 1973: Gold and Reimer, 1974: Elliott and Voss, 1974: Hirschi, 1969: Backman et al., 1978: Johnson, 1979: Krohn et al” 198 between Titt publish and del negatix IDIII'porI a myth field, social less De diffs socii Agar. bet“ maix aSsI Soc, din ArI 19 ‘9: E4 40 al., 1980), while recent British data shows some association between social status and delinquency (Wadsworth, 1979) Tittle et al. (1978), in their review of earlier published findings on the relationship between social class and delinquency from 1941 to 1977, found only a slight negative association between the two and concluded that the purported inverse relationship between the two variables is a myth. However, Braithwaite (1981), reviewing the same field, argued that most studies have found some link between social class and delinquency, even though the link has been less strong than expected. Despite the controversy, evidence suggests that the difference in delinquency rate may aplly to the extremes of social class distributions (Wadsworth, 1979: Elliott and Ageton, 1980). That is, there is a modest association between low social status and delinquency, which applies mainly at the extremes of social scale. Even though the association is moderate, it is meaningful in terms that social status measures may overlap greatly with other family dimensions such as parental or family characteristics which are associated with delinquency (Rutter et al., 1982: West, 1982: Wilson and Herbert, 1978). Social class status predisposes to delinquency mainly because of its adverse effects on the parents (Farrington, 1979), such that jparental disorders and difficulties are more likely to develop and that good parenting is impeded.(Rutter and (Siller, 1983). Therefore, it is assumed that most of this modest association between social class and delinquency is rI fa a: in 19 an Ch. sig 197 ass bet del atte Con: mgrE find lack and a AI due in part to the parental and family problems associated with low social status rather than to low social status per se. There is a chain of adversities which leads to child through parents. ATTACHMENT TO PARENTS: According to social control theorists, a lack of attachment to conventional others means that youths are isolated from or unable to obtain sufficient rewards for conformity in socializing agencies such as family and school. To the extent that youths have close and rewarding relationships with their conventional others, they are less likely to endanger those relationships by engaging in delinquent activities (Conger, 1980: Elliott and Voss, 1974: Hindelang, 1973: Hirschi, 1969: Johnson, 1979: Linden and Heckler, 1973). For most social control theorists, however, the parent- child relationship is the first, if not foremost, significant variable in explaining delinquency (Johnson, 1979). According to Hirschi (1969), attachment to parents assumes that the quality and strength of the relationship between a child and parents will have an impact on the delinquency of a child. Hirschi assumes that when parental attachment is strong, parental value, which is assumed to be conventional and therefore a deterent to delinquency, can be more readily acceptable by a child. Based on his emprirical findings, Hirschi concluded that delinquency increases with .lack.of parental communications, sympathy and supervision, and absence of adult role model. A few years later, 42 Hindelang (1976) replicated HirschiIs study and confirmed accordingly again. Ever since Hirschifls study, virtually every self-reported delinquency study provides additional empirical supports for Hirschils findings by reporting that the children least likely to report their delinquent acts are those who feel loved, who identify with their parents, and who respect their parents' wishes (Hindelang, 1973: Johnson, 1979: Schoenberg, 1975). On the contrary, the children most likely to report their delinquent acts are those whose attachments to parents are weak (Hirschi, 1969: Norland et al., 1979). All this evidence suggest that there is an inverse relationship between attachment to parents and delinquency (Hirschi, 1969: Hagan and Simpson, 1978: Hindelang, 1973: Jensen and Eve, 1976: Linden, 1978: Linden and Filmore, 1981: Linden and Hackler, 1973: Datesman and Scarpetti, 1975: Austin, 1978: Conger, 1976; Hepburn, 1976: Poole and Regoli, 1979: Wiatrowski et.al., 1981: Thompson et al., 1984: Agnew, 1984: Krohn and Massey, 1980) and further indicate that the quality of parent-child relationship is one of the most relevant variable to an understanding of delinquency (Jensen and Rojek, 1980: Empey, 1982). ATTACHMENT TO SCHOOL: Since education has come to occupy a significant place in the lives of children for prolonged period of time, the school has commanded much attention of an ever increasing number of young people (Jensen and Rojek, 1980)..As a result, school has emerged as a primary socializing institution. School performs the function of educati roles V and Kai strong conven social For t) Value; Proce conve With nOrm are low fee' the IEI on; 43 education, socialization, and preparation for adult social roles which previously occured within the family'(Smelser and Halpern, 1978: Wiatrowski et al., 1981). People with strong ties to school are most likely to socialize into conventional society and to have the most to lose upon being socially identified as a delinquent (Liska and Reed, 1985). For those youths, school has a socializing function in which values are reinforced and school reprersents a primary group process in which socialization occurs in a successful, conventional social institution. On the other hand, those with weak ties are least likely to internalize conventional norms and values and to have the least to lose even if they are being identified as delinquents because of their present low school status (Kelly and Pink, 1973). Those youths may feel that they will not succeed in school. Once they realize their failure in school, they may consequently develop low regard for school, which in turn leads them to engage in out-of-school activities. In terms of empirical evidence, most studies are supportive of the assertion that school-related variables have an impact on delinquency. Since Toby (1957) reported that those who fail in school are major catalysts in the production of delinquency, a number of studies reported the negative relationship between school-related variables such as grades, attitudes toward school, and academic competence and delinquency (Hindelang, 1973: Kelly and Pink, 1973: Polk et al., 1974: Elliott and Voss, 1974: Polk and Schafer, 1972: and S Hirsc 1981: Liska Hind A. SCho (Hir Sch: fitta Per in Sch C01: Inn 19‘ #4 1972: Jensen and Eve, 1976: Linden and Filmore, 1977: Hagan and Simpson, 1978: Rankin, 1976: Korhn and Massey, 1980: Hirschi, 1969: Backman et al., 1978: Wiatrowski et al., 1981: Agnew, 1984: Robbins, 1984: Menard and Morse, 1984: Liska and Reed, 1985: Johnson, 1979; Empey and Lubeck, 1971; Hindelang et al., 1981). According to social control theory, the broken tie to sChool represents the insensitivity to conventionality (Hirschi, 1969: Shover et al., 1979). If children do well in school, the chances are greater that they will become attached to school. In contrast, if they donrt, their poor performance in school will lead to a dislike of school which in turn will lead to delinquency. Those who do poorly in school reduce their interests in school and are free to commit delinquent acts to the extent that they are uncommitted, unattached, and uninvolved in school (HirsChi, 1969). In sum, delinquents are least likely to do well in school, to get good grades, to enjoy school, to aspire to higher education, and even to be in school, but they are most likely to reject school authority. 3.SOCIAL LEARNING VARIABLES Social learning theorists assume that individuals are constantly being modified in accordance with the expectations and points of views of others with whom they interact (Empey, 1982). They presume that delinquency is the result of a direct socialization to deviance (Elliott et al., 1985). That is, delinquency is a consequence of learning in intimate association with others (Hindelang et al” 191 that th Sine convenI as wel indivi the ty membe delinI the 1 case inte] and 1 rewa deli CODI few. SOC All of Q). 45 al., 1981). It is from this ongoing process of interaction that the motive for delinquency arises. Since society is not organized by a monolithic set of conventional values, individuals are all exposed to deviant as well as conventional values (Empey, 1982). Whether or not individuals become delinquent, therefore, depends largely on the type of group with which they interact, because the ‘membership in delinquent group and consequent learning of delinquent beliefs, attitudes, and rationalizations provide the individuals with the motives for delinquent acts. In case that individuals observe and learn in group interactions that some delinquent behaviors are encouraged and rewarded by the group, and that their anticipated rewards outweigh the potential costs associated with their delinquent behaviors, such individuals are more likely to commit those delinquent behaviors from which they anticipate rewards. ' In this sense, it is generally argued that the concept of social learning implies both an interactive and a normative dimension (Krohn et al., 1985). When they ranked each subset of variables in terms of relative effectiveness in explaining variance in alcohol and marijuana use, Akers et al. (1979) found that differential association was ranked first, followed by delinquent definitions. Among all the variables included in their study, differential peer association variable was the most important single Predictor, followed by one's positive/negative definitions of alcol definit study 0 order c behavi< import study, delinc DE' in de comm and ‘ deli ass< inc var the wh IS A6 of alcohol and marijuana use and one's law-abiding/violating definitions. Johnson (1979) reports similar results from his study on delinquency among high school students. The rank order of the total causal effects of variables on delinquent behavior revealed that delinquent associates is of primary importance, followed by delinquent values. The present study, therefore, will employ both delinquent associates and delinquent definitions in the model. DELINQUENT ASSOCIATES: One of the most common observation in delinquency study is that delinquent acts are typically committed by adolescents in the company of peers (Hansell and Wiatrowski, 1981). Based on the assertion that delinquency is a consequence of learning in intimate association with others, many delinquency studies have included the delinquency of friends as a primary predictor variable (Hindelang et al., 1981). It is generally believed that primary groups provide the major social context in which all of the learning variables operate (Krohn et a1" 1985). That is, delinquent social groups provide the settings in which delinquent motives, attitudes, and rationalizations are learned, delinquent beahviors are modeled, and social rewards are provided for those delinquent behaviors (Krohn, 1978: Jensen and Rojek, 1980: Elliott et al., 1985). All these studies indicate that delinquents are exposed to more modeling of delinquency by their friends and this mixing with their delinquent friends makes them more likely to commit delinquent acts (Hirschi, 1969: Knight and West, 1975: Schoenberg, 1975: Conger, 1976; Jense 1977, BrenI Gree 1978 1975 1971 198 Mea The a1 te q: 47 Jensen and Eve, 1976: Hepburn, 1977: Jessor and Jessor, 1977, Meier and Johnson, 1977: West and Farrington, 1977: Brennan et al., 1978, Farrel and Nelson, 1978: Ginsberg and Greenly, 1978: Johnstone, 1978: Kandel, 1978: Kandel et al., 1978: Jensen and Erickson, 1978: Liska, 1978: Akers et al., 1979: Johnson, 1979: Knowles, 1979: Andrews and Kandel, 1979: Jensen and Rojek, 1980: Figueira-McDonough et al., 1981: Hindelang et al., 1981: Jessor, 1981: Johnstone, 1981: Meade and Marsden, 1981: Gottfredson, 1982: Matsueda, 1982: Thompson et al., 1982: LaGrange and White, 1985: Elliott at al., 1985: Segrave and Hastad, 1985). Conger (1976) noted that delinquent acts by juveniles tend to reflect the same acts by friends, by reporting the greatest coefficient between delinquent acts friends committed and self-reported delinquency by respondents. Conger concluded that peers are having a direct influence on the types of acts which.adolescent friends commit either through observational or direct reinforcement process. Johnson (1979) provides an additional support for this finding..According to him, delinquent associates were the best substantiated of all delinquency predictors. The rank order of the total causal effects of his variables on delinquency revealed that delinquent associates were the strongest predictor. The sum of all direct and indirect path coefficients of each of the prior variables on delinquency also indicated that delinquent associates had the greatest influence on the total delinquent behaviors. effe vari of e invc del. the lik boy lil al. DELINQUENCY TO PARENTS ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 In terms of the relationship between parental attachment and deli argued t definiti attenuaI normles reporte Patter: model . delinq seen i Atta Pim dac‘ is: re} fie 58 and delinquent definitions, Sutherland and Cressey (1974) argued that parental attachment is a source of moral definitions. Elliott and Voss (1974) also postulated that attenuated initial commitment to conventionality results in normlessness which permits delinquency. Matsueda (1982) also reported the correlation between both maternal and parternal attachments and moral values. In this sense, the model proposes the paths from attachment to parents to delinquent definitions and then to delinquent involvement as seen in Fihure 3 . ATTACHMENT —9 DELINQUENT -——> DELINQUENCY TO PARENTS DEFINITIONS FIGURE 3 ' As depicted in Fihure 4, with regard to the path from attachment to school to delinquent associates, Kelly and Pink (1973) insisted that as the level of commitment decreases, boys are more likely to go with their friends and associate with those who misbehave in school. Johnson (1979) reported that the paths from attachment to school to delinquent associates and then to delinquency involvement in his path analytic model for both white male and total sample. The present model, therefore, proposes the paths from attachment to school to delinquent associates and then to delinquency involvement. arses: ——9 sagas: —-> We FIGURE 4 Ke schoc setc comm trou that rev: cor: In pat del 59 Kelly and Pink (1973) postulated that those who failed in school are more likely to become committed to an opposing set of classroom values. Those who have the low levels of commitment are much more likely to associate with troublesome students, because those with a value system that runs counter to the dominant classroom values can be rewarded. Krohn and Massey (1980) reported the correlationship between school attachment and moral values. In terms of causal order, however, Johnson (1979) found the paths from attachment to school to delinquent values to delinquent behavior as diagrammed in Figure 5. ATTACHMENT ——-9 DELINQUENT —-90ELINQUENCY TO SCHOOL DEFINITIONS FIGURE 5 Even though there is a consensus that there exists the strong relationship between delinquent association and delinquent definitions, causal priority between these two variables is not clearcut but controversial. According to Sutherland and Cressey (1974), the ties to persons are just the means by which normative definitions are learned. Socialization by the group of persons appears to attenuate the influence of personal moral evaluations on behavior but not reverse them (Jensen and Brownfield, 1983). Intimate associations cause person to hold particular attitudes (Thompson et al., 1984). Because delinquent behavior is learned in intimate groups, peer relationships have an impact on learning the definitions of the legal 60 codes. In other words, delinquent friends transmit definitions favorable to delinquency (Matsueda, 1982). Association with persons assumed to embrace attitudes and beliefs favorable to the violations of the law is positively associated with the embracement of such attitudes and beliefs. The probability of embracing definitions favorable to the law violation increases with the increase in the number of delinquent friends. Association with delinquent peers is assumed to lead more exposure to definitions favorable to the law violation. In.addition, in terms of the chronicle life experience or development of youth, it is plausible that the prime causal effect is from delinquent association to delinquent definitions. The state of adolescence is not the end product in life. Adolescents are in the process of development. They have not internalized their value systems completely yet. Moreover, their peer groups are the most significant socializing agents and have the most significant influence on their lives. For most youths, it is a dissonant state to associate with delinquent friends while disapproving of their delinquency; However, it is much easier to change their views on the acceptability of delinquent acts than to discard their delinquent friends for another. This line of argument leads us to suggest the path from delinquent association to delinquent definition. Johnson (1979) reports the paths from delinquent association to delinquency through the effect of delinquent valu4 sampl also grou alco mar: (191 and ass ab: de: 8U 61 values in his path model for white males and for the total sample which included both males and females. Jaquith (1981) also confirmed this path, by reporting the paths from peer group use of alcohol and drug via respondents' definition of alcohol and marijuana use to respondents' use of alcohol and marijuana. In his comments on the study by Akers et al. (1979), Strickland (1982) estimated the path coefficients and reported the direct paths from differential peer association to neutralization definition, law- abiding/violating definition, and positive/negative definitions of alcohol and drug use. Thompson et al. (1984) suggested that delinquent associates influence violence partly through its influence on beliefs. / DELINQUENT ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT \ DELINQUENCY TO PARENT ATTACHMENT DELINQUENT TO SCHOOL 9 DEFINITIONS FIGURE 6 As diagrammed in Figure 6, the model suggests that the most proximate variable Should be either or both delinquent associates and dalinquent definitions, which are mediated by prior conventional bonds to the family and school. The model proposes that attachment to parents directly affects both delinquent associates and delinquent definitions or indirectly affect both variables through attachment to school. Delinquent associates directly affect both del inquc affect I definit on deli definii associ Alt conver PrOdut the 5 Yet t not ¢ atta. neck the env; Var Cor am 62 delinquent behavior and delinquent definitions which in turn affect delinquent behavior. The model where both delinquent definitions and delinquent associates have direct effects on delinquency and delinquent associates affect delinquent definitions which in turn nediates the effect of delinquent associates on delinquency is suggested. Although the model has postulated the importance of conventional attachment in relation to the mechanism that produces the motivation to deviate so far, what determines the strength of conventional attachment is another question yet to be answered. In other words, the proposed model does not explain why some people are unattached while others are attached. For this reason, the model is expanded to include mechanism which makes people unattached. For this purpose, the model considers one exogenous, inadequate family environment, and one endogenous, intergenerational conflict, variable as affecting attachment to parents which is conducive to delinquent associates, delinquent definitions, and even attachment to school. INADEQUATE FAMILY ENVIRONMENT INTERGENERATIONAL "Jr CONFLICT NAHACHME TO PARENTS FIGURE 7 As depicted in Figure 7, inadequate family environment and intergenerational conflict are seen as the primary causes of weak conventional attachment to parents. Both ‘variables have direct effects on attachment to parents. The variable inadequate family environment is added to 63 represent the portion determining the crucial degrees of attachment to parents. Being from the family with an inadequate environment such as one characterized by low social class, family criminality or normlessness, family disorganization or uncohesion, and broken home is assumed to affect negatively the child's chances for receiving affection from parents. Some control theorists postulate that the content of socialization by the family is uniformly conventional but the variation is in how well the socialization process works (Kornhauser, 1978). Parents vary in their ability or skill for adequately socializing their children or there can be variations in social conditions and circumstances that affect the socialization of child. For example, parents with inadequate family environment may fail to earn the respect of the child. The child'with this inadequate family environment is less willing to respect his parents but rather more willing to accuse, them. Accordingly, he is less willing to attach himself to his parents who are failures by society"s success measures, since such a family, therefore, can not control their children. According to Mortimer (1976), the socialization process is facilitated by a closer father-child attachment, which in turn is dependent upon the father's perceived power or ability to manipulate rewards that are meaningful to the Child. With regard to the development of parental attachment, the parent-child relationship is foremost and essential, gc in bi at' CO! at f gre. Chi: 64 because this relationship reflects the way the child feels he is treated by his parents. In other words, attachment to parents is gained through the child's personal relationship and experience with his parents. His relationship and experience with his parents based on mutual understanding, acceptance, support, and respect through intimate mutual interaction with his parents is believed to enhance the amount of parental attachments 0n the contrary, the existence of any conflict, disparity, and difficulty between parents and child may lead to mutual rejection and then to the alienation or isolation of child from his parents. As result, he is doomed to be unattached to his parents. A child who is well treated by his parents with fairness, kindness, respect, understanding, and affection may feel good about his parents. He may invest himself emotionally in his relationship with his parents which in turn leads him to understand his parents better and thus be more attached to his parents. Therefore, this intergenerational conflict is a major cause of parental attachment. In general it has been assumed that the greater the affection, naurture, and.support shown by parents, the greater the likelihood of attachment between parents and child. Hirschi (1969) reports that delinquency increases with lack of parental communication and sympathy. Nye (1958) reached very similar conclusion that rejection by the parents is highly correlated with rejection by the child. In their study, Watters and Stinnett (1971) also indicated that warm, accepting, and understanding parent-child relationship is 1 rec! lilo lov var to CO! YC on 0t? de we th th 19 80. Chi 65 is related to child's conventional attachment. Most recently, Johnson (1979) reported that a child is more likely to attach himself to his parents who show him greater love, concern, and respect. Finally, the model is expanded to explain such mechanism that produces the intergenerational conflict. Two exogenous variables, youth culture and detraditionalization, are added to represent the factors affecting the intergenerational conflict as diagrammed in Figure 8. OUTH CULTURE \) NTERGENERATIONAL CONFLICT ETRADITIONALIZATION / FIGURE 8 As depicted in the model, two exogenous variables, Youth culture and Detraditionalization, are correlated with each other. Furthermore, both youth culture and . detraditionalization in Korea are mainly seen as being