W}

l
\

$5; [HWIHHHHNHWNWlHUUIHIWIWHIHH

THS

    

TE UNIV I LIB

i v llfilllllllfllllllllllllllllll Mill "

3 1293 01410 2440

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PATTERNS OF PARENTAL AITACIWP AND DELINQUENCY:
THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY VARIABLES THAT IMPACIl ADOLESCENT
PROBIEM BEHAVIORS .

presented by

Nikki Renee-Keller Fox

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters_of_Att_—degree in Snow ' 0e

Ct (51.; 24/5on r{ an a c; ”a
Major professor '

/

 

Date w // r/aa

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to move this checkout Ivom your «cord.
To AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

W o 2 2:138 191m
thinip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU chn Affirmative Action/EM Opportunity Institution
WWI

,7 . _.____. _ _.___

PATTERNS OF PARENTAL ATTACHMENT AND DELINQUENCY:
THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY VARIABLES THAT IMPACT ADOLESCENT
PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
By

Nikki Renee-Keller Fox

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ART

School of Criminal Justice

1995

ABSTRACT
PATTERNS OF PARENTAL ATTACHMENT AND DELINQUENCY:
THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY VARIABLES THAT IMPACT ADOLESCENT
PROBLEM BEHAVIORS.
BY

Nikki Renee-Keller Fox

In this paper, the pattern of attachment established between parent (primary caregiver) and
child is examined as a predictor of self-reported delinquent behavior. This study also
assesses the relationship between the adolescent's experience with his/her parents and
his/her later capacity to make affectional bonds. Is a child who experiences little family
support and/or inadequate parental attachment more likely to engage in delinquency and
less likely to establish positive relationships with others? An attempt will be made in this
study to determine the interactive effects of family variables on adolescent problem
behavior. Using the 1977 National Youth Survey of 1,725 adolescents ages 11 to 17,
analysis reveals that social control variables explain only 5-8% of the variance in future
delinquency. However, findings suggest that positive parent-child attachments result in
fewer delinquent behaviors and impact future relationships, providing partial support for

the research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of my project would not have been possible without the assistance and
encouragement of my thesis committee and family. I am especially thankful to Dr. Chris
Polsenberg, my chairperson, for her dedication and support in my efforts to conquer this
goal.

I am also grateful to Dr. Carmine Palmieri, Macomb County Psychologist, whose
selfless assistance and encouragement enabled me to accomplish this task.

And finally, I offer my gratitude to my husband and parents for their patience, love, and

support.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Tables of Content ..........
List of Tables ..........
List of Figures ..........
Introduction ..........

Chapter One
What is attachment? ..........

Chapter Two
Attachment and delinquency ..........

Chapter Three

The need to belong and future relationships ..........

Chapter Four
Theoretical justification ..........

Chapter Five
Data and methods ..........

Chapter Six
Analysis and findings ..........

Chapter Seven
Discussion ..........

Appendices
Appendix A ..........
Appendix B ..........

References ..........

iv

iv

vi

1-5

6-10

11-14

15-17

18-21

22-25

26-40

41-43

44-46

47-48

49-53

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Census Bureau Estimates, 1976
Age, Sex, and Racial Distribution of Adolescent Population

Compared to Estimates Derived from the National Youth Survey .......... 27
Table 2

Measurements of Attachment .......... 29 - 30
Table 3

Mean Level of Attachment in Delinquent and Nondelinquent Population ........ 32
Table 4

Analysis of Variance .......... 36
Table 5

Relation Between Family Variables, Control Variables, and Delinquency ..... 38
Table 6

Correlation Coefficients for Attachment Dimensions .......... 4O

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1
Cycle of bonding ..........

INTRODUCTION

Family surrounds us from cradle to grave. It shapes our bodies, minds, and remains an
emotional presence wherever we go (Miller, 1993). It is the wellsng for all subsequent
attachments and the formative relationship in the course of which the child develops a
sense of himself or herself. Throughout life, the strength and character of this attachment
will influence the quality of all future bonds to other individuals (Kennell & Klaus, 1976)..
It is critical to socialized behavior and serves as the beginning of the continuum that
affects all other aspects of our life (OJJDP, 1994).

Families are one of the strongest socializing forces in life, teaching children to control
unacceptable behavior, to delay gratification, and to respect the rights of others (OJJDP,
1994). The family also serves a vital social function. Strong families produce competent
children to meet the emotional needs of the parents and to serve as a viable unit
economically and socially (Garbarino, 1992). Families that provide stability are better
able to adapt and cope with stressful events. According to the National Commission on
Children (1991), characteristics associated with strong families are comprised of clear,
open, and frequent communication among family members. Additionally, families
cultivate a sense of belonging to a cohesive social unit, and nurture individual strengths
and self-interests. Support, recognition and respect are also important factors related to

1

2
the well-being of the family. Family provides a foundation for a youth‘s experience in the
social world. The child who has a sense of security within the home will be better
equipped with internal resources with which to explore his/her environment. A sense of
belonging and security provides for higher self-esteem and reliance. Therefore, family
relationships not only affect the child at home, but have a direct bearing on socialization
and the child's ability to develop healthy relationships outside of the home. Families serve
as social bonds that directly or indirectly influence our actions. They help support informal
social control which can reduce the likelihood of criminal behavior (OJJDP, 1994). The
social support theory implies that the more cohesive a family, the better individual family
members function, the better communication between parents and children, the greater
marital consensus and the better behavioral outcomes for children (Farrell & Barnes,
1993).

Children who feel they are an important part of the family and where intimacy in
communication has been established tend to exhibit positive signs of parental attachment
(Cemkovich & Giordano, 1987). Secure parent-child relationships are further said to
influence how children interact and react to their parents and peers. For example, strong
parental attachments are positively correlated with more frequent, sociable, and positive
interactions with parents and peers (Bullock, 1993), while negative family interactions are
assumed to influence criminal and other negative behaviors (Jensen & Brownfield, 1983).
Family functioning factors that are likely to contribute to delinquency are most generally
the consequence of parental behavior, with parental behavior being causally linked to the

lack of effective role models, a lack of a stable home environment, and a lack of parental

3
supervision. Hence, suggesting that children who perceive themselves as alienated from
the family tend to be more easily influenced by their peers (Chubb & Fertman, 1992),
which may explain their propensity to associate with delinquent friends (Cerkonvich &
Giordano, 1987; Gove & Crutchfield, 1982). Therefore, it would seem that strong ties
(attachment) to parents inhibit delinquency (McCord, 1991).

Prior research confirms that children raised in supportive, affectionate, and accepting
homes are less likely to exhibit problem behavior, whereas children rejected by their
parents are among the most likely to become delinquent (OJJDP Summary, 1994).
Parental affection and/or the willingness to invest in children is said to be an essential
underlying condition of good parenting and ultimately results in the prevention of
misbehavior (Hirschi, 1969; Laub & Sampson, 1988). Hirschi's definition of effective
parenting entails monitoring the behavior of children, recognizing their misdeeds, and
punishing those misdeeds accordingly. Parents who cannot or will not implement these
family management skills, including supervision, discipline, and attachment, are prime
candidates for producing delinquent youth (Patterson & Dishion, 1985). The lack of
family management skills are the most important correlates of serious, persistent
delinquency (Glueck & Glueck, 1950), making direct parent-child interactions extremely
powerful predictors of delinquency and other juvenile misconduct problems (OJJDP,
1994).

Another view (that of Leah Taylor) focuses on discovering the positive aspects of a
family. Taylor (1985) advances the notion that families, no matter what their form, usually

possess strengths that can be mobilized to mitigate delinquent behavior, but only if one

4
knows where and how to find the strengths. We must therefore examine the family in
order to help the child. In her view, treatment of the child is merely focusing on a small
part of a much larger problem. The health of a parent-child relationship is a reflection of
the parents' emotional well-being. This in turn determines the developmental outcomes
that are likely for children and the impact of environmental stresses and supports on the
family (Melarned, 1992). Parents set the tone for a youth's future reactions to societal
pressures. For example, when the developing child's setting is loving and supportive, it
provides for affirmation of one's self-concept, confiding relationships, an outlet for
expressive behavior, companionship, and tangible help or cognitive aid in thinking through
solutions to problems (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Farrell & Barnes, 1993). On the other hand,
when parents are harsh, unloving, overcritical, and unaccepting, healthy development is
impeded and the child's risk for delinquency increases (OJJDP, 1994).

