Running head: Socioeconomic Status, Family Status all caps
1)
just a few apa changes
2)
it is good, quite an
improvement
3)
your biggest challenge
is being able to articulate your interaction Look in other studies and see how
the state interactions.
4)
Once you do that and do
the little cleaning up your draft is complete and ready to present in class.
Predicting Juvenile Delinquency Using Socioeconomic and Family Status Variables
Shayna Sortore
St. Bonaventure University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to
examine a relationship between traditional and non-traditional families (family
status), socioeconomic status (SES), and juvenile delinquency. One hundred
fifty families in
Predicting Juvenile Delinquency Using Socioeconomic and Family Status Variables
Juvenile delinquency is a widely studied topic. An abundance of research has been conducted, however the results remain inconsistent (Putnins, 1984; Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Thomas & Farrell, 1996; Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996; Keirkus & Baer, 2003). Research ranges from favoring a family structure interaction with truancy (Keirkus & Baer, 2003) to community impact on deviant acts (Kohen, Brooks-Gunn, Leventhal, and Hertzman; 2002). Regardless of the diversity of findings, much research mentions the combined impact of gender, ethnicity, SES, age, demographics, and race (Putnins, 1984; Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Thomas & Farrell, 1996; Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996; Keirkus & Baer, 2003; Keirkus & Baer, 2003; & Kohen et al, 2003).
Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) found the risk of arrests’ by age 14 more than doubled for males from single-parent households. Thomas and Farrell (1996) found a difference between race and acts committed. White males with a non-traditional family, specifically headed by the mother without a non-residential male support, produced the highest count of juvenile delinquent acts compared to blacks. Blacks actually produced the exact opposite results; they acted out negatively when there was a non-residential male support. Socioeconomic status was also mentioned as an extraneous variable for the white males in the study.
Other findings
vary with results stating no relationship between family status (among others)
and juvenile delinquency. Girls tended to act out as a result of low levels of
support from their mothers, while boys tended to act out as a result of low
parental monitoring. However, the study concludes stating that family structure
is not a predictor of juvenile delinquency (Barnes & Farrell, 1992).
Although it may not be a predictor of juvenile delinquency, low parental
monitoring did seem to predict higher drug use (Dishion & Loeber, 1985). ok
While previous research has been thorough in evaluating variables as possible predictors for juvenile delinquency, results are so mixed the problem remains in question. Since extraneous variables are so prevalent in most studies, it is difficult to isolate a few variables for testing. The current study seeks to separate two specific variables to determine an interaction between SES and family status and possibly a main effect for SES and family status in producing juvenile delinquency.
Based on the broken homes hypothesis which states that children raised by both
I would suggest that you
state predictions based on 2x2 main effects and interactions it is so much
easier to read biological parents are less likely to become involved in
delinquency than children of non-traditional families (Keirkus & Baer,
2003), the current study predicts a significant difference in number of acts
committed by juvenile delinquents in traditional and non-traditional families such that . Secondly, contrary to other predictions
(Keirkus & Baer, 2003), it is also predicted that non-traditional families
of low SES will accrue the highest number of acts as compared to traditional
high SES family’s and non-traditional families of high SES. Although previous
research actually supports higher levels of truancy as a result of familial
disruption in high SES families (Keirkus & Baer, 2003), the present study
hypothesized the opposite based on findings that state low SES non-traditional
families based on less supervision and monitoring will produce higher counts of
juvenile delinquency. Briefly, the current study hypothesized that
non-traditional families of low SES would account for the highest number of
juvenile delinquent acts as opposed to traditional families of high SES.
Therefore, a main effect for family status and SES and an interaction between
status and SES are predicted. You have to state what
these main effects are and what the interaction happens to be. Interaction: Delinquency
is affected by the level of family status amd
the level of ses such that delinquency is highest for non-traditional,
low ses.
TT
Methods
Participants
One
hundred and fifty families (80
non-traditional families and 70 traditional families) residing in
Materials
A Delinquency Questionnaire was used to measure the counts of delinquency in each household (Kierkus and Baer, 2003). Participants were asked how many times they have participated in the following in the past year:
- Taken a car ride without the owners permission
- Banged up or damaged (on purpose) something that did not belong to them
- Sold marijuana or hashish
- Taken things with $50 or less that did not belong to them
- Taken things worth more than $50 that did not belong to them
- Beat up anyone or hurt anyone (on purpose, not counting fights they may have had with a brother or sister)
- Broken into a locked building, other than their own home
- Carried a weapon such as a gun or knife
- Sold drugs other than marijuana or hashish, taken part in gang fights
- Were thrown out of their home (that is where you were told to leave when you did not want to leave)
- Run away from their home (that is, left home without permission of one or both parents).