westernized or western patterns. Some people might say that the emergence of youth culture is both the consequence and the cause of the conflict between traditional concepts and the ever-increasing western impact (Gibbens and Ahrenfeldt, 1971). In most developing countries including Korea, the sociocultural gulf between adolescents and adults are apparent and tends to increase due to the rapid social changes. The traditional agencies of socialization and social control tend to break down under the influence of noderniza‘ lengthenec increased kept in s to exclue to share of a rel adult cu mltUre to the . for Exa traditj Obedie] for We being. betwe. Youth seeki adul. unac dons an. and 911 St Ce 66 ‘modernization (Gibbons, 1970). Furthermore, due to the much lengthened periods of cumpulsary education and the much increased need for higher education, most youngsters are kept in school for most of times..As a result, youths tend to exclusively interact with youths their own.age. They come to share a common set of interests, symbols, and attitudes of a relatively separate culture divorced from prevailing adult cultural patterns (Gibbons, 1970). This new youth culture contains the strong elements of explicit opposition to the prevailing adult culture (Flacks, 1971). In Korea, for example, parents are still emotionally committed to the traditional confucian virtues of absolute respect and obedience and spiritual well being while youths opt more for western values of pragmatism.and materialistic well being, Such a youth culture creates frictions and tensions between the generations. Because most dominant forms of youth culture such as drinking, dating, and fun and pleasure seeking are acts that were not known and acceptable to adults in their adolescent periods, those acts are unaceeptable for adults and acts that adults can not or don't want to understand (Empey, 1978). Therefore, there exists a conflict between preserving the traditional culture and preparing for the emerging culture. For instance, the groups of youths with western oriented culture are in a state of rebellion against their traditional parents who can not understand their youth culture and themselves but rather insist on their traditional culture more (Gibbens and 67 Ahrenfeldt, 1971). The generation gap is poduced by the effective socialization of the next generation into a new value system (Acock, 1984). According to the Miller et al. (1983), therefore, about half of even American parents of teens have a negative attitudes toward teens. Furthermore, about one-fourth of them have negative attitudes toward even their own teenage children. (INSERT FIGURE 9 ABOUT HERE) Modeling the causal order is now complete. The model is based on numerous theoretical writings and empirical findings. It incorporates various qcausal processes from diverse theoretical perspectives and integrates them into a single path diagram as depicted in Figure 9. The model centers around the integration of social control, social learning, and cultural deviance perspectives. In sum, according to the model proposed in this study, it is assumed that those youths who are more detraditionalized and/or more committed to youth culture are more likely to have conflicts between themselves and their parents. Those who experience intergenerational conflicts and/or inadequate family environment are expected to become less attached to their parents which in turn leads them to become less attached to school. Those who are unattached either or both to parents and school are more free to deviate and more likely to be socialized into delinquency learning situations. They are more likely to associate with peers who are also disillusioned with the same experience and/or hold " ll.- ‘izll 4.202 Ile -.<».,D<..mo.. QMWClOIU .5: ’(liltitl’. III III A. 3‘3: x- a zo_h_z_mmo_h Ill booxum 0h Al pzuaoz_amo ezmzzu<:mm zo_h ozaomuxuS_zUZUDOZ. due m:o.:wm E IL i F PU MI. LEC MOP. >UZODOthkO mlctthm TI 0 T 97 TABLE 4 : CROSSTABULATIONS AMONG 3 DELINQUENCY CLUSTERS(N=533) HEDONISTIC DELINQUENCY LESS THAN MORE THAN ONCE MORE THAN TOTALS ONCE LESS THAN TNICE TNICE 94.6 8 54.8% 29.5% 8h.8% LESS THAN ONCE (“17) (17) ('8) (452) >. 22’ MORE THAN ONCE 3.22. 22.6% 32.8% 7.72. g LESS THAN TNICE (1h) (7) (20) (111) Z ‘3 ‘5‘ MORE THAN TWICE 2.32. 22.6% 37.7% 7.52. .3 (10) (7) (23) (110) 52 g TOTALS 100.12 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (491) (31) (61) (533) 78 = 200.11 P _é, .001 GENERAL DELINQUENCY LESS THAN MORE THAN ONCE MORE THAN ONCE LESS THAN TWICE TNICE TOTALS LESS THAN ONCE 99.0% 92.9% 51.9% 8h.8% i; (298) (78) (76) (#52) 33 g; MORE THAN ONCE ' 12 n.82 23.0% 7.7% :3 LESS THAN TNICE (3) (A) (3A) (hl) t3 é’ MORE THAN NICE 0% 2.11% 25.72 7 5% 3; (0) (2) (38) (#0) Lu W . . ,. . , . .................. TOTALS 100.0% 100.1% 100.1% 100.0% (301) (84) (148) (533) I :XI = 181.A P g .001 r E (J . E a sh. S nun. TI AI); E HU O 141., I. Mn T1 O.Hm_zoam: >UZM302- JUC HEDONISTIC DELINQUENCY 98 GENERAL DELINQUENCY LESS THAN MORE THAN ONCE MORE THAN TOTALS ONCE LESS THAN TWICE TWICE ' LESS THAN ONCE 98.02 88.52 50.72 82.72 (295) (71) (75) (44)) MORE THAN ONCE 1.34 9.5% 12.8% 5.8% LESS THAN TwICE (A) (8) (I9) (31) MORE THAN TwICE 0.74 6.0% 36.5% 11.h% (2) (5) (Sh) (61) TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ' ' (301) (811) (1118) (533) 711- 165.7 Pé .001 also avera comm: on th had C avera less avera commi avera commi averag SeriOI respo; averag commi1 0n the I'IEdon 1 “5130111 dVerag‘ In a Serious serious verSa. , del in cm have a: bed°nist 99 also committed hedonistic delinquency more than twice on the average and 38 respondents reported that they had also committed less serious general delinquency more than twice on the average. Among 61 respondents who reported that they had committed hedonistic delinquency more than twice on the average, 54 of them admitted that they had also committed less serious general delinquency more than twice on the average, while only 23 of them reported that they had also committed serious delinquency more than twice on the average. Of those 148 respondents who reported having committed less serious delinquency more than twice on the average, 76 respondents admitted that they had committed serious delinquency less than once while only 38 respondents reported having committed more than twice on the average. Among those 148 respondents who reported having committed less serious general delinquency more than twice on the average, 75 respondents admitted having committed hedonistic delinquency less than once while just 54 respondents reported having committed more than twice on the average. In sum, the results indicate that those who commit more serious delinquent acts are also more likely to commit less serious as well as hedonistic delinquent acts, but not vice Versa. Although those who admitted having committed serious delinquency more than twice on the average were found to have also committed less serious general delinquency and hedonistic delinquency more than twice, those who reported 100 having committed less serious general and hedonistic delinquency more than twice were not more likely to be involved in serious delinquency. In addition, although those who had committed hedonistic delinquency more than twice were more likely to have also committed less serious general delinquency more than twice, a majority of those who had committed less serious general delinquency more than.twice admitted.having committed hedonistic delinquency less than once. Therefore, it may be said that most of those who commit more serious delinquency do commit other less serious delinquency as well, while most of those who commit only less serious delinquency do not usually commit more serious delinquency. VIIII.CAUSAL ANALYSIS 1. OVERVIEW As discussed earlier, the cluster analysis revealed the existence of three major different subtypes of delinquent behavior. This finding seems to be supported by some theorists' conclusion about the independence of different types of offenses. According to this assumption, some people may steal while others may destroy or assault. Arnold (1969) argued that theft, vandalism, and assault are relatively independent and distinct types of behavior among his respondents. In this sense, it can be said that different people do different things. This suggests the existence of distinct dimension of delinquent acts. From this point of view, although it is believed that the proposed causal model would apply to all the different types of delinquent acts based on the assumption that any delinquent acts would be the illegal violations of rules, the possibility of differences in the causal processes . leading to distinct types of delinquent behavior should be considered. Consequently, this possibility is examined, along with the main analysis of causal model for the overall frequency index of 40 delinquent acts as a whole. 2. THE TEST OF ORIGINALLY PROPOSED CAUSAL MODEL Based on the assumption that the model may apply to all three different subtypes of delinquent behavior with at least similar efficiency, the three different subtypes of delinquent behavior produced by the cluster analysis were all put together in the frequency index. At this point, 101 102 therefore, the emphasis was put on why people violate the rules rather than on why some peOple steals while others destroy, simply because any acts are the violation of the rules, afterall. From this point of view, the first path analysis was run on a 40 item delinquency index score and its result is reported in Figure 10, along with Table 5. (INSERT FIGURE 10 AND TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE) As depicted in Figure 10, the model is fully recursive and thus all path coefficients were estimated with the traditional procedure of ordinary least squares. The hypothesized causal structure was tested by trying to predict the correlations not used in Figure 10 from those used. Table 5 illustrates the result of this test. Table 5a shows the actual correlations between the variables, Table 5b shows the correlations predicted by the model in Figure 10, and Table 5c shows the errors, which are calculated by actual correlations minus predicted correlations. According to the correlations matrix which was input into the path analysis, some variables used in the model are not highly correlated with each other, suggesting a weak direct causal relationship between the two variables. In addition, the path model showed that some path coefficients are extremely low, indicating the existence of extremely weak causal relationships at best for those variables. On the contrary, the high level of the sum of the squared error CL24) as shown at the bottom of Table 5c suggests that the tested . .-II". ll 1‘ .- .~ L l’ (.17 F- r11 0\ U1 _- KL") FIGURE 10 : 103 THE PROPOSED TOTAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL(PCCIHOIS OmittflI? YOUTH FAMILY BACKGROUND L) L! ATTACHMENT 1 To PARENTS___£1_;DELINQUENT CULTUREK 6% ASSOC IATIESY" INTER- GENERATION/\L w ()6 SEE/13%?” CONFLICT n ‘jh \V \l 0 DETRADITION- . ATTACHMENT ELINQUENT ALIZATION TO SCHOOL DEFINITION TABLE 5 : OBSERVED, PREDICTED, AND OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED TOTAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL A) OBSERVED SCALE CORRELATIOHS (:ccimals omitted) 1512131? 3 I 2 3 100 50 2 —51 A 50 (00 -IA -50 11 2 -IA 100 0 2 -51 -50 0 100 1 A7 33 22 -58 5 53 A9 -7 ~50 6 -A6 -31 11 26 9 -A3 -38 -3 28 12 01 8 0 -IA 1 5 97 53 3A 89 22 -7 -58 -50 100 33 33 100 -19 -31 -21 -29 111 28 100 29 413 9 12 -h3 A] -38 8 -3 O 28 -IA '21 IA -ZA 28 29 '93 100 '19 -19 100 104 B) PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) 3 A 11 2 I S 6 9 12 100 50 2 -51 3O 10 -6 -6 3 50 100 -1A -50 29 10 -6 -6 II 2 -IA 100 A -2 -1 O O 0 2 -51 -50 A 100 -58 -19 11 12 -5 1 3O 29 —2 -58 100 33 -19 -21 9 5 10 IO -1 -I9 33 100 -31 -2A IA 6 -6 -6 0 II -19 -31 100 29 -A3 9 -6 -6 0 12 -21 -2A 29 100 -I9 12 3 3 0 -5 9 1A -A3 -19 100 C) OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decima1s omitted) 3 A 11 2 I 5 6 9 12 3 0 0 0 O 17 A3 -A0 -37 38 A O 0 0 O 5 39 -25 -32 11 O O O -A 2A -6 II -3 0 2 O O -A O 0 -31 15 16 -9 1 17 5 2A 0 O O O 0 5 5 A3 39 -6 -31 0 O O 0 1A 6 -A0 -25 11 15 0 O 0 O 9 -37 -32 -3 16 O 0 O O O 12 38 5 0 -9 5 1A 0 0 'THE SUM OF SQUARED ERRORS IN THE LOWER TRIANGLE IS 1.237121 105 model simply doesn't fit the data well. Furthermore, Table 5c reveals that the several variables had a very high level of error, which indicates that there are important missing causal links. For example, the error level of 40 between cluster 5 (Attachment to school) and cluster 3 (Youth culture) indicates that there should be a causal link between the two variables, which is missing in the proposed model. Overall, the proposed model is not supported by the data obtained from selected Korean high school students. The fact that the proposed model based on American theories and findings of delinquency was not supported by the data for the present study is not unexpected. This finding may indicate that American theories and findings about delinquency as they are may not be fully valid and reliable and therefore applicable in explaining Korean delinquency at least among the current respondents. This result certainly leads us to suspect that there may be some differences between the two countries in explaining delinquency. It leads us to develop the alternative model that can fit the data and thus explain the particular patterns of delinquency among the sample Korean high school students. 3.3EST-FITTING ALTERNATIVE CAUSAL MODEL The development of alternative model was begun with looking at the Reordered R-Matrix which was corrected for attenuation. (INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE) 106 TABLE 6 : REOROERED R-MATRIX FOR 11 INDEPENDENT CLUSTERS AND TOTAL DELINQUENCY INDEX SCORE(CORRECTED FOR ATTENUATION)(N=533) I 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 100 2 -58 100 3 A7 -51 100 A 3A -50 50 100 5 33 -50 53 A9 100 6 -I9 26 -A6 -31 -31 100 7 -1A . 37 -68 -36 -A0 53 100 8 -5A 6A -55 ~33 -A7 .39 A8 100 9 -21 28 -A3 -38 -2A 29 31 39 100 10 12 -25 2A 17 28 -21 -15 -13 A 100 11 22 0 2 -1A -7 11 12 -8 -3 0 100 12 IA -IA AI 8 28 -A3 -53 -A0 =19 IO 0 100 * Decimals omitted 107 To begin with, cluster 10 (Family background) and cluster 11 (Confucian value orientation) were excluded from the further analysis simply because the two variables were not highly correlated with any of other remaining variables in the matrix, as depicted in Table 6. The data simply support the contention that social economic class (cluster 10) and traditional confucian values (cluster 11) are not salient factors in generating delinquent involvement whatsoever, either directly or even indirectly. The greatest nonsignificant correlation of family background was found with cluster 5 (Attachment to school), it is still too low (r=.28). In other words, there is the trace of evidence that if having inadequate family resources affects anything at all, the data suggests that it may predict the lower level of attachment to school. But the fact remains that very little evidence for any effect of both variables is found. With the two variables, family background and confucian values, excluded from the further analysis, the alternative model was developed based on the remaining 9 independent variables and one dependent variable. Based on the fact that the antecedent variable may affect the subsequent variable both directly and indirectly, both the Reordered R-Matrix and the results of the previous path analysis were utilized in developing the best fitting alternative model. Any assumed direct causal path was simply based on the strength of correlation reported in the R-Matrix. The direction of 108 causal link was based firstly on the conceptual relations and secondly on the result of the previous path analysis. And any indirect causal links were established based mostly on the error tables resulted from the previous path analysis. Since the high level of error between any two variables indicates the existence of missing causal link between those two variables, those causal links were included in the next trial model. On the contrary, those causal links with low path coefficients were excluded from the next analysis simply because the weak path coefficient means the weak causal relationship between the two related variables. In developing the best fitting path model, these procedures of trial and error were continuously conducted until the model emerged in a way that both individual and overall error level reported in the error table are lowest possible while no causal link with path coefficient of lower than..15 is detected. The result of modified alternative model is reported in Figure 11, along with Table 7. (FIGURE 11 AND TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE) As depicted in Table 6, the overall error level, sum of squared error, of .09 and individual error term were all extremely low, suggesting that there was no significant missing causal link in the model. In addition, all the path coefficients were at least higher than 15. Overall, it seems that the data support the model depicted in Figure 11. ATTACHMENT TO SCHOOL: According to the Reordered R- Matrix, it was found that Attachment to school is highly - udq. 109 FIGURE 11 : THE ALTERNATIVE TOTAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL(DecImaIs Omitted) OELINQUENT ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT V T0 PARENTS 9? ‘%3 )A‘ .1 DISCONTENT .10 NITH HOME/ YOUTH HANG OUTia’Z),SCHOOL / CULTURE~\\‘? \\\«E\\€%) q .1\ b.- 5 ELINQUENT ¢—- :3 //fi2 \ BEHAVIOR N NT ATTACHMENT INTER 3E::”?$EON //////”’/////;’ TO SCHOOL ENERATIONAL 1? CONFLICT '///// 76 .41 DETRADITIONA IZATION’// TABLE 7 : OBSERVED, PREDICTED, AND OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE TOTAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL A) OBSERVED SCALE CORRELATIOHS(DecImaIs omitted) u----—— u - REORDERED 5 3 R-MATRIX 5 3 S3 100 50 ~A3 ~51 A7 ~68 ~55 ~A6 A1 A A9 50 100 ~38 -50 3A ~36 ~33 -31 8 9 -2A ~A3 -38 100 28 ~21 31 39 29 -I9 2 -50 -SI -50 28 100 -S8 37 6A 26 -IA I 33 A7 3A -21 ~58 100 ~1A ‘SA -19 IA 7 -A0 -68’ ~36 31 37 -IA 100 A8 53 ~53 8 -A7 '55 '33 39 6A -5A A8 100 39 -A0 6 ~31 ~A6 ~31 29 26 -I9 53 39 100 ~A3 12 28 A1 8 ~19 ~1A 1A -53 -A0 ~A3 100 110 B) PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (DecimaIs omitted) 5 3 53 100 50 -A3 -51 A7 -68 -55 -A0 36 A A9 50 100 -38 ~50 35 ~31 -A1 -21 6 9 -28 -A3 ~38 100 27 ~23 29 39 20 ~16 2 -50 -51 -50 27 100 -58 27 61 23 -18 1 35 A7 35 ~23 '58 100 '1A '5A ~16 13 7 ~3A ~68 ~31 29 27 'IA 100 AA 52 '53 . 8 ~AO ~55 ~A1 39 61 ~5A AA 100 37 ~37 6 ~22 'AO ~21 20 23 '16 52 37 100 'AA 12 16 36 6 '16 ~18 13 '53 ~37 'AA 100 C) OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONSIDecimaIS omitted) 5 3 A 9 2 I 7 8 6 12 5 0 0 0 A O '2 '6 '7 '9 12 3 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 '6 A 0 0 O O O '1 '5 8 ~10 9 A O 0 0 1 2 2 0 9 '3 2 0 0 O 1 O 0 10 3 3 A 1 '2 0 '1 2 0 0 0 0 '3 1 7 '6 O '5 2 10 O 0 A 1 0 8 '7 0 8 O 0 A 0 2 '3 6 '9 '6 '10 9 '3 1 2 0 1 12 12 5 2 '3 A 1 0 '3 1 0 THE SUM OF SQUARED ERRORS IN THE LOWER TRIANGLE IS .0859028. 111 correlated with Intergenerational conflict (r=.50), Youth culture (r=.50), Detraditionalization (r=.49), and Discontent with home and school (r=-.47). Considering that doing well at the school is extremely important in Korean society where education is not only traditionally valued but also considered as the best means of success in life, the school is the most important social institution. Doing well at the school is the only and most important responsibility that is asked for. Students are asked and expected to do nothing but to study hard. No matter what the reason, the failure to do well at the school is the begining of every possible trouble students may face. while doing well at the School is the begining of every success. TherefOre, the parents whose children fail to do well at the school get angry and push their children harder and condemn them more, while those failed children accuse their parents of their failure. The result is simply the intense conflict between parents and their children. For Korean high school students who fail to do well at the school, there will be no bright future success. Accordingly, they are not inspired or motivated to spend any time studying. But they look for other alternative ways. They spend much more time doing other than school works. They certainly have more opportunity to contact with unconventional society. They eventually develop their own unconventional systems of value and patterns of behavior, which are defined as the short-run hedonistic pattern of youth cultural behavior. Once they are 112 attached to their own youth cultural behavior, they are deviated from the main flow of traditional society and thus become more and more unconventional and detraditionalized. In addition to the direct causal effects of this attachment to school on intergeneraltional conflict, youth culture, and detraditionalization, the path model revealed that it has fairly strong indirect effects on attachment to parents, discontent with home and school, and even delinquent behavior. The Reordered R-Matrix indicated that attachment to school is highly correlated with discontent with home and school (rs-.47) and fairly well correlated with attachment to parents (rs-.34). Since their low path coefficients, despite their fairly high correlations, suggest the nonexistence of direct causal effects, it is assumed that there may be indirect causal effects through other variables. It was found that the existing causal effect of attachment to school on attachment to parents and discontent with home and school are due mainly to its indirect effects through intergenerational conflict. The failure of child to do well at the school may provocate some tension and conflict with his parents, which, in turn, produce social distance between them. Consequently, the child may become unattached, unsupervised, and uncontrolled. Some of these children may become even spoiled, trouble- prone youth. YOUTH CULTURE: The Reordered R-Matrix revealed that youth culture is highly correlated with almost every variable used for the analysis, suggesting its important role in the path 113 model. Youth culture was reported to have high correlations with attachment to parents (r=.47), intergenerational conflict (r=-.51), detraditionalization (r=.50), attachment to school (r=.53), delinquent associates (r=-.46), hang out (rs-.68), discontent with home and school (r=-.55), delinquent definition (rs-.43), and delinquent behavior (r-.41). In terms of causal path analysis, however, youth culture was found to have direct causal effects on only attachment to parents (p=.24), hang out (pa-.79), delinquent definition (p=.32), intergenerational conflict (p-.26) and detraditionalization (p=.33). As seen in Figure 11, youth culture had the most significant effect on hang out (p=.79). It is quite understandable, when we scrutinize the measurement items for youth culture variable. Most items used were designed to tap the perceived attitudes toward a series of youth cultural activity such as drinking, smoking, dating, sexuality, and party. It seems natural that those who demonstrate the high level of perceived commitment to youth culture should hang out a lot because hanging out is a part of youth cultural behavioral pattern. By the same token, it is quite simple to explain causal links between youth culture and attachment to parents, delinquent definition, intergenerational conflict, and detraditionalization. Most youth cultural activities measured in the study are Closely related to the western. way of life and thought and thus unconventional and detraditional in nature. In addition, most of them can be 11A seen different from those of conventional parents who still bear confucian traditional values. For those parents, youth culture is simply unacceptable and ununderstandable. The simple result is the growing conflict and distance between parents and their children. DETRADITIONALIZATION: Detraditionalization was found to have high correlations with intergenerational conflict (r=.50), youth culture (r=.50), attachment to school (r-.49), and delinquent definition (rs-.38). However, as depicted in Figure 11, it was also