Family environment as a predictor of adolescent delinquency

Adolescence, Winter, 2001 by Monique M. Matherne, Adrian Thomas

As always, these findings should be assessed in the context of the study's limitations. This study used self-report data from adolescents. Future research should examine both the parental and adolescent perspectives. Another limitation was that the data were obtained at a single school. To increase the utility and generalizability of the results, future studies should include a more diverse sample. Lastly, it is important to realize that, as suggested by Edwards (1996), "the pathway to delinquency is multiple and diverse" (p. 985). The present study focused only on family cohesion, adaptability, and family status. These are only three components of a multifaceted, dynamic system called the family. Future research should continue to investigate other aspects of the family unit.

CONCLUSION

Although the predictive validity of the Circumplex Model regarding adolescent delinquent behavior was found to be limited, the results are still quite useful for counselors, educators, and parents. Family cohesion was related to the development of delinquent behavior, but only for nontraditional families. This finding is important, as it points to a potentially valuable predictor of adolescent delinquency, one that can serve as a starting point for early intervention.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. A. (1986). Cohesion, adaptability, and communication: A test of an Olson Circumplex Model Hypothesis. Family Relations, 35, 289-293.

Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 433-441.

Beavers, R. W., Hampson, R. B., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1985). Commentary. Family Process, 24, 398-404.

Beavers, R. W., & Voller, M. N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting the Olson circumplex model with the Beavers systems model. Family Process, 22, 85-98.

Cashwell, C. S., & Vacc, N. A. (1996). Family functioning and risk behaviors: Influences on adolescent delinquency. School Counselor, 44, 105-114.

Clark, R., & Shields, G. (1997). Family communication and delinquency. Adolescence, 32, 81-92.

Crowley, S. L. (1998). A psychometric investigation of the FACES-III: Confirmatory factor analysis with replication. Early Education and Development, 9, 161-178.

Dorfman, L., Woodruff, K., Chavez, V., & Wallack, L. (1997). Youth and violence on local television news in California. American Journal of Public Health, 87(8), 1311-1316.

Edelman, M. W. (1995). United we stand: A common vision. Claiming Children, 1, 6-12.

Edwards, J. E. (1996). A measurement of delinquency differences between a delinquent and nondelinquent sample: What are the implications? Adolescence, 31, 973-989.

Elliot, D., & Ageton, 5. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.

Featherstone, D. R., Cundick, B. P., & Jensen, L. C. (1993). Differences in school behavior and achievement between children from intact, reconstituted, and single-parent families. Family Therapy, 20, 37-48.