It is the recognition of the major role families play in the socialization process and the
decay of family strengths and morals that prompted further exploration into this topic. For
this reason, the study will evaluate the impact of parental attachment on reported
delinquent behavior and attempt to determine whether or not a child can develop
successfully in terms of social interactions and intimacy without a strong familial base
(attachment).

The premise for this study is different from most existing research in that it not merely
analyzes how parental attachment influences delinquency, but also attempts to
demonstrate how parental attachment influences future relationships to parents, peers, and

significant others. This issue is critical because it bears on the success and/or failure of

5
other social support systems and the impact they have on the child. For instance, if a child
is inadequately attached to the parent, and this in turn impedes the child's ability to
establish healthy, positive relationships, then how can society help the child develop
successfully? Further, if attachment is weak during infancy and early childhood, can social
agencies help families to facilitate bonds of attachment to parents? If parental attachment
is not forthcoming, can rehabilitation through social intervention occur, or is prevention

the only solution?

Chapter One

WHAT IS ATTACHMENT?

John Kennel] (1982) defines attachment as "an affectionate bond between two
individuals that endures through space and time and serves to join them emotionally"
(1982, p. 2). Attachment often refers to the degree of closeness between offspring and
their parents or primary caregiver. It is the bond of affection and respect for people such
as parents, teachers, and friends (Rankin & Kern, 1994; Robbins, 1984). When a child has
a strong and healthy bond to his parent, it allows the child to develop both trust in others
and reliance on himself (Fahlberg, 1979). Human beings depend on others for their very
survival during the first few years of life. A child's basic reality lies in the relationship with
the family or primary care giver. "The bond a child develops to the person who cares for
him in his early years is the foundation for his/her future psychological development and
for his/her future relationships with others" (Fahlberg, 1979, p. 5). "It is impossible for
individuals to exist independently of the influence of other people" (Garbarino, 1992, p.
12).

Along with meeting the child's physical needs, the attachment a child establishes to
significant others, especially parents, is the most crucial thing that happens during infancy.
In fact, research indicates that adequate physical care is not enough to lead to the
development of a physically and psychologically healthy child (Ainsworth, 1985). Positive
social interaction between caregiver and child contributes more to the bonds between them
than the kinds of interactions that occur around meeting the child's physical needs.

6

7
Therefore, the very quality of social interactions, not routine care, is the most
important aspect of parenting (Ainsworth, 1985). Furthermore, there is a strong causal
relationship between an individual's social experiences with his/her parents and later
capacity to make affectional bonds (Bowlby, 1979). These affect the child's ability to
form close, trusting relationships throughout life, which make up the concept of
attachment. In fact, the development of attachment is at the core of meeting basic social
and personality needs, such as maintaining self-esteem and being affectionate towards
others (Fishbein, 1984). Intemalization of family norms, sense of conscience and, perhaps,
even superego stem from this attachment process. Overall, attachment helps children
attain their social, emotional, and cognitive development (Fahlberg, 1979). They can
become more easily attached to others. This reciprocity of parent/child relationships is
essential to mutual dependence and also fundamental to future attachments. Concepts
that indicate the presence of reciprocity include: (1) the ability to respond to behavioral
and verbal cues, (2) the types and frequency of physical closeness, (3) ways of coping with
separation, and (4) the child's facility in learning to read.

According to Ainsworth (and subsequent researchers who have followed her model)
there are three forms of attachment: the secme attached child, the insecurely attached
child, and the avoidant/anxiously attached child. Insecurely attached children are said to
result from unstable homes where parents are subject to a great deal of stress and where
neglect and abuse are more common. Avoidant children (20 to 25 percent), on the other
hand, come from homes where their pleas for attention are often painfully rejected

(Ainsworth, 1985). In fact, parental rejection is one of the most powerful predictors of

8
juvenile delinquency (OJJDP, 1994), often resulting in a feeling of not needing others
(Cline, 1994). However, rather than focusing on the above three categories, the focus for
the purposes of this study will be on attached and insecurely attached children. Anxiously
attached and unattached children will be included in the insecurely attached category. The
reason for this is to avoid the confusion and lack of consensus among researchers
regarding the possibility that a child can be truly unattached.

Recent research indicates that children who have more difficulty with separation are
more likely to be better attached than those who do not protest. When children are firmly
attached they may initially respond to separation with an innate fear and experience
separation anxiety but eventually work through it and develop trust. A child with quality
attachments generally has a better perspective on the world and stronger base with which
to explore (Magid & McKelvey, 1987). Conversely, inadequately attached children
experience anger as a result of separation and may possibly become detached. They may
learn that their mother is not always accessible and that they cannot trust others to care for
them. Consequently, the child may not learn to care for others and fail to develop a
conscience. This is a child who has decided that he/She cannot trust others to care for
them and therefore will not trust anyone (Magid & McKelvey, 1987).

A child's first relationship with his primary caregiver (birth through 16 months) sets the
stage for future relationships (Cline, 1992). The child learns what he/she can expect from
others. Some behaviors commonly seen in children who lack normal attachment include:
1) lack of ability to give true affection and lack of depth in relationships, 2) destructive

behavior to self and others, including animals, 3) extreme control problems, 4) lack of long

9

term friends, and 5) stealing, gorging, or hoarding (Cline, 1992). Finally, a child who
does not protest separation may be at risk for long-term attachment disorders. In fact,
Bowlby claims, " the only children so far observed in such conditions who appear
undisturbed (are) those who have never had any figure to whom they can become
attached, or who have experienced repeated and prolonged separations and have already
become more or less permanently detach " (1973, p. 52). The unattached child will
experience the greatest social difficulties and will struggle when learning to build and
maintain relationships of any sort (Fahlberg, 1979). In fact, unattached children have
troubles relating normally with others (Bowlby, 1970). However, only 3 - 5% of children
are truly unattached with the remaining experiencing attachment disorders of a lesser
degree.

Children who do not bond to the primary caregiver during infancy experience an
attachment disorder caused by a break in the bonding cycle (Mansfield & Waldmann,

1994). This disruption is illustrated by the diagram below: (Figure 1)

   

     

Figure1
NEED ‘/
CYCLE a...»
TRUST RAGE \Hopelm
BONDING
t RELIEF )\
EyeContact
Smiles

Dimmtion Point Cline, 1992

10

This essential cycle circles around hundreds of times in the first months of life and
"locks in" our first associations - the foundation of personality and the ability to relate
(Cline, 1992). These patterns stick with us all our lives, and although unconscious, these
associations can dictate our actions. Breaks in the cycle can cause severe problems and
may result in attachment disorders (Cline, 1992). For example, the cycle may be broken
by a mother who cannot tend to her infant or relieve the child's pain. This inadequacy by
the mother results in a lack of trust, making proper attachment impossible (Cline, 1992).
Both a lack of trust and lack of attachment have far reaching, destructive influences on

personality development and interpersonal relationships (Cline, 1992).