found that detraditionalization has a mild direct effect on intergenerational conflict (pa-.25) and delinquent definition (p-.22). Both attachment to School and youth culture, on the contrary, are antecedent to detraditionalization, indicating that detraditionalization is directly affected by both attachment to school and youth culture. As discussed above, it is simply assumed that the more respondent becomes detraditionalized, the more the conflicts exists between parents and their children. Most parents don't understand their detraditionalized, westernized children due to the existence of large difference between themselves and their children in terms of value system, behavioral pattern, and morality. For the same reason, their children argue that they can not understand their parents either. As a result, each accuses and complains each other of whatever is happening between the two. In addition, those children who are somehow detraditionalized may no longer value the traditional values be 01 tr de we th 1e) 111a mo: Mat 115 and practice the traditional way of life which emphasizes spiritual rather than material aspect of life and human. Due to the recent economic development and urbanization, materialism has been growing up in the minds of most Koreans, especially those young Koreans who have more contacts with and are more susceptable to western society and influence. For many of those, material success is seen as one of the foremost important aspect of life, while many moral values are devaluated and degraded. Consequently, they become more and more immoralized.and impersonalized. For them some of deviant and delinquent values become understandable. It is rather no supprising to note the existence of direct causal link.between detraditionalization and delinquent definition, in this sense. Although mildly weak (p-.19), the data indicate that those who are detraditionalized may develop the pattern of delinquent behavior, too. It is believed that those who hold high level of traditional value and beliefs may live by more traditional mores and mental outlook which are tougher on deviance, while those who become more detraditionalized and westernized may discard those traditional values put on themselves which retrains their behavior but prefer more lenient western standard of moral and ethics. This seems to make it easier for those people to engage in some type of mostly non-serious or even trivial delinquent acts. INTERGENERATIONAL CONFLICT: According to the Reordered R- Matrix, this variable has high correlations with attachment 1‘: ar Th Un Va. no, 116 to parents (r=-.58), youth culture (r=-.51), detraditionalization (r=~.50), attachment to school (r=- .50), and discontent with home and school (r=.64). Path diagrams in Figure 11 illustrate that intergenerational conflict is subsequent to and thus affected by youth culture, attachment to school, and detraditionalization, which are all described in detail earlier. However, the model indicates that intergenerational conflict has strong direct effects on attachment to parents (pa-.46) and discontent with home and school (p=.34). The common sense suggests that any conflicts existing between parents and their children surely build some kind of social distance between them and thus loosen the interpersonal ties and bonds between the two. It appears that such conflicts make it difficult for the two to understand each other. As a result, children eventually become unattached or at best less attached to their parents. In addition, once such conflicts develop between parents and their children, the mutual misunderstanding and reciprocal complaint and accusation are expected to follow between them. At some point along the line, parents begin to stagmatize as spoiled and bad boys and maybe even give up on their children. In response, their children hold their parents responsible for any problems existing between themselves and their parents. These children become neglected, unsupervised, and uncontrolled. As a result, they disregard conventional values, norms, persons, and activity but value nonconforming, unconventional ones. These youngsters become C111 by at ir. ar t1 117 characterized as unwanted but troublesome problem children by their own parents, teachers, and even larger society. ATTACHMENT TO PARENTS: The Reordered R-Matrix showed that attachment to parents are highly correlated with intergenerational conflict (rs-.58), youth culture (r=.47), and discontent with home and school (r=-.58). In terms of the directions of causal links, youth culture and intergenerational conflict were found to be causally. antecedent to attachment to parents. It was assumed that the demonstration of youth cultural perception is the origin of conflicts with and detachment to parents. Since most youth cultural acivities measured in the study are things that are not usually supported and approved by the parents, the more the students value those youth cultural activities, the more conflict they experience with their parents and thus the less attached they are to their parents. As an antecedent variable, attachment to parents was found to have fairly strong direct effects on hang out (p=,23) and discontent with home and school (p-.27). The path model in Figure 11 indicates that attachment to parents directly affects discontent with home and school. It seems that the less attached childrens are to their parents, the more conflict they experience with their parents but the less control and supervision they receive and thus the higher chance they develop unconventional, nonconforming personality and become troublesome discontented children. However, it is interesting to note that although the Reordered R-Matrix 118 revealed the low correlation between attachment to parents and hang out (rs-.14), the path model shows fairly strong causal link between them (p=.23). Though it is unexpected, it can be fairly well explained. Those youths who are unattached to their parents are expected to experience less parental control, supervision, love, and concern. For those youth, it seems necessary to look for an alternative sources of their own gratification. The best and most easily available alternative is their friends who are virtually in the same situation. Whenever these unsupervised and uncontrolled youths get together, they always look for fun and pleasure. Many of youth cultural activities are believed to provide them with some of those fun and pleasure they are seeking. Since most youth cultural activities are group- oriented and out-bounded in nature, they are mostly conducted in a group outside the home during their hanging out on the streets. In this sense, it is assumed that the reason for the low correlation but high path coefficient between attachment to parents and hang out is due mainly to the Significant indirect effects of youth culture and intergenerational conflict on hang out through attachment to parents. HANG OUT: Hang out was found to have high correlations with youth culture (rs-.68), attachment to school (r-.40), delinquent associates (r=.53), discontent with home and school (r=.48), and delinquent behavior (r=-.53). According to the data, it can be said that those who develop the pattern of youth cultural behavior and/or those who are 119 unattached to school are more likely to hang out. On the other hand, those who hang out a lot are assumed to be more likely to associate with delinquent peers, become discontented with home and school, andIcommit delinquent behavior. The causal path model depicted in Figure 11 illustrates the direct causal links between hang out and youth culture, attachment to parents, delinquent associates, discontent with home and school, and delinquent behavior and an indirect effect of attachment to school on hang out through youth culture. The fact that attachment to school has only an indirect effect on hang out through youth culture indicates that not all of those students who are unattached to school hang out. However, among those students who are not strongly attached to school, only those who also develop the pattern of youth cultural behavior are expected to hang out. In terms of direct causal effects of hang out, it is most interesting to nOte that hang out has the highest direct causal effect on delinquent behavior (p=.40). This finding may suggest that those students who hang around a lot may even commit some things that are defined as delinquency, though mostly trivial, during the course of their hanging out. Getting together and hanging around with peers experiencing situations similar to each Other may create more curiosty, provide more chances to do things that they normally do not or can not do by themselves alone, and even provide some encouragement to do so. However, peers with 120 whom those students hang out don't necessarily have to be delinquent in nature at least as far as less serious trivial general delinquency is concerned. Those youngsters who are not much interested in school may look for other fun things to do instead. They storm into the street and hang out as a group, since most fun things for them are available outside most conventional social institutions..Although they may have better potential to become delinquent, they are not yet delinquent but may be unconventional, nonconforming, and somewhat troublesome students. In addition, hang out has a mild indirect causal effect on delinquent behavior through delinquent associates and discontent with home and school. For those who hang out a lot are simply expected to have more opportunities to associate with delinquent peers who are also hanging out a lot, they are more likely to associate with delinquent peers. And those who hang out a lot rather than stay in home or school and study are mostly undesired, unwanted type of students where. education is most valued. The fact that they do not do well at the school means the begining of trouble with conventional persons and society. They become characterized as discontented with parents, school, and society. Simply because they don't have enough time to do other than school works if they would possibly do well at the school, (it is almost impossible to do well at the school and still hang out at the same time. Once a student does not do well at the school but hangs out a lot instead, he is already a problem student. 121 DISCONTENT WITH HOME AND SCHOOL: The Reordered R-Matrix revealed that discontent with home and school is highly correlated with every variable in the model except for detraditionalization. All of those variables except for delinquent associates and delinquent behavior, however, were found to be causally antecedent to discontent with home and school and thus affect discontent with home and school either directly or indirectly. Although the R-Matrix indicated that discontent with home and school has high correlations with youth culture and attachment to school, the causal path model showed only indirect causal relationships between discontent with home and school and .youth culture and attachment to school. According to the model, attachment to school affects discontent with home and school only indirectly through intergenerational conflict. The fact is that some people can be still conventional and conformist even though they don't do well in school, possibly because their learning disability or undesirable' situations. For some, although they are trying as hard as possible, they just can not catch up others. For others, their environment or situations, mostly economical, are not sufficiently good enough to support them to do well at the school. For these students, although they are not doing well at the school, they are not yet causing any problem. The fact that they are not doing well at the school may be somewhat understandable though not desirable and therefore, it may not get them into conflict with their parents as much 122 as expected. Despite that finding that youth culture is highly correlated with discontent with home and school, the causal path model illustrates that youth culture has only an indirect causal effect on discontent with home and school through hang out. This finding suggests that the simple fact that students show the pattern of youth cultural behavior and engage in youth cultural activities is not a sufficient though necessary condition for being grumblem. Parents may tolerate the youth cultural beliefs that their children may have developed or some type of youth cultural activities that their children may have engaged in to the degree that their children do reasonably well at the school and do not cause more serious trouble. That is, unless students do not engage in school works but hang out instead and engage in youth cultural activities most of time and therefore do not do well at the school, some of the pattern of youth cultural behavior that their children may have developed and some degree of involvement in youth culturtal activities can be ignored or even accepted by their parents. In addition, the path model indicates that discontent with home and school is antecedent to delinquent associates and delinquent behavior. Discontent with home and school has a mild direct causal effect on delinquent associates (p-.l8). It seems that those who are characterized as discontented with home and school may find their own way of gratification. The easiest way may be to get some kind of approval or support from their peers. There is a reasonably high chance that some of those peers may be already de be 123 delinquent. Since most peer relationships are established between those peers with similar situations who can understand each other well, those peers with whom they can most easily associate are those who are already discontented with home and school and possibly more troublesome and even delinquent. The path model also indicates that discontent with home and school has both direct and indirect causal effects on delinquent behavior. It is assumed that some of those who are discontented with home and school may feel rebellion, angry, pressure, and resistance toward conventional persons and society. They may overcome those feelings by doing something exciting that are mostly abnormal, unconventional, nonconforming activities for high school students such as smoking, drinking, or sexual activity. Others may overcome those by engaging in some group-oriented delinquent acts in a association with others who are mostly delinquent. DELINQUENT DEFINITION: According to the Reordered R- Matrix, delinquent definition is highly correlated with youth culture (r--.43), detraditionalization (r--.38), discontent with home and school (r=.39), and delinquent behavior(r-=-.40). As discussed earlier, however, youth culture and detraditionalization are both causally antecedent to delinquent definition. Those who develop the pattern of youth cultural behavior and those who possess detraditional value orientation are assumed to be more likely to develop delinquent definition. Although delinquent 12A definition was found to have high correlation with delinquent behavior, the causal path model indicates that there is no direct causal effect between the two but illustrates the existence of indirect causal effect of delinquent definition on delinquent behavior. This finding suggests that simply the possession of delinquent definition is not a sufficient condition.for person to commit delinquent behavior. If and only if those who hold delinquent definition get into trouble with school and home and therefore stagmatized as discontented with home and school, they may engage in delinquent behavior. DELINQUENT ASSOCIATES: The Reordered R-Matrix reports that delinquent associates has high correlations with youth culture (rs-.46), hang out (r=.53), discontent with home and school (r-.39), and delinquent behavior (r--.43). According to the causal path model, however, although youth culture is highly correlated with delinquent associates, it was found to have only an indirect causal effect on delinquent associates through hang out. The fact that respondents develop the pattern of youth cultural behavior doean: necessarily lead them to associate with delinquent friends. It only can motivate those youths to hang out. It seems natural that those who hang out a lot may have the better chance to meet those friends who also hang out a lot and sometimes delinquent friends. In addition, it is also common sense to assume that such unconventional, nonconforming trouble-maker as those discontented with home and school may look for those friends who can understand, accept, and 125 support themselves. However, it is somewhat suprising to note that delinquent associates has only a mild direct causal effect on delinquent behavior (p=.20). It seems that a large proportion of delinquency items used in this study may not necessarily be typical of group-oriented delinquent acts. Even if they are mostly group-oriented and committed in a goup, most of those delinquent acts can be committed by a group of peers who simply hang out but are yet to be delinquent. X . FINDINGS ACROSS SUBTYPES OF DELINQUENCY As mentioned earlier, three different types of delinquency were put together in the frequency index of delinquent behavior for the causal path analysis. The rational behind was that the model might apply to even different types of delinquency with similar efficiency since any types of delinquency are all similar in terms that they are all the violations of rules. However, some argue that the different types of delinquency are independent of each other (Scott, 1959: Arnold, 1965).‘The data for this study also support the existence of distinct dimensions of delinquent behavior. As discussed in the chapter reporting the measurement model, the cluster analysis resulted in three major distinct types of delinquency. For these reasons, three separate measures of delinquency - serious delinquency, hedonistic delinquency, and general delinquency - were retained, with.each being the sum of the respective items included in the frequency index of each clustered delinquency subtype. Although the data reported in the crosstabulations showed that those three different subtypes of delinquency were somewhat highly related to each other, it was found that those who commit serious delinquency are also likely to commit hedonistic and general delinquency, while those who commit mostly hedonistic and/or general delinquency were not much involved in serious delinquency. Therefore, it was assumed that there might be the possibility Of difference in the processes leading to distinct types of delinquency. In order to see if there are 126 127 any differences between those three different types of delinquency in terms of causal relationships among the variables included in the model, three subtypes of delinquency index were subjected to the separate path analysis and the results are reported in this chapter. (INSERT TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE) As depicted in Table 8, there is no significant evidence of variation in terms of the strengths of correlations among the variables included in the analysis. The Reordered R- Matrix revealed, however, that there are some minor variations among three subtypes of delinquency in terms of the strengths of correlations of each dependent variable, ‘each delinquency index, with other variables in the model. Even though serious delinquency was found that it is not highly correlated with youth culture (r-.25), both hedonistics and general delinquency were relatively highly correlated with youth culture (r=.44 and .40, respectively). As expected, youth culture has the highest correlation with hedonistic delinquency.‘It seems due mainly to the short- term hedonistic nature of youth culture. Since most of youth cultural activities are hedonistic and pleasure-seeking in nature and many of hedonistic delinquency and general delinquency are seen as youthful hedonistic offenses, it is expected that hedonistic youth culture should play significant role in the causation of both hedonistic and general delinquency while it does not affect serious Ammmuzv Azo1e<22oee< sou A :z< mzsem:so stczdasezi LN WIACLC Ca \e\.~.\La sodeszzsrslmeiscl.re SC:L:I.. I I Q M: \Q I Q .,,.\_< e s m Cease 128 pmuu_eo m_ms_uoo N 00. Nm NS 1. N_ m_- _m- NS. NS- SN N. OS NN- __ S_ oo_ Nm m- N N_- NW- mm- SS- NN N_ SS N_- m_ N— 00. S N m_- _m- mm- om- ON N 6N S- N_ N_ oo_ o N- N- N_ __ N- S_- N o NN _— oo. S N_ m_- _N- NN N. SN NN- N. o. oo_ mm _N NN SN- NM. NS- NN _N- N oo_ NS NN NS- mm- mm- SN Sm- N 00. mm NS- NM- NS. Nm S_- N co, _m- _m- NS- NN N_- N CON m: mm om) mm m 00. cm om- Sm S 00. _m- NS N oo_ Nm- N oo_ _ S_ m_ N_ __ o. N N N N N S N N _ Ammm-ZVNzo_NNNZNNN< No. NNNNNNNONSNNNNNNSN >82N3o2_SNN m NZS NNNNNNSN NzNozNamoz_ __ Noa x_NNIENT yASSOC'ATES TO PARENTSM DISCONTENTy ~J HITH HOME/ 4? \' SCHOOL 93 \S OELINQUENT INTER- AgTQEEggNT ENERATIONAL DEFINITION CONFLICT ' T} M '7 (I D TRADITIONALIZATION TABLE 9 : OBSERVED, PREDICTED, AND OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS FOR THE HEDONISTIC DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL A) OBSERVED SCALE CORRELATIONS(Decimals omitted) REORDERED R-MATRIX 5 3 A 9 2 1 7 8 6 13 ~2A 'A3 '38 100 28 '21 31 39 29 '18 5 3 A A9 50 100 ~38 '50 3A '36 '33 '31 13 9 2 '50 ~51 '50 28 100 '58 37 6A 26 '19 1 33 A7 3A -21 -58 100 -1A -SA 19 13 7 -A0 -68 -36 31 37 -1A 100 A8 53 -55 8 ~A7 ~55 ~33 39 6A -5A A8 100 39 ~39 6 -31 -A6 -31 29 26 -I9 53 39 100 -AA 13 29 AA 13 -18 -19 13 -55 -39 -AA 100 132 B) PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS(DecimaIS omitted) 5 3 A 9 2 I 7 8 6 13 5 . 100 53 A9 ~28 ~50 35 ~3A ~A0 ~22 I9 3 53 100 50 ~A3 ~51 A7 ~68 ~55 ~A0 38 A A9 50 100 ~38 -50 35 ~31 ~AI ~21 18 9 ~28 ~A3 ~38 100 27 ~23 29 39 20 ~17 2 ~50 ~51 ~50 27 100 ~58 27 61 23 -I7 35 A7 35 '23 '58 100 '1A '5A '16 9 '3A '68 '31 29 27 'IA 100 AA 52 '55 ~A1 39 61 ~5A AA 100 37 '27 '22 'A0 '21 20 23 '16 52 37 100 'AA 19 38 18 '17 ~17 9 '55 ~27 ~AA 100 wmoowd 1 .L' O I U1 U1 C) OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) S 3 A 9 2 1 7 8 6 13 5 0 0 0 A O '2 '6 '7 '9 10 3 0 0 0 0 O O O O '6 6 A 0 0 O 0 O '1 '5 8 '10 '5 9 A 0 0 0 I 2 2 O 9 '1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 3 3 '2 I '2 O '1 2 0 O 0 0 '3 A 7 '6 0 '5 2 10 0 O A 1 0 '7 0 8 0 3 0 A 0 '12 13 10 6 '5 '1 '2 A 0 '12 0 0 THE SUM OF SQUARED ERRORS IN THE LOWER TRIANGLE IS 0.09685A11. 133 FIGURE 13 : THE GENERAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL (Decimals omitted) DELINQUENT ASSO IATES /95 5‘ 16< HANG OUTé &I'--N._€> DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR YOUTH ATTACHMENT .2!) CULTUREL -————1)DISCONTENT TO PARENTS WITH HOME/ SCHOOL 0) <0 ATTACHMENT 'NTER’ BEEIHiiiSE To SCHOOL ENERATIONAL CONFLICT ’ to DETRADITIONALIZATION TABLE ”3: OBSERVED, PREDICTED, AND OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS FOR THE GENERAL DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL A) OBSERVED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) REORDERED B:881813----§ _____ 3 ..... 3----3 ..... 3-----1 ..... Z ..... i ...... 9----13 ...... 5 100 53 A9 '2A '50 33 'AA 'A7 '31 2A 3 53 100 50 ~A3 '51 A7 '68 '55 'A6 A0 A A9 50 100 '38 '50 3A '36 '33 '31 12 9 '2A 'A3 '38 100 28 '21 31 39 29 '15 2 '50 '51 '50 28 100 '58 37 6A 26 '23 I 33 A7 3A '21 '58 100 '1A '5A '19 11 7 'A0 '68 '36 31 37 'IA 100 A8 53 'AS 8 'A7 '55 '33 39 6A '5A A8 100 39 'A2 6 ~31 ~A6 ~31 29 26 '19 53 39 100 ~A2 1A 2A A0 12 '15 '23 11 'AS '31 'AZ 100 13A B) PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS(Decima]s omitted) S 3 A 9 2 I 7 8 6 IA 5 I00 53 A9 -28 '50 35 -3A -AO -22 I6 3 53 IOO 50 -A3 -51 A7 -68 -55 -A0 32 A A9 50 IOO -38 -50 35 -3I -AI -2I IS 9 —28 -A3 -38 I00 27 —23 29 39 20 -IA 2 -50 -5I -50 27 IOO -58 27 61 23 -IA I 35 A7 35 -23 ~58 IOO -IA -5A -I6 8 '3A '68 '31 29 27 'IA 100 AA 52 'AS '55 'AI 39 61 '5A AA IOO 37 '23 '22 'A0 '21 20 23 '16 52 37 100 'A2 IA 16 32 15 'IA 'IA 8 'AS '23 'AZ IOO O‘CDN I .D' O C) OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) 5 3 A 9 2 I 7 8 6 IA 5 O O O A O -2 -6 -7 -9 3 O O O O O O O O -6 A O O O O O -I -5 8 -IO -3 9 A O O O I 2 2 O 9 -I 2 O O O I - 0 IO 3 3 -9 I -2 O 'I 2 O O O -3 3 7 -6 O -5 2 IO 0 O A I O 8 -7 O 8 O 3 O A O 2 -8 6 -9 -6 -IO 9 -3 I 2 0 O I -9 3 O -8 O 0 IA 8 8 '3 ' THE SUM OF SQUARED ERRORS IN THE LOWER TRIANGLE IS 0.09393A6. 