Download to read offline
ThesisPresentation-Chenelle
- 1. Chenelle James Sacred HeartUniversity
- 2. INTRODUCTION Adolescence toadulthood is a critical transition youth. o During this stage experimentation with drugs, alcohol, or sexuality can occur. o The transitions and patterns guiding relationships between family, school, and work are challenged. o Youth are subject to risks that are beneficial or harmful. o Harmful risks could lead youth to act out in deviant manners, thus making them more susceptible of becoming juvenile delinquents. o Various factors influence youth to engage in deviant behavior. Purpose of Research o This research seeks to further explore various social bond factors that have an impact on deviant behavior, particularly education, work, and parental supervision in addition to differential associations with peers and sex.
- 3. PRIOR RESEARCH Social BondTheory ► Family attachment, control, & supervision and delinquency o Gualt-Sherman (2012) ► Academic achievement and delinquency o Hoffmann, Erikson, and Spence (2013) Work and Deviance o Apel et al., (2008) and Staff et al., (2010) Differential Association Theory Peer Influences o Miller (2010) Gender Differences Hart and Mueller (2013)
- 4. CURRENT RESEARCH Socialbond theory and differential association theory provide the theoretical framework for the current research. Social bond elements in the current research are: o commitment to school o parental supervision o involvement (work) Differential associations refer to peer influence. A survey instrument was distributed to students from several colleges and universities in Connecticut via in person and online to examine the relationship between variables, One way ANOVAs were used to test the significance between independent and dependent variables.
- 5. Gender Hypothesis 1 a) Malesare more likely to engage in deviant behavior than females. Academic Achievement Hypothesis 2 a) Students with lower GPAs were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students with higher GPAs were less likely to engage in deviant behavior. Parental Education Hypothesis 3 a) Students whose parents completed college were less likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students whose parents didn’t complete college were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. Parental Supervision Hypothesis 4 a) Students whose mother did not work a full-time job were less likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students whose mother did work a full-time job were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. Work Hypothesis 5 a) Students who worked no hours in high school were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students who worked 20 or more hours a week were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. School Commitment Hypothesis 6 a) Students who missed less school days were less likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students who missed more school days were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. Peer Influence Hypothesis 7 a) Students who were less influenced by their peers were less likely to engage in deviant behavior. b) Students who were more influenced by their peers were more likely to engage in deviant behavior. HYPOTHESES
- 6. METHODOLOGY Research Design ► Survey oConstructed using the Monitoring the Future Survey Instrument o The survey for this project includes questions about education, work and leisure, background, and deviance by asking participants to focus on their high school years. Participants ► 502 total participants including males and females. o 163 males and 333 females with 6 missing values o Average age- 22.5 o Race 72.9% were Caucasian 9.2% were Hispanic 7.2% were African American 6.6% identified as other 3% were Asian 1% were Native American Sampling Methodology Convenience Sampling ► Surveys were initially distributed to students at Sacred Heart by their professors, specifically those in freshman seminar and Introduction to Criminal Justice and Sociology courses. ► Due to the small initial sample size, the population for the sample had to be expanded. ► Additional students were able to complete the questionnaire using Survey Monkey. ► The sample size increased from 156 participants to 502 participants.
- 7. MEASURES Independent Variables Gender Academic Achievement Parental Education Parental Supervision Work School Commitment Peer Influence Dependent Variable Deviance Skipped or cut class Drank alcoholic beverages Smoked or used marijuana Argued or fought with parents
- 8. RESULTS ANOVA Table 21 Sexand Deviance Score F Sig. Between Groups 5.749 .017 Within Groups Total *p<.05. ** p<.017 ANOVA Table 23 Average GPA and Deviance Score F Sig. Between Groups 3.647 .000 Within Groups Total *p<.05. ** p<.000 Descriptives Table 20 Sex and Deviance Score Sex N Mean Male 153 6.92 Female 314 5.85 Total 467 6.20 Descriptives Table 22 Average GPA and Deviance Score Average GPA N Mean A (93-100) 97 5.05 A- (90-92) 120 5.94 B+ (87-89) 117 6.51 B (83-86) 74 7.03 B- (80-82) 27 6.44 C+ (77-79) 11 7.18 C (73-76) 10 6.10 C- (70-72) 2 14.00 D (69 or below) 3 15.33 Total 461 6.23 Descriptive Statistics Table 30 Hours Worked and Deviance Score N Mean None 158 5.01 5 or less 73 6.05 6 to 10 99 6.48 11 to 15 75 7.16 16 to 20 41 8.02 20 or more 24 8.33 Total 470 6.26
- 9. RESULTS… Descriptive Statistics Table 32Missed School Days and Deviance Score N Mean 0 33 2.97 1 12 3.25 2 41 4.54 3 39 5.00 4 63 4.83 5 51 5.76 6 51 6.61 7 40 7.20 8 34 7.97 9 26 8.23 10 9 10.11 11 15 8.40 12 9 10.67 13 7 11.43 14 3 12.67 15 3 11.33 16 2 5.50 18 1 21.00 Total 439 6.20 Descriptive Statistics Table 34 Peer Influence and Deviance Score N Mean 0 14 1.57 1 23 2.04 2 21 3.10 3 43 3.77 4 44 4.55 5 41 4.80 6 47 5.60 7 63 6.65 8 47 7.15 9 44 8.84 10 34 9.15 11 23 11.17 12 6 12.83 13 6 13.67 14 2 17.50 16 1 21.00 Total 459 6.28
- 10. DISCUSSION There werestatistically significant relationships between sex and deviance, academic achievement and deviance, work and deviance, commitment to school and deviance, and peer influence and deviance. There was no statistically significant relationship between parental education and deviance and parental supervision and deviance.
- 11. LIMITATIONS Lack ofheterogeneity in the sample population due to selection bias Participants were no longer in high school Not all respondents answered all the questions on the survey Questions on the survey were ambiguous Quantifiable data prevents the expansion of responses
- 12. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Creationof programs that strengthen the four social bond elements o Recreational programs, social groups, athletic event ► Family oriented programs o Parenting training and classes ► School involvement ► Employment opportunities geared toward supporting education ► Mentoring programs
- 13. CONCLUSION Both socialbond theory and differential association theory provide the theoretical framework for factors that influence delinquency. Policies should be aimed at tackling the four social bond elements in addition to differential associations to aid in reducing delinquency. Programs should first address the family unit and then other programs should be developed that focus on social institutions. With stronger ties to the family unit and school, adolescents are less likely to develop relationships with delinquent peers. Future research should seek to explore further what adolescents spend their time on throughout the day and determine if that is a key factor in causing delinquency.
- 14.