Chapter Two

ATTACHMENT AND DELINQUEN CY

According to a review of research studies, the likelihood that a youth will demonstrate
delinquent behavior and go on to commit crimes as an adult is strongly correlated with the
quality of the child's family life. Parental rejection is one factor in particular that stands
out as most likely to produce delinquency in youth (OJJDP,]994). Hirschi finds that a
strong attachment tie "protects" against commitment of delinquent acts (Capuzzi, 1982;
Hirschi, 1969). He argues that when parental attachment is strong, parental values
(presumed to be "anti-criminal") are more readily accepted (Hindelang, 1973). He also
believes that attachment to parents generates a wider concern for the approval of persons
in positions of authority and, ultimately, a belief that societal norms bind one's conduct
(Hindelang, 1973). Hirschi writes that delinquency is intrinsic to human nature and that
conformity to societal norms must be achieved through socialization, the formation of a
bond between the individual and society which is attachment (Hirschi, 1969; Wiatrowski,
Griswold & Roberts, 1981). Attachment refers to the strength of one's ties to parents,
peers and teachers. The premise is that individuals who are not strongly attached to
others are also insensitive to their opinions. Therefore, individuals who are not bound by
others' norms are free to deviate from generally accepted codes of conduct. On the other
hand, juveniles who are close to their parents tend to take their feelings and opinions into
account when contemplating a delinquent act. As such, attachment is essentially a social-
psychological concept, involving the motivational value of social approval and imitation

ll

12
(Wells & Rankin, 1988). Thus the probability of deviance increases when an individual's
bond to society is weak or broken (Hirschi, 1969). In other words, when the ties that bind
an individual to key societal institutions (i.e., attachment to family, school, work) are
loosened, the risk of crime and delinquency is heightened (Sampson & Laub, 1994).
Hirschi's bond theory states that one's attachment to significant others helps to Shield
against the temptation of being involved in acts of juvenile delinquency (Capuzzi, 1982).
The family is a source of attachment where parents act as role models and teach their
children socially acceptable behavior (W iatrowski et. al., 1981). Delinquency is therefore
said to decline monotonically with increasing levels of supervision and attachment
(Sampson & Laub, 1994).

Parental attachment has fairly strong positive effects on school attachment (ties which
the youth forms with significant others in school), involvement (participation in
conventional activities that lead to valued success), and belief (acceptance of moral
validity), implying that even adolescents who are well into their high-school years, parental
attachment exerts considerable influence (W iatrowski, Griswold & Roberts, 1981).
Although the prevailing generalization is that pre-adolescent and adolescent youth move
away from parents and towards peers as their primary reference group (Sani, 1982), it
was found that youth who had positive relationships with parents and/or school had fewer
delinquent friends than youth with poor relationships (Capuzzi, 1982). According to
results from analysis using the National Youth Survey, adolescents who are strongly
attached to their parents are less prone than others to acquire delinquent friends and hence

less motivated to engage in delinquency (W arr, 1993). Their fear of the potential loss of

13
parental approval and/or affection may be sufficient enough to deter delinquency even
when pressure form peers is intense (W arr, 1993). The parent is said to be
"psychologically present" (Hirschi, 1969), where the child has internalized and
acts on their parents' moral inhibitions against delinquency, providing an obstacle or
barrier to peer influence (W arr, 1993).

Attachment to parents has been found to have an indirect effect on delinquency,
whereas peer attachment is directly related to delinquent involvement (Hindelang, 1973).
It is thought that the deviant peer group serves the important function of polishing anti-
social skills, instigating delinquent activities, and teaching anti-social values in addition to
providing social support. The membership in a delinquent peer group is said to be the
strongest predictor of subsequent increases in delinquent behavior (Patterson & Dishion,
1985). Attachment to parents, however, offsets the effects of peer influence and thus
delinquency, as previuosly discussed. Parents act as an indirect form of social control,
primarily based on affectional attachment and the child's identification to conventional
persons (Wells & Rankin, 1988). Risk of delinquency lies not only in the strength of the
youth's bonds to persons or groups, but also in the conventional or pro-delinquent
orientations of those persons and groups to which they are bonded. Youth with weak
bonds to conventional groups are more likely to be influenced by delinquent peer groups,
suggesting support for direct socialization to delinquency (Elliot, Huizinga & Ageton,
1985). Conversely, individuals with strong bonds to the family and school are not likely to

develop bonds to delinquent or drug-using peers and even if they did, their conventional

l4
bonds should limit their involvement in these behaviors (Elliot, Huizinga, & Menard,
1989)

Parental behaviors which encourage social, academic, and achievement-related skills
play a preventative role vis-a'-vis delinquency. Positive parenting occurs when parents
communicate interest in and support for their child and express their approval, either
verbally or nonverbally, of their child's prosocial behavior (Hanson et al., 1984; Krohn,
Stern, Thomberry, & Jang, 1992; Pulkkinen, 1983). In contrast, weak attachment
between parent and child strongly contributes to the initiation of delinquent and substance
use behaviors (Gove & Crutchfield, 1982; Hirschi, 1969; Loeber & Stouthamner-Loeber,
1986; Rankin & Kern, 1994), whereas positive family relationships with high levels of
parent-chfld involvement buffer against delinquency and drug use (Krohn et al., 1992;
Loeber & Stouthamner—Loeber, 1986).

The family is the first social group to which an individual belongs and vital to healthy
childhood and adolescent development. It consists of children, parents, and lifelong
bonds. According to Robert Frost, "Home is the place where/when you have to go
there/they have to take you in" (Frost, 1916 p. 6). A healthy home is the single most
important factor in preventing delinquency (OJJDP, 1994). Children need an environment
characterized by parental affection, cohesion, and involvement in their lives (OJJDP,

1 994).

Chapter Three
THE NEED TO BELONG

AND FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS

Social support and relationships are essential for survival, as is the need to belong
(Garbarino, 1992). According to Glasser, the "need to belong" is a basic human need and
can overcome survival needs, as indicated by the many people who attempt suicide due to
loneliness. A child's sense of belonging, in turn, affects two personality constructs; self-
esteem and locus of control (Chubb & Fertman, 1992). If a child lacks adequate social
support and a sense of belonging is not established, it will affect personality development
and influence behavior. Subsequently, delinquent behavior has been found to be related to
adolescents' perceptions and feeling of belonging (Anolik, 1983; Duncan, 1978).

Prior research has found that there is a positive relationship between the amount of
time spent in the home environment and adolescents' perception of a general sense of
well-being. Subjective experiences of belonging are often more important than is "reality"
in influencing a child's actions and feelings (Chubb & Fertrnan, 1992). If a child perceives
oneself as not belonging to the family, the perception of alienation may in turn alter self-
esteem, locus of control, and a sense of belonging within school and/or the community.
Thus, children who feel alienated or cutoff from family loved ones react differently in
situations than do children who feel they belong. According to research, destructive
interpersonal relationships in one's family of origin produce destructive practices in later
life (Galdston, 1975). Relationship deficits with other people are a major problem of

15

l6
troubled youth. There may be a tendency for children to be fearful of forming close
relationships with others and to "con" or manipulate those with whom relationships are
formed. Such children may have difficulty in joining peer groups and, generally, lack
social skills that "normal" individuals possess. The child will resort to inappropriate
behavior, social isolation, manipulation, bizarre behavior, overdependency, and
intimidation as a way of a handling discomfort (Pardeck & Pardeck, 1984). Bowlby's
perspective regarding attachment is that patterns of interaction that develop between
parent and child in childhood will be reflected in later capacity to reach out and obtain
support from others. For example, childhood abuse is said to foster an inability to form
supportive attachments with friends, within marriages and committed relationships
(Palmieri, 1990).

Research mentions time and time again the importance of the family system on
delinquency, but little is mentioned as to whether the elements of the system can be
problematic for future attachment to other social support systems or if the family can be
replaced. For instance, if the family is not available, can other support be beneficial?
According to research, adolescents can probably benefit from becoming more active in
school and community activities, social outlets that may provide the acceptance and
support that the adolescent does not find at home (Chubb & Fertrnan, 1992). Although
recreational activities can provide support, they have yet to demonstrate any effect on
delinquency rates (Eldefonso, 1992). Simply consuming a youngster's time will not reduce
delinquency since most delinquent acts require little time, but involvement in

activities has been cited as a positive example of delinquency control. The child's

17
participation in recreational activities can serve as supplemental support which is
associated with positive self-esteem ( Eldefonso, 1983; Wells & Rankin, 1988). Further,
adolescents with a strong self-concept tend to experience greater feelings of trust in their
relationships with parents and peers. If the child perceives greater feelings of trust and
views the parents and peers as supportive, the orientation towards them will be greater
(Cemkovich & Giordano, 1987). If the parents and peers represent conventional bonds
and beliefs, they will act as buffers against deviant influences by providing a source of
basic ties (Rankin & Kern, 1994) and the child will be less likely to engage in delinquency
(OJJDP, 1994). Therefore, it would seem that although a child's involvement in outside
activities does not have a direct bearing on delinquent behavior, they may indirectly
influence behavior through the child's feelings of self-worth and commitment to

conventional bonds.