13S acts. Most delinquent acts included in hedonistic delinquency index, as compared to those of general delinquency index, are such offenses that can be mostly committed during the course of respondent's hanging out in a association with their peers who are also hanging out. (INSERT FIGURE 14 AND TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE) As depicted in Figure 14, however, the tested causal path model of serious delinquency reveals the somewhat significant difference from both hedonistic and general delinquency models. The serious delinquency model potraits somewhat different paths leading to delinquent behavior in terms of both causal directions and magnitudes. While both hedonistic and general delinquency path models revealed no direct causal link between youth culture and delinquent associates, the serious delinquency path model illustrates the strong direct causal relationship between youth culture and delinquent associates (p=.46). That is, the other two models showed the direct causal link from youth culture to hang out to delinquent associates to delinquent behavior, while the serious delinquency path model revealed the causal paths from youth culture to delinquent associates to hang out to delinquent behavior; Furthermore, discontent with home and school had the direct causal effect on delinquent associates and delinquent associates had the direct causal effect on delinquent behavior in both hedonistic and general delinquency models, while discontent with home and school had no direct causal effect on delinquent associates and 136 FIGURE IA : THE SERIOUS DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL (DecimaIS omitted) DELINQUENT ASSOCIATES \l AFB ATTACHMENT 4.7 YOUTH )V‘no P RENTS 4Q CULT RE DISCONTENT ANG OUT NITH HOME/ ‘0 CHOOL ‘V “2e ** 58‘ O °~ A \ s{;DELINQUENT ATTACHMENT“ 'NTER' 39" BEHAVIOR To SCHOOL GENERATIONAL CONFLICT OFLINOUENT 3,, DEFINITION ETRADITIONALIZATION TABLE II : OBSERVED, PREDICTED, AND OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS FOR THE SERIOUS DELINQUENCY PATH MODEL A) OBSERVED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) REORDERED R'MATRIX ' S 3 A 6 9 2 I 7 8 12 -3I -A6 -3I I00 29 26 -I9 53 39 '30 ~2A ~A3 ~38 29 IOO 28 -2I 3I 39 -I5 -50 '51 -50 26 28 IOO -58 37 6A -A I 33 A7 3A -I9 -2I -58 I00 -IA -5A 12 7 -A0 -68 -36 53 3I 37 -IA IOO A8 -37 -A7 -55 -33 39 39 6A -5A A8 IOO -3I 12 20 25 2 -30 -I5 -A 12 -37 -3I IOO 5 3 A A9 50 100 '31 '38 '50 3A '36 '33 2 6 9 2 137 B) PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) 5 3 A 6 9 2 I 7 8 12 5 IOO 53 A9 -2A -28 -so 35 -3A -AO IO 3 53 100 50 ~A6 -A3 -51 A7 -68 -55 25 A A9 50 I00 -23 -38 —50 35 -32 -AI 9 6 -2A -A6 —23 IOO 20 23 -22 52 3I -2O 9 -28 -A3 -38 20 IOO 27 -23 29 39 -IA 2 -50 -5I -so 23 27 IOO -58 27 61 O I 35 A7 35 -22 -23 -58 I00 -15 -5A 6 \l I W J? I 0‘ (D I W N 52 29 27 '15 100 AA '39 'A0 '55 'AI 31 39 61 'SA AA 100 '31 12 10 25 9 '20 'IA 0 6 '39 '31 100 C) OBSERVED MINUS PREDICTED SCALE CORRELATIONS (Decimals omitted) 5 3 A 6 9 2 1 7 8 12 5 O -7 A O -2 -6 -7 IO 3 O O O O O O O O O A O O '8 O O '1 'A 8 '7 6 '7 0 '8 0 9 3 3 I 8 '10 9 A O O 9 O I 2 2 O -I 2 O O O 3 I O 0 IO 3 -A I -2 O -I 3 2 O O I O 6 7 -6 O -A I 2 IO I O A 2 8 '7 O 8 8 0 3 O A O 0 I2 IO O -7 -IO -I -A 2 O O THE SUM OF SQUARED ERRORS IN THE LOWER TRIANGLE IS 0.0895A36. 138 delinquent associates had no direct causal effect on delinquent behavior in the serious delinquency model. In addition, discontent with home and school had no direct causal effect on both hedonistic and general delinquent behaviors, while it had fairly strong direct causal effect (p-.35) on serious delinquent behaviors. Finally, both hedonistic and general delinquency models depicted no direct causal effect of intergenerational conflict on delinquent behaviors, while it had fairly strong direct causal effect on serious delinquent behaviors. It seems that most delinquent youths are not serious delinquent at the begining of their involvement in delinquent behaviors. They gradually become more and more seriously delinquent. A large proportion of serious delinquent acts seem to be committed mostly by those serious delinquent youths who may have already committed some other delinquent acts, both serious and less serious. As both the crosstabulations and the correlation matrix indicated, subtypes of delinquency are related each other in a way that those who reported to have committed serious delinquency may have also committed less serious delinquency while those who have committed mostly less serious delinquency have yet committed any serious delinquency. It may be possible to say that, therefore, those who reported to have committed serious delinquency are more seriously delinquent than those who admitted having committed mostly nonserious delinquency. Furthermore, it may also be possible to argue that those who' 139 commit more and serious delinquent acts may have been more exposed to delinquent peers than those less delinquent youths.'This presumption holds more true, considering the fact that most delinquent acts are group-oriented and committed in a group. The fact that they have already committed delinquent acts in a association with their delinquent peers suggests that most of their friends are already delinquent. As a result, they do not attach much importance or any special meanings to the fact that they have delinquent friends. In addition, since they are already seen as delinquent, most of their activities are somehow deviant or delinquent in nature. For them, their association with delinquent peers is nothing special but their normal social life. Their commission of some delinquent acts are seen as a part of their normal way of life. In sum, delinquent associates may play less significant role in generating serious delinquency. Nevetheless, since most delinquent acts are committed in.a group, even though those who commit serious delinquency are more seriously delinquent in nature and their peers with whom they associate are mostly delinquent, haiving delinquent friends may be necessary but not sufficient condition for them to commit delinquent acts. Considering the group-oriented nature of delinquency, the actual commission of any delinquent acts are made possible by the group of youths who are already delinquent in their actual interaction or contact with their delinquent friends. That is, the commission of serious delinquency is conducted by a group of delinquent youths 1A0 during the course of their hanging out. On the contrary, those who commit mostly less serious delinquency are not seriously characterized as delinquent yet. In order for them to commit delinquency, they may need some extra requirements to be met. Since most of their activities and their friends are still conventional, the commission of delinquent acts, therefore, may still be very special events for them” There should be extra stimuli or motivations involved in the actual commission of delinquent acts. Here the peer group influence may play significant role in motivating the commission of delinquent acts. During the course of their hanging out, they may encounter some delinquent peers. Those delinquent peers then may talk.them into becoming more curious, adventurous, and excited by telling their mostly delinquent kind of behavioral experience and getting involved in the actual commission.of delinquent acts with those already delinquent friends. In sum, those who commit serious delinquency actually commit their delinquent acts in a group of their peers who are already delinquent during the course of their hanging out. On the other hand, those who commit less serious delinquency commit their delinquent.acts in a association with their delinquent friends with whom they encounter during the course of their hanging out. With regard to the causal links between intergenerational conflict and discontent with home and school and delinquent behavior in the serious delinquency model, it seems to be related to the individual respondent's delinquent status. IAI Those who commit more serious delinquency are assumed to be more seriously delinquent and thus experience more conflicts with their parents and be easily defined as troublesome problem children who are discontented with home and school. For these youths, the commission of some delinquent acts are a part of their life style and thus easily conducted. For example, when they get into trouble or conflict with their parents, they may feel angry or even rebellious against their parents. For these youths, the most common and easiest way to overcome or even express their anger and rebellion is through their destructive or offensive behaviors. On the contrary, although those who commit less serious delinquency may also feel angry and rebellious against their parents when they experience conflict with their parents, their usual approach to express their anger and rebellion is less radical, destructive, offensive, since they are less, seriously delinquent and less troublesome, they are not hopeless or neglected yet. Their parents may still be willing to listen to these youths and talk over their problems. In sum, although they are potentially explosive, they do not explode until their delinquent peers ignite them to burn.it.out. XI, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 1) SUMMARY The recent economic development and urbanization and subsequent social and cultural changes have made Korea witness a steady increase of various social problems including crime and delinquency. As a result, it has brought about the increasing concerns and interests among scholars and practitioners in the fields of criminal justice, criminology, and education. However, most of their works have been the simple translations or imitations of American theories of crime and delinquency, even though it has been argued that such uncritical application is inappropriate‘ outside the UJL. This potential inapplicability of American theories makes a demand to seek verified theories of delinquency that can maximize both the substantive and spatio-temporal sense, through testing their generality and universal applicability in different cultural settings. In addition to testing American theories of crime and delinquency in Korea, the present study attempted the theoretical integration of several theories into a single causal model. The initial examination of the major delinquency theories indicated that each theoretical orientation plays a role in explaining the etiology of delinquency. The present study, therefore, was meant to look at several levels of cause and how they affect delinquent behavior, since most of unicausal theories failed to explain delinquency, due to the lack of fit between theory and the true account and explanation of delinquency causation. Based 1A2 1A3 on the fact that each theory explains certain processes in generating delinquency, the present study attempted to draw together those most useful and empirically tenable features of each theory and incorporate them into a single integrated causal model in order to provide the most valid explanation of delinquency by incorporating the empirical testing of various theories as well as multiple causes specific to Korean population. Through a thorough and comprehensive review of literature and the past research, it was found that the most notable tendency of integration was the one incorporated by social control, social learning, and cultural deviance perspectives. The integration of these three theories made it possible to understand both the causes of delinquency and the manner in which those causes operate in the social development context. The incorporation of social control and social learning was assumed to describe the processes that govern both socialization and development of delinquent behavior and specify the motivational component, while cultural deviance was thought to explain the processes or specific conditions that strengthen or weaken conventional bonds. The factors associated with cultural deviance perspective were seen as the primary causes of weak conventional bonds. Those who are unattached to conventional society are free to become attached to their peer groups that provide rewarding social reinforcements for and modeling of delinquent behavior. 1AA The model included several variables that derived from three major perspectives of crime and delinquency. It originally contained the predictions and implications of detraditionalization, youth culture, intergenerational conflict, inadequate family environment, attachment to parents, attachment to school, delinquent associates, and delinquent definitions in explaining delinquent behavior among Korean high school boys sampled. When the initial cluster analysis was run, however, the results were statistically unsatisfactory, indicating the possibility of multidimensionality of clusters. The alternative measurement model that met the requirements of unidimensionality of clusters in terms of content homogeneity, internal consistency, and parallelism revealed the formation of 11 independent clusters and five delinquency clusters. However, two delinquency clusters that were made up of a small number of trivial delinquent acts were excluded from the further analysis. The actual clusters used in the study included attachment to parents, intergenerational conflict, youth culture, detraditionalization, attachment to school, delinquent associates, hang out, discontent with home and school, delinquent definitions, confucian values, and family background and three delinquency clusters, serious delinquency, hedonistic delinquency, and general delinquency.- Although the cluster analysis resulted in three distinct types of delinquency, all 40 items included in those three delinquency clusters were put together, based on the 1A5 presumption that the model might apply to any subtypes of delinquency simply because any delinquent acts are virtually the same in terms of the fact that they are all the violations of rules. thus, the proposed model was tested on the 40 item delinquency index score. It was found that some of the path coefficients in the model were too low, reflecting extremely weak causal relationships. The model also showed the high levels of the sum of the squared error, indicating that the model dosenfit fit the data well. It also revealed that there were very high levels of individual errors among the variables, indicating either missing causal paths excluded from the model or the reversed direction of existing causal paths. Overall, the proposed model based primarily on American theories and findings was not supported by the current data. This finding suggested that major American theories of delinquency might not be fully valid, reliable, and applicable in explaining delinquency among Korean high school boys sampled.'Therefore, it also suggested the need to develop the alternative model that could fit the data and thus explain the particular patterns of delinquency among the population. The best alternative model supported by the data employed 9 independent clusters, with family background and confucian values being excluded from the analysis, based on the results of the Reordered R-Matrix and previous path analyses. Given the assumptions concerning the causal paths of the variables leading to delinquent behavior, hang out .- I ‘ I 1.. 1A6 had the greatest direct influence on delinquent behavior. This effect seemed to be accentuated when individuals' attachment to youth culture is increased but their attachment to parents is decreased. Delinquent associates, discontent with home and school, and detraditionalization also seemed to play a role in generating delinquent behavior. Youth culture, attachment to parents, and intergenerational conflict were all quite important, but delinquent definition played only a minor role in the overall causal sheme. It seems that since a large proportion of today's Korean youths hold to some degree delinquent definitions which might be characterized by midterranean value orientations and feelings of social injustice, inequality, and unfairness, the effect of delinquent definition in generating delinquent behavior has been diminished..Afterall, however, attachment to school was the turning point where the paths to delinquency begin. .Attachment to school strongly affected youth culture, intergenerational conflict, and detraditionalization, which all are vital elements in the overall causal sheme. Although ‘the paths to delinquent behavior begin with attachment to school, youth culture played the most salient role in this causal model. Youth culture strongly affected virtually every variable in the model. In sum, attachment to school is the causal element where the causal paths start and youth cnxlture is the most salient causal element while hang out is the best predictor variable of delinquent behavior. 1A7 As discussed, on the basis of the argument that the different types of delinquency are relatively independent of each other, three distinct subtypes of delinquency obtained by the cluster analysis were further analyzed in order to see the possible existence of differences in the causal, processes leading to different types of delinquent behavior, although it was found that three subtypes of delinquency were somewhat highly correlated with each other, as indicated by the statistics in the crosstabulations. The Reordered R-Matrix showed no significant variations across three subtypes of delinquency in terms of the strengths of correlationships among the variables. The results of the path analysis also revealed that there are not much variations acress the models in terms of their respective causal paths. In fact, about half of the paths in the model are identical in terms of both their causal directions and magnitudes. The causal paths concerning attachment to school, youth culture, attachment to parents, intergenerational conflict, detraditionalization, and discontent with home and school were exactly the same across the models. In effect, both hedonistic and general delinquency models were virtually identical. However, the serious delinquency model was somewhat.different from.both hedonistic and general delinquency models in terms of both causal directions and magnitudes. The serious delinquency model showed the strong direct causal effects of youth culture on delinquent associates, while both hedonistic and 1A8 general delinquency models did not. In addition, both hedonistic and general delinquency models showed the direct causal effects of discontent with home and school on delinquent associates and of delinquent associates on delinquent behavior, while the serious delinquency model did not. Furthermore, both discontent with home and school and intergenerational conflict had direct causal effects on serious delinquent behavior but not on either hedonistic or general delinquent behavior. It seems that all these differences across the models may be accounted for by the different level of criminality between those who mostly commit serious delinquency and those who mostly commit hedonistic or general delinquency. In other words, social learning aspects seem to have stronger influences on those who commit less serious delinquency, because they are believed to be less exposed to delinquency learning situations and thus less seriously delinquent, while those who commit mostly serious delinquency are less influenced by those social learning aspects because they are already more exposed to delinquency learning situations and thus more seriously delinquent. As stressed in the introduction, the purpose throughout this study has been to develop an integrated causal model ‘through the incorporation of several theories and its Tapplicability across the nations. The failure of the proposed model to fit the data strongly indicated the partial inapplicability of the model based on pure American theories of delinquency in Korea but suggested the 1A9 neccessity to develop the nation or culture specific models of delinquency. The alternative model showed the importance of school and youth culture in generating delinquent behavior through youths' relationships with their parents and peer groups. It seems that delinquent behavior among Korean high school boys sampled is originated by the failure of youth at the school and subsequent attachment to youth culture that accentuate their conflicting relationships with or unattachment to their parents, which in turn lead them to delinquency learning situations. The fact that every variable in the model played a role in gernerating and explaining delinquent behavior among the sample even though just a few variables were found to have relatively high correlations with actual delinquenct behavior supports the presumption that since delinquent behavior results from a sequential process, each theory can play only a partial role in explaining delinquency and thus must be strengthened and enhanced by the integration of several theories. 2) DISCUSSION Although much attention has been paid to minimizing ‘the potential research problems concerning the comparability of translated measurement scales, it is difficult to ignore 'the impact of possible misperceptions and misunderstandings between the researcher and the respondents. That is due lnainly to the nuances between English and Korean language. However, it is believed that those possible negative impacts ISO might have been eliminated or at least minimized since the back-translation method was employed. In terms of research design, there were a few limitations for the study. This study was originally designed as cross- sectional research with no comparison group. Since the study was done exclusively in Korea, the population was limited to only Korean male high school students from the selected schools in a urban city. Therefore, there may exist a limitation as to the applicability of the research findings to other research settings in terms of further implementations. The hope is, however, that expanding studies be done among various population. Despite those possible limitations, this study seems to be worthwhile. This study is believed to provide some interesting cross- cultural perspectives since no relevant research has been done in Korea yet. It provides us with some.first-hand information on Korean delinquency. Furthermore, the two most important facts about this study are that it integrated several different theories into a single causal paradigm and employed such advanced statistical methodologies as cluster and path analysis. The integration of theories enhanced and strengthened our explanations of delinquency since any single theory is only partial explanation of delinquency. Cluster analysis reduced the problems concerning measurement error. Since any measurement is less than perfect in the :real world, the error of measurement is always a possibility. As an alternative, however, this study employed zmultiple indicators and corrections for attenuation pr pr th 151 procedures were also employed. In addition, path analysis provided the origins of delinquency causations as well as the sequential processes of delinquency. It is assumed that the use of path analytic methods and the integration of several theories are the two most significant features of this study. The results of the study indicate that the integrated model is better than the simple multivariate test of any single theory. The Reordered R-Matrix simply showed that just a few variables had relatively fair correlations with delinquent behavior, indicating that each variable or even any single theory alone can not explain all the variations in delinquency. By integrating several theories and adopting path analytic method, the study showed both the multiple causes and the manner in which they are operating within a causal model. There is some evidence that the integration and the use of path analysis resulted in some predictive efficacy. According to the R-Matrix, none of social control variables was highly correlated with delinquency. If we ignored cultural conflict variables and social learning 'variables, a pure control theory alone would be substantially ineffective in explaining delinquency. By the same token, the comparision of the integrated theory to a pure social learning theory is also problematic. Although zmost social learning variables had relatively high correlations with delinquency and were the most proximate causal predictors of delinquency in the path model, it is 152 not clear how a pure social learning theory alone can predict deviant bonding without integrating both cultural conflict and social control perspectives and considering their interaction effects on social learning variables. Furthermore, though a cultural conflict variable, youth culture, had somewhat high correlations with delinquent behavior, it is not clear how and/or why a youth develop and conform to his pattern of youth cultural behavior if we ignored the importance of school, a social control variable. In sum, the evidence suggests that the integrated model explains delinquency better than any of the pure theoretical model alone included in the integration. In terms of path analysis, had we not employed a path analytic method, we might have concluded that all the variables without significant direct correlations with delinquency are ineffective in explaining delinquency. However, as seen in the R-Matrix and the path diagram, every single variable, though many of them were not highly correlated with delinquent behavior, played a role in the causal path model supported by the data. The findings clearly support the assertion that it is the integrated path that accounts for virtually all of the variations in delinquency explained. According to the path model, social learning perspectives exerted most direct influences on delinquency, while cultural conflict and social control variables had mostly indirect causal effects, mediated by social learning variables. Only one social control variable, discontent with home/school, had a direct 153 but moderate causal effect (p=.19) on delinquency. Detraditionalization, a cultural learning variable, had also a direct but moderate direct causal effect (p=.19) on delinquency. On the other hand,delinquent definition was the only social learning variable with no direct causal effect on delinquency. In sum, social learning variables are the most proximate causes of delinquency and the effects of social control and cultural conflict variables are mostly indirect and mediated by the level of deviant bonding. In terms of general theoretical perspectives, the path model indicates that cultural conflict variables are causally prior to social control variables, while social control variables are causally prior to social learning variables. In general, cultural conflict variables influence social control variables, which in turn affects social learning variables, which are the most proximate causal predictors of delinquency. 