Socioeconomic status was measured on a 5 point Likert scale (Adlaf and Ivis, 1997; Gore, Asehine, and Colton, 1992; and Kierkus and Baer, 2003). The scale consisted of one question asking: “How would you describe your family’s situation?” The participants had the choice of a 1= well above average ranging to a 5 = well below average.
Also included on the socioeconomic status assessment was one question at the end, asking if the family was traditional or non-traditional to measure family status. It was clearly stated that a traditional family consisted of both biological parents and a non-traditional family was any other arrangement.
Procedure
Families were
randomly selected and asked to participate if they lived in
Families were divided into two groups: Traditional (both biological parents present) and non-traditional (one-parent household, step parent households, widowed, or family members filling the parental role). Families were also divided into two groups of socioeconomic status: based on their results, participants who answered the family status question by rating themselves a four or five were determined low SES, while participants who answered with a one, two, or three were designated to the high SES group. The study acknowledges although the participants may have answered a three meaning they would usually be considered middle class, however for the purpose of this study, they were assigned to the high SES status.
Results
The study was conducted using a 2x2 factorial (family status x income level) with a between subject ANOVA. As predicted, low SES non-traditional families averaged the highest counts of juvenile delinquency (M= 100.93) while high SES traditional families averaged the least (M= 26). Low SES traditional families still ranked higher (M= 57.6) than high SES non-traditional families (M= 36.6) (Refer to Table 1 for means).
Main effects were
produced by family status F (1, 56) = 30.034, p< .000 and SES F
(1, 56) = 100.492, p< .000 (Refer to Figure 1). As you can also see in Figure 1, families of low SES and non traditional families produced the highest number
of juvenile delinquencies compared to families of high SES and traditional
familie.. Traditional families also produced fewer counts of juvenile
delinquencies as compared to the non-traditional families of the same SES. Also
remaining consistent with the hypothesis, an interaction between SES and family
status was found as well F (1, 56) = 11.088, p< .0002 (Refer to
Figure 1). From this, we are able to conclude that
juvenile delinquency may depend on an interaction between status and SES such
that the best predictor for JD is non-trad coming from from low ses.
This should be in discussion.Results remain consistent with those found from Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) who found the number of arrests of males doubled in single parent households and also partially agree with results derived from Thomas and Farrell (1996) who found white males of low SES tended to act out more as a result of a single-parent household with a non-residential male support. Although some previous research supports the current study, results are bias in that only males were tested, or race differences were acknowledged as factors that create biases.
Discussion
The current study predicted non-traditional families would obtain the highest count of juvenile delinquent acts in the past year compared to traditional families. Secondly, it is also predicted that level of SES would also factor in; particularly non-traditional families of low SES would produce the highest average juvenile delinquent acts over the past year. A main effect for SES and family status and an interaction between SES and family status was also expected.
As predicted, results remained consistent with both predictions. The current study remained consistent with previous research by Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) and patially consistent with that of Thomas and Farrell (1996). Although Barnes and Farrell, (1992) concluded that family status was not a predictor of juvenile delinquency, they did conclude with research stating that low parental monitoring did influence boys and low motherly support influenced girls. It only seems natural that some non-traditional families (i.e. single-mother, single-father, or one run by grandparents or other family members) would struggle to provide adequate monitoring while trying to financially support their family.
The present study
acknowledges that many factors were not taken into account such as gender (of
the juveniles), race, ethnicity, demographics, and peers. Future research could
attempt to isolate a few of these variables at a time as this study did to find
more stable answers as to the influences of juvenile delinquency. Also,
location of school and structure of classroom could also be factors that may
influence. What does this mean in the big picture and
what would you do knowing now what you know do about JD?
References
Barnes, G. M. & Farrell, M. P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 54, 763- 777.
Coughlin, C. & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58, 491-502. Putnins, A.L. (1984). Family Structure and Juvenile Recidivism. Family Therapy. 11, 61-64.
Dishion, T. & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: The role of parents and peers revisited. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 11, 11-25.
Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). The social context of police discretion with youth offenders: An ecological analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 45, 127-158.
Thomas, G. & Farrell, M.P. (1996). The effects of single-mother families and nonresident fathers on delinquency and substance abuse in black and white adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58, 884- 895.
Table 1
Means of SES for Traditional and Non-Traditional Families
Traditional
Non-Traditional
Low 57.6 100.93
High 26 36.6
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Main effects exist for SES and Family Status and an interaction between SES and Family Status.
Key:
1= Low SES
2= High SES
1