Chapter Four
THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION
The theoretical orientation of this study builds directly on the works of Hirschi. It
focuses on Hirschi's (1969) Social Control Theory, which quickly became one of the
dominant theories of delinquency. According to the theory, there are four social bonds
that prevent individuals from engaging in delinquency. They are: attachment (to others,
their opinions, and expectations), commitment (time, energy, and self invested in
conventional activities), involvement (engrossment in conventional activities), and belief
(attribution of moral validity to conventional norms; Agnew, 1985). This control theory
postulates that delinquent behavior becomes more probable as an individual's bonds
(attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief) to parents, peers, and social
institutions weaken (Conger, 1976). Stress, which is assumed to be a universal state of
man, may weaken these bonds by presenting individuals with frustrated wants and
unfulfilled needs (Elliot et. a1, 1989). This strain deteriorates social controls that serve to
regulate behavior, and thus may motivate delinquency, although not always. Controls
used to restrain the impulse to give into frustrations are invoked by both the self (internal)
and others (external). These controls and internalized belief systems involve rewards and
punishments to reinforce a specific behavior (Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). Early
socialization is said to be the basis for social control. The outcome of socialization is a
continuum, 'concem for self and others.‘ This ranges from an extreme lack of concern
about consequences of one's acts for oneself and other people, to a very high level of
concern (McKissack, 1975). Early socialization is instilled by the parents through two

18

19
basic components - attachment and guidance (McKissack, 1975).

Hirschi identifies five elements of attachment. They include (1) time spent with
parents; (2) supervision by parents; (3) intimate communication between parent and child;
(4) affectional identification by juvenile with his/her parents; and (5) emotional support by
parents (Conger,1976; Hirschi, 1969). The attachment theory suggests that secure parent-
child relationships influence how children interact with and react to their parents and peers
(Bullock, 1993).

Hirschi submits that young people generally do not partake in illegal/deviant behavior
because they have a strong bond to conventional society. The bonds consist of attachment
to parents, commitment to educational or other legitimate goals, involvement in
conventional activities, and belief in legitimate values (Hirschi, 1969; Trojanowicz &
Morash, 1992). Hirschi suggests that it is the parents' "psychological presence" in the
child's mind during tempting situations that is key to the deterrence of delinquency
(Cemkovich & Giordano, 1987). Even though the parents may not be present, the child
perceives them as part of his/her social and psychological field. The quality of
communication and closeness with the parents may cause the child to recall their opinion
when contemplating an act contrary to law.

Bonding and attachment patterns first take place during gestation, throughout infancy
and into early toddlerhood (Cline, 1992). Furthermore, understanding the nuances of
bonding during infancy casts light on later adolescent and adult behaviors. The essence of
the process is based on the infant's helplessness, a controlling person/caregiver , and

difficult times. For example, if the child is hungry and begins crying, the way the parent

20
responds to the situation will set the tone for attachment. If the child's needs are gratified
and relief is provided, the child learns to trust, creating the bond of attachment. If the
cycle is broken or the child's needs are not met, he/she may become angry and resistant.
The heavenly or hellish outcome is therefore dependent on the personality and motives of
the controlling person, thus emphasizing the critical nature of early socialization. The
distructive cycle, if repeated, will eventually create a child with an attachment disorder.
(refer to Figure 1)

An infant learns in the first few months of life to feel secure or insecure, cling or
explore, usually laugh or cry, becoming either a joy or an annoyance to be around (Cline,
1992). At one year, a child is either securely attached, inadequately attached, or
unattached. These attachment patterns continue and by the second year of life the child's
behavior is reflective of the type of parenting practiced. If insecurely attached, the child's
lack of self-reliance and enthusiasm in problem solving is evident. An infant learns half of
a lifetime's knowledge in the first year of life (Cline, 1992). This is based on the fact that
during the first year, almost all of the visual perception, gross motor foundation, auditory
organization, and fundamental social responses are organized. Cline identifies three
important occurrences during the first year of life: (1) the foundation of conscience is laid
down (i.e., when moms happy, I'm happy); (2) beginning of cause and effect thinking (i.e.,
smiling as a reflex reaction - you smile at the baby and the baby smiles back); and (3) the
ability to delay gratification develops (i.e., the ability to wait). It is theorized that if a child
has a stable relationship in the first 16 to 24 months of life, he/she will have the foundation

for adequate attachment. Although this study does not focus directly on the early signs of

21
attachment, it is imperative to understand the importance of the parent - infant relationship
in early socialization in order to fully understand the impact of attachment on adolescent
behavior. This study will assess characteristics associated with attachment
during adolescence, although attachment is presumed to be established during early
infancy. The child's pattern of attachment should be reflective in the adolescent's

behaviors.

DATA AND METHODS

Sample
The data for this study are based on the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study

of delinquent behavior in the American youth population. The NYS consists of seven
waves of data collected from 1976 to 1986, involving a sequential design with multiple
birth cohorts (Elliot, Huizinga & Ageton, 1985). The sample was obtained through a self-
weighing, multistage, cluster sampling of households in the Continental US This
sampling procedure allowed for an equal probability of selection within the given
population during each specified time period. The initial sampling in 1976 was a national
probability sample of youths aged 11 to 17 and thus included seven birth cohorts (1959 -
1965). The initial sampling contained 2,360 eligible youth of which 1,725 (73%) agreed
to complete interviews in the initial (1977) survey (Elliot, Huizinga & Menard, 1989).
The youth participating in the survey appeared to be proportional to that group's
representation in the population based on age, sex and race as established by the US.
Census Bureau (Elliot, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1988). The sample was
not affected in any serious way by the losses over the six surveys, which was relatively
small (13%) (Elliot, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989).

The present analysis uses data collected during the first wave of the NYS, which
comes from interviews conducted in 1977, and asks about events that occurred in 1976.
Wave I data were selected based on the respondents' ages. It captured respondents
during the adolescent period (ages 11 to 17), thus allowing the opportunity to assess

22

23
the pattern of attachment at the earliest time period (Wave 1). After measuring the level
of attachment in Wave 1, Wave H data were used to measure delinquent behavior one year
later. This approach is based on the assumption that patterns of attachment are formed
long before youths begin to engage in delinquency. In addition to using data from Waves
I & II, data from Wave IV were also utilized in an effort to assess the child's ability to
form relationships in subsequent years. For example, if a child is inadequately attached in
Wave 1, will they also have relationship deficits in Wave IV?

The NY S data set proved to be Significantly well suited for analysis due to the unique
focus of the questionnaire. The NYS, unlike most conventional questionnaires, made
reference to specific relationships with family, friends, teachers, and partners.
Furthermore, the NYS survey contained a variety of questions about the youngsters'
relationships and attitudes towards family and others, allowing the opportunity to make
comparative observations between Waves I & IV. Wave I data included questions such
as, "How important have the things you've done with your family been to you?", and
"How much have your parents influenced what you've thought and done?" Additionally,
in Wave IV these questions were revised and extended to other relationships. These
questions are of extreme importance in that they attempt to measure concepts that are
central to the social control theory.