3) POLICY IMPLICATIONS Although social learning variables were the most proximate causes of delinquency and had most direct causal effects on delinquency, the path model also revealed that delinquency is originated from school. According to the path model, once a youth is not attached to school, he has the potential to socialize into delinquency producing and/or learning social situations. Therefore, any intervention program for delinquency prevention should begin with school, followed by parental and cultural interventions and end up 15A with peer group interventions.'That is, the most effective intervention appears to be to insulate the youths against delinquent socialization. Since the school is the most important socialization agency for any high school students, the educational arena should be the most promising first step.IAs discussed, since the immediate school experience of failure or success and subsequent attachment to school are assumed to be closely related to delinquency, providing a greater proportion of students with the more opportunities to experience success in school appears to be a potentially effective strategy for educational program seeking to prevent delinquency. It seems necessary to encourage students to experience success in school and thus feel that they are a part of school and are comitted to school..A possible means of achieving this objective may be to encourage students to participate in some nontraditional alternative success opportunities such as extracurricular activities and alternative education or even special education and make them more available to more students so that more students can experience success at school one way or the other. Once a youth is unattached to school, he is likely to Idevelop the pattern of his own cultural behavior that is conflicting with the conventional cultural patterns of Llarger society. Since the clash between traditional Korean cultures and imported western cultures seems much responsible for youth deviance, this sharp clash between younger generations with much interest in western cultures 155 and older generations with strong conformity to traditional Confucian cultures should be moderated. It is suggested that positive aspects of western cultures be selectively adopted while good traditional values and cultures be preserved but others be progressively changed. The above cultural interventions are somewhat related to the next possible intervention, home and family interventions. A youth is less likely to act out his problems if he knows that his parents are able and willing to help him out. Since the greater the mutual affection, understanding, and support between child and his parents, the greater the likelihood of strong attachment between child and his parents, it is suggested that the mutual relationships between them be strengthened so that they can understand each other well. This may be done by some kind of family and home intervention.programs such as parental training in terms of showing affection and support for the child. The parental acquaintance with their children's peer networks and adequate monitoring of children's activities are strongly related to the next policy implementation. As the path model indicates, delinquency learning social situations are the most proximate causes of delinquency. In ‘the absence of appropriate parental control, a youth is most likely to socialize with delinquent peers. With the appropriate options in behavior available for him lacking or being absent, along with the absence of appropriate parental 156 supervision, he is likely to seek the same or similar friends. They eventually form unconventional peer groups and engage in deviant behaviors together. Therefore, it is also suggested to make available more creative, constructive, and conventional options for the youth. 4) FUTURE RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS Although this study may have provided some valuable first-hand information about relatively unknown Korean delinquency, further comprehensive research is highly recommended. As far as the research design is concerned, a few things can be considered for the future research. Firstly, longitudinal rather than cross-sectional design can be employed.IAlthough the use of path analytic method enabled us to look into the sequential processes of delinquency, longitudinal data collected at different point in time would.give us more indepth knowledege of the causal processes leading to delinquency. Furthermore, it would provide us with a means to check for the cross-validations of our tested model. Secondly, the study would have revealed more interesting, valuable findings if the study was designed as comparative, cross-cultural research. For example, had the data been collected from Korean high school students as well as both Korean-American and American high school students, more valid and meaningful comparisions and Iconclusions would be possible. For instance, the findings ‘that cultural conflict variables such as youth culture or intergenerational conflict play an important role in the «sausal path model could have been more clearly understood 157 and validated. Thirdly, it is also believed that there is a typology of youths based on social, demographic, and psychological variables such that causal paths among those variables in predicting delinquency can be different within different subtypes of youths. In this sense, more diverse, representative youths, that is, youth populations with more variety, would be included as the future research populations. Finally, the use of factual data is also recommended. The use of official delinquency records and school records as the secondly data could provide a check for the validity of the self-reported delinquency. In terms of the conceptual framework, two things can be considered. Firstly, the need for further research is indicated by the effects of discontent with home/school on delinquent behavior and by the importance of school. It is assumed that poor performance at school is most relevant to delinquency in Korean society where values education so greatly for its own sake and sees it as the ultimate means of survival. At the same time, trouble with parents itself is also considered as deviant in Korean society, in which much value is placed on the absolute respect for parents. Furthermore, it may be also assumed that some of the effects of school and discontent with home and school are the feedback effects of labeling by such authorities as parents, teachers, and community. Both parents and teachers are less likely to expect and thus to find any merit in the school works of those who are having trouble at school and home. Those 158 students who know they are so identified are less likely to put forth the effort required to succeed. It is also possible that those who perceive their educational and/or occupations failure may commit to unconventional lines of activity and norm or vice versa. Therefore, the importance of school and the unexpected direct causal effects of discontent with home and school may be better explained by either or both of Anomie/strain variables and labeling variables. APPENDICES 159 APPENDIX A : GROUPING 0F QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS CLUSTER 1 : ATTACHMENT TO PARENTS 11A. 11. 123. 13. 12. 9. 113. 135. 122. 27. 10. 32. How often do you talk with your parents about day-to-day life ? I enjoy talking over my plans with my parents. How often do members of your family talk with each other about what is happening around themselves ? When I have problems, I confide in my parents. I usually Share my thoughts and feelings with my parents. I am closer to my parents than are most people my age. How often do you and your parents 90 out together and do fun things together ? How much are you satiSfied with your home and family life in general ? How often does your family do things like going to the movies, picnic, or camping and dinning out together ? My parents always help me understand things perflexing to me. When I am away from home, my parents know whom I am with and where I am. It is hard for me to talk to my parents about my problem. CLUSTER 2 : INTERGENERATIONAL CONFLICT 19. 18. 33- 16. 26. 30. 29. 28. 15. 17. 31. 25. My parents don't seem to try to understand my problem. My parents always pick on me. My parents seem to repect my opinions and thoughts. My parents seem to understand me. I often feel that my parents have too much control on me. Whenever decisions between me and my parents are made, my parents just tell me what to do. I often question and doubt the beliefs and values of my parents. I often feel that my parents treat me like little kid. It is hard for me to please my parents. I often feel angry or rebellious toward my parents. I can hardly believe what my parents tell me. I often argue with my parents. I60 CLUSTER 3 : YOUTH CULTURE A6. A3. 155. ISA. 50. 156. 1A3. 1A0. 158. 51. 1A1. 52. 1A2. 53- It is alright for girls to drink. It is alright for girls to smoke cigarettes. Suppose that Kim was home and doing homework one night and his friends called and asked him to go mess around on the street. He decided to go out and hang around with his friends. How would you feel about Kim's decision ? Suppose that you are having a Christmas party with your friends. Later in the evening, one of your friends appears to be feeling high, mildly drunk from drinking too much alcohol. But he is not behaving rudely except feeling high. How would you feel about him feeling high ? The laws against underage drinking should be obeyed. Suppose that Kim has a chance to go to a great dance party but he has a big test tomorrow that he is worried about. Kim decides to go to the party. How would you feel about Kim's decision ? In ancient times in Korea, Our customs called for the separation of male and female begining from the age of 7. In contemporary times, however, there are many mixed Schools for boys and girls and close friends of opposite sex are often seen dating. How far would you think friendly contacts between male and female high school students can go ? If your parents had to move to another city for just one year, would you go with them or stay with a friend ? Suppose that Kim Has saved a bit of money enough to buy a new stereo he really wants. But his parents want him to save the money for the future in case he needs it. But he decides to buy a new stereo anyway. How would you feel about Kim's decision ? Adults have no rights to condemn teenagers for drinking since adults themselves have more problems with drinking than teenagers. Suppose that you had always wanted to belong to a special club and finally invited to join. But you also found that your parents did not approve of the club. Would you join the club or not ? Most things that people call delinquency usually don't hurt anyone. Suppose that your parents had planned a trip for vacation in the summer. But you also have a plan for camping with your friends on the same days. Would you go a vacation with your parents or go camping with your friends ? Teenagers do things that people call delinquency because they are under too much pressure. «it ~ 11 161 CLUSTER A : DETRADITIONALIZATION A0. IA. 38. 3A. AA. 36. 35. 37. Aging parents should live at home with their children. AS an adult, I want to live my parents. Some traditional Korean customs like ancestor worship should no longer be practiced. In order for Korea to make proper progress, we must discard all our traditional mores and mental outlooks and adopt a new pattern of thinking. In fast changing Korean society, we must give up traditional Korean way of life and adopt new western way of life. The rules and moral beliefs which my parents go by are good for me, too. To maintain our cultural identity, we have to protect our own culture from contamination from the flow of foreign pop culture. Absolute obedience and respect for the elderly are the most important virtues we Should learn. CLUSTER 5 : ATTACHMENT TO SCHOOL N U'1 I believe school will help me be a mature man. I am learning things that I want to know in school. The things that I do in school waste my time more than things I do outside school. I am satisfied with school in general. The things I am learning in school will help me get a good job later. I am not learning what I feel is important. CLUSTER 6 : DELINQUENT ASSOCIATES 128. 127. 125. 129. 130. 126. AS far as you know, how many of your friends have been involved in any illegal activities during the past 12 months 7 AS far as you know, how many of your friends have been picked up by the police ? AS far as you know, how many of your friends have been regularly smoking cigarettes ? AS far as you know, how many of your friends have been suspended from school ? As far as you knew, how many of your friends thinks it is cool if you do something brave but illegal ? AS far as you know, how many of your friends approve of smoking cigarettes ? 162 CLUSTER 7 : HANG OUT 1177' 139. 119. 115. 120. 121. How often_do you date with girl friends ? Do you have a steady girl friend ? How often do you go to such places as Cafe, Bakery, or Chinese restauran ? How often do you go out with your friends at night ? How often do you go to the table tennis or billiards rooms ? How often have your friends talked you into doing things that are not right ? CLUSTER 8 : DISCONTENT WITH HOME AND SCHOOL 22. 21. 2A. 20. 23. 132. 136. 1AA. My parents are often upset about what I am doing. My parents are often upset about the way I am. My parents are often upset about my day-to-day life. I often go against my parents' wishes. My parents are often upset about the way I look. What is the average standing of your grades in your class during your past high school periods. How successful do you feel you have been in school for the past two semesters ? How much do you think most of your school teachers like the group of friends you go around ? CLUSTER 9 : DELINQUENT DEFINITION A7. A8. A9. It is OK to get around the law if you can get away with it. To get ahead, we have to do some things that are not right. It is stupid to just live by the rule. CLUSTER IO : CONFUCIAN VALUE ORIENTATION A1. A2. A5. We Should always Show respect to those in authority. ‘We should obey our superiors whether or not we think they are right. Aka should learn independence and individuality rather than absolute (obedience and respect. I63 CLUSTER 11 : FAMILY BACKGROUND 151. 1A9. 152. Would you please indicate how much education your father had ? Please write the final grade that your father finished ? What is your father's occupation ? Please describe your father's occupation as detail as possible. Wouls you please indicate how much education your mother had ? Please write the final grade that your mother finished. CLUSTER 12 : SERIOUS DELINQUENCY INDEX 81. 65. 72. 75. 77. 88. 93. 76. 86. 78. 7A. 101. 83. 71. 96. 89. 95. Grabbed a purse and ran with it. Run away from home. Been involved in gang fight. Had sexual intercourse with someone against their will. Used weapons in a fight. Taken little things from store. Been loud, rowdy, unruly in a public place. Beaten up or hurt someone so badly that they needed a doctor. Purposely damaged or destoryed things that didn't belong to you, your family, or your school. Refused to tell the truth or told a lie to the police. Used physical forces or threatened to get someone to have sex with you. Annoyed or insulted other people in the street. Attacked someone with weapon. Knowingly bought or sold stolen goods. Been drunk in a public place. Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at cars, people, or buildings. Avoided paying for such things as movies, bus or subway rides, or food. CLJJSTER 13 : HEDONISTIC DELINQUENCY INDEX 99- 106. 73- 62. 92. Gone into restricted adult only establishments like bars, discoteques, or nightclubs. Stayed all night with a group of boys and girls together. Used physical forces or threatened to get money or things from others. Hit another student. Had sexual intercourse with a person of opposite sex. 111. 80. 105. 109. 112. 108. 82. 10A. 16A Regularly smoked cigarettes. Tried to get away from the police officer. Sniffed glue. Done breakdance at the corner of Street with a group of your friends. Regularly drunk alcoholic. Gone camping or trip with a group of boys and girls together. Pickpockedted someone. Smoked marijuana. CLUSTER 1A : GENERAL DELINQUENCY INDEX 87. 98. 110. 70. 63. 102. 90. 85. 57. Stolen something worth less than W1,000. Made obscene phone call. Knowingly touched female passenger in a crowded public transportation bus. Stolen things worth more than W10,000. Forcefully taken money or things from another student. Had fist fight with other people. Lied about your age to gain entrance or purchase something such as lying to get into adult movies or bars. Cheated on school exams. Skipped school without legitimate excuse. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE(ENGLISH) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (II SOCIAL SCIENCE 0 SCHUUI (It ( RIMINAL _II.'STICE EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244118 BAKER HALL Dear student: You have been selected to participate in our survey of male high school Students about their attitudes, beliefs, atributes, and behaviors. The purpose of the survey is to learn more about young people like yourself in today's society and understand them better. For this study to be more meaningful, however, it is extremely important that you complete the survey. Your participation in the survey can be an opportunity for you to have an input to future policies concerning young people like yourself in our society. All the responses to the questions are absolutely anonymous and will be kept in the strictest confidence. No one will see them except the research personnel. Also, your name is not on the answer sheet, so nobody can figure out they are yours. In order to do the survey right we need to have as many students as possible take the questionnaire. Please take a few minutes of your time to fill out the attached questionnaire. Your participation, however, is completely voluntary. Please try to answer all of the questions. Thank you for your help. We hope you will enjoy filling out the questionnaire. Sincerely yours, Yoon Ho Lee Project Director School of Criminal Justice 560 Baker Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI A882A U. S. A. 165 Mil/1's an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I _ .;I I66 PLEASE CIRCLE TIE NUMBER '10 TIE RIGHT OF EACH QUESTION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR FEELINGS ABOUI‘ TIE S'I‘A‘I'EIVEN'I' . STRINGLY STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE l. I am satisfied with school in general. 1 2 3 4 2. I am learning things that I want to know in school. 1 2 3 4 3. I believe school will help me be a mature man. 1 2 3 4 4. The things I am learning in school will help me get a good job later. 1 2 3 4 5. I am not learning what I feel is important. 1 2 3 4 6. The things I do in school waste my time more than things I do 1 2 3 4 outside school. 7. Education is so important it is ' 2 worth it to put up with things 1 2 3 4 about school that I don't like. 8. I have had more difficulties doing well in school than most students 1 2 3 4 my age. 9. I am closer to my parents than are most students my age. 1 2 3 4 10.) When I am away from bone, my parents know whcm I am with ahd l 2 3 4 where I am. 11. I enjoy talking over my future plans withmy' parents. 1 2 3 4 12. I usually share 11w thoughts and feelings with my parents. 1 2 3 4 167 men STRENGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE 13. When I have problems, I confide in my parents. 1 2 3 4.; 14. As a adult, I want to live with my parents. 1 2 3 4 15'. It is hard for no to please my parents. 1 2 3 4 16. My parents seen to understand no. 1 - 2 3 4 17. I often feel angry or rebellious toward my parents. 1 2 3 4 18. My parents always pick on no. 1 2 3 4 19. My parents don't seen to try to understand my problems. 1 ' 2 3 4 20. I often go against my parents' wishes. l 2 3 4 21. My parents are often upset about the way I am. _ 1 2 3 4 22. My parents are often upset about what I am doing. 1 2 3 4 23. My parents are often upset about . the way I look. 1 2 3 4 24. My parents are often upset about my day—to-day life. 1 2 3 4 25. I often argue with my parents. 1 2 3 4 26. I often feel that my parents have too much control bone "1' "‘3 1 2 3 4 27. My parents always help no understand things perflexing to no. 1 2 3 4 28. I often feel that my parents treat no like little kid. 1 2 3 4 29. I often question or doubt the beliefs and values of my parents. 1 2 3 4 I _I 168 SI‘RO‘IGLY SI'RCNGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE 30. Whenever decisions between me and my parents are made, my parents 1 just tell no what to do. 31. I can hardly believe what my parents tell no. 1 32. It is hard for no to talk to my parents about my problen. 1 33. My parents seen to respect my Opinions and thoughts. 1 34. In order for Korea to make proper progress, we must discard all our 1 traditional mores and nontal oulook and adopt a new pattern of thingking. 35. To maintain our cultural identity, we have to protect our own culture fran contamination from the flow of foreign pop culture. 36. The rules and noral beliefs which my parents go by are good for no, tOO. 37. 38. 39. Absolute obedience and respect for the elderly are the nost important virtues we should learn. Sane traditional Korean custans like ancestor worship should no longer be practiced. One should live one's life independently of others as much as possible. Aging parents should live at hcno with their children. We should always show respect to those in authority . We should obey our superiors whether or not we think they are right. 1 169 STRONGLY S'I'RONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE 43. It is alright for girls to smoke cigaretts. l 2 3 4 44. In fast changing Korean society we must give up traditional 1 2 3 4 Korean way of life and adopt new western way of life. 45. we should learn independence and individuality rather than 1 2 3 4 absolute obedience and respect. 46. It is alright for girls to drink alcohol. 1 2 3 4 47. It is OK to get around the law if we can get away with it. 1 2 3 4 48. To get ahead, we have to do save . things that are not right. 1 2 3 4 49. It is stupid to just live by the rule. 1 2 3 4 50, The laws against underage drinking should be obeyed. I 2 3 A 51. Adults have no rights to condemn teenagers for drinking since adults themselves have more problems with 1 2 3 A drinking than teenagers. 52. tknst things that peOple call delinquency usually don't hurt I 2 _ 3 A anyone. 53. Teenagers do things that people call delinquency because they I 2 3 A are under too much pressure. 5A. everybody steals something once in a while. 1 2 3 A 55, It is not really theft to steal from the rich. 1 2 3 L, 56, rkast of my friends are less vvil ling to take chance that bend I 2 3 A rules than I am. 170 NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT ALL YOUR ANSWERS ARE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE CIRCLE ”N0” IF YOU HAVE NEVER DONE AND ”YES” IF YOU HAVE EVER DONE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING. IF YOU CIRCLED ”YES", PLEASE WRITE THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IT DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. WHETHER OR NOT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF YOU HAVE EVER TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IN DONE IN THE THE LAST 12 MONTHS. LAST 12 MONTHS. 57. Skipped school without legitimate excuse. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 58. Cheated on school exams. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 59. Defied teachers' authority to their face. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 60. Purposely damaged or destroyed school property. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 61. Stole something at school. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 62. Hit another student. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 63. Forcefully taken money or things from another student. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 6A. Purposely damaged or detroyed family property. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 65. Run away from home. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 66. Stole money or things from home. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 67. Gone out at night when your 1' parents told you that you YES N0 NO. OF TIMES couldn't go out. 68. Defied your parents' authority to their face. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 69. Cursed or shouted at your parents. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 70. Stole things worth more than H10,000. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 171 WHETHER OR NOT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF YOU HAVE EVER TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IN DONE IN THE THE LAST 12 MONTHS LAST 12 MONTHS 71. Knowingly bought or sold stolen goods. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 72. Been involved in gang fights. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 73. Used physical force or threatened to get money or things from others. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 7A. Used physical force or threatened to get somedne to have sex with you.YES NO NO. OF TIMES 75. Had sexual intercourse with someone against their will. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 76. Beaten up or hurt someone so , badly that they needed a doctor. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 77. Used weapons in a fight. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 78. Refused to tell the truth or told a lie to the police. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 79. Kept money for yourself that belonged to your group or YES NO NO. OF TIMES <>rganization such as class, club, church, or school. 80. 'Tried to get away from police officer. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES __ 81. Grabbed a purse and ran with it. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 82. Pickpocketed someone. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 83w .Attacked someone with weapon. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 8A. l’layed cards for the money. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 85. Broken into a building or house tc> steal something. YES N0 NO. OF TIMES 86. Pu rposely damaged or destroyed ttiings that didn't belong to YES N0 NO. OF TIMES you, your family, or your school. 172 WHETHER OR NOT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF YOU HAVE EVER TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IN DONE IN THE THE LAST 12 MONTHS LAST 12 MONTHS 87. Stolen something worth less than H1,000. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 88. Taken little things from store. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 89. Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at cars, people, or building. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 90. Lied about your age to gain entrance or purchase something such as lying YES NO NO. OF TIMES to get into adult movies or bars. 9l. Carried a hidden weapon such as knife.YES NO NO. OF TIMES 92. Had sexual intercourse with a person of opposite sex. ’ YES NO NO. OF TIMES 93. Been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 9h. Taken motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle for a ride without the owner's YES NO NO. OF TIMES permission. 95. Avoided paying for such things as movies, bus or subway rides, or food. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 96. Been drunk in a public place. _YES NO - NO. OF TIMES 97. Begged for money or things from strangers. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 98. Made obscene phone call. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 99. Gone into restricted adult only establishments like bars, discoteques,YES NO NO. OF TIMES or nightclubs. I00. Stayed out all night without parents' permission. YES NO NO. OF TIMES ‘01 . Annoyed or insulted other people in the street. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 102. ltad fist fight with other people. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 173 WHETHER OR NOT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF YOU HAVE EVER TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IN DONE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS LAST 12 MONTHS 103. Beaten up on kids who hadn't done anything to you. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 104. Smoked marijuana. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 105. Sniffed glue. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 106. Stayed all night with a group of bOys and girls together. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 107. Seen adult video tapes. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 108. Gone camping or trip with a group of boys and girls together. . YES NO NO. OF TIMES 109. Done breakdancing at the corner of street with a group of friends. YES NO NO. OF TIMES 110. Touched woman passenger beside you in crowded public transportation bus. YES NO NO. OF TIMES PLEASE CIRCLE ”NO“ IF YOU DO NOT REGULARLY DO AND ”YES" IF YOU DO REGULARLY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING. IF YOU CIRCLED ”YES”, PLEASE WRITE THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TIMES YOU USUALLY DO IT DURING THE GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME. WHETHER OR NOT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER YOU DO REGULARLY 0F TIMES YOU USUALLY DO 111. Do you smoke cigarette regularly ? YES NO NO. OF CIGARETTES YOU SMOKE PER DAY 112. IR) you drink regularly ? YES NO NO. OF TIMES YOU DRINK PER MONTH 17% FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER TO THE RIGHT OF EACH QUESTION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR POSITION ABOUT THE STATEMENT. ‘VERY OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER 113. How often do you and your parents 90 out and do fun things together 7 1 2 3 h 11h. How often do you talk with your parents about day-to-day life 7 1 2 3 h 115. How often do you go out with your friends at night 7 I 2 3 h 116 How often do you go to the movie 7 1 2 3 h 117 How often do you date with girl friends 7 1 2 3 h 118 How often do you go to the game rooms 7 1 2 3 h 119. How often do you go to such place as Cafe, Bakery, or Chinese Restaurant 7 1 . 2 3 h 120. How often do you go to the table tennis or billiards rooms 7 1 2 3 II 121. How often have your friends talked you . into doing things that are not.right 7 1 2 3 A 122. How often does your family do things like going to the movies, picnic, or 1 2 3 h . camping and dinning out together 7 123. How often do members of your family talk with each other about what is happening 1 2 3 h around themselves 7 12h. How often have you seen any of your family members fighting each other, such as fights between your parents 1 2 3 h or among your siblings 7 175 FOR THE FOLLOWING UESTIONS, PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER TO THE RIGHT OF EACH QUESTION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR POSITION ABOUT THE STATEMENT. MOST SOME A FEW NONE OF THEM OF THEM OF THEM OF THEM 125. As far as you know, how many of your friends have been regularly I 2 3 4 smoking cigarettes 7 ' 126. As far as you know, how many of your friends approve of smoking I 2 3 h cigarettes 7 127. As far as you know, how many of your friends have ever been 1 2 3 h picked up by the police 7 128. As far as you know, how many of your friends have been involved in any illegal activities during 1 2 3 h the past 12 months. ’ 129. As far as you know, how many of your friends have ever been 1 2 3 h suspended from school 7 130. As far as you know, how many of your friends think it is cool if 1 2 3 0 you do something brave but illegal? 131. As far as you know,_how many of your friends rather encourage you 1 2 3 h if they found you were shoplifting7 FOR THE NEXT QUESTIONS, PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER BELOW EACH QUESTION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR POSITION ABOUT THE QUESTION. 132. What is the average standing of your grades in your class during your highschool period 7 UPPER UPPER MIDDLE LOWER MIDDLE LOWER #WN—i 176 133. If you are allowed to be whatever you want to be, how much would you like to be a sportstar in your school? I VERY MUCH 2 SOMEWHAT 3 HARDLY k NOT AT ALL 134. If you are allowed to be whatever you want to be, how much would you wnat to be a guy with great popularity among girls? 1 VERY MUCH 2 SOMEWHAT 3 HARDLY 4 NOT AT ALL 135. How much are you satisfied with your home and family life in genersl? VERY MUCH SOMEWHAT HARDLY . NOT AT ALL #UJN—D 136. How successful do you feel you have been in school for the past two semesters? 1 VERY SUCCESSFUL 2 SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL 3 SOMEWHAT UNSUCCESSFUL A VERY UNSUCCESSFUL 137. Have you ever been suspended from school for the past two semesters? 1 YES 2 NO 138. If you could have as much as you desire, how much education would you like to get? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION SOME COLLEGE COLLEGE GRADUATION POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL :wN—n- 139. Do you have a steady girl friend? 1 YES NO 140. Ihl. 1&2. 1A3. Ihh. 145. 177 If your parents had to move to another city for just one year, would you go with them or stay with a friend? ABSOLUTELY GO WITH MY PARENTS .PROBABLY GO WITH MY PARENTS PROBABLY STAY WITH A FRIEND ABSOLUTELY STAY WITH A FRIEND JT'UJN-d Suppose you had always wanted to belong to a special club and finally were invited to join. But you also found that your parents did not approve of the club. Would you join the club or not? ABSOLUTELY JOIN THE CLUB PROBABLY JOIN THE CLUB PROBABLY NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT .ITWNfl Suppose your parents had planned a trip for vacation in the summer. But you also have a plan for camping with your friends on the same days. Would you go a vacation with your parents or go camping with your friends? ABSOLUTELY GO A VACATION WITH MY PARENTS PROBABLY GO A VACATION WITH MY PARENTS PROBABLY GO CAMPING WITH MY FRIENDS ABSOLUTELY GO CAMPING WITH MY FRIENDS #WN—b In ancient times in Korea, our customs called-for the separation of male and female begining from the age of 7. In contemporary times, however, there are many mixed schools for boys and girls and close friends of opposite sex are often seen dating. HOw far would you think friendly contacts between male and female high school students can go? CONVERSATION ONLY HOLDING HANDS ‘ ' KISSING GOING BEYOND KISSING #WN—I How much do you think most of your school teachers like the group of friends you go around with? 1 VERY MUCH 2 SOMEWHAT 3 HARDLY h NOT AT ALL Not including traffic violations, have any of your family members been in trouble with the law? 1 YES 2 NO 1A6. lh7. 1h8. Ih9. 150. 151. 152. 153. 178 How well off is your family financially? UPPER CLASS UPPER MIDDLE CLASS LOWER MIDDLE CLASS LOWER CLASS JT'WN—i Would you say that any of your family members is drinking alcohol too much? 1 YES 2 N0 With whom do you live at home7(Circle all the numbers that apply to you) ALONE FATHER MOTHER SIBLING(S) GRANDPARENT(S) OTHERS O‘U‘I-wa—i What is your father's occupation? In case you don't have father, please write “NO FATHER” and if your father is currently unemployed, please write ”UNEMPLOYED“. What is your mother's occupation? In case you don't have mother, please write ”NO MOTHER“ and if your mother is currently unemployed, please write ”UNEMPLOYED”. Would you please indicate how much education your father had? Please write the final grade your father finished. In case you don't have father, please write "NO FATHER”. Would you please indicate how much education your mother had? Please write the final grade your mother finished. In case you don't have mother, please write ”NO MOTHER”. If a new clothing style comes out and you can buy and change to it any time you want, how soon would you change to the new style? I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO CHANGE IN THE SCHOOL I WOULD CHANGE ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS MOST OTHERS I WILL NOT CHANGE UNTIL MOST OTHERS CHANGE I WOULD BE THE LAST TO CHANGE IN THE SCHOOL bWN-fi 15k. 155. 156. 157. 158. 179 Suppse that you are having a Christmas party with your friends. Later in the evening, one of your friends appears to be feeling high, mildly drunk from drinking too much alcohol. But he is not behaving rudely except feeling high. How would you feel about him feeling high? ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE rWN—I Suppose that Kim was home and doing homework one night and his friends called and asked him to go mess around on the street. He decided to go out and hang around with his friends. How would you feel about Kim's dec'5'°"' ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE JPUUN—e Suppose that Kim has a chance to go to a great disco party but he has a big test tomorrow that he is worried about. Kim decides to go to the party. How would you feel about Kim's decision? ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE rWN-A Suppose that Kim is one of the best baseball players in your school but his grades are not too good and he knows that if he goes out for baseball his grades will get worse. But he decides to go out and; play baseball. How would you feel about Kim's decision? ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE :WN-e Suppose that Kim has saved a bit of moneyenough to buy a new stereo he really wants. But his parents want him to save the money for the future in case he needs it. But he decides to buy a new stereo anyway. How would you feel about Kim's decision? ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT UNACCEPTABLE SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE rWN-fi APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE(KOREAN) ”m ...-....-. -._.¢-..-—-.~ -..—s-.- . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Of SOCIAL SCIENCE ' SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1110 BAKER HALL Mane Maia—IE1 ?ltlvlklr‘z- 3111141521 sag-1:5» OM Be E- 3.32.2421 B7B}: flit Ewan—1‘11. E- 5491 sale an AIM £593,591 TM €- ti are as- 811-?- sz 2 25% e ci a oItIItIvI ale awn. a 2:247} :14: slam:- M7} 5171 813111415 41MB Eli-11% Beam av: an sme- 31°] $911515. BBB Own. 412MB E- Mail Malena- a e Elna/Mon 210M mam Qa- aaeeon 19.4.1 uIaII ”£13121 $an 4a 2.22:. EJI #0131711 EEIE 7:12.1ch E BIB-on cm 2E.- Brae £21817“ 9129.; 21212 am Baal?“ :1 Eva °l swsa Bun—In}. 'e a»: 112m OWN} AIBE Baal Bax]: E $71 31 7115101318912 E BEAR—:- #12421 1139.0: 716i leeme an M7} 31.91 All 9:24 nmzr ‘T—BEIIBMIAI -'5'-'?-3131 9.1+:- {€- 59}qu Iii/MM eeei xii: 01-8- 23 1130122 mm aim—I BAII—Bivnxie {1.81 E @101 563711? s- emi-:- AVE a PM Beeaqcl. H} Bea sazIoII #18191 else new My} 3171 Ale-on 4212101 2- ym 3.2}; “BI B9217} Baal mm M $1471 am 2101 MIN. an 2M 9.1::- Etta/M :47] Blame nee E} BIB.- weal E- 2.54011 BI ow mm 212.2: 2% Mina eras—I Ame 9°1qu uni-Ba BEA-B a 77121 awn 4mm snarl axialneqck 2e ‘aE-fll weal E7121 asuéAIa cm W. #élEElnl EsIEMItII um E1492: aAlsaIuI e715: 018—2.: ”£5241! awn #Alalal 61749111 BIB um. 1986‘s! 9% °I £- :9: MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 180 ..L ._ .,..__._....L-. .___.____-_..._.._._ , L. -181 E ’23-€- AWWI 41—132. 01“”? ‘33-#54 EE‘HZIBIE ’B‘I'B‘OII—I- 2.9M SIB-4‘- Sifi-I—ICI. FIE} E- ‘fifi-fi- #0173. ’19-591 5'qu 11H! Iil’zll 01315-54 9173.2 Exit 31i- “IS‘III—IFI. 4H“! half-El 56 IEI7II'7‘19I ESP" quIIl‘I‘E. EM 11 E—‘Jfi- i’défiffl 31.9.41 148- -'1 ”BE-4| ”It! E2191 °-I’9°I'-I' Slai- 71’? ’II LIEI‘IECIII- ”£11311?- 91-8-91 S91 ill ‘53 “II-IFS *‘ilzlql 03. 8II EPAI‘E! iIt—Icl. “I! i°l “LR—:- ’3‘ #312? 3101 #IUICL'FH‘: E-‘Jql tIIIIII ’Qtllllgi 55191813151?! 401%.! BBS”? an JIE‘SIIILII'vP'BI 16°11 01!. 8l-AI‘E! il‘vIFI: 51.71: 7&3?" 5‘81th 35-9-1115} QI‘IIQICI 338] {I‘ll Lit—:- i‘ilth‘: 73M 4101:}. I 2 3 '4 *921 3271 :6) 2 3 41 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Baa Baa E ecI. saw. went was}. 1) LIE- ulali #:1411101 {WW}. 1 2 3 4 2) 4E- tlnolw 4171 814-1 slow:- 1 - 2 ' 3 4 adv} uIl-Il-Il 211:1. 3) L1171 41212.5 dame-til 9.101 film I 2 3 4 71 BEN} 2% es}. 4) am 1IImoIIkI “Ht-:- aii°l 7M I 2 3 4 L1171 i'e- 312% :I‘flx‘stl E'- 5%- 01 i with 5) 71121212.: L171 «and: 42181 1 2 3 4 ‘i': *I'Jii- 1“HIT-“Ml “II-Ila?- XIII 7351: 182 73'? 3' 732331 1519-12114. 559111114. ELIGIEICI. 33113.5}. — 6) L191 2:41.222 elem 3221433} 1 2 3 4 011 31811 9.8131 412121 $161014. 7) 313w]? uII-II- 2232} 310171 III-5:- 1 2 3 4 Oil 2; mm 93% XIBIE BIN 222 xH.B7I 9.14. ' 8) dial-”Eel I-IIEEII ERIE it} LIE 1 2 3 4 Elm-“311391 I31 31?: 0161-8-31- $13!. 2151. 9) EIICH=21 HIEEII TIME it} LIE 1 2 3 4 #93521 El 7I7Ili- fiolcl. 10) I491 #9521915- L1171 21M OI 1 2 3 4 ':14‘41 #491 £101 il‘e-Zl 313'. 741 4ch y 11) LIE EILEEN-I 421 maximal EH 1 2 3 4 3M i910! 21:52.15}. 12) LIE- Ellilli LIIAIIZIOILI 213% l?— 1 ‘ 2 3 4 ran} 1101 LI-‘r-E 121°15}. 13) L101?” 112101 9.1% 3. LIE- —?-£ 1 2 3 4 B11 ’39-12.114. . I4) L11712513101 5121:. Lit—:- —?—£‘é%£ 1 2 3 4 31:41 ’31 3151. 15) 3129* 71.-9.711 81] sale- 34°14 1 2 3 4 0117111:- TIE- 31011:}. 16) #3921414:- I—Ii oltltlAlt- 34 1 2 3 4 {-EFI. 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 139.2121 ill t117114 14.18.131.11 4.1 % u171 %% 9.11:}. #2321414? 2111 I421 5.21% 31 4114. 5.9211411:— LISI E2115 0161181621 31 31215. a! 1221 9411:}. 0 LIE $9.991 819011 0154011:- 341 :53 %%'*t"4. 'T-E'BWA‘IE 1E12191 L1 11451011 C11 81441::- %% «R— 42811 81414. ‘E-E‘dle‘I-E- L1.21 8.1%011 3181141 %% i— 0121311 31414. #2321416 L121 £26011 :11811 %% i— "PM 8141:). (at-21% 0N 0111112} %) #E‘dvllklx‘i- L191 921411011 CIISII %% 31- 01294411 314114. %% '41—:- -'1'-2.‘él’l $151-$8- {It}. LIE %% #1921441 L1} J3111211 711 %2118141c11 22.161. 13213414445 11171 =32 2:12 21 % 01811? 4= 9.15:! 591%.“. LIE:- %% #292141 1+! °1€°11 ~31-321142 2.74114. #331121 416014 711142011 2131141 LR:— %% 21%43 2.7151. --III [0 183 7.1218 2242 2223 3223 I 2 3 r3}. 02'- W) 3” M) 3M 30 3M 3m 3” 222121 2171 217141011 4121 A121 2 27321 21. 22.217173 231321 .22 273212141 112171 714121 21 20121. 22.217121 L1o1711 217115 212.12 L112 7121 22- 2-71 3121. 2211771 L17141211 22.1 1271-2 21 2*- EEIE 7112 421111 2.221 212 212121. 2121712115 1121 21212121 221 2- 2221 27111:— 711 111:1. 221112171 21732171 21212115- 221 21 22.- 7.1221 13221 7114.121 41:1. 212141 212117. 112%. 4311921,} 21212-2121 21:1. 221 32121 2211211 27112171 21 217%- 22121 343-111-2171 21211 :11 212-2121 3122. 21121 2.212171 21 5.3- .2.1212) 2151. 22.132111 é4=81*l‘e- 32122121 1132 11714121712 3212.1 31 E- “Q 2273712111121 2121122221 4222 21- 21 1221 2121218115 7121 2.221 21 212121. 1811 222 %flflq %QQQ %WQQ I 2 3 185 232 , 222 2°22 2222 2222 2222 38) 2213121121 7.13.- 22 $2191 211% 1 2 3 4 721 7122 El 2121 1312112121 94121 21 $1. 39) 212.13.- 7135-1131 612123-1161 521 1 2 3 4 3141 2121219.; 2.10121 211:1. 40) 2313121 251.9549.- 21215121 3.21 1 2 3 4 3'. 212121 2.151. 41) 2M} 392121! E73312]: 11.121. 1 2 3 4 42) 2521 2121-1-21 1117118101 2%21 I 2 3 4 2) 13y: 21%2121 11.121. 43) 212171 22121-1145 212 31% #- 31 1 2 3 4 1:- 212161. 44) €119,811:- 3151 2113121121 32121 2.1. l 2 3 4 221 2221212 212137. 2122 21 221 21221212 22122121 211:1. 45) 72.211 51%21 €251.42:- 18121 21 I 2 3 4 212121 711241131 912121 111:1. 46) 21217122 212115 7:42 9.1-3 2 1 2 ' 3 4 311-:- 310121. 47) 21113 631 $21 212113 215131 '11 l 2 3 4 % 11131121 2115 212 3318-.- 221 C1. 48) 21321 312171 511811211:- «3213221 1 2 3 4 3411?.- 915 212.13.- 8121'11 111:1. 49) 221221 11.15.21 12:11:21 211-:- 21 1 2 3 4 8- 01212112- 21°F). 186 14131111 14 731.101 21:121. 41212191 74123-111241 “21:11-3- 115111115 24.141 0 11:11 #41411. 11.121 01411:» 144111 2111 11332.1 2141 an a 31301 210111 “on" 21 121.011 on 3141:1111, a1; :1 1.1413 21111 11332.1 1113 :41 324 3131 1321 :1 31¢: 3212121 233141.141 211014141413. gfl:(a&) NBIEQ 33132 %§%$ 232$ nu ma 34831-4111 111 (D 2 ‘ 100 3% ma <11 1 ® ‘ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32163 #3166 %§%%% 21134 ill—'4- 21 57) 231311 41112141 +1111 1217111 2444.1 11 . 1 2 58) 4111111 11411141: 1.1 111 ‘ 1 59141311 41411131! 3111312.; 111%.- ‘11 1 60) 191219.: 41311111111 1115113171111 $413- 21111 a 1 61) 413101141 111912171! 331 31 1 d’ 62) 1:1! 31482111121 EON 3121* 73211:. 1191?.- 2 1 63) t}! WH- 41111.31 1 64) 191% ’82! 112111 313131711} E’Mfl 2 1 AK 65) 71%?1' $1 ~ 1 66,) 3PM {PM idfl- £31 311 l 57) 211-5113411111 31171211 3111-3-01; 3513131. 0141011 ' 1 flifilfl NNNNNNNNNN 187 211111-321 211.111.1111 ’3 €13"?- % fill-’1‘- ?»le 81°}. 68) 31112)”! 79943.1 ‘Hfi- ‘3 1 2 69) $13”! ENEM- 31-3—711—1 91‘3fi- '1'} ‘H l 2 .‘ 1 70) ik°11171 EH1! °l’a)5h‘-:- idi- fi-fl 31 l 2 A 71) SEE?! i' QQHE 2115'8- 1117114 £1 ‘21 l 2 ,fi 72) IMF-8"} 2} ‘21 l 2 -_1, 73) '41? $923-$151 5011—} 136% 194”] $18)) 1% l 2 £131?! 2H- 71317114 8W2.) 1H 4. 74) 411.141: 3171 211111 212121-31 111212117121 221 1 2 . 31121 21% 7111.1 1H ' .2 75) 4111121 94*}! ‘11-‘12) 11)) 7&11li *éflflé 1:) 1H. 1 2 ,1 76) SIAM?!) 10401131 7921 AH’a‘ir 218)?!) $5111 1 2 q . 2f- 77) $71! 0118-8101 “PS-1% 1?} ‘2! l 2 £1 78) 73%1-‘1011711 71512121- 817114 41121-8- 71119817l§ 71 1 - 2 212.1 111 ' 79) 1321, 31131, 2121‘. #8.- flmq 212% 71121312. 1 2 i 2&2} i! 80) 732222-251 52121213141221 21 1 7: 81) 3317]} t" 9 l 1’ 82) 41.112171: 1.1 21 1 33) 27122113 41212 321111 21 ' 1 s4) 22 221.22 2122 11111 5111111 71.12% t1 2 1 85) 2917111 22171 11181 2.120111 711221011 221 2 1 211 212121 21. NNNNNN 188 2111111521 211111121 2222 2222 1L2 .21 86) flflfllfiflt} 21213-210] °Hd C}! 11}? 31:11-94 1 2 iii- flflli 31318171114 $111121 ‘11 87) 11012171 21111 11121512 22.12 221 21 1 2 (1:88) 71711011111 5211.1 i212 «H11 31 l 2 (,1 89) 21221. A121 22 212201 22011—1 1111222 J 2 E1111 9! 