Measurement of variables
(1 v 'a e
Attachment is measured by several qualities of family life presumed by major theorists

to affect prosocial or antisocial behavior of children. Indices used in this study to measure

24
attachment have high face validity and correspond closely to those of Hirschi (Rankin &
Kern, 1994). Measures of attachment for Wave I were divided into two dimensions:
(1) time spent with parent, and (2) affectional identification by the juvenile with his/her
parents. Factor analysis was used to confirm the variables selected to represent the
attachment dimensions. Time spent with family is measured by questions such as, " On
average, how many afternoons during the school week, from the end of school or work to
dinner, have you spent talking, working, or playing with your family?", and " How often
do your parents take part in or share in your school activities?" The second indicator of
attachment, affectional identification, was measured through the response to such
questions as: "How much have your parents influenced what you've thought and done?
Do you sometimes feel alone when you're with your parents ?" The youths were also
asked to respond to questions about the extent of communication they have with their
parents. However, due to insufficient factor loadings the communication dimension of
attachment was omitted and believed to be accounted for in the other dimensions.

The attachment measures for Wave IV were devised similarly to those in Wave 1, in
that they were conceptually selected and then factor analyzed to identify the underlying
constructs representing each dimension. The factor analysis confirmed the constructed
variables for both waves: (1) affectional identification to others, and (2) time spent with
others (Appendix A).

W
Delinquency was measured by a modified version of Elliot and Ageton's (1980) self-

reported delinquency scale. Modification of the delinquency scale was based on the

25

frequency of the offense occurring. The base indicators used by Elliot and Ageton (1980)
were also identified in numerous prior studies and thus are presumed to have validity
(Cemkovich & Giordano, 1987;1-Iirschi, 1969; Lipton & Smith, 1983). Thirty-six
individual delinquent behaviors were represented in the scale (Appendix B) by subjects
that indicated how many times in the last year they committed each act. The frequencies
of a full range of delinquent acts were counted (for regression analysis) and then coded
(for bivariate analysis) in terms of nonoffender (O) and offender (1). N onoffenders were
those youth who reported no offenses, while offenders were those who have committed
one or more offenses. The delinquency scale was further separated into status and
delinquent/criminal counts, thus allowing for additional observations to be made in terms
of attachment and type of delinquent activity.
Contmlxariablcs

Research on family and delinquency often specifies differential effects of family factors
on delinquency in terms of gender, race, age, and social class. For example, girls and
younger adolescents are said to be more closely supervised and involved in family
activities. Consequently, they are more likely to engage in communication with their
parents and thus more likely to be influenced by family dysfunction in comparison to boys
and older youth (Rankin & Kern, 1994; Van Voorhis, 1988). Since the sample is large, an
attempt was made to control for gender, race, age, and social class. By entering these
variables into a regression model as control variables, the direct affects of family factors
on delinquency can be measured controlling for other variables that may affect attachment

(see Table 1 for coding).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Before examining the findings, it should be noted that the analytical procedure in this
study progressed through three levels of analysis. The study began with a descriptive
overview of the population sample and its representativeness. The second level of analysis
identified bivariate relations between attachment and delinquency. The final stage of
analysis entailed multivariate analysis. While controlling for the effects of the respondent's
age, sex, race, and social class, the two delinquency indices were regressed on each of the
attachment dimensions.

Table 1 presents the classification for adolescents in this study by age, sex and racial
distribution . Census Bureau Estimates from 1976 are also provided as a tool for
distribution comparisons and representativeness. The NYS figures appear to be consistent
with estimates derived from the Census Bureau and are thus representative of youth aged
11-17. Adolescent males (53%) and females (47%) further appear to be equally
accounted for in this study. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is generally representative of the
population and consists primarily of Anglo Americans (79%), followed by Afiican
Americans (15%). The residual "other" category includes: Chicano (4%), American
Indian (.5%), Asian (1%) and a small number of other ethnic groups (.2%). Table 1 data
is restricted to three categories based on the mere 6% representation of other ethnic

groups.

26

27

Table 1

 

NYS Estimates Census Bureau Estimates
SEX
Male 53% 51%
Female 47% 49%
RACE
White 79% 84%
Black 15% 14%
Other 6% 2%
AGE
11 year old 15% 13%
12 year old 15% 14%
13 year old 16% 14%
14 year old 15% 15%
15 year old 15% 15%
16 year old 14% 14%
17 year old 11% 15%

*Census Bureau estimates from Elliot et al., 1988

28

Table 2 contains the items that measure attachment in this study. The first list
represents the time spent with parents dimension of attachment, while the second list of
questions measure the degree of affectional identification between parent and child. The
attachment measurements were created in three steps. First, 25 variables related to
parental attachment were selected from the Wave I survey. The items were then
conceptually classified into three distinct categories of attachment: time spent with
parents, communication with parents, and affectional identification between parent and
child. The divisions are further based on and similar to measures used in a number of
related studies (i.e., Cemkovich & Giordano, 1987; Krohn et al., 1992; Rankin and Kern,
1994; Van Voorhis etal., 1988; and Warr, 1993).

Second, the 25 measures of attachment were factor analyzed. Results from the analysis
identified one distinct factor for the time spent with parents and the affectional
identification variables. The communication variables, however, did not load together on
any factor, so they were not used in this analysis.

Finally, the factor results were used to create the attachment scales whose items and
mean values are presented in Table 2. Although the communication factor was not used
as an individual dimension of attachment, it is most likely accounted for within time spent

with parents and affectional identification scales.

29

Table 2

Measuremenmfattachmem
I' t.] l' n.

. On average, how many afternoons during the school week,

from the end of school or work to dinner, have you spent
talking, working, or playing with the family? ((1)

On average, how many evenings during the school week,
from dinner time to bedtime, have you spent talking,
working, or playing with your family? ((1)

. On the weekend, how much time have you generally spent

talking, working, or playing with your family? (e)

How often have your parents/family taken part or shared
in your school activities? (0

. How often have your parents/family taken part or shared

in your community activities? (f)

. How often have your parents/family taken part or shared

in your activities with your friends? (f)

How important is it to have a family that does lots of things
together? (g)

. How are you doing at this? (h)

Elifi' 1.1.5.]. .1 'll'

10.

11.

How much have your parents influenced what you've
thought and done? (c)

How important is it to have parents who comfort you
when you're unhappy about something? (g)

How are you doing at this? (h)

X(a)

3.37

3.70

3.51

2.49

2.62

1.92

4.37

3.67

4.13

4.40

4.10

Xd(b)

3.30

3.60

3.44

2.42

2.57

1.86

4.31

3.60

4.09

4.35

4.09

Xnd(c)

3.92

3.84

3.88

2.68

2.69

1.95

4.54

3.99

4.31

4.54

4.21

30

Table 2 (con't)
X(a)

12. How important is it to have your parents think your

doing well? (g) 4.50
13. How are you doing at this? (h) 3.80
14. How important is it to get along well with your parents? (g) 4.73
15. How are you doing at this? (h) 3.96
16. I feel like an outsider with my family. (i) 1.90
17. Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my family. (i) 2.65
18. I feel close to my family. (i) 4.26
19. My family doesn't take much interest in my problems. (i) 1.89
Note:

Xd(b)

4.49

3.78

4.70

3.91

1.87

2.66

4.21

1.86

Xnd(c)

4.60

3.99

4.79

4.34

l .72

2.24

4.47

1.82

(a) X = mean response for entire sample, (b) Xd = mean response for delinquent youth,
and (c) Xnd = mean response for nondelinquent youth.

Coding:

(d) 0 - 5 (0 = everything less than once a week); (e) 1 = very little, 2 = not too much,

3 = some, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = a great deal; (1) 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often,
4 = almost always; (g) 1 = not important, 3 = somewhat important, 5 = very important;
(h) 1 = not well, 3 = OK, 5 = very well; and (i) l = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,

3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

3 1

Table 3 presents the findings from various t tests, which show that a bivariate
relationship exists between level of attachment and the likelihood of committing delinquent
acts. Significant differences were found between the groups of all variables. The mean
value for affectional identification and time spent with parents are higher in the
nondelinquent and nonstatus offender population for both Wave I and Wave H. The
factor scores in this table are 2 scores that distinguish the mean level of attachment in the
delinquent and nondelinquent population. They have a mean of zero and Standard
deviation of one. For example, in Wave H the delinquent child (-.0462) appears below the
mean level of attachment while the nondelinquent child (.3294) appears slightly above the
mean level of attachment. The same is true for status offenses, for instance, in Wave II
the status offender is below the mean level of attachment (—.1240), and the nonstatus
offender is above the mean level of attachment (.3146). Indications are that weaker

attachments contribute to the rise in delinquency and status offenses.

32

Table 3
U,'-._l ' ‘ 0-11-:CLII‘1.II!-‘1 LIIIOU' 0. ‘1 HO :0-
AFFECTIONAL TIME SPENT
IDENTIFICATION WITH PARENTS

Mean Mean

WAVE I

Delinquent -.0797* -.0994*

Nondelinquent .1836 .2079

Status -. 1521 * -.2036*

Nonstatus .2321 .3025

WAVE II

Delinquent -.0462* -.0879*

Nondelinquent .3294 .2908

Status -. 1240* -. 1623*

Nonstatus .3 146 .2707

*p(t)<.05

33

In the next step of analysis age, ethnicity, sex, and social class are examined to
determine if the observed differences in the four sample means can be attributed to natural
variability or whether it is reasonable to believe that attachment varies by these factors.
Table 4 presents the results of an analysis of variance for each of the attachment
dimensions by age, ethnicity, sex and social class. It summarizes the bivariate relationships
between other variables that may be related to attachment. As expected, age is shown to
influence the amount of time spent with parents as well as the amount of affectional
identification experienced between parent and child. According to the findings, younger
children (ages 11-13) experience more affectional identification and spend more time with
their parents than the older adolescents (ages 15-17). The age effect on delinquency is not
surprising for as a child grows older, he/she is expected to become more independent and
to need less emotional support. The children in this study who are 14 years of age appear
to stand out alone, not quite fitting into either category. This may be considered a
transition period for adolescents.

The child's sex also appears to have significant bearing on the time spent with parents
dimension of attachment. Results clearly Show that females and younger youth spend
more time with their parents than older juvenile males and these findings could be
attributed to the fact that girls are traditionally considered to be more fragile than boys.
Boys are expected to be more independent and strong, while girls need to be protected.
However, the different levels of affectional identification experienced between genders
does not appear to be significant.

The differences in ethnicity are somewhat surprising. According to the findings,

34
nonwhites spend more time with their parents than whites. However, there are no
Significant differences in terms of affectional identification with parents. The findings
could likely be attributed to cultural differences. For example, minority groups are often
stigmatized as possessing inferior characteristics and historically suffer from multiple
disadvantages, such as less opportunity in education, employment and upward mobility.
Such conditions produce alienation and social isolation, causing an increase in the amount
of time spent at home (Gabarino, 1992).

The only significant social class differences again appear to be in terms of time spent
with parents. The lower class (-.021) and middle class (.-332) populations spend the least
amount of time with their parents, while the poverty stricken families (.054) and lower
middle class families (.002) spend the greatest amount of time together. It is possible that
the reason poverty stricken families spend the greatest amount of time with parents is
because they have little mobility without money and thus spend a great deal of time at
home.

To the extent that the above factors represent different dimensions of family
attachment, it is clear from the outset that a simplistic attached - unattached dichotomy
would have masked some important variation among the control variables. For example,

. although age has a Significant influence on both attachment dimensions, sex only impacts
the time spent with parents dimension of attachment. Therefore, by classifying the child
as attached - unattached, the different effects of the control variables on time spent with
parents and affectional identificaiton with parents dimensions of attachment would have

been misleading. According to the findings in Table 4, the variation in factors are

35
significant enough to cause differential effects, if not controlled. It is important to
identify this variation early on so that proceeding analysis will accurately measure the
effect of attachment on delinquency and not a spurious relationship. For example, when
measuring the effect attachment has on delinquency, it is necessary to control for
extraneous variables like, age, race, sex and social class. If the analysis did not control for
these variables the findings may have been misleading. However, the analysis of variance
table is merely descriptive in nature, suggesting interesting patterns but offering nothing
concrete. The discussion will have to turn to a more definitive form of analysis to
determine the relative effects of these variables on attachment and delinquency.
Regression analysis will be used to Show the relationship and strength of association

between these variables.

36

Table 4
Analysimfiariancc
AFFECTIONAL
IDENTIFICATION TIME SPENT

Mean Mean
SEX
Male -.0181 -.0613*
Female .0206 .0697
RACE
White .0073 -.0587*
Nonwhite -.0274 .2194
AGE
11 year old 3060* .3519*
12 year old .1246 .1956
13 year old .1139 .1291
14 year old .0128 .0064
15 year old -.1849 -.2051
16 year old -.2751 -.3027
17 yearold -.1550 -.2593
FAMILY INCOME
Poverty -.0566 .0538*
Lower .0428 -.0209
Lower middle .0945 .0015
Middle .0189 -.3321

*p(t) < .05

37

The data in Table 5 summarizes the results of regression analysis. In order to ensure
that the relationship between attachment and delinquency was not spurious, control
variables were included in the analysis. A general review of the data in Table 5 reveals
that the family variables, age, race, sex, and social class explain a relatively small amount
of the variation in both delinquency (5%) and status offenses (8%). Although this is
disappointing, it is not surprising. The explained variance could have been boosted
considerably if a number of other social and demographic factors were included such as,
employment status, education, or peer influence. However, the purpose of this study is
not to explain all variation in delinquency, but rather, more importantly, specify the role
attachment plays in delinquency.

According to the findings, age appears to be positively related to the frequency of
status offenses. For example, as children age, they tend to commit more status offenses
than a younger child. On the other hand, a child's sex is negatively related to delinquency.
Females are less likely to become delinquent than males. Finally, Table 5 reveals that the
time spent with parents dimension of attachment has a significant impact on delinquent and
status offenses. Results indicate that the more time a child spends with their parents at
time 1, the less delinquent they are at time 2. Affectional identification with parents,

however, does not appear to have a significant impact on delinquency.

Table 5
1' -_-u 311“: girl VLIIJ,' oro ai'ug-JricJ-ia.‘
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE DELINQUENCY
Constant 26.66
Sex (a) -23.07*
Age 2.97
Nonwhite (b) 5.24
Social Class -.19
Affectional iden. -5.57
Time spent -16.26*
I = .05 (c)
* p (t) < .05
Note:

38

STATUS

-35.09

-l.15

3.47*

2.65

-.03

-1.12

-6.49*

r=.08

(a) male = 0, female = l, (b) nonwhite = 1, white = 0, and (c) r = percentage of explained

variation

39

The final table presents correlation coefficients for attachment to parents during Wave
1 and attachment to parents and significant others in Wave IV. Results clearly Show a
significant relationship between dimensions of attachment during the two time periods.
According to the findings, affectional identification with parents during Wave 1 is
positively correlated to affectional identification to others in Wave IV (m .0772). This
means, that parental attachment early on tends to influence subsequent attachment to
others. For instance, children who are positively attached to their parents exhibit similar
patterns of attachment to others.

Additionally, Table 6 indicates that the time spent with parents dimensions of
attachment are positively correlated. Indications are that the more time a youngster
spends with his parents during early adolescent, the more time they will spend with them
in the future. This also applies to the amount of time a child is likely to contribute to other
relationships. If children spends time with their parents, they will be more likely to spend
time with others (fiiend, partners, and parents.) in the years to come. Although this
research only assesses relationships within a three year time period, it provides a tool for

predictability and brief insight into the future.

40

Table 6
at' o ' r ttac en ' ion
Affectional(a) Affectional(b) Time(c)
Parents Other I

Affectional
Parents 1.00 .0772* .5816
Affectional
Other 1.00 .0505
Time

1 1.00
Time

II
*p (t)<.05
Note:

Time(d)
II

.0962*

.8672

.0981*

1.00

(a)Represents affectional identification to parents. (b)Represents affectional identification

to others. (c)Represents time spent with parents during Wave 1. (d)Represents time spent

with others during Wave IV.