90) 01213312227121 ‘35}! .1117] filfill‘ih‘ ”W 13.11 61912.33) 62M) 501717] #1311111 #fi- ‘3‘ c>111 211111: 1171 11131111 2141121 11°12 221 21 91) 2131 212 271! 201 27111. 1:111 11 1 92) «12121 21111111} 11 21 1 ' 493) 221221.012 .222 1112 21 1 94) 42131 3171810] 2191 3.512110)? 3.551151 £18- 213711 {-111 E": 1H (r- 95) 9931139111 21910114 31.2.3.2“ #8- %¢Jik%-% 111219311 221 III 91% 111 A“ 96) 22792.1.qu 2°11 21111 111 1 3 97) 1311i 112122.251 2011—1 2212 11211.1 2.1 1 2 98) 914193.311} 1% 74 ( SLEE- A)? °)-‘?-°ll7ll1-} 2.3.5) i £01 ’9‘"! 3154317114 43'8- flE 111%) 1? 99) 01491113119! 13111191 €118 €121. 1:14:32. 2&- 1 2 401.2113?!” £18- fi-I—‘fithl i121!) fl 1001 2.112121 111213141 2111121 21 1 2 1011 2171210111 11212 512311111 4122 1.1 21 102) 91512141122.- 2‘ 9 l 2 v—n v—n _- NNNNN N fl N _- N p—o N .-——-—— ~ - —- -—~~~-~-~ - 189 Zl‘d'l‘dfl' 11319.2.) 73%)344‘ @fifil-T- fl 81% 103) 01-11%: aka-11.1 1.15. SIE- 013°“ 91111 a 1 2 104) 9111;: nia- $1 - 1 2 w 105) 1131211129921 134% 4131591 551010111 fl 1 2 \4‘7106) 1.1111 399% tr fl 1 2 107) ”091% 11111.9. mm 1?.- Q ‘ l 2 J12 108) 111113-1193. WWI-1 911838- z.1 1111 1 2 W 109) a)?“ 0191 5311111111 99- éa l 2 '\ 1 110) 111613.- 1.111151451101111 2°“ 11 91219-21191 %-.-3— 1 2 5115118- 94 .................................................................................................................... c1921 -'.=- 9191111 - 11219.- 9491 991.91 11111 11911114. 9.191 991% 11 @1122 11191714 6% 99:19.2 1:111:19); ' c11"91 191.91 011 111 #1131. o1 1191;. “011151'91 211.191 011 :11 #11113. 1121 1311—3 110121243. 119—c1111; 3} 11°11 933 3711111 :95: 1114191 #9 119219.: 1:191:10; 91-1-2011 992-»: are). 21 211 91111-2211 :1 11144 2101411113.. 9e&€%% 1 9111.9. 9199911991111 1 111) 9111111 1192112.: 11191-2219.? 1 2 , 112) $9 116219.: 1111113113.? 1 2 °Wl91 ’25.- 113‘21 -‘i’-E1 154191712101] 121181111113, Z1 Jag-g— 19_2\~_ 14.3. :1 g 15.-“l EM} ZH‘lQJ 9J’9-3- 7|”? ’2' 451915131 AEZI’SFE %'394 61% ‘I—E’fl ~33-‘32] 9) 3 151°“ OE. 3“ 5154111113.. 113) 114) 115) 116) 117) 118) 119) 120) 121) 190 @1111 711— 21-215121 11171 21%31121 2.71% @715 21.9.? l . 911-?- 11515 11.1111. 2. 711:1L 11.151. 3. 7121 21th:}, 4. 79.111 9.112.151. @0101 1191‘- -‘1’-£‘:!$’-1 81-?31-‘1191 “18%011 11.11:) #512 1157+:- 213.? l . 911-?- 2121‘- 1114. 2. 711:1 111:1. 3- 719-! 2.11161. 4- 73111 9111151. @0111 21% fl?%11 W11 °Rl°1| 3113-3- 811:— 1m? 1. 11111- 7121- 11121. '2. 7111 11191. 3. 7121 9.16111. ’ 4. 71111 9.11.1121. @9111 21‘?- 9311111712- 71E-xla? , 1. "ll-1?- 21% {151. ’ 2. 711:1L {11:1, 17191211114. 4.711211 0.12.111. @0111 714- 47111191 1110135 @711:- 713.? 1 - "H 21% 1151. 2. 711,,1 {1:1, 17191911151. 4.31M 9.111151. @9111 11% 2121.9?11011 711—:- 719? 1. 911—?- 211? 2.11:1. 2. 71% 1.11:1. 17121211114, 4. 711111 2.12.161. 12911—1 21211 71111-1171, 73114138, 111-41119, 41°: 7113111 534 711:— x19‘? 1 . ‘11H?- 11‘? {151. 2. 71% 2151. 3. 7121 9.1211 4. 71181 217.114. @0114 21‘?- ??FQOM 91:11:31] 711: 219? 1 - “114?— 2141 {11:1, 2. 711,1 2.11:1. 3. 7121 11211:}, 4- 1.1.31 9.12.13}. ’11-‘11?! 61139.: 119-91%.L 25H! 2% 815% 311117-1101 $119111 311—:- 21.9.? 1. 91121111. 212114. 2- 7”? 51113114. 3.7194 3121‘}. 4-‘5131 81%”). 122) 123) 124) 125) 126) 127) 128) 129) —- -...__.-_-_- - . 19] 4111121111 21011115 9°11 21311.11 71%77121 2211—1 2191‘— 2121-3 1.12.15 21.9.? 1.111112214111121. 2. 7113 {11:1 3. 7121 211121, . 4- 2121 2.12114. @2111 21‘?- 712212212 2131-7173, 2%— EE 73%! ~52..- 71711—1 212-:- 91212 312-:- 2111? l- "H- 21? 2151. 2. 712-} {11:1, 3-7191 2.12.161. 4. 2121212151. 32121 712112114 ”#2111211 21811 E11111: 212—. 725121 21%311—3 21.9.? 1. 211-?- 2142114. 2. 2R1 '21-£2151. 3- 7121 2E2] £8114. ' 4- 2121 2.1%21 £8151. $2:- 22122121 *1: 214-2171112211, 21211277121 *1; 214-15 %- 212.121 112- 77121 21222 212 22111 71% 2 2- 2112 712? ‘ 1- 911-?- 214 {11:1, 2. 7112 234:1. 3-719li¢&1|=h 4-flfi-‘é14‘81‘1. 11215121 211-? 7? 912-. 11571 21621.21 21211-2 212219 11118122 21.2? 1. 7131 9.1::- 21-‘1‘71 xiii-£1. 2. 11121 1112 211171 Ill-3t}. 3. 22 {1:112} 21221. 4- 7121 21!?- 21-75 2131-51. 112191 21:11? 011;. 28571 931114-112 7.2-8- 2315112219.; 2172211431 1121 311% 21.2? 1. 7191 ELE- 21-‘1‘71 21782121. 2. 111111 1112-:— 21?71 217212.114. 3- ii 21:1“?! 21282131. 4- 7191 01-?- ?l-T‘E. 91723174 932—351. 21221 21:12 212—. 711271 7.121211 27.1111 2121 21:12. 11121311:- 712? 1. 7121 2.2- 211171 112121 2121 2121. ' 2. 71111 21221271 117.1121 21211 211:1. 3. 22 21112.1 27112.1 2:121 2121. 4. 7121 211'- 2122 271121 2121 2121. 21221 2122 2127112717121 12122.1 2121 22121 2212121211 712121 2121 2121.11. 217-1211:- 7112? 130) 131) 132) 133) 192 . 7121 2.1-:- 71171 1121212121 71212.1 2121 2121. . 7121 2113.- 111-71 14121212121 711121 2121 2121. . 22 21121 1121212121 712121 1121 211:1. . 7121 211-1 2111;. 111212121 712121 2121 2121. 2171121 111121 21.1.- 2271 21.2.2171 7112-2 212.— 2121 2121.11. 221212- 71 2? 1. 7131 EE- 71117171111112- 211121 911:1. 2. 7121 21.2 2111717111112- 2121 2121. 3. 212 21112.1 711121-2- 2121 2121. 4. 7121 211- 21112 712212.- 2121 2121. 211121 2111-2 21.: 711271 21212.1 1171717121 2121 21111112 212- 212- % 1115-22171 21212131 7.121211:- 712? 1. 7121 2.2 211171 111117171 217121. 2. 711111 11111 211171 1111:2217" 21114. 3. 22 11112.1 111122171 212121 4. 7121 211'- 71112 111112171 217171 211-2121. ,- 2111-22121 2.21212. 21121 12 2221 2.2711 711271211121 7111 7.1212 21117121 2112 212.1 711121 7122 221 7.12171 21212121 21212.1 2 1-21 21121 2121212121 21217171712112 71.2? 1.2212 2121221 -1- 211-:- 212121. 2.7121 21212121 1- 211::- 212121. 3. 211—712 21212—2 ~2- 2112 212121. . 11212122 2121-2—21 1- 211-:- 22121. 21:11 111 711-7121211711 271-2 21:2 212 21 2111-2-21 7.1212 2.121 21221 21 717121-2- 1121117131 7121212121. 221-12 7112 2171-2.— 221 11.2. 71112- 21 71212.1 2112 21221712 271212121 212121 711-221 27.121 1121 212171 21212122 71.22 ACONH >£ A 134) 135) 136) 137) 138) 193 1. 7.1212 2212-21 1— 21:1. 2. 7121 2121-221 =2 2121. 3. 212712 2121221 ~1- 2121. 4. 22121.22 2121-2—21 1- 2121. :1 112.1 21221 2 2112121 2221 712121 2121 211- 7111121, 211-2171 2.21 21 71112.1 1:122 21212171 712171211212 21, 2172-:- 121 212- 12221 71 21221 1121 :1 1:122 212121 71712 211212121, 21212.1 711—21 27.121 :11 21171 2121711 7121212 712? 1. 22112 2121221 2 21:1. 2. 7121 2212—21 2 21:1. 3. 212112 2121221 1- 2121. 4. 212121.22 2121-221 1- 2121. 211-1:- 2 711 2121211 1.1 71 2.212122 21- 212 1122 212.121 1112 2 2 71221221 21221 1122171712 7121 7111-71 22 2.221 111111121 21271 711 11 ~1- 9122 2212122 7171212 2211- 7112:- 71-3-21 12212 211-2212 2111212 2122 :1 2.2.2 2- 712 21212121 71 2212122 71712 2211 c121 21212.1 2221 271121 21121 212171 7121212 712? 1. 2:12 21212-21 1= 21:1. 2. 7121 212122 -1- 21:1. 3. 2127212 2121—221 1- 2121. 4. 22121.22 21212-21. ~1- 21:1. 211—:- 21112 21221 7121 11112.1 211121-1- 21— 21 7121217121 21721 21.-.1. _ 2.121.2- 21271 21.2 212121, 2121 111-7121112- 712 212121 221-21 21:2. 2.12121 1:111 21212 7:12 21 2121712 711-1:- 21112 712 21712 222121 21212121 711221 21121 21121 211171 7.121212 712? 1. 712112 2121221 1- 21:1. 2. 7121 11212-2 ~1- 2121. 3. 212712 2121221 1- 211. 4. 21112122 21212-2 1— 2121. 21%! 314°] {213113 1113. $9101E-Zl a -1‘- 215193. %°)'&%°ll+ 1°r‘31'11 fi-S‘fl‘f-fi 515-1 41119: 21.8.? 1.18%?) 513-1445). 2-9121’ 51:11 21‘}. 3-71315131313134. 4.212121211712121. ‘39. 31‘3“ 831%.- Efli $31°l§31 a 4‘- 211'4‘5. %°)‘&%°I‘Jr 0131/9192- °ll7il "ll-$- 2171211‘5 51111 11‘3“ 51.11 21% 21.8.? .--- . - 1911 1.1312131513131161. 2. 91215131. 31161. 3. 7121 5131 2121 91121. 4.71121 5131 2M 9116}. 139) 21%7712191 12:-1113.1. 2121712121 211713. 11.121121 21.2.3115 317191115212? 1- 11 2. 215 ’2} 3. 2 t1 4. 21 140) 21%012121 139.23%] fifleli-OM 111—2121 21912131 2321312:- )112? 1- 211-?- 722121212121. 2- 9R! *3-‘5‘810l214. 3. 21;} 4111721212121, 4- 211-?- 4111111012114. 141) 11%7111121 fli‘fli’? 21312-1121 112% 121% 21°] 9111—:— x113.? 1. 3121. 2. 8114. 142) 11111 21232) 811211.11 8211—:- 11-1'221 31.31% 21211-321 11.1% ¢- 9121111, 213: 21521 3.141% 11331 212- 21.81? 1. 1%21311 fig 2. $3211 1219.- 213—2" €31 3.41371121121i21 4.2112182]? 143) 2124 311237421 '3 11.1. 122.121 141.3;- 21‘1121 OWE- 71’4/‘1 30%qu 21.. 111321221 11121 21%: 71219.3 2171i 7171 1211127111.. 22 211212171 1112121711415 1% 11%.) 21171 11.4. 5522.1 2H2} 2171 233211115212? 1 . 21211212.; #523578- 2121 2171i 7171 ’21 711°ch 2. 21212 311.28% 2121 2171i 7171 ’21 7112121. 3. 21215. 711-31 111-7121211711 1M 2 312121. 4. £21212; 411-?” 211-7131121171 Wit ’21 31211:}. 144) 11121 1135:1211 712.1313; 2.121811%- 212121 WWI-331. £1121 71°.)Mia- 2.13.1.2. 1+ 11132-121171 :1 “ii—3' 2198217] 9411—32115! 2192711 81711112 713.? 1. ¥EBWH 9151311) 8119.2121215 221121.22 71%)? 7110113}. . 212212121 2171111121 9327121215. 2121 71211 7112121. - 111-5112121711 21192171 21.9.7111}?! 712131711 93-3- 7112121. 22217171 217113171 21.271212 21211: 71212171 911% 3112121. th 145) 146) 147) 148) “195' 2121 22217171 712121712 712 2171 2171121 7.712221 221 71712 21 7.11 22.-17121 271711 22121. 212711 212112 71.2? 1. 221171.22 22221 71221712 11 722121. 2. 21212 222121 71221712 2 212121. 3. 21212 7.12221 71.122 2.1 7112121. 4. 22171.22 7112221 7.1212 2 7112121. 2121 71122 22121 217121 21212 21 2212121 21.711271 :1 22121 21712 22121171 212 2 21212 717222121. 7112. 212 22.121 217.12 211-. 72221 2121 71221212 712? . 21221171 7171 21.71 71211 7112121. - 211212 212 21711221 7121 22 7171211 7122 212121. . 211212 212 21711221 21 71211 2122112171211 7.12121. - 21212 212121171 2121712122. 31%!) 34°15}. 2211 1127121211711:— 22171171222121212 71271 2221 222121.221, .2. 72122! 922 122122121 21311.71 21212.21 221 717/12;- 212321-‘1‘2—71121 211°) 12.212 212 221 22 21711 212121. 221711221 21717212212112 21272221 271177171 22.12 2 21212 7121212 71.2.? Atom-— . 1- 211217111221 2- 22112 212 3- 21212- 212 4- :1 2121 2171 7121-‘21 9.12:- 2112121 212 71.9.? 1.. 2121. 2. 8121. 149) 150) 2171121 21221 21212 21.-121222 21221 21212271227171 211—. 711221 22122131 7121212 71.2.? ' 1. 2112121 2212121. 2. 212.1 221221. 3. 7121 2212171 21221. 4. 7.121 2212171 21221. 2121 217121 27171212 722 712221 22111212 7172112 21. :1 2122 2 21271221 22121 21712 2271 2212131 7171212 71.2.? 2---.-.“ 196 1- 719) EE- 25!?71-‘i’-¢71 é Z3015}. 2- 111‘!) ‘32?- $1?7)-‘i'-¢75l i“ 31°15): 3- i3 21??! #31171 ‘3‘ 31°F). 4- 713) °H’- ‘41-?5 #4771 4‘2) 93%- 33°15): 151) 51‘394 7178 0| 217112122 013:. 4=€°lakil ‘31”)? “1.8.? 1.711 2.2571 3.2281 4.31 152) 712% 1121111112 713121 7IEHH~§ 41212121 2191 7122 212 71212) 21 2‘2 21.9.? 1. 9.121. 2. 8121. 153) 71% 2 21217171) 2% 111°] 2171233 A122) 9112 7L8? 1. 2121. 2. 2121. 154) 25‘s} 21°) 21.7)] 712212171 *EQSR—z- 212? (211% 712) 251‘— 031211 #21 71.8.). 1- $112113}. 2. 011212] 3. 0121124 4. 23711211111 5. 2251. 6. 71215;?le 155) 21212121 271 21221 22121712? 2.1 21212171171 21 71212121 “212121 2171121 " 2212 2121217171 212121 212712121 “2.21 "21212 22171211 2121221712.. 2121217171 712121 1112712121 7111-2121 7.17121 21211121 21. 22 71212711712. 156) 01212191 18711 312101 2912121 7122121 71171121211 312151521712? E. 01 01217171 2.1 711212121 “210121 2.171121”, 1213'. 01111210171 2.212301 81.0. 712121 2.22.21; ”2121.2 291M) 3101 421212. 157) 013%?” 212212121 $91217‘lfi? ‘3. °)”1‘Eifill’~‘) 917114;) 73%?! ”1731‘s! 9171149 ” OIii-311 78-‘3’21011 731°) #fll‘lfi. 197 158) «was: ware—11°] ~‘r’-°A?_|1L&? a. Maw/‘1 03711411 739-03 "01w 21M " clam. Agazlou *M-‘f—élna. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 21%va 41% MM :3- ’é-E—Xl €va was“ we“ man cm w M 9.3. @4531"! afic’lfli e219: flag % fl-E-ZI-fft avge'smwa} 946-145}. «Ia-$24 Mon aisle: 83% 7]"5-3Hel magenta, cm and we: 23%— 5a ‘44. 155-215 q Maw {—42 2121 @3212} 5&2}ng 2542le 211%? q-a— 2m 21 2+2qu new Mr] sham}. zMchL ’\ BIBLIOGRAPHY Acock, A.C., ”Parents and their children ; The study of inter- generational influence,” Sociology and Social Research, 198A, 69:151-171 Agenew, R., I'Autonomy and delinquency,” Sociological perspectives, 1984, 27:219-2h0 Akers, R.L., Deviant behavior A social learning approach, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth publishing Co. 1977 Akers, R.L., M.K. Krohn, L. Lonza-Kaduce, and M. Radosevich, ”Social ' E learning and deviant behavior : A specific test of a general theory,“ American Sociological Review, 1979, hhz636-655 Alfert, E., ”A multiple score personality test administered to German and Austrian students: Cross-cultural vs. intra-cultural differences,” The Journal of Social psychology, 1959, 50:37-h6 l Andrew, J.M., ”Delinquency, sex, and family variables,” Social Biology, E 1976,’23:168-l71 Andrews, K.H., and 0.8. Kandel, ”Attitudes and behavior : A specification of the contingent consistency hypothesis,” American Sociological Review, 1979. 94:298-310 Armer, M., “Methodological problems and possibilities in comparative research,“ pp.h9-79 in M.Armer and A.D. Grimshow(eds.), Comparative Social ResearchrMethodological Problems and Strategies, New York : John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1973 Arnold, W.R., ”Continuities in research : Scaling delinquent behavior,“ Social Problems, 1965, 13:59-66 Aultman, M.G., ”Delinquency causation: A typological comparision of path models,“ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1979, 70:152-163 Aultman, M.G. and C.F. Welford, ”Towards an integrated model of delinquency causation : An emprirical analysis,” Sociology and Social Research, 1979. 63:316‘327 Austin, R.L., "Commitment, neutralization and delinquency,‘I pp.121-137 in T.N. Ferdinand(ed.), Juvenile Delinquency : Little Brother Grows Up, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1977 , "Social learning and social control: A comment on Conger,” Criminology, 1979, 15:111-116 ’ ”Race, father-absence, and female delinquency,” Criminology, 1978, lSzh87-50h ’“Adolescent subcultures of violence,” Sociological Quarterly, 1980, 21:545-561 198 199 Bachman, J.G., P.M. 0'Malley, and J. Johnstone, “Adolescence to adulthood: change and stability in the lives of youngmen,” in Youth in Transition, Vol. Vl, Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Ball, R.A., ”An empirical exploration od neutralization theory,” Criminology, 1966, #:22-32 , ”Development of basic norm violation : Neutralization and self-concept within a male cohort,” Criminology, 1983, 21:75-9h Bandura, A., Aggression : A social learning approach, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973 , Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1977 Beirne, P., “Generalization and its discontents : The comparative study of crime,” PP.l9-38 in l.L. Barak-Glantz and E.H. Johnson(eds.), Comparative Criminology, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 198A Bennet, R.R., ”Constructing cross-cultural theories in Criminology,” Criminology, 1980, 18:252-268 Berry, J.w., “0n cross-cultural comparability,‘I International Journal of Psychology, 1969, 1:207-229 Berger, A.S. and W. Simon, ”Black families and the Mounihan Report : A Research evaluation,” Social Problems, 197“, 22:1h5-161 Blackmore, J., "The relationship between self-reported delinquency and official convictions amongst adolescent boys,” British Journal of Criminology, 197A, 14:172-176 Blalock, H.M. JR., ”Estimating measurement error using multiple indicators- and several points in time,” American Sociological Review, 1970, 35:101-111 , Conceptualization and Measurement in Social Science, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1982 Blazicek, D.C. and G.M. Janeksela, ”Some comments on comparative methodologies in Criminal Justice,” International Journal of Criminology and Penology. 1978, 6:233-255 Block, J.R., N. Goodman, F. Ambellan, and J. Revenson, A self-administered high school study of drugs, Hempstead, Institute for Research and Evalustion, 1973’ Bollen, K.A., ”Issues in the comparative measurement of political ‘democracy," American Sociological Review, 1980, h5:370-390 200 Braithwaite, J., |'The myth of social class and criminality reconsidered,” American Sociological Review, 1981, A6z36-S7 Brennan, T., D. Huizinga, and 0.5. Elliott, The Social Psychology of Runaways, Lexington, MA : D.C. Heath, 1978 Brislin, R.w., “Back-translation for cross-cultural research,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, 1;18S-216 (ed.), Translation : Applications and Research, New York John Wiley/Halstead, 1976 Buffalo, M.D. and J.W. Rogers, ”Behavioral norms, moral norms, and attachment : Problems of deviance and conformity,” Social Problems, 1971, 19:101-113 Burgess, R.L. and R.L. Akers, ”A differential association - reinforcement theory of criminal behavior,” Social Problems, 1966, 1h:128-1h7 Campbell, D. and D.w. Fiske, ”Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multi-method matrix,” PSychological Bulletin, 1959, 56:81-105 Canter, R.J., ”Family correlates of male and female delinquency,II Criminology, 1982, 20:149-167 Cavan, R.S. and J.T. Cavan, Delinquency and Crime : Cross-cultural Perspectives, Philadelphia, PA : J.B. Lippincott Cernkovich, S.A., “Value orientations and delinquency involvement,” Criminology, 1977, 15:443-“58 , ”Evaluating two models of delinquency causation Structural theory and control theory,” Criminology, 1978, 16:335-352 Chassin, L., C.C. Presson, R.D. Young, and R. Light, ”Self-concepts of institutionalized adolescents : A framework for conceptualizing labeling effect,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1981, 20:1h3-151 (Zlay, D.C., ”Parent-child rapport : An important factor in the structuring of educational ambition in rual America,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, New York, 1976 C1 liford, W., Crime Control in Japan, Lexington, MA : D.C. Heath, 1976 C1 inard, M.B., ”A cross-cultural replication of the relation of urbanism to criminal behavior,” American Sociological Review, 1960, 25:253-257 201 Clinard, M.B. and D.J. Abbott, Crime in Developing Countries : A Comparative Perspective, New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1973 Cohen, A.K. and J.F. Short, Jr., ”Crime and juvenile delinquency,” pp.h7-100 in R.K. Merton and R.Nisbet(eds.), Contemporary Social Problems(2nd ed.), New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 19767 Coleman, J.S., The Adolescent Society, New York : The Free Press, 1961 , Youth : Transition to Adulthood, Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press, 197A Conger, R., ”Social control and social learning nodels of delinquent behavior : A synthesis,” Criminology, 1976, lhz17-h0 , ”From social learning to Criminal behavior,” pp.91-10h in M.D. Korhn and R.L. Akers(eds.), Crime, Law and Sanctions : Theoretical Perspectives, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1978 , ”Juvenile delinquency : Behavior restraint or behavior facilitation ?” pp. 131-142 in T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson(eds.), Understanding Crime, . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1980. Conklin, J., Criminology, New York : Macmillan, 1981 Costner, H.L., ”Theory, deduction and rules of correspondence,” American Journal of Sociology, 1969, 75:2h5-263 Cronbach, L.J., ”Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, 1951, 16:297-33h Datesman, S.K. and F.R. Scarpetti, ”Female delinquency and broken home,‘I . Criminology, 1975, 13:33-56 DeFleur, L.B., ”Alternative strategies for the development of delinquency theories applicable to other countries,” Social Problems, 1969, 17:30'39 Deutscher, 1., “Words and deeds : Social science and social policy,” Social Problems, 1966, 13:235-253 DeVoss, 6., ”Delinquency and Minority status : A psycho-cultural perspective,” pp. 130-180 in G.R. Newman(ed.), Crime and Deviance : A Comparative Perspective, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1980 Downes, D.M., The Delinquent Solution, New York : The Free Press, 1966 Duncan, 0.0., Introduction to Structural Equation Models, New York ° Academic Press, 1975 202 Earls, F., ”Social reconstruction of adolescence : Toward an explanation for increasing rates of violence in youth,” in H.M. Rosc(ed.), Lethal Aspects of Urban Violence, Lexington, MA : Heath Lexington Books, 1979 Elder, J.W., ”Comparative cross-national methodology,“ pp. 209-230 in A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, and N. Smelser(eds.), Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, Palo Alto, CA : Annual Reviews, 1976 Elliott, 0.5., “A review essay on 'Measureing Delinquency' by M.J. Hindelang, T. Hirschi, and J.G. Weis,” Criminology, 1982, 20:527-537 , ”The assumption that theories can be combined with increased explanatory power : theoretical integrations,” pp. 123-1A9 in R.F. Meier(ed.), Theoretical Methods in Criminology, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1985 Elliott, 0.5. and H. Voss, Delinquency and Dropout, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1974 Elliott, 0.5., 5.5. Ageton, D. Huizinga, B.A. Knowles, and R.J. Canter, The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior : 1976-1980 : National estimates of delinquent behavior by sex, race, social class and other selected variables, Boulder, CO : Behavioral Research Institute Elliott, 0.5. and 5.5. Ageton, I'Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 1980, h5z95-110 Elliott, 0.5., D. Huizinga, and 5.5. Ageton, Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1985 Elliott, 0.5., 5.5. Ageton, and R.J. Canter, ”An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior,“ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1979, 16:3-27 Elliott, 0.5. and B.J. Morse, Drug use, Delinquency and Sexual activity, Boulder, CO : Behavioral Research Institute £3npey, L.T., American Delinquency : Its meaning and construction, Homewood, IL : Dorsey, I978 , American Delinquency : Its meaning and construction(2nd ed.), Homewood, IL : Dorsey, 1982 Eknpey, L.T. and 5.0. Lubeck, “Conformity and deviance in the situation of company,” American Sociological Review, 1968, 33:760-77h 203 Empey, L.T. and 5.6. Lubeck, Explaining Delinquency, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1971 England, R.W., A theory of middle-class juvenile delinquency,’I Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1960, 50:535-580 Erickson, H.L., ”The changing relationship between official and self- reported measures of delinquency : An exploratory-predictive study,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1972,763z388-395 Eve, R., ”'AdoIescent culture' Convinient myth or reality ? A comparison of students and their teachers,” Sociology of Education, 1975, A8:152-167 7’ ”A study of the efficacy and interactions of sveral theories for explaining rebeliousness among high school students,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1978, h9:115-125 Fagan, J., K.V. Hansen, and M. Jang, ”Profiles of chronically violent juveniles : An empirical test of an integrated theory of violent delinquency,“ pp.91-119 in R. Kluegel(ed.), Evaluating Contemporary Juvenile Justice, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, I983 Fagan, J. and S.J. Jones, ”Toward a theoretical model for intervention with violent juvenile offenders,” pp. 53-69 in R.A. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allison(eds.), Violent Juvenile Offenders An anthology, San Francisco, CA : National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 198A Farrel, R.A., and J.F. Nelson, ”A sequential analysis of delinquency,” International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1978, 6:255-268 Farrington, D.P., ”Self-reports of deviant behavior : Predictive and stabel ?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1973, 6hz99-110 , Longitudinal research on crime and delinquency,“ pp. 289-3h8 in N. Morris and M. Tonry(eds.), Criminal Justice : An annual review of research,gVol.1, Chicago, IL : University of *7— Chicago Press, 1979 ,/r Farrington, D.P., G, Gundr “Hand D.J. West, The familial trnasmission of criminality,” Megghne, Science, and the Law, 1975, 15:117-186 Figueira-McDonough, J., W.H. Garton, and R.C. Sarri, “Normal deviance : Gender similarities in adolescent subcultures,“ pp. 17-h5 in M.Q. Warren(ed.), Cgmparing Female and Male Offenders, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1981 20h Flacks, R., Youth and Social Change, Chicago, IL : Markham Publishing Company, 1971 Frease, D.E., ”Delinquency, social class, and the school,‘I Sociology and Social Research, 1973, 57zhh3-h59 French, L., llA cultural perspective toward juvenile delinquency,” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 1977, 1:111-121 Friday, P.C., ”Problems in comparative criminology : Comments on the feasibility and implications of research,” International Journal of Criminaology and PenolOgY. 