DISCUSSION

According to Hirschi's (1969) social control theory, the variables measuring parental
attachment and delinquency should be negatively correlated. An examination of results
generally supports this theory that measures of parent-child attachments are negatively
related to delinquency. The data indicate that a significant relationship exists between the
time spent with parent dimension of attachment and delinquency, thus providing tentative
support for the social control theory which asserts that the quality of family life is critical
to socialized behavior. However, the findings are not consistent across both dimensions of
attachment. Affectional identification was not found to have a significant impact on
delinquency. In other words, although the findings from this study provide justification
for the conventional emphasis on parental attachment in delinquency research, it is only
modest at best.

Several interesting issues are raised by these results. First, is the time spent with
parents dimension of attachment sufficient enough to measure patterns of parental
attachment without the affectional identification dimension? This is unlikely, however
since the time spent with parents measures incorporate questions regarding the importance
of time spent with parents, it goes beyond the realm of the time spent with parents
dimension. Secondly, is the affectional identification with parents dimension of attachment
a valid measure? It appears to be an adequate representation of parental attachment, but
simply not significant as a predictor of delinquency.

Results from this study also suggest that although the time spent dimension of
attachment plays a significant role in delinquency, it does not operate independently of

41

42
other social factors. In fact, as indicated in Table 4, gender, race, age, and social class are
all significantly related to the amount of time spent with parents. Affectional identification
with parents on the other hand is only significantly influenced by the child's age. These
differences could be attributed to a number of social and cultural factors, but only account
for small percentage of variation in delinquency. This suggests that there are a number of
other factors unaccounted for that play a contributing role in delinquency and that,
although time spent with parents appears important, it does not stand alone.

Findings in Table 5 also identify interesting effects of age and sex on the type of
delinquent act committed. According to the results, as children grow older they tend to
commit more status offenses. However, in terms of delinquent behavior, the findings are
insignificant. This lack of consistency across offenses may be explained by the minor
degree of criminality assessed by some of the status measures. For example, it is more
likely that a 17 year old will lie about his/her age and/or engage in sexual intercourse than
an 11 year old. The differences that resulted between a youngster's sex and likelihood of
becoming delinquent can also be explained. They are most likely attributed to societal
norms and upbringing. For example, girls are generally more closely supervised and spend
more time involved in family activities, thus are less likely to engage in delinquency.
Conversely, males tend to be spend less time with their parent and consequently account
for more delinquent activity.

The findings presented in Table 6, although confirmatory, need to be interpreted with
caution. Even though the results indicate that a relationship exists between patterns of

parental attachment in Wave 1 and patterns of attachment with others in Wave IV, it is

43
important to realize that the purpose of this analysis was to assess the effects of early
attachment on attachments to others in subsequent years. Problems exist in the selected
time periods for measurement. For instance, attachment was initially measured
between the ages of 11-17 and although it captures the youngsters during adolescence it
measures attachment over a fairly broad range of individuals. For example, attachment
patterns of an 11 year old may be considered a measurement of early attachment, but the
17 year old assessed during that same birth cohort is nearing adulthood. Additionally, the
measurement of attachment to others was only taken 3 years later which may not
represent an adequate assessment of future relationships. For example, although the 17
year old is now 20, the 11 year old is still an adolescent, which means they have yet to
experience many forms of relationships (i.e., relationships with partners). Finally,
measurements of attachment were strictly based on social factors and rarely took
psychological factors into consideration.

Future research should build on this study in two ways, first, by including both social
and psychological factors when assessing patterns of attachment and second, by
considering the impact early attachment has on a child's ability to form relationships to
counselors, probation officers, and other social agents. This could provide professionals
with a useful tool when developing approaches to social intervention. If a child cannot

establish a trusting working relationship with a professional can treatment be effective?

AppendixA
El. 1' II
I. '1 I

On average how many weekday afternoons, Monday through Friday, from the end of
school or work to dinner, have you spent with your friends?

On average how many weekday evenings, Monday through Friday, from dinnertime to
bedtime, have you spent with your friends?

On weekends how much time have you generally Spent with friends?

How many evenings in an average week, including weekends have you gone on dates,
to parties, or to other social activities with your friends?

How important has it been to have dates and go to parties and other social activities?

On average, how many afternoons, Monday through Friday, from the end of school or
work to dinner, have you spent playing, talking, or working with your family?

On average, how many weekday evenings, Monday through Friday, have you spent
playing, talking, or working with your family?

On the weekends, how much time have you generally spent playing, talking, or
working with your family?

How often have you taken part in family activities such as birthday parties, holiday
dinners, and traditional times?

10. How important have the things you've done with your family been to you?

11. On average how many hours a week are spent doing things with the family?

EEE 0 ll! ofi o olgl

1.

How much have your friends influenced what you've thought and done?
How much have your parents influenced what you've thought and done?
How important is it to get along with your parents?

How are you doing at this?

How important is it to have your parents think you do things well?
44

45
Appendix A (con't)

6. How are you doing at this?
7. How important is it to have your teacher think your good?
8. How well are you doing at this?

9. How important is it to have parents who comfort you when you're unhappy about
something?

10. How are you doing at this?

11. I feel close to my friends.

12. My family doesn't take much interest in my problems.
13. I often feel like nobody at school cares about me.

14. I feel like an outsider with my family.

15. My friends don't take much interest in my problems.
16. Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my friends.

17. Even though there are lots of Students around, I often feel lonely at school.
18. I feel close to my family.

19. 1 don't feel that I fit in very well with my friends.

20. Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my family.

21. I don't feel as if I really belong at school.
Measrnementmtattachment
.T' . l l' .

1. On average, how many afternoons during the school week, from the end of school or
work to dinner, have you spent talking, working, or playing with the family?

2. On average, how many evenings during the school week, from dinner time to bedtime,
have you spent talking, working, or playing with your family?

46

Appendix A (con't)

3.

On the weekend, how much time have you generally spent talking, working, or playing
with your family?

How often have your parents/family taken part or shared in your school activities?

. How often have your parents/family taken part or shared in your community activities?

How often have your parents/family taken part or shared in your activities with your
friends?

. How important is it to have a family that does lots of things together?

How are you doing at this?

lEfi' 1.1.fi.!. '1 'll'

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

How much have your parents influenced what you've thought and done?

How important is it to have parents who comfort you when you're unhappy about
something?

How are you doing at this?

How important is it to have your parents think your doing well?
How are you doing at this?

How important is it to get along well with your parents?

How are you doing at this?

I feel like an outsider with my family?

Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my family?

I feel close to my family?

My family doesn't take much interest in my problems.

Appendix B
321W

How many times in the last year have you:

1.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

19.

Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your parents or other family
members?

Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to a school?

. Purposely damaged or destroyed other pIOperty that did not belong to you (not family

or school)?

Stolen (or tried to steal) a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle?

Stole something (or tried to steal) something worth more than $50?

Stolen (or tried to steal) something between $5 and $50?

Stolen (or tried to steal) things worth less than $5?

Knowingly bought, sold or held stolen goods (or tried to do any of these things)?
Carried a hidden weapon other than a pocket knife?

Attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing him/her (aggravated
assault)?

Been involved in gang fights?
Sold marijuana or hashish?
Sold hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD?

Had (or tried to have) sexual relations with someone against their will (sexual
assault)?

Been paid for sexual relations (prostitution)?

Broke into a building/vehicle?

Stolen money or other things from your parents or other members of the family?
Hit (or threatened to hit) a teacher or other adult at school?

47

48

Appendix B (con't)

20. Hit (or threatened to hit) one of your parents?

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Hit (or threatened to hit) other students?

Been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place (disorderly conduct)?

Begged for money or things from strangers (panhandled)?

Been drunk in a public place?

Made obscene phone calls?

Hitchhiked where it was illegal to do so?

Used force to get money or things from other students?

Used force to get money or things from a teacher of other adult at school?
Used force to get money or things from other people (not students or teacher)?
Taken a vehicle for a ride (drive) without owners permission (ioyride)?

Thrown objects (such as snowballs, rocks, or bottles) at cars or people?

Statumffcnsescalc

Ran away from home (truancy)?

Lied about your age to gain entrance or to purchase something for example, lying
about your age to purchase liquor or get into a movie?

Cheated on a school test?
Skipped classes without an excuse (school truancy)?
Been suspended from school (school incorrigible)?

Had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?

References

Agnew, R. (1985). Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal study.
Criminology 23 47- 61

Ainsworth, MD. (1985). Patterns of attachment. WM, 38(2), 27-29.

Anolik, S. A. (1983). Family influences upon delinquency: Biosocial and psychosocial
perspectives. Adolemce, 18, 489-498.

Bolton, Reich, Gutierres, and DeMarino (1977). Delinquency patterns in maltreated
children and siblings. Victimology, 2, 349-357.

Bourguignon, J .P., and Watson, K.W. (1987). After Adoption: A manual for
Professionals Working with Adoptive Families. Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services.

Bowlby,J.H.(Eds.). (1969-1982). WM. (3 volumes). New
York: Basic Books.

Bullock, J. R. (1993). Children's loneliness and their relationships with family and peers.
EarnilyRelationshios. .42, 46-49.

Capuzzi, D. (1982). Hirschi's bond theory, juvenile delinquency, and the school nurse.
Ibolorrmalofidroolfloalth, 280-282.

Cemkovich, S A. and Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency.
Criminology 25, 295-319.

Chubb, N. H. and Fertman, C I ( 1992) Adolescents' perceptions of belonging rn their
families. . . - -.
387- 393.

Cline, F. (1992). W Evergreen, CO: EC Publications.

Cohen S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hupothesis.
PsycMQgroalBullonn 28, 310-357.

Conger, R. D. (1976). Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior.
CnmrmogyAanterorscrplmanLloumal, 14, 17- 40.

Duncan, D. F. (1978). Attitudes towards parents and delinquency in suburban adolescent
males, Mom, 13, 356-369.

 

Eldefonso, E. (1992). Law enforcement and the youthful offender: Delinquency and
juvenile justice. (4th ed.) (pp. 58-85).
49

50

Elliot, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, 5.8. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug
Us; Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Elliot, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D. Knowles, and Canter. (1988). Wong;
animoioenccofflolinquontflehayior. C/A Publications

Elliot, D. S., Huizinga, D. and Menard, S. (1989). MW
Wealth. Sage.

.Falflberg, v. «1979). WWW
MiChigan Department of Social Services. Publication 429.

Farrel, M. P., and Barnes, G. M. (1993). Family systems and social support: A test of the
effects of cohesion and adaptability on the functioning of parents and adolescents.

IonmalofManEgosansLflroEamily, 55, 119-132.

Fishbein, H. (1984). , - ' _
W Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ASSOCiates.

 

Frost, R. (1916). W Compiled by the committee on the Frost
Centennial of the University of Southern Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi,

Jackson.

Galdston (1975). Preventing the abuse of little children: The parents' center project for

the study and prevention of child abuse. Amodmloumalofflnhopsyohim, .45 (3),
372-382.

Garbarino, J. and Associates. (1992). ChrldrcnanoEamrlrosmthLSooraanmonmonL
(2nd ed.). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Gove, W., and Crutchfield, R. (1982). The family and juvenile delinquency. Sociological
Slough, 23, 301-319.

Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. (1950). Unrayefingluyenilommquency. New York:

Commonwealth Fund.

Hanson, C. L., DeGuire, M. J., Henggeler, S.W., and Burghen, G. A. (1992). Comparing
social learning and family systems correlates of adaptation in youths with IDDM.

MW, 5. 555-571.

Hindelang, M. J. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication and extension.
Smialmoblem. 29(4). 471-487.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Cagsouflflelinqoengy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

51
Jensen, G. F. and Brownfield, D. (1983). Parents and drugs: Specifying the consequences
of attachment. Criminology, 21, 543-554.

Kennell, J. H. and Klaus, M. (1976 - 1982). Parent-infant bonding. In R. Helfer and CH.
Kempe (Eds), W. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

Krohn, M. 1)., Stem, S. B. ,Thomberry, T. P., and Jang, S. J. (1992). The measurement
of family process variables: The effect of adolescent and parent perceptions of family

life on delinquent behavior. JoumaloLQoanfitatimCflnfioJogy, 8, 287- 314.

Laub, J. H. and Sampson, R. J. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency: A reanalysis
of the Gluecks' data. Criminology, 2.6. 355-377.

Lipton, W. L, and Smith, M. D. (1983). Explaining delinquent involvement. A

consideration of Slippressor effects ImrmalofRosoarothCnmeonLDolmguenoy
29(2), 199- 213.

Liska, A. E. and Reed, M. D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency.
Estimating reciprocal effects. AmerioarLSooiologrcalReyiow, 50(4), 547- 560.

Loeber, R. and M. Stouthamer-Loeber (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors
of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Wm
of_Ros.eatch. 1.29-149.

Magid. K. and McKelvey, C. A. (1987). Hrgthsk._Chrldren_mthout_a_Consorenm

New York: Bantam Books.

Mansfield, L. G. and Waldmann, C. H. (1994). WWW
ofanllnattaohodfihfld. Colorado: Pinon Press.

McCord, J. (1991). Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult crininality.
Criminology, 29, 397-413.

McKissack, I. J. (1975). Early socialization. The baseline rn delinquency research.
IntomationalioumalmeriminologrtanL-Bonology 3. 43- 51.

Melamed, B. G. (1993). Putting the family back in the child. W., 31,
239-247.

Miller, B. C. (1993). Families, science, and values: Altemtive views of parenting effects

and adolescent pregnancy. IonmalofManiagoandthoEamily 55. 7-21.
Nye, F. I. (1958). W. New York: John Wiley and

Sons.

52
Palmieri, C. (1990). The Experience of Adults Abused as Children (Doctoral dissertation,
The Union Institute, 1990).

Pardeck, J. T. (1991). Using reading materials with childhood problems. Psyohology;_A_
Journalofflnmanfiohayior. 28(3-4). 58-65.

Patterson, G. R. and Dishion, T. J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to
delinquency. Criminology, 23, 63-77.

Pulkkinen, L. (1983). Search for Alternatives to Aggression in Finland. In Aggression in
Global Perspective, edited by A. P. Goldstein and M. Segall. New York: Pergamon.

Rankin, J. H. and Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Cr'uninology, _
32(4), 495-515.

Robbins, S. P. (1984). Anglo concepts and Indian reality: A study of juvenile
delinquency. IholoumalofContompomSooiaUMork. 235-540.

Rosen, L. (1985). Families and delinquency: Structure or function? Criminology, 23(3),
553-57 1.

Sabatelli, R. M. and Anderson, S. A. (1991). Family system dynamics, peer relationships,
and adolescents' psychological adjustment. W5, 49, 363-369.

Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of
delinquency: A new look at structure and process in a classical study. Child;

W. 65(2). 523-540-

Sarri, R. C. ( 1983). Gender issues in juvenil justice. Cdmoaniflelinguengy, 22(3),
381-397.

Taylor,L. S. (1985). The family as an adaptable and enduring social unit: A case for
assessing delinquent behavior from a family systems perspective. WI. 4,
69-99.

Trojanowicz, R. C. and Morash, M. (1992). W
(3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., Mathers, R. A., and Garner, C. C. (1988). The impact of
family structure and quality on delinquency: A comparative assessment of structural and

fuctional factors. Criminology,_26(2), 235-259.
Warr, M. (1993). Parents, peers and delinquency. Smjallioroes, 12, 247—264.

Wells, E. L. and Rankin, J. H. (1988). Direct parental controls and delinquency.
Criminology, 26(2), 263-282.

53
Wiatrowski, M. D. Griswold, D. B., and Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory

and delinquency. AmerioamiooiologicaLReyiery 46, 525- 541.

Wright, K. N. and Wright, K. E. (1994). Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policy
Maker's Guide {Research Summary}. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1-47.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lHllllllIIIHllIIlIlIlIHIIIlllllllllllllHI
31293014102440