1973, 1:151-160 , “Research on youth crime in Sweeden : Some problems in methodology,“ Scandinavian Studies, 197A, h6:20-30 , ”International review of youth crime and delinquency,” pp.100-129 in G.R. Newman(ed.), Crime and Deviance : A Comparative Perspective, Beverly Hills, CA :Sage, I980 Friday, P.C. and J. Hage, ”Youth crime in postindustrialized societies An integrated perspective,” Criminology, 1976, lhz3h7-368 Gibbens, T.C.N. and R.H. Ahrenfeldt, ngtural Factors in Delinquency, London : Tavistock Publications, 1971 Gibbons, D.C., Delinquent Behavior, Englewodd cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1970 , Delinquent Behavior(2nd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1976 ‘ , Delinquent Behavior(3rd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1981 Gibbs, J.P., Crime Punishment and Deterrence, New York : Elsevier, 1975 Ginsberg, I.J. and J.R. Greenly, ”Competing theories of marijuana use : A longitudinal study,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 19:22-3“ (Elaser, D., ”Criminology and public policy,” American Sociologist, 1971’ 6:30-37 (Slueck, S. and E.T. Glueck, Unravelling Juvenile Delinquency, Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1950 205 Gold, M., Delinquent Behavior in an American City, Belmont, CA : Wadsworth, 1970 , Status Forces in Delinquent Boys, Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1963 , “Undetected Delinquent Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1966, 3:27-“6 Gold, M. and D.J. Reimer, ”Changing patterns of delinquent behavior among Americans 13 to 16 years old - 1972,” Crime and Delinquency Literature, 1975. 7:433'517 Gove, W.R. and R.D. Clutchfield, ”The family and Juvenile Delinquency,” Sociological Quarterly, 1982, 23:301-319 Gottfredson, 6.0., “Role models, bonding and delinquency : An examination of competing perspectives,“ Report No. 331, Baltimore, MD : Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins university, 1982 Groves, W.E., ”Patterns of college student uSe and life style,” pp.2h1-275 in E. Josephson and E.E. Carrol(eds.), Drug Use : Epidemological and Sociological Approaches, New York : Wiley, 197A Hacker, H.M., ”Problems in defining and measuring marital power cross-culturally,” Annals, New York Academy of Science, 1977, 285:151-18h Hagan, J. and J.H. Simpson, llTies that bind : Conformity and the social control of student discontent,” Sociology and Social Research, 1978, 61f520-538 Hansell, S. and M.D. Wiatrowski, ”Competing conceptions of delinquent peer relations,” pp.93-108 in G.F. Jensen(ed.), Sociology of Delinquency : Current Issues, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1981 Hanson, R.A., ”Consistency and stability of home environmental measures related to IQ,” Chjld Development, 1975, h6zh70-h80 Hardt, D.J. and S. Peterson-Hardt, ”On determining the quality of the delinquency self-report method,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1979, 14:2h7-261 Hawkins, D.J. and J.G. Weis, The Social Development Model : An Integrated Approach to Delinquency Prevention, Seattle, WA : Center for Law and Justice, University of Washington, 1980 Heatherington, E.M., M.Cox, and R. Cox, ”Play and social interaction following divorce,” Journal of Social Issues, 1979, 35:26-h9 206 H6358, D.R., Causal Analysis, New York : Wiley-Interscience, 1975 Hepburn, J.R., ”Testing alternative models of delinquency causation,‘I Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1976, 67zh50-h60 Hess, R.and K. Camera, ”Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children,” Journal of Social Issues, 1979, 35:79-96 Hindelang, M.J., “Age, sex, and the versatility of delinquent involvement,” Social Problems, 1971, 18:522-535 , ”Causes of delinquency : A partial replication and extension,” Social Problems, 1973, 20:“71-487 , ”Moral evaluations of illegal behaviors,” Social Problems, 197b, 21:370-385 , ”With a little help from their friends : Group participation in reported delinquent behavior,” British Journal of Criminology, 1976, 16:109-125 Hindelang, M.J., T. Hirschi, and J.G. Weis, ”Correlates of delinquency : The illusion of discrepancy between self-reported and official measures,” American Sociological Review, 1979, hhz995-101h , Measuring Delinquency, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 1981 Hirschi, T., Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1969 Hirschi, T. and M. Gottfredson, ”IntrodUction : The Sutherland tradition in Criminology,” pp.7-I9 in T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson(eds.), Understanding Crime, Beverly Hills, CA :Sage, I980. Ilirschi, T., M.J. Hindelang, and J.G. Weis, ”The status of self-reported measures,” pp.h73-h88 in M.W. Klein and K.S. Teilmann(eds.), Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, Beverly Hills, CA : Sage, 198D fkaffman, V., ”The relationship of psychology to delinquency : A comprehensive approach,” Adolescence, 198A, XIX(73):55-61 , “Parental controls over deviant behavior of adolescents A cross-cultural investigation- Korea,” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, 1986 IIuizinga, 0. and 0.8. Elliott, Self-reported measures of delinquency and crime : Methodological issues and comparative findings,” Boulder, CO Behavioral Research Institute, 198A 207 Hunter, J.E., “Cluster analysis : Reliability, construct validity, and multiple indicators approach to measurement,” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 1977 Hunter, J.E. and M. Hamilton, Path Analysis manual, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 1986 Inkeles, A. and D.W. Smith, Becoming Modern : Individual Change in Six Developing Countries, Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 197A Irwin, M., R.E, Klein, P.L. Engle, C. Yarbrough, and 5.8. Nerlove, ”The problem of establishing validity in cross-cultural measurements,” Annals, New York Academy of Science, 1977, 285:215-229 Jaquith, S.M., “A adolescent marijuana use and alcohol use : An empirical test of differential association theory,” Criminology, 1981, 19:271-280 Jensen, G.F., ”Parents, peers and delinquent action : A test of the differential association perspective,” American Journal of Sociology, 1972. 78:562-575 Jensen, G.F. and M.L. Erickson, “Peers' commitment and delinquent conduct,” Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, 1978 Jensen, G.F. and R. Eve, l'Sex differences in delinquency,‘I Criminology, 1976, I3:h27-hh8 Jensen, G.F. and 0.6. Rojek, Delinquency : A Sociological View, Lexington, MA : D.C. Heath, 1980 Jensen, G.F. and D. Brownfield, ”Parents and drugs : Specifying the consequences of attachment,” Criminology, 1983, 21:5h3-55h Jessor, R., ”The perceived environment in psychological theory and research,” pp.297-317 in D. Magnusson(ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations : An lnteractional Perspective, Hilsdale, NJ : Erlbaum, 1981 Jessor, R. and S.L. Jessor, Problem Behavior and Psychological Development A Longitudinal Study of Youth, New York : Academic Press, 1977 ckahnson, R.E., Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins : An Integrated Theoretical Approach, Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press, 1979 .kahnstone, J.W.C., ”Social class, social areas and delinquency,” Sociology and Social Research, 1978, 63:h9-72 208 Johnstone, J.W.C., ”The family and delinquency : A reappraisal,” pp.25-63 in A.C. Meade(ed.), Youth and Society : Studies of Adolescent Deviance, Chicago, IL : Institute for Juvenile Research, 1981 , ”Delinquency and the changing American family,” in D.H. Kelly and D. Schichor(eds.), Critical Issues in Juvenile In Delinquency, Lexington, MA : D.C. Heath, 1980 Kandel, 0.8., ”Adolescent marijuana use : Role of parents and peers,” Science, 1973, 181:1067-1070 , ”Homophily, selection and socialization in adolescent friendships,“ American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 8h:h27-h36 Kandel. D.B., R.C. Kessler, and R.Z. Margulies, ”Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use : A developmental analysis,” pp.73-100 in 0.8. Kandel(ed.), Longitudinal Research on Drug Use, New York : John Wiley, 1978 Kelly, D.H. and W.T. Pink, ”School commitment, youth rebellion, and delinquency,” Criminology, 1973, 10:h73-h85 Kim, U., Psychological acculturation of Korean immigrants in Toronto : A study of mode of acculturation, identity, language, and acculturative stress, Unpublished Masters' Thesis, Queen's University, Canada, 1984 Knight, B.J. and D.J. West, ”Temporary and continuing delinquency,“ British Journal of Criminology, 1975, 15:h3-50 Knowles, B.A., ”The relationship of adolescent marijuana use to social pressure concerning use,‘| Boulder, CO : Behavioral Research Institute, 1979 Korean White Paper on Youth, The Office of Prime Minister, Seoul, Korea, 1982 Kornhauser, R.R., Social Sources of Delinquency, Chicago, IL': University of Chicago Press, 1978 Krohn, M.D., ”An investigation of the effect of parental and peer associations on marijuana use : An empirical test of differential association theory,” pp.75-87 in M.Riedel and T.D. Thornberry(eds.), Crime and Delinquency : Dimensions of Deviance, New York : Praeger, 197k , ”A Durkeim analysis of international crime rates,” ——7 Social Forces, 1978, 57:654-670 209 Krohn, M.D., R.L. Akers, M.J. Radosevich, and L. Kanza-Kaduce, ”Social status and deviance : Class context of school, social status, and delinquenct behavior,” Criminology, 1980, 18:319-336 Krohn, M.D. and J. Massey, ”Social control and delinquenct behavior : An examination of the elements of the social bonds,II Sociological Quarterly, 1980, 21:529-543 Krohn, M.D., W.F. Skinner, J.L. Massey, and R.L.Akers, ”Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking : A longitudinal study,” Social Problem, 1985, 32:h55-h71 Kuder, G.F. and M.W. Richardson, ”The theory of the estimation of test reliability,” Psychometrika, 1937, 2:151-160 LaGrange, R.L. and H.R. White, “Age differences in delinquency : A test of theory,” Criminology. 1985, 23:19-h5 Lee, Y., ”Modernization and Tradition : Korean attitudes,” Korean Journal, 1972, 12:12-17 Lerman, P., ”Individual values, peer values, and subcultural delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 1968, 33:219-235 Lin, T., ”Tai-pau and Liu-mang : Two types of delinquent youths in Chinese society,” British Journal of Delinquency, 1958, 8:2hh-256 Linden, E. and J.C. Hackler, “Affective ties and delinquency,” Pacific Sociological Review, 1973, 16:27-h6 Linden, R., ”Myths of middle-class delinquency : A test of the generalizability of social control theory,“ Youth and Society, 1978, 9zhO7-h32 Linden. R. and C. Fillmore, ”Comparative study of delinquency involvement,” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1981, 18:346-361 Liska, A.E., “Causal structures underlying the relationships between delinquent involvement and delinquent peers,” Sociology and Social Research, 1973, 58:23-37 , ”Deviant involvement, associations and attitudes - Specifying the underlying causal structure,” Sociology and Social Research, 1978, 63:73-87 I_iska, A.E. and M.D. Reed, ”Ties to Conventional institutions and delinquency : estimating reciprocal effects,” American Sociological Review, 1985, 50:5h7-560 ' 210 Marshall, I.H. and L.E. Marshall, ”Toward a refinement of purpose in comparative criminological research : Research site selection in focus,” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 1983. 7:89‘97 Matza, 0., Delinquency and Drift, New York : John Wiley, 196A Matza, D. and G. Sykes, “Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values,“ American Sociological Review, 1961, 26:712-719 Matsueda, R.C., ”Testing control theory and differential association,” American Sociological Review, 1982, h7zh89-50h McCord, J., ”Some child-bearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychiatry, 1979, 37:1h77-1h86 Meade, A.C. and M.E. Marsden, ”An integration of classic theories of delinquency,” in A.C. Meade(ed.), Youth and Society : Studies of Adolescent Deviance, Chicago, IL : Institute for Juvenile Research, 1981 Meier, R.F. and W.T. Johnson, ”Deterence as social control : The legal and extralegal production of conformity,” American Sociological Review, 1977, 92:292-30h Meier, R.F., S.R. Burkett, and C.A. Hickman, ”Sanctions, peers, and deviance : Preliminary models of a social control process,“ Sociological Quarterly, 198k, 25:67-82 Menard, S. and B.J. Morse, ”A structuralist critique of the IQ-delinquency hypothesis : Theory and evidence,“ American Journal of Sociology, 1984, 89:1357-1378 Miller, J., K.M. Slomczynski, and R.J. Schoenberg, ”Assessing comparability of measurement in cross-national research : Authoritarianism- conservatism in different sociocultural settings,” Social Psychological Quarterly, 1981, “4:178-191 Miller, C.A., J. Keith, and C. Nelson, ”Parental expectations for early adolescence : Cultural vs. interpersonal,” Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, 1983 Idinor, W.W., ”Techniques of neutralization : A reconceptualization and empirical examination,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1981, 18:295-318 r1itchell, J. and R.H. Dodder, ”Types of neutralization and types of delinquency,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1983, 12:307-318 211 Mortimer, J.T., ”Social class, work and the family : Some implications of the father's occupation for familial relationships and sons' career decision,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 38:2h1-256 Nettler, G. Explaining Crime(3rd ed.), New York ; McGraw-Hill, 198A Newman, G.R., ”Problems of method in comparative criminology,” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 1977. 1:17-31 Newman, G.R. and F. Ferracutti, “Introduction : The limits and possibilities of comparative criminology,” pp.7-I6 in G.R. Newman(ed.), Crime and Deviance : A Comparative Perspective, Beverly Hills,,CA : Sage, 1980 Norland, 5., N. Shover, W.E. Thornton, and J. James, “Intrafamily conflict and delinquency,” Pacific Sociological Review, 1979, 22:223-240 Nye, F.I., Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior, New York : Wiley, 19587 . , “Emerging and declining family roles,“ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36:238-2h5 Parsons, T., The Social System, New York : The Fre Press, 1951 , Social Structure and Personality, London : The Free press of Glencoe, 196A Polk, K. and W.E. Schafer, Sghools and Delinquency, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1972 Polk, K., D. Frease, and F.L. Rchimond, ”Social class, school experience and delinquency,” Criminolggy, 1974, 12:8h-96 Poole, 5.0. and R.H. Regoli, ”Parental support, delinquent friends, and delinquency : A test of interaction effects,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; 1979, 70:188-193 Porter, 8. and K. O'Leary, ”Marital discord and childhood behavior problems,” ngrnal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1980, 8:287-296 Przeworski, A. and H. Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York : Wiley-Interscience, 1970 Rahav, 6., “Cultural conflict, urbanism, and delinquency,” Criminology, 1981, 18:523-530 Rankin, J.H., ”Investigating the interrelations among social control variables and conformity,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1976, 69:“70-480 212 Rehberg, R.A. and E. Rosenthal, ”Social class and its comparative impact on a set of selected school process variables at the high school level: A multi-study analysis,” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, 1975 Robbins, S.P., ”Anglo concepts and Indian reality : A study of juvenile delinquency," Social Casework, 198A, 65:235-2h1 Robbins, L., P.A. West, and B.L. Herjanic, ”Arrests and delinquency in two generations : A study of black urban families and their children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1975, 16:125-1h0 Robertson, R. and L. Taylor, Deviance, Crim, and Socio-Legal Control Comparative Perspectives, London : Martin Robertson, 1973 Rosen, L., ”The broken home and male delinquency,” pp.h89-495 in M.E. Wolfgang, L. Savitz, and N. Johnstone(eds.), The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency, New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1970 Rosen, L. and K. Neilson, ”The broken home and delinquency,” pp.hO6-h15 in L.D. Savitz and N. Johnstonn(eds.), Crime in Society, New York ' Wiley, 1978 Rutter, M., “Parent-child separation : Psychological effects on the children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1971, 12:233-260 , “Separation, loss, and family influence,” pp.h7-73 in M.Rutter and L. Hersov(eds.), Child Psychiatry : Modern Approaches, Oxford : Blackwell Scientific, 1977 Rutter, M., P. Graham, 0. Chadwick, and W. Yule, ”Adolescent turmoil Fact or Fiction ?” Journal of Child and.Psychiatry, 1976, 17:35-56 Rutter, M. and H. Giller, Juvenile Delinquency : Trends and Perspectives, New York : Penguin Books, 1983 Sadoff, R.L., ”Violence in Juveniles,” in R.L. Sadoff(ed.), Violence and Responsibility, Flushing, NY : Spectrum Publications, Inc., 1978 Sandhu, H.S., Juvenile Delinquency : Causes, Control and Prevention, New York : McGraw-Hill, 1977 Schoenberg, R.J., “A structural model of delinquency,” unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 1975 Segrave, J.O. and D.N. Hastad, ”Evaluating structural and control models of delinquency causation : A replication and extension,” Youth and §9ciety, 1983, Ihzh37-h56 213 Segrave, J.D. and D.N. Hastad, ”Evaluating three nodels of delinquency causation for males and females : Strain theory, subculture theory, and control theory,” Social Forces, 1985, 18:1-17 Shelley, L.I., Crime and Modernization : The Impact of Industrialization and Urbanization on Crime, Carbondale, IL : Southern Illinois University Press, 1981, Sellin, T., Culture Conflict and Crime, New York : Social Science Research Council, 1938 Shelly, J.F., ”Critical elements of criminal behavior explanation,” Sociological Quarterly, 1983, 24:509-525 , America's Crime Problem : An Introduction to Criminology, Belmont, CA : Wadsworth, 1985 Shoemaker, D.J., Theories of Delinquency : An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior, New York : Oxford University Press, 198A Short, J.F. Jr., ”On the etiology of delinquent behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1979, 16:28-33 Shover, N., S. Norland, J. James, and E. Thornton, “Gender roles and delinquency,“ Social Forces, 1979, 58:162-175 Siegel, L.J., S.H.A. Rathus, and C.A. Ruppert, “Values and delinquency,” British Journal of Criminology, 1973, 13:237-2Ah Silberman, M., "Toward a theory of criminal deterrence,II American Sociological Review, 1976, h1:hh2-h61 Simons, R.L., M.Q. Miller, and S.M. Ainger, ”Contemporary theories of deviance and female delinquency,‘I Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1980, 17:42-57 Single, e., D. Kandel, and 8.0. Johnson, ”The reliability and validity of Drug use responses in a large scale longitudinal survey,” Journal of Drug Issues, 1975, 5zh26-hh3 Smelser, N.J. and S. Halpern, ''The historical triangulation of family economy and education,” American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 8h:288-315 Smith, D.H. and A. Inkeles, ”The OM scale : A comparative socio- psychological measures of individual modernity,” Sgciometry,l966 29,. p.377 Sparks; R.F., H.G. Genn, and D.J. Dodd, Surveying Victims, Chichester : Wiley, 1977 214 Spearman, C., “General intelligence : Objectively determined and measured,” American Journal of Psycholggy, 190A, 15:201-293 Strickland, D.E., ”Social learning and deviant behavior : A comment and crituqe,” American Sociological Review, 1982, h7:162-167 Sullivan, J.L., “Multiple indicators : Some criteria of selection,” pp.2h3-269 in H.M. Blalock, Jr.(ed.), Measurement in the Social Science, Chicago, IL : Aldine, 197k Summer, C., ”Crime, justice and underdevelopment : Beyond modernization theory,” pp.1-39 in C. Summer(ed.), Crime, Justice and Underdevelopment, London : Heineman, 1982 Sun, J., Psycho-theraphy for children in traditional Korean society, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 198% Sutherland, E.H. and D. Cressey, Criminology(9th ed.), Philadelphia, PA : Lippincott, 1974 Suttles, 6., Social Order of Slum, Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press, 1968 Thompson, E.A., K. Smith-DiJulio, and T. Mathews, ” Social control theory : Evaluating a model for the study of adolescent alcohol and drug use,” Youth and Society, 1982, 13:303-326 Thompson, W.E., J. Mitchell, and R.A. Dodder, ”An empirical test of Hirschi's control theory of delinquency,” Deviant Behavior, 1984, 5:11-22 Tittle, C.R., W.J. Villemez, and D.A. Smith, ”The myth of social class and criminality: An empirical assessment of the empirical evidence,” American Sociolggical Review, 1978, h3:6h3-656 Toby, J., ”Socialdisorganization and stake in conformity : COmplementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1957. h8:12-17 Triandis, H.G., ”0n the value of cross-cultural research in social psychology : Relations to Faucheux's paper,” European Journal of Psychology, 1976, 6:331-3h1 Triandis, H.c., K. Leung, M.J. Villareal. 80d F-L- Clack, “Allocentric versus Idlocentrlc tendencies : Convergent and discriminant validation,” Journal of Research in Personality, 1985, 19:395-h15 Trojanowicz, R.C., Juvenile Delinquency, Engleood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1978 215 Tryon, R.C. and D.E. Bailey, Cluster Analysis, New York : McGraw-Hill, 1970 Vaz, E.W., ”Delinquency and youth culture : Upper and middle class boys,‘I Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1969, 60:33-“6 , ”Juvenile delinquency in the middle-class culture,” pp.131-1h7 in E.W. Vaz(ed.), Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency, New York : Harper and Row, 1967 Vaz, E.W. and J. Casparis, ”A comparative study of youth culture and delinquency : Upper middle-class Canadian and Swiss boys,” International Joyrnal of Comparative Sociolggy, 1971, 12:1-23 Verba, S., "Cross-national survey research : The problem of credibility,” pp.309-356 in I. Vallier(ed.), Comparative Methods in Sociology, Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1971 Wadsworth, M., Roots of delinquengy_: Infancy, Adolescence and Crime, Oxford : Martin Robertson, 1979 Wallace, W., The Logic of Science in Sociology, Chicago, IL Aldine-Atherton, 197A Walters, G.C. and G.E. Grusec, Punishment, San Francisco, CA : Freeman, 1977 Walterstein, J.S. and J.B. Kelly, Surviving_the Break-Up : How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce, New York : Basic Books, 1980 Warwick, D.P. and S. Osherson, Comparative Research Methods, Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1973 Watters, J. and N. Stinnett, ”Parent-child relationships : A decade review of research,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33:70-103 Weinberg, S.K., ”Juvenile delinquency in Ghana : A comparative analysis of delinquents and nondelinquents,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1968, 55:h7I-h81 Werner, O. and 0. Campbell, ”Translating, working through interpretors and problem of decentering,” in R. Narall and R. Cohen(eds.), A Handbook of Mgggod in Cultural Anthropology, New York : Natural History Press, 1970 West, D.J., Who Becomes Delinquent ?, London : Heineman, 1973 , Delinquency : Its Roots, Careers, and Progpects, London : Heineman, 1982 216 ‘_ West, D.J. and D.P. Farrington, The Delinquent Way of Life, London Heineman, 1977 Whitehead, P.C. and R.G. Smart, ”Validity and reliability of self-reported drug use,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 1972, 1h:1-8 Wiatrowski, M.D., D.B. Griswold, and M.K. Roberts, ”Social control theory and delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 1981, “6:525-5h1 Williams, J.R. and M. Gold, ”From delinquent behavior to official delinquency,” Social Problem, 1972, 20:209-229 Wilson, H. and G.W. Herbert, Parents and Children in the Inner City, London : Routledge 8 Keagan Paul, 1978 Yu, C., ”Formation of Sound Values needed,” Korea Times, May 27, I98h HIGRN STATE UNI V. IllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ,