Adolescent perspectives on family conflict resolution : exploring the relationships among procedural justice, identity o...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Adolescent perspectives on family conflict resolution : exploring the relationships among procedural justice, identity orientation, and deviant behavior
Physical Description:
xiv, 215 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Luescher, Jennifer L
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Psychology thesis, Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jennifer L. Luescher.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 024499083
oclc - 847495565
System ID:
AA00025746:00001

Full Text











ADOLESCENT PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,
IDENTITY ORIENTATION, AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR














By

JENNIFER L. LUESCHER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
































Copyright 2004

by

Jennifer L. Luescher














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I wish to thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Mark Fondacaro, for

assisting with all stages of the present study. I also appreciate his assistance with all

aspects of my graduate school career. I thank Dr. Fondacaro and the other members of

my supervisory committee (Drs. Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Scott Miller, and Greg Neimeyer)

for their flexibility and assistance throughout the dissertation process. I encountered

many roadblocks to my dissertation. It could not have been completed without their

understanding, support, and encouragement.

Many other individuals helped with the completion of my dissertation. I would like

to acknowledge Jack Smith, principal of Timberstone Junior High School, Sylvania, OH;

Christine Spohn, principal of Trinity Lutheran School, Toledo, OH; the Honorable Judge

James Ray and staff of the Lucas County Juvenile Court; and Betty Smith of Grace

Community Center and Adrianna Rivera of Friendly Center, Toledo, OH for assistance in

recruiting participants. I am also grateful to the parents and students, who agreed to

participate in the present study, for sharing their time and opinions.

I also appreciate Dr. Michael Carey, Training Director, Northwest Ohio Internship

Consortium, for assistance in navigating the research process at the Medical College of

Ohio; and Dr. Charlene Cassel, Harbor Behavioral Healthcare, for providing

encouragement and guidance throughout the project. I also would like to thank Rebecca

Alperin, Ph.D., and Monica Jacobs, Psy.D., for assistance with data analysis.

I am grateful to the faculty and students who worked on the grant-funded study,








on which part of this research is based, including Drs. Scott Miller, Mark Fondacaro,

Jennifer Woolard, Steve Boggs, Eve Brank, Mel Lucas, Steven Smith, Veda Brown and

Ramona Greig, as well as Anca Mirsu-Paun, and Imicuk Loyuk. I also would like to

acknowledge the middle school students and their parents, who agreed to participate in

Study Two.

I also would like to thank the core and affiliated faculty of the Counseling

Psychology program for helping me to develop my therapeutic and research skills and

allowing my development as a clinician, researcher, and person.

I would not have survived my undergraduate or graduate studies without the love

and encouragement of Karen Christy and Tracy Reinman, J. D. I also could not have

maintained my sanity while completing internship and finishing my dissertation without

the never-ending favors and support from Rebecca Alperin, Ph.D.

Finally, I owe my perseverance and strength in achieving this degree to the love

and endless faith and encouragement I received from my mother, Kristine Edgar. I can

never fully express how thankful I am to her for taking this roller coaster ride with me

and for helping me come through stronger and as a more complete person.















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNO W LEDGM EN TS ........................... ..................................................................... iii

LIST O F TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... xii

ABSTRA CT ..................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER

1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1

Fam ily Functioning in Fam ilies of Adolescents.......................................................... 1
Fam ily Conflict..................................................................................................... 1
Fam ily Cohesion ............................................................................................. 2
Identity O orientation ...................................................................................................... 3
Ju stic e .................................................................................................. ................ . 4
D istributive Justice ............................................................................................... 4
Procedural Justice ................................................................................................. 4
Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings........................... 5
Procedural and D istributive Justice in the Fam ily................................................ 6
Sum m ary ...................................................................................................................... 7

2 LITERATURE REV IEW ............................................................................................. 8

Fam ily Functioning in Fam ilies of Adolescents...................................................... .... 8
Fam ily Conflict ..................................................................................................... 8
Fam ily Cohesion ................................................................................................. 19
Identity Orientation ................................................................................................ 23
Justice.............................................................................................. ........................ 25
Distributive Justice ............................................................................................. 26
Procedural Justice .............................................................................................. 26
Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings......................... 29
Procedural and D istributive Justice in the Fam ily............................................. 32
Sum m ary and Hypotheses.......................................................................................... 39






v








3 M E T H O D S ................................................................................................................ 4 3

S tu d y O n e ................................................................................................................... 4 3
Participants.......................................................................................................... 43
In stru m ents.......................................................................................................... 44
Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth form (FDMQ-Y).............. 44
Family Relationships Index of the Family Environment Scale (FRI)......... 46
M measure of psychosocial functioning.......................................................... 47
Aspects of Identity Questionnaire, Version IIIx (AIQ)............................... 48
Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS) and alcohol and drug use measure49
A n aly ses ........................................................................................................... 5 1
S tud y T w o .................................................................................................................. 5 1
P articipants.......................................................................................................... 5 1
Instruments.......................................................................................................... 52
Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth form (FDMQ-Y).............. 52
Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS)...................................................... 52
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2). 54
A n aly ses.............................................................................................................. 55

4 STUDY ONE RESULTS........................................................................................... 60

Demographics ............................................................................................................ 60
A n a ly ses ..................................................................................................................... 6 1
Family Cohesion and Global Procedural Fairness.............................................. 62
Family Conflict and Global Procedural Fairness................................................ 63
Anger Arousal, Negative Emotional Response, and Global
Procedural Fairness ......................................................................................... 64
Personal Respect and Status Recognition........................................................... 65
Identity Orientation ........................................................................................... 67

5 STUDY TW O RESULTS.......................................................................................... 73

D em ograp h ics ............................................................................................................ 73
Anger Arousal, Deviant Behavior, and Global Procedural Fairness......................... 78
Personal Respect and Status Recognition.................................................................. 81
Voice, Global Procedural Fairness, and Deviant Behavior...................................... 100
Differences in Procedural Justice Indices across Offense Groups........................... 110

6 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 138

Anger Arousal, Deviant Behavior, and Global Procedural Fairness....................... 140
Personal Respect and Status Recognition................................................................ 143
Identity Orientation................................................................................................. 155
Voice, Global Procedural Fairness, and Deviant Behavior...................................... 157
Differences in Procedural Justice Indices across Offense Groups........................... 161
Implications.............................................................................................................. 163
Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................ ... 164









APPENDIX


A PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT AND PARTICIPANT ASSENT FORM.. 171

B M E A S U R E S ........................ ................................................................................... 17 7

C INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING CONFLICT SEVERITY................................... 196

D PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION FUNDED REASERCH PROJECT ................................................. 199

E ASSENT SCRIPT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FUNDED
R ESEA R C H PR O JE C T ........................................................................................... 202

F ITEMS USED TO CREATE THE VIOLENT OFFENSE SRDS SUBSCALE...... 204

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ................................................................................................ 205

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TC H ................................................................................... ..... 215















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4 -1 G rad e L eve l ............................................................................................................ 70

4-2 E thn ic B background .................................................................................................. 70

4-3 Individuals Living in the Household with Participants.......................................... 70

4-4 Multiple Regression Predicting Family Cohesion and Family Conflict Using
Global Procedural Fairness and Conflict Severity................................................... 70

4-5 Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal and Negative Emotional Response
Using Global Procedural Fairness and Conflict Severity........................................ 71

4-6 Multiple Regression Predicting Global Procedural Fairness Using Personal
Respect, Status Recognition, and Conflict Severity................................................ 71

4-7 Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal Using Personal Respect, Status
Recognition, and Conflict Severity.......................................................................... 71

4-8 ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity on SRDS Delinquency and
Status Recognition ............................................................................................... 72

4-9 M eans for SRD S D elinquency Scores .................................................................... 72

4-10 ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity on SRDS Drug and Status
R e c o g n itio n ....................................... ......................... ........................................ 7 2

4-11 M eans for SRD S Drug Scores ................................................................................ 72

5-1 E thn ic B ackgroun d ................................................................................................ 1 13

5-2 ANOVA for State and Deviant Behavior ............................................................ 113

5-3 Means across States for Deviant Behavior............................................................ 113

5-4 ANOVA for Grade and Deviant Behavior ...................................................... .... 113

5-5 Means across Grade for Deviant Behavior........................................................... 114

5-6 ANOVA for Age and Deviant Behavior ........................................ ..................... 114








5-7 M eans across Age for Deviant Behavior............................................................... 114

5-8 ANOVA for Gender and Deviant Behavior ........................................................ 114

5-9 M eans across Gender for Deviant Behavior.......................................................... 114

5-10 ANOVA for Grades in School and Deviant Behavior ......................................... 115

5-11 Means across Grades in School for Deviant Behavior.......................................... 115

5-12 ANOVA for Ethnicity and Deviant Behavior .................................................... 115

5-13 Means across Ethnicity for Deviant Behavior................................................. ...... 115

5-14 ANOVA for Socioeconomic Status and Deviant Behavior ................................. 116

5-15 Means across Socioeconomic Status for Deviant Behavior.................................. 116

5-16 Simultaneous Entry Regressions Predicting Deviant Behavior Using
D em graphic V ariables ......................................................................................... 116

5-17 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Demographic
V ari ab le s ................................................................................................................ 1 17

5-18 Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal Using Global Procedural
Fairness and Dem graphic Variables.................................................................... 118

5-19 Multiple Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Global Procedural
Fairness and Dem graphic Variables.................................................................... 119

5-20 Multiple Regression Predicting Global Procedural Fairness Using Personal
Respect, Status Recognition, Demographic Variables.......................................... 120

5-21 Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal Using Personal Respect,
Status Recognition, and Demographic Variables.................................................. 121

5-22 Hierarchical Regression for Mediation of Personal Respect on Global
Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal Including Demographic Variables......... 122

5-23 Hierarchical Regression for Mediation of Status Recognition on Global
Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal Including Demographic Variables......... 123

5-24 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation of
Personal Respect and Status Recognition on Global Procedural Fairness
and A nger A ro usal ................................................................................................. 124

5-25 Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation Model
with Covariance for Personal Respect and Status Recognition on Global
Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal................................................................ 124








5-26 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of
Personal Respect and Status Recognition on Global Procedural Fairness
and A nger A rousal................................................................................................. 125

5-27 Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation
Model with Covariance for Personal Respect and Status Recognition on
Global Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal .............................. .............. ..... 126

5-28 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation
of Global Procedural Fairness on Personal Respect/Status Recognition
and A nger A rousal................................................................................................. 126

5-29 Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation
Model with Covariance for Global Procedural Fairness on
Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal..................................... 127

5-30 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of
Global Procedural Fairness on Personal Respect/Status Recognition
and A nger A ro usal................................................................................................. 127

5-31 Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation Model
with Covariance for Global Procedural Fairness on Personal Respect/Status
R recognition and A nger A rousal ............................................................................ 128

5-32 Multiple Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Voice and
Demographic Variables ......................................................................................... 129

5-33 Regression Analyses for the Mediation of Voice on Global Procedural Fairness
and Deviant Behavior Including Demographic Variables..................................... 130

5-34 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation for
Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior .............................. 131

5-35 Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation Model
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior.......................... 131

5-36 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Partial and Full
Mediation Models for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness
and D eviant B behavior ......................................... ...................................... ......... 13 1

5-37 Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation Model
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior.......................... 132

5-38 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation of
Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior............................ .... 132

5-39 Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation Model
for Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior .......................... 133








5-40 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of Global
Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior............................................ 133

5-41 Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation Model
for Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior .......................... 134

5-42 Multivariate Analyses for Procedural Justice Indices, Group Status, and Select
D em graphic V ariables ......................................................................................... 135
5-43 Univariate Analyses for Procedural Justice Indices, Group Status, and Select
D em graphic V ariables ........................................................................................ 136

5-44 Means for Group Status on Personal Respect, Voice, and Status Recognition..... 137















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Initial Path Model: Partial Mediation of Personal Respect and Status
Recognition on the Relationship between Global Procedural Fairness and Anger
A ro u sa l..................................................................................................................... 5 7

3-2 Initial Path Model: Partial Mediation of Voice on the Relationship between Global
Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior.............................................................. 59

5-1 Revised Model 3, Partial Mediation Model with Covariance of Personal Respect
and Status Recognition on Global Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal for the
E n tire S am p le ........................ ................................... ............................................. 9 5

5-2 Model 7, Partial Mediation Model with Covariance of Global Procedural Fairness
on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal for the Entire
S a m p le .. ................................................................................................................ 9 8

5-3 Revised Model 1, Partial Mediation Model of Voice on Global Procedural
Fairness and Deviant Behavior for the Entire Sample .................................... ..... 106

5-4 Model 3, Partial Mediation Model of Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and
Deviant Behavior for the Entire Sam ple................................................................ 109















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ADOLESCENT PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,
IDENTITY ORIENTATION, AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

By

Jennifer L. Luescher

December 2004

Chair: Mark Fondacaro
Major Department: Psychology

Families experience heightened conflict as children move through adolescence.

Research suggests that ongoing, high levels of family conflict can have negative effects

on adolescents, including decreased psychological well-being and increased deviant

behavior. Justice considerations may assist in understanding the relationships between

high levels of family conflict and both psychological distress and deviant behavior in

adolescents. The present study examined procedural justice, focusing on the fairness of

the process of dispute resolution in families of adolescents. Adolescents in two samples

responded to surveys including the Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth Form

(FDMQ-Y) and the Self-Report Delinquency Scale. The FDMQ-Y asks adolescents to

describe a recent family conflict and to answer questions regarding aspects of the

procedural justice construct, which measure the adolescents' perceptions of the fairness

of family conflict resolution procedures. One of the samples included over 2, 000

adolescents from five US states. Results showed that adolescent perceptions of overall








procedural justice were related to anger arousal and deviant behavior. Specific facets of

the procedural justice construct including personal respect, status recognition, and voice

were also explored in relation to general procedural justice judgments, anger, and deviant

behavior. Perceptions of personal respect (feeling respected as an important individual)

and status recognition (feeling respected as an important family member) were found to

mediate the relationship between global procedural fairness and general feelings of anger.

Voice (having the opportunity to provide input in the conflict-resolution process) was

related to levels of deviant behavior. Participants in one of the samples were divided into

three groups based on the type of deviant behavior they reported engaging in within the

last year. The three groups included adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant

behavior, those who reported only engaging in nonviolent and/or status offenses, and

those who reported engaging in violent offenses. Comparisons were made across groups

on adolescents' perceptions regarding these specific facets of procedural justice.

Recommendations were made for future research and applications of these findings to

parenting-skills training, family therapy, and family conflict resolution.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study was to determine the influences of adolescent

identity orientation and perceptions of procedural fairness within families on the

relationship between overall family functioning and adolescent deviant behavior. The

family environment provides an important context for understanding adolescent deviant

and aggressive behavior. Parent-adolescent conflict has received a great deal of attention

as researchers have moved away from the storm and stress model to recognizing that

parent-adolescent conflict is common and an important part of the child's efforts to attain

increased autonomy. Research has shown, however, that continued unresolved conflict

within the family does lead to psychosocial difficulties for adolescents, including juvenile

delinquency (Montemayor, 1986).

Family Functioning in Families of Adolescents

During adolescence, children experience an increased desire for greater autonomy

from parents. Consequently, conflict increases between parents and children because of

parents' difficulty in allowing for increased autonomy (Comstock, 1994). However, most

adolescents still describe their families as being close, positive, and flexible despite

increased conflict during this period (Montemayor, 1986).

Family Conflict

Many conflicts that arise during adolescence in American families are caused by

adolescents progressively perceiving more aspects of their lives as being within their own

personal jurisdiction (i.e., as private matters) in an attempt to create an autonomous self








(Fuligini, 1998; Nucci & Lee, 1993; Smetana, 1988). These results have been found

across ethnic groups within the United States. These children are attempting to test their

autonomy, and cause tension with parents who struggle with relinquishing their authority.

Adolescence is therefore a period of increased conflict within the family.

High levels of family conflict have been shown to negatively affect adolescent

functioning, and to increase antisocial behavior and other externalizing behaviors

(including association with deviant peers, conduct problems, high-risk sexual behavior,

and substance use) (Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1999; Daniels & Moos, 1990;

Formoso, Gonzales, & Aiken, 2000; Fraser, 1996; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, &

Huesmann, 1996; Holmbeck & O'Donnell, 1991; McCord, 1991; Moffitt, 1993;

Montemayor, 1986). High levels of family conflict also have been associated with

increased internalizing behaviors in adolescence, including greater emotional detachment

from others, decreases in self-concept, and higher levels of depression (Daniels & Moos;

Formoso et al.; Fraser; Gorman-Smith et al.; Holmbeck & O'Donnell; McCord; Moffitt;

Montemayor; Shek, 1998).

Family Cohesion

High levels of family conflict have been associated with decreases in psychological

well-being in adolescents. However, high levels of family cohesion have been found to

be related to greater self-confidence and low levels of psychological distress and problem

behaviors in adolescents (Daniels & Moos, 1990). Low levels of family cohesion, on the

other hand, have been shown to contribute to both higher levels of internalizing behaviors

(i.e., higher levels of depression and lower self-concept scores) and externalizing

behaviors in adolescents (i.e., higher levels of Conduct Disorder) (Gehring, Wentzel,

Feldman, & Munson, 1990; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996).








Research on family functioning in families of adolescents has shown that

parent-adolescent conflict does increase during adolescence. Ongoing intense conflict in

the family negatively affects family cohesion and the adolescent's psychological

well-being. Low levels of cohesion in the family also have been associated with lower

levels of psychological well-being and higher levels of deviant behavior. The family-

level variables of conflict and cohesion also may be tied to individual-level variables,

especially identity orientation.

Identity Orientation

Identity orientation refers to the importance placed on identity attributes when

creating notions of self. Cheek and colleagues (Cheek, 1982/83; Cheek & Tropp, 1994;

Cheek, Trop, Chen, & Underwood, 1994) described three identity orientations: personal

identity orientation, social identity orientation, and collective identity orientation.

Personal identity orientation is defined as an individual's private ideas about his or her

selfhood and subjective feelings of uniqueness and continuity (Berzonsky, 1994; Cheek

et al). Social identity orientation is characterized as aspects of the self defined by social

roles and interpersonal relationships. Collective identity orientation focuses on

sociological variables and feelings of commitment to one's community (Berzonsky;

Cheek et al.). Cheek and colleagues suggest that most individuals likely experience one

of these identities as more important than the other two to their conception of themselves.

Studies have considered the relationships among these identity orientations and

other personality attributes and behavior, but none have focused specifically on the

family context. Based on procedural justice research and findings related to the

importance of feeling personally respected and recognized as an important member of a








group, it is believed that an individual's primary identity orientation may affect his or her

appraisals of fairness and justice in the context of resolving parent-child conflict.

Justice

Justice considerations within the family context also may affect psychological

well-being and deviant behavior in adolescents (Fondacaro, Dunkle, & Pathak, 1998).

Distributive Justice

Distributive justice focuses on the perceived fairness of the outcome achieved

during the process of conflict resolution. Three principles of distributive justice are

equity, equality, and need. Equity focuses on distributions where the outputs are equal to

the inputs (Deutsch, 1975), and is often preferred in disputes involving economic issues

(Steil, 1994). The principle of equality is often used in interpersonal relationships and is

based on dividing outputs equally (Deutsch; Steil). Need involves allocating outputs

based on the needs of group members, and is used most often by people who are

members of intimate groups, like families (Deutsch).

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of procedures used during conflict

resolution. Thibaut and Walker (1975) developed and described one of the first theories

of procedural justice focusing on legal decision-making. Their theory emphasizes process

control (that is, control over the presentation of information or evidence) and decision

control (which involves control over the outcome or decision). Leventhal (1980) also

developed a theory of procedural justice encompassing the following constructs:

representation, consistency, impartiality, accuracy, correctibility, and ethicality. A third

procedural justice theory is Tyler's identity-based relational model (Tyler, 1994; Tyler &

Lind, 1992; Tyler, Boekmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). This model includes three








constructs (neutrality, trust, and standing/status recognition) and is based on social

identity theory. Tyler's premise is that considerations of procedural justice are important

because they give people information about their status in groups and their relationship

with group authorities. Fair treatment is considered to be a sign that the person is a

respected member of the group, while unfair treatment suggests that the individual is not

an important member of the group or that the group is not concerned about the welfare of

the individual. These models of procedural justice have been explored in work and

organizational settings, as well as in the family context (Diamond, 2001; Diamond,

Luescher, & Fondacaro, 2000; Fondacaro et al., 1998; Fondacaro & Heller, 1990;

Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999; Luescher, Fondacaro, & McNatt, 2001; Tyler, 1994; Tyler

& Blader, 2000; Tyler & Smith, 1999).

Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings

Several research studies have been conducted on Tyler's models in workplace and

legal contexts. These studies concluded that a relation-dominated model (focusing on

social bonds between people and groups, institutions, and group authorities) appeared to

best explain procedural justice judgments (Tyler, 1994). Results also suggested that

authorities who were in-group members had the greatest impacts on individuals'

self-esteem and degree of group conforming behavior (Tyler & Smith, 1999). Tyler and

Blader (2000) described a group engagement model that focuses on having voice in

decision-making, and suggests that individuals participate in groups to find evidence of

their own positive attributes.

Research on procedural justice in workplace and nonfamilial organizational settings

has shown that perceptions of procedural justice affect perceptions of outcome fairness

and satisfaction. Results also have shown that having voice in the decision-making








process increases perceptions of fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Finally, it appears that

individuals develop ideas about themselves based on the treatment they receive from

others, especially other members of their in-groups (Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Lind, 1992;

Tyler & Smith, 1999; Tyler et al., 1997).

Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Family

Procedural justice theories can help understand family conflict by providing an

explanation for why high levels of conflict may cause adolescents to experience

decreased psychological well-being and to engage in increased deviant and antisocial

behavior. Different parenting styles have been found to affect overall family functioning,

as well as individual functioning, among adolescents (Smetana, 1995). An authoritative

parenting style is consistent with procedures that have been found, in the procedural

justice literature (e.g., voice, status recognition, and personal respect), to improve

perceptions of fairness in the resolution of conflict (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker,

1975; Tyler, 1989). Authoritative parenting has been related to low levels of deviant

behavior (Baumrind, 1971).

Research focusing on procedural justice within the family has shown that when an

adolescent perceives procedural injustice during the course of family conflict resolution,

the adolescent feels disrespected and devalued as a member of the family, and

experiences increased anger arousal (Fondacaro et al., 1998, Fondacaro & Heller, 1990;

Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999; Luescher et al., 2001). These families were also

characterized by lower levels of overall family cohesion and higher levels of family

conflict, while the child experienced lower levels of psychological well-being and higher

levels of psychological distress (Diamond, 2001; Diamond et al., 2000; Fondacaro et al.).








Summary

Levels of family conflict increase, and levels of family cohesion decrease as

children move though adolescence in many families. These changes in family functioning

are associated with decreases in psychological well-being, including increases in

internalizing behaviors and externalizing, deviant, and aggressive behavior in

adolescents. The present study examines procedural justice and family conflict in families

of adolescents. Two different studies are reported as part of the present study. In Study

One, a sample of adolescents completed a survey focusing on multiple constructs,

including (1) family conflict and cohesion; (2) perceptions of procedural justice regarding

the overall family conflict resolution process, as well as perceptions of specific facets of

procedural justice as applied to that process; (3) affective responses to the

conflict-resolution process; (4) identity orientation; and (5) delinquent behavior and drug

use.

In Study Two, a larger sample of younger adolescents also completed a survey

focusing on procedural justice and delinquent behavior. In Study Two, adolescents were

divided into groups based on the type of deviant behavior they had reported engaging in.

Data analysis explored any group differences in perceptions of overall procedural justice

and specific facets of the procedural justice construct. Combined, the results from Studies

One and Two assess the relationships among identity orientation, justice appraisals,

family conflict, and deviant behavior.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review is organized in the same order as Chapter 1. It covers the

following literature: family functioning in families of adolescents, identity orientation,

and justice.

Family Functioning in Families of Adolescents

The phases of adolescence reflect progressive physical and cognitive development

and increases in the adolescent's need for autonomy (Comstock, 1994). In early

adolescence, children begin to challenge or reject parental authority and vacillate between

a desire to be obedient and a desire to be autonomous. In middle adolescence, families

experience increased conflict because parents are not accustomed to listening to the

adolescents' attempts at reasoning with them (Comstock). Adolescence is a period that

involves a great deal of transition and conflict within the family unit. However, most

adolescents report that even though they argue with their parents, they consider their

families to be close, positive, and flexible. Smetana (1995) argues that both autonomy

and constraint characterize parent-adolescent relationships and that the amount of each

varies according to the context of the conflict. Adolescents are more likely to challenge

parental authority regarding issues that they perceive to be within their personal

jurisdiction.

Family Conflict

Nucci and Lee (1993) defined personal domains as those that comprise the private

aspects of one's life and those that entail issues of preference or choice. They found that








adolescents shift from defining personal issues in terms of behaviors, to defining personal

issues in terms of establishing and maintaining a distinct set of opinions, preferences, and

values that define the individual's uniqueness. Increased use of personal justifications

(justifications based on individual preferences and choices) is tied to younger

adolescents' attempts to define themselves as unique from others with an autonomous

self. Often parents do not feel that a particular issue is within the child's personal

jurisdiction, and as a result, conflict occurs. Smetana (1995) argues that culture plays a

role in perceptions of conflict; and that within the culture of the United States, which is

more individualistic than many others, there are more areas adolescents' perceive to be

within their own personal jurisdiction. These areas include issues of social and nonsocial

activities, actions that focus on the state of their bodies, and behavioral style (Arnett,

1999). Arnett agrees that many of the conflicts in adolescence are due to adolescents

becoming more individualistic, as is expected in this culture, and their parents' attempts

to deal with their increasing push toward independence. Often parents and adolescents

disagree as to the rate at which adolescents should become independent.

Smetana (1988) focused on the conflicts that arise as adolescents begin to view

more aspects of their lives within their own personal jurisdiction, and desire greater

autonomy in their relationships with their parents. In Smetana's study, 102 fifth through

twelfth grade middle and upper class European American adolescents and their parents

participated. Adolescents and parents sorted cards describing conflicts as within the realm

of different domains: moral (issues pertaining to rights and welfare of others);

social-conventional (agreed upon behavioral rules for social interactions); personal

(issues that pertain only to the individual that are seen as beyond society's control); and








multifaceted (issues that fall into more than one of these domains). They also reported

who they felt had authority within these different domains.

Results showed that mothers and fathers were more likely than adolescents to see

the personal and multifaceted issues as within parental authority than were adolescents.

This was most apparent with the youngest participants. Adolescents also used more

personal reasoning (i.e., believed the decision was theirs to make) about the conflicts as

they increased in age, while parents' reasoning did not change. Smetana and colleagues

suggested that conflict increases because as adolescents begin to see more decisions as

personal in nature, parents feel this change is in direct conflict with family rules and

norms.

Fuligini (1998) suggested that if striving for autonomy is the reason for increased

conflict in adolescence, then the importance of autonomy across different cultures and

within different ethnic groups within the United States should be examined. In families

from different ethnic backgrounds within the United States, the degree of acculturation

may affect the level of importance placed on autonomy by adolescents. Fuligini studied

sixth, eighth, and tenth grade students (in the United States) of Mexican, Chinese,

Filipino, and European ancestry. Mean ages for the three grades were 12.1 years, 14.2

years, and 16.2 years, respectively. Adolescents were classified as first generation,

second generation, or third generation or greater. They were assessed as to how

appropriate they felt it was to disagree with their parents, how legitimate they felt their

parents' authority was, and what their expectations were of the ages at which they would

be allowed to engage in various autonomous behaviors.








The Issues Checklist (Prinz, Foster, Kent, & O'Leary, 1979; Robin & Foster, 1984)

was used to measure adolescents' perceptions of the frequency and intensity of conflict

with their parents. Family cohesion was measured with the cohesion subscale of the

Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell,

1979). Results showed that adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and Filipino

backgrounds held beliefs and expectations consistent with a greater respect for parental

authority and lower emphasis on autonomy than European American students did. All

adolescents, however, were more willing to engage in conflict with their mothers than

with their fathers. Across ethnic groups, older adolescents were more willing to disagree

with either parent, and less willing to accept parental authority over their lives than were

younger adolescents.

Students who were second or third generation tended to be more willing to openly

disagree with their parents, and had earlier expectations for autonomy than did those who

were first generation. Although the different ethnic groups and generations differed in

their beliefs about conflict, actual occurrences of conflict were similar across all groups.

Conflict levels were relatively low among all adolescents, and were greater with mothers

than with fathers. Older students experienced less cohesion with both parents than did

younger children. Results of Fuligini's study suggested that while views about autonomy

differ among ethnic groups within the United States, the behavior of the adolescents in all

four ethnic groups was consistent and showed an increased desire for autonomy as the

child progressed through adolescence.

Research suggests American adolescents increasingly view issues as within their

personal jurisdiction and therefore feel that they should be able to make decisions on their








own. The adolescents thus asserts and tests this autonomy, often causing conflict in the

family because parents are not ready to relinquish authority. The studies also suggest that

while adolescents' levels of autonomy and assertion of personal jurisdiction may vary

somewhat across ethnic groups within the United States, adolescents from diverse ethnic

backgrounds are similar in that they all attempt to achieve some degree of increased

autonomy from parents during this period.

The studies focusing on personal jurisdiction suggest that conflict increases in

families as children move through adolescence. Higher levels of family conflict have

been related to antisocial behavior, immaturity, and low self-esteem. Smetana, Braeges,

and Yau (1991) suggest family members' perceptions and attitudes toward dealing with

conflict affect the level of conflict within the family. Noller (1994) reported similar

findings: adolescents whose parents expressed democratic rather than coercive

communication and conflict-resolution styles made better personal decisions.

Authoritarian parenting techniques, in contrast, increased family conflict and led to more

acting-out behavior on the part of the adolescents.

Research has shown that rates of conflict in families with adolescents vary a great

deal. Persistent conflict and stress have multiple adverse effects on adolescents: (1) they

spend less time with parents and more time with peers; (2) they experience increased risk

for deviant behaviors, externalizing behaviors (such as delinquency, marijuana and

alcohol use), running away from home, premarital sexual relations; and (3) they

experience increased risk for internalizing problems (like low self-esteem, depression,

and suicide attempts) (Montemayor, 1986). Parent-adolescent conflict appears to be

affected by three separate processes within the family: communication/problem solving








style, child/adolescent management techniques, and exchange of positive and negative

behaviors (Montemayor). Poor communication and problem solving leads to unresolved

conflict, because these deficits in parenting result in increased coercive interactions

between parents and children. These coercive interactions may lead to child abuse by

parents, and to aggressive and out-of-control behaviors by children. The parental

management skills that most affect levels of parent-adolescent conflict seem to be

parental monitoring of children, discipline, and reinforcement of positive behavior

(Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995; Montemayor). Adolescent deviance and family

dysfunction are most often seen in families with parents who are either too authoritarian

or too lenient. Also, in families with high levels of conflict, members reciprocate each

other's aversive behaviors more frequently than in families with lower levels of conflict

(Montemayor; Patterson, 1982).

Family conflict and harsh punishment may lead to aggressive behavior with onset

in childhood (Daniels & Moos, 1990; Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Fraser, 1996;

Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, and Huesmann, 1996; McCord, 1991; Moffitt, 1993).

Ongoing family conflict has been associated with low self-confidence, psychosocial

distress, and behavior problems. In contrast, family resources and cohesion were

associated with greater self-confidence, less psychological distress, and fewer problem

behaviors in adolescents (Daniels & Moos). The following studies consider the

relationships among family conflict, increased problem behavior, and decreased

psychological functioning.

Holmbeck and O'Donnell (1991) studied adolescents and their mothers who

answered questionnaires concerning family functioning and adolescent adjustment at








both Time One and Time Two (6 months later). The adolescents and mothers completed

the Decision-Making Questionnaire, the Desire for Autonomy Scale, the Issues Checklist,

and Harter's Revised Self-Perception Profile for Children. The Decision-Making

Questionnaire (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Steinberg, 1987) assesses perceptions of who

makes decisions within the family, with regard to a specific list of issues. The Desire for

Autonomy Scale (O'Donnell & Holmbeck, 1989) focuses on parent and adolescent desire

for more or less control over the same issues covered in the Decision-Making

Questionnaire. The Issues Checklist (Robin & Foster, 1989) is a measure of

parent-adolescent conflict and covers the same issues focused on in the other measures.

The Harter Revised Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) is a

multidimensional measure of the child's self-concept.

Adolescents also completed the Emotional Autonomy Scale (Steinberg &

Silverberg, 1986) and a measure of detachment (Ryan & Lynch, 1989). Mothers also

completed the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, 1986;

focusing on the cohesiveness subscale) and the Inventory of Parent Attachment (Armsden

& Greenberg, 1987; measuring maternal attachment to the adolescent). Mothers and

teachers completed the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock,

1983; measuring adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors).

Results showed greater levels of conflict for mother-child pairs in which the mother

and adolescent disagreed over who should be the decision-maker within the family.

Adolescents also reported less conflict and greater detachment from mothers in families

where the adolescent felt in charge of decision-making. In families with mothers who

were less likely to grant autonomy, adolescents reported more emotional detachment








from mothers, and their teachers reported greater internalizing symptoms. Mothers

reported more conflict and externalizing symptoms, among adolescents who attempted to

gain more autonomy than the mothers were willing to grant. Adolescents in families in

which mothers were not willing to grant autonomy had decreased self-concept scores

over the 6-month period.

Shek (1998) also looked at the effect of family conflict on adolescent behavior and

psychological well-being in a longitudinal study of families from Hong Kong.

Psychological well-being was conceptualized as both lack of psychiatric morbidity and

the existence of positive mental health. Positive mental health was measured as low

scores on the Chinese Hopelessness Scale (Shek, 1993) and the Chinese version of the

General Health Questionnaire (Chan, 1985) and high scores on the Satisfaction With Life

Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffen, 1985; Shek, 1992), Chinese Rosenberg

Self-Esteem Scale (Shek, 1992), and Chinese Purpose in Life Questionnaire (Crumbaugh,

1968; Shek, 1988). The adolescents were 12 to 16 years old, and the second wave of data

was collected 1 year after the first wave.

Results showed that conflict was related both to positive mental health and to

negative mental health. At Time One and at Time Two, adolescents who experienced

greater parent-adolescent conflict had lower levels of positive mental health and higher

levels of psychiatric morbidity. Results also showed that higher conflict at Time One was

related to lower levels of positive mental heath and higher levels of psychiatric morbidity

at Time Two. The reverse was also shown: higher levels of psychological well-being at

Time One predicted lower levels of conflict at Time Two. Shek (1998) found that father-

adolescent conflict affected well-being more than mother-adolescent conflict did. The








results also showed that conflict affected well-being equally for males and females. Shek

asserted that this finding was not surprising, because conflict in Chinese culture is

frowned on for both the sexes.

Ary, Duncan, Duncan, and Hops (1999) also focused on the relationship between

behavior problems and family conflict. They based their work on Patterson, Reid, and

Dishion's (1992) developmental model of antisocial behavior, which asserts that

delinquency is due proximally to peer influences, but that associations with particular

peers are affected by parental behavior (including coercive interactions and poor parental

monitoring). In their study, they interviewed families annually for 3 years. Half of the

families were single-parent families, and the mean age of the adolescents was 16 years at

the first assessment. Family conflict was measured using the Conflict Behavior

Questionnaire (Prinz et al., 1979) and positive family relations were measured using the

cohesion subscale of the Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1975).

Ary and colleagues found that families with high levels of conflict and poor family

relations were more likely to develop a social context characterized by inadequate

parental modeling and associations with deviant peers. Poor parental modeling and

associations with deviant peers were then associated with problem behavior, including

antisocial behavior and high-risk sexual behavior, academic failure, and substance use in

individuals in mid to late adolescence.

Many studies focusing on the relationships among internalizing and externalizing

behaviors and family conflict have found that most children experiencing family conflict

do not experience adjustment problems. Formoso, Gonzales, and Aiken (2002) attempted

to assess whether specific protective factors affect the relationship between family








conflict and behavior problems. Protective factors are those that buffer children against

the negative effects of family stress and often include temperament, familial factors, and

extrafamilial support. Formoso and colleagues sought to determine specifically whether

the source of protective factors (whether from parents, a particular parent, or from peers)

matters; and whether the influence of protective factors varies by gender or ethnicity. The

sample for Formoso and colleagues' study included junior high school students who were

living with at least one parent. The mean age of the students was 13 years and students

were of various ethnicities including Anglo American, African American, Mexican

American, Native American, and other.

Formoso and colleagues found that high levels of family conflict were related to

higher levels of adolescent depression and conduct problems, while protective factors

were related to lower levels of adolescent depression and fewer conduct problems.

Specific protective factors found to be effective were parental attachment and parental

monitoring. Parental attachment was measured by the revised Inventory of Parent and

Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) which assesses positive and negative

aspects of the adolescents' attachment to parents and peers. Parental monitoring was

measured by the Assessment of Child Monitoring (Hetherington et al., 1992), which

focuses on how much parents monitor their children.

Results revealed that maternal attachment, maternal monitoring, and paternal

monitoring were associated with decreased levels of conduct problems in females. These

protective factors moderated the relationship between family conflict and conduct

problems for females. Paternal attachment, however, was not associated with levels of

family conflict or conduct problems in females. For males, maternal attachment, maternal








monitoring, and paternal monitoring were correlated with increased level of conduct

problems. However, lower paternal attachment was related to lower levels of family

conflict and conduct problems. Results suggested that risk and protective factors worked

similarly across the different ethnic groups.

It appears that closer relationships with and greater monitoring by parents were

associated with decreases in the level of girls' conduct problems; however increased

attachment and supervision of boys were associated with increases in level of conduct

problems. Formoso and colleagues suggested the first possible explanation for the gender

difference might be that boys are more likely to imitate aggressive and conflicted

behavior, and that this is more likely to occur when parents are in greater contact with

their children by attempting to monitor them.

A second possibility they suggested was that gender differences in the relationship

between family conflict and conduct problems may be due to gender differences in

emotional arousal and regulation during times of stress. Research (Zaslow & Hayes,

1986) shows that it is more difficult for males to return themselves to equilibrium in

times of stress, and they may be even less able to return to equilibrium during conflict

with family members. A final explanation given was that, in comparison to girls, the

socialization of boys might put greater emphasis on the rejection of parental support and

supervision.

The research on family conflict in families of adolescents suggests that

parent-adolescent conflict increases during adolescence, and that continuous or repeated

intense conflict often has negative effects on family cohesion and adolescent








psychological well-being (including psychosocial adjustment, substance use, depression,

and conduct problems and antisocial behavior).

Family Cohesion

Cohesion is also often measured to assess family functioning. Gehring and

colleagues (Gehring, Wentzel, Feldman, & Munson, 1990) focused on both conflict and

cohesion from a structural/systemic perspective. The structural approach to families

allows one to describe families in terms of cohesiveness and power. Gehring and

colleagues believe that in well-adjusted families, the parental dyad has the most power

and is the most cohesive. They studied changes in cohesion and power in conflict

situations, to provide a better understanding of how adolescent well-being is affected by

family conflict. They studied intact families with adolescents ranging in age from 11 to

19 years. Participants completed the Family Systems Test (Gehring & Feldman, 1988),

which characterizes levels of cohesion and power within the family.

The Family Systems Test was completed to represent present family relationships

and family relationships as they exist during a conflict situation. Four dyad scores were

represented: father-mother, father-adolescent, mother-adolescent, and adolescent-sibling.

Conflicts were described along the dimensions of locus (i.e., which family members were

centrally involved in the conflict); content (coded into categories: discipline, use of time,

chores, money, autonomy, deviance, marital problems, and sibling fighting); and

frequency (infrequent conflicts occurred 6 times or less per year, occasional conflicts

occurred 1 or 2 times per month, and frequent conflicts occurred once or more per week).

Conflict was found across all four dyads, with the mother-adolescent and

father-adolescent dyads experiencing the greatest amount of conflict. Early adolescents

had fewer conflicts with their parents than did older adolescents. Conflict increased








during middle adolescence. Early adolescents reported conflicts about discipline and use

of time most often, and mid-adolescents reported use of time and autonomy issues most

often. Reports of autonomy-related issues increased with age. Older adolescents

described more idiosyncratic and multidimensional conflicts than did the younger

adolescents. Results showed that conflict decreased cohesion in the family as a whole,

but did not increase or decrease power in the dyads.

Another study based on family systems theory (Wentzel and Feldman, 1996)

suggested that cohesion and power affected adolescent adjustment, including their affect,

social self-concept, and self-restraint. Wentzel and Feldman also used the Family

Systems Test to represent cohesion and power in the family. Students in the sixth grade

who were primarily middle class were asked about their family structure as a whole.

Family cohesion was related to positive adjustment in girls, but not in boys. For the girls,

low cohesion was related to higher levels of depressive affect and lower self-concept;

while higher cohesion was related to more self-restraint. For boys, differences in power

(i.e., non-egalitarian relationships) between the boys and each of their parents were

related to depressive affect and low social self-concept.

Gorman-Smith et al. (1996) reported that parenting variables and

family-relationship variables (including low levels of parental warmth, acceptance and

affection, low family cohesion, and high levels of conflict and hostility) have been found

to be strong predictors of antisocial behavior. Participants in Gorman-Smith and

colleagues' study were from a larger longitudinal study, The Chicago Youth

Development Study, which looked at the development of serious delinquent behaviors in

inner-city male adolescents. Boys were African American and Latino and in the fifth or








seventh grade. Scores from the boys' self-reports and parents' reports were combined to

provide overall scores for the various constructs measured in Gorman-Smith and

colleagues' study. Half of the boys in the sample had high scores on the Achenbach

Teacher Report Form Aggression Scale (Achenbach, 1991), and the other half of the boys

had low to medium scores on this measure. Based on the child's self-report of delinquent

behavior, they were divided into three groups: boys reporting no delinquent or violent

offenses, boys reporting nonviolent offenses, and boys reporting violent offenses. Boys

and their caregivers separately participated in a structured interview in their own home,

and together engaged in a structured problem-solving task that was videotaped.

Child reports of delinquent and violent behavior were obtained using the

Self- Report Delinquency Scale (Elliott, Dunford, & Huizinga, 1987), a list of 38

criminal acts (which served as the basis for dividing the boys into the three groups). To

measure rates of nonviolent offending, reports of nonviolent felony offenses were

weighted according to seriousness, and each score was calculated by summing the

frequency of each act multiplied by its weight. Gorman-Smith and colleagues also looked

at age of onset of offending (comparing boys who began offending prior to age 12 with

those who began offending after age 12). Family variables were measured with a 92 item

measure that was created by combining questions from the following family scales:

Family Assessment Measure-Ill (Skinner, Steinhauer, & Santa-Barbara, 1983), Family

Adaptability and Cohesiveness Evaluation Scales (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985),

Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981), Family Beliefs Inventory (Roehling &

Robin, 1986), and six items assessing deviant beliefs and four items assessing

somatization. A factor analysis produced six factors: (a) Beliefs About the Family (with








two subfactors, Importance of Family Relationships and Beliefs About Development), (b)

Emotional Cohesion, (c) Support, (d) Communication, (e) Shared Deviant Beliefs, and (f)

Organization.

Results revealed parenting practices and family relations were two distinct

processes. There were differences in these constructs across families whose boys

were/were not engaging in different types of delinquent and violent behavior. There were

no differences between the two groups of delinquents (nonviolent offenders and violent

offenders) on age of onset and rate of seriousness of offending. There were differences

across the three groups on levels of cohesion in the family, with families of boys who

engaged in violent offenses reporting less cohesiveness than the other two groups.

Gorman-Smith and colleagues concluded that lack of cohesion, as well as poor parental

monitoring and poor discipline, are risk factors for the development of serious

delinquency.

Studies of cohesiveness in families of adolescents suggest that conflict decreases

cohesion and that lower levels of cohesion are associated with depressed affect and lower

self-concept in adolescents. More generally, the literature on family functioning suggests

that levels of conflict within the family increase as children move into and through

adolescence and the child begins asserting more personal autonomy. Ongoing high levels

of conflict and low levels of cohesiveness in the family during this time period have been

found to have negative effects on adolescents (including increases in internalizing and

externalizing behaviors and lower levels of self-concept). Levels of family functioning

may affect and be affected by other variables at the family and individual levels of

analysis. One of these individual-level variables may be identity orientation.








Identity Orientation

Identity orientation is described as the importance people place on identity

attributes or characteristics when creating their notions of self. Three identity orientations

have been described by Cheek and colleagues (Cheek & Briggs, 1982; Cheek & Tropp,

1994; Cheek, Tropp, Chen, & Underwood, 1994; Hogan & Cheek, 1983): personal

identity orientation, social identity orientation, and collective identity orientation. Cheek

and colleagues originally conceptualized two identity orientations, personal and social.

Personal identity orientation is characterized as an individual's private ideas about his or

her selfhood and subjective feelings of uniqueness and continuity, including personal

values and goals (Berzonsky, 1994; Cheek et al.). Social identity orientation focuses on

the self an individual presents publicly in social roles and interpersonal relationships and

deals with one's reputation and popularity. Hogan and Cheek created these two identity

orientations as separate constructs rather than two ends of a continuum, and argued that

individuals differ as to how much they identify with each of these forms of identity. The

individual's level of identification with both personal identity and social identity affects

his or her social behavior.

After the constructs of personal and social identity were investigated in research

studies, Cheek and colleagues realized that a third aspect of identity existed that was not

entirely subsumed under the social identity construct (Cheek et al., 1994). They explored

and developed a measure for this third identity, collective identity. Collective identity

orientation is described as focusing on sociological variables (for example, ethnicity,

gender, religion), feelings of commitment to one's community, and expectations and

normative standards of significant others and reference groups (Berzonsky, 1994; Cheek

et al.). Cheek and colleagues argue that each individual views his or her self through all








three lenses (personal, social, and collective identity orientation) but that most individuals

likely experience one of these identities as more important to their conception of

themselves.

Many studies have looked at the relationships among these three forms of identity

orientation (personal, social, and collective) and various other personality attributes and

behavior. However, none of these studies have focused on the relationship between

identity orientation and family conflict in an adolescent sample. It is likely that aspects of

personal identity orientation and collective identity orientation will be more important in

the family context than will aspects of social identity orientation. In the present study, the

collective identity orientation is stressed over the social identity orientation, because it is

believed that conflicts in the family context will be more likely to affect and be affected

by more systemic and relational aspects of identity orientation (which are incorporated

into the collective identity orientation). Social identity orientation appears to focus more

on the social reputation that emerges from interaction in interpersonal relationships. This

source of identity is more focused on impression management, and the individual putting

forth aspects of the self they believe others wish to see. The collective identity orientation

appears more rooted in the value individuals derive from the ties they have to important

groups in their lives. The family is one of these groups.

The personal and collective identity orientations appear to be related to the

concepts of personal respect and status recognition that have been focused on in

procedural justice research. In the process of resolving family conflict, some adolescents

report that their parents do not treat them as unique individuals and report feeling low

levels of personal respect. These adolescents also report lower levels of perceived overall








fairness and engage in higher levels of deviant behavior (Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999).

Other adolescents report feeling that their parents do not treat them as valued members of

the family in the process of resolving disputes within the family. This is referred to as

low status recognition, and these adolescents have similar perceptions of fairness and

rates of deviant behavior as those adolescents who report low levels of personal respect

(Jackson & Fondacaro).

Results from procedural justice studies have found that individuals differ on how

important personal respect or status recognition is to perceptions of procedural justice and

engagement in deviant behavior. The differences in the relative importance of personal

respect or status recognition to these individuals may be affected by the importance of the

different identity orientations to these individuals. It is believed that individuals whose

personal identity is more important to them will focus more on aspects of personal

respect in determining fairness, and that personal respect will be more closely related to

levels of anger arousal and deviant behavior. It is also expected that individuals who

value their collective identity most will focus on aspects of status recognition in

determining fairness. For these individuals levels of anger arousal and deviant behavior

will be more closely related to status recognition.

Justice

Justice considerations include an emphasis on both procedural justice and

distributive justice. Distributive justice focuses on whether the outcome of a

conflict-resolution procedure is perceived to be fair, while procedural justice focuses on

how fairly an individual feels he or she is treated in the process of resolving a conflict.

The importance of considerations of procedural and distributive justice processes within

the legal system in this country likely encourages use of these principles to evaluate








fairness across multiple domains, including the family context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In

the family decision-making context, repeated unfair outcomes or unfair treatment may

lead to a strong sense of injustice and resentment, which in turn, may fuel anger arousal

and ongoing levels of conflict (Fondacaro & Heller, 1983; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).

Distributive Justice

Three principles of distributive justice have been identified in the literature: equity,

equality, and need. The type of distribution that is favored in a particular decision-making

experience is often affected by aspects of the relationship of participants in the

decision-making procedure and the goals each participant has. Equitable distributions are

characterized by distribution equal to inputs (Deutsch, 1975). This perspective is often

used in justice decisions involving economic issues. Relationships characterized by

equitable distributions are often competitive and impersonal (Steil, 1994). Equality

principles, on the other hand, are often encountered with decisions regarding

interpersonal harmony and status congruence and occur most often in relationships

involving solidarity, cooperation, and liking (Steil). The final dimension of distributive

justice is need, which characterizes caring groups in which fostering personal

development and welfare is the primary goal of interactions. In these relationships,

members feel responsibility for one another and are intimately tied to each other

(Deutsch).

Procedural Justice

Multiple theories of procedural justice have been described in the literature and

have been tested across many different contexts. Thibaut and Walker (1975) developed

one of the first theories of procedural justice. Their theory focuses on legal








decision-making. Thibaut and Walker stress judgments of control over both process and

outcomes. Their instrumental control theory emphasizes process control and decision

control. Process control refers to a person's control over the presentation of information

or evidence to the decision-maker, whereas decision control refers to control over the

actual decision made. Thibaut and Walker theorize that people care more about how they

are treated during the process of conflict resolution than about the actual outcomes.

A second procedural justice theorist, Leventhal (1980), developed a more

comprehensive model that includes representation, consistency, impartiality, accuracy,

correctibility, and ethicality. Representation, also known as voice, means that all phases

of the process must reflect the basic concerns, values, and outlooks of important

subgroups in the population of individuals affected by the decision-making process.

Consistency refers to the decision-making procedures being relatively invariable across

persons and over time. Impartiality involves creating a level playing field by

demonstrating evenhanded treatment, honesty, and lack of bias. Accuracy requires

ensuring that decision-making is based on optimal levels of reliable information and an

informed opinion. Correctibility is similar to the concepts of appeal or reconsideration,

and is based on the existence of opportunities to modify and reverse decisions made at

various points in the decision-making process. Ethicality requires treating individuals in

ways that are compatible with the fundamental moral and ethical values accepted by

those individuals (Leventhal).

Lind and Tyler (1988) proposed another theory of procedural justice, the group

value model, which focuses on the effects of fairness of group procedures and group

membership on an individual's attitudes about and behavior towards that group. Lind and








Tyler argue that although there will be differences across groups, certain values are

universal to most groups (including solidarity, maintenance of authority relations, and a

sense of status and security due to group membership). There also are procedures that are

seen as universally fair that promote these values. These include voice (having the

opportunity to provide input prior to a decision being made), dignity, and information

regarding an individual's status within the group. At the core of this model is the idea that

an individual expects an on-going relationship with group authorities.

Tyler (1989) attempted to incorporate Thibaut and Walker's (1975) and

Leventhal's (1980) models with his own group value model and suggested a

comprehensive model of procedural justice focusing on issues of neutrality, standing,

control, and trust. He believes these aspects are most important to individuals in forming

procedural justice judgments and comprise the core of a relational model of procedural

justice (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Neutrality is impartial, evenhanded treatment and

incorporates Leventhal's consistency, impartiality, accuracy, and correctibility. Trust

refers to whether people have faith in the good intentions of authority figures and comes

from Tyler's own model. Standing includes whether an authority figure treats a person as

a valued member of a relevant group and includes Leventhal's ethicality. Control is

comprised of Thibaut and Walker's process control and decision control and Leventhal's

representation.

Tyler's identity-based relational model (Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler &

Smith, 1999; Tyler, Boekmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997) posits that individuals care about

issues like being treated with respect, being heard, and having an influence on








decision-making. The basic assumption of this identity-based relational model is that

individuals are predisposed to being members of social groups (Tyler, 1994), and are

very attentive to signs and symbols from others in these groups. Authority figures are

particularly important group members because they communicate information about the

individuals' position within the group. People are concerned about their position within a

group because high status validates their sense of self, including self-esteem.

Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings

Many studies of the models of procedural justice have been conducted in

organizational settings and usually consider the interactions and conflicts between

workers and supervisors. One study of Tyler's model (Tyler, 1994) considered two

contexts, one legal and one work-related and focused on issues of procedural and

distributive justice. Respondents were residents of Chicago who were interviewed via

telephone. The studies included measurements of affect regarding the resolution of the

conflict. The participants were asked to evaluate the favorability of the outcome of their

experience (either with the police or in the workplace), the outcome they received relative

to their expectations, the outcome relative to what others would have received, and their

control over decisions made. Respondents also were asked about their control over the

presentation of information (process control), neutrality (measured by a scale reflecting

judgments of bias, honesty, and factual decision-making), trust (assessed with a scale

measuring trust in the decision-maker's motives), and standing (measured by a scale

focusing on politeness and respect for the participants' rights).

Tyler tested several versions of the model to see which one best described the effect

of the individuals' experiences with legal and workplace authorities on judgments of

distributive and procedural justice. The models varied by the degree to which they








incorporated relational and resource concerns. Resource concerns focus on individuals'

attempts to maximize rewards for themselves. Relational concerns focus on the social

bonds between people and groups, institutions, and group authorities. Tyler found that the

relational-dominated model fit the data best.

Results revealed that distributive justice judgments were responsive to both

relational and resource concerns, while procedural justice judgments were affected only

by relational concerns. Results also suggested that affect was influenced by perceptions

of procedural justice, which were impacted by evaluations of trustworthiness, standing,

and neutrality. These results were found for both the legal and work contexts. Tyler

concluded that procedural justice judgments influence affect and willingness to accept

decisions more than perceptions of distributive justice, although distributive justice

judgments influence these as well. Tyler concluded that there are two psychologies of

justice: one relational and one resource-based.

Tyler and Smith (1999) also described the relational model of procedural justice

within organizational settings. They asserted that the groups people are members of

define who they are and assist them in evaluating their worth. Tyler and Smith stated that

individuals care about how they are treated by authorities independent of whether they

feel they receive the appropriate outcome. Treatment by authorities affects individuals'

satisfaction, their willingness to accept decisions, and their attitudes about the group

(including commitment, opinions about the legitimacy of authorities, and voluntary

behavior on the part of the individual that is positive for the group).

Tyler and Smith (1999) stated that individuals make assumptions about their

importance to the group based on the behavior of authority figures toward them.








Individuals who perceive they are treated fairly feel favorable status and social

importance. Unfair treatment makes individuals feel marginalized and excluded. The

relational model asserts individuals' feelings of self-worth are affected by these feelings,

which in turn affects the individuals' behavior toward the group. Tyler and Smith found

that when an authority was a member of one's in-group (as is the case in the family

context), perceived procedural justice affected self-esteem, especially the element of

respect. Also, individuals who experienced more respect were more likely to engage in

group-conforming behavior.

Tyler and Blader (2000) considered what factors affect individuals' participation

and cooperative behavior in groups. They sought to explain why individuals value group

membership and what groups mean to individuals. Tyler and Blader defined cooperation

as whether or not individuals promoted the goals of the group and differentiated between

instrumental judgments of cooperative behavior, which are motivated by rewards and

punishments, and discretionary behavior (another type of cooperative behavior), which is

more motivated by attitudes and internal values. Tyler and Blader put forth a

four-component model of procedural justice, which they called the group engagement

model. The model was tested within the work-organization setting.

Tyler and Blader found that whereas instrumental judgments affected individuals'

cooperative behavior, attitudes and values were more predictive of this discretionary form

of cooperative behavior. Results revealed that values affected rule-oriented behavior and

attitudes affected helping behavior. The four components involved in their model

included two types of procedural justice information and two sources for this

information. The two types of procedural justice information are the procedures related to








the decision-making process and the procedures related to the treatment people

experience during the decision-making process. The two sources of information are

formal and informal. The formal bases are the formal rules and procedures of the group

and are described as structural and constant across time and situation. The informal bases

are the group authorities with whom the individual interacts on a daily basis. These

interactions are seen as more dynamic. The model put forth by Tyler and Blader (2000)

suggests that individuals receive process information on both decision-making

procedures and treatment by the decision-maker, from both sources, formal and informal.

Tyler and Blader's four-component model of procedural justice suggests that people

involve themselves in groups to support a positive sense of themselves.

Research on procedural justice in work and organizational settings suggests that

considerations of procedural fairness are dominated by relational concerns, including

trustworthiness, standing, and neutrality. These studies also suggest that higher levels of

perceived procedural justice are associated with higher levels of self-worth, as well as

increased acceptance of group decisions and increased group conforming behavior.

Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Family

Recent studies of procedural justice within the family context may provide a

framework for understanding how high levels of conflict cause adolescents to experience

decreased psychological well-being, and to engage in increased deviant behavior. If

adolescents perceive the procedures their parents use to resolve family conflicts to be fair,

the outcome of the decision-making process may be legitimized. Jackson and Fondacaro

(1999) suggest that families differ in the methods they utilize in decision-making, and

that these different methods may affect family functioning and adolescent well-being.

Research on parenting styles suggests that the way in which parents enforce rules and








exercise authority is tied to both family and individual adolescent functioning (Smetana,

1995). The procedural justice literature has identified a broad array of dimensions along

which parental strategies and practices for resolving conflicts with their adolescent

offspring may be evaluated (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1989).

Procedural justice dimensions (such as voice, status recognition, and personal respect) are

reflected in a style of parenting referred to as authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 1971).

Baumrind empirically confirmed that authoritative parenting is related to lower levels of

deviant behavior.

Fondacaro, Dunkle, and Pathak (1998) found that older adolescents, whose parents

treated them with more dignity and respect and in a more neutral and trustworthy manner,

reported greater levels of overall family cohesion, lower levels of family conflict, higher

levels of psychological well-being, lower levels of psychological distress, and lower

levels of adolescent deviant behavior. Fondacaro and colleagues' study used

undergraduate students who answered items assessing aspects of procedural justice in

relation to a recent dispute the adolescent had with his or her parents.

Fondacaro and colleagues suggested their results indicated being treated

disrespectfully by parents might create an atmosphere of family conflict and lack of trust

between parents and children, which in turn, might disrupt formation of cohesive

relationships in the family. Dispute-resolution procedures regarded by adolescents as

unfair may have implications for the development of deviant behavior. Perceived

injustice may lead to increased risk for anger arousal, which in turn, may lead to

increased risk for violent behavior both within and outside the family context (Fondacaro

& Heller, 1990; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Tyler's identity-based relational model, which








proposes that fair treatment is considered to be a sign that the person is a respected

member of the group (Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler et al., 1997), suggests that

children may feel they are treated as less valued members of the family if they perceive

that their parents treat them unfairly.

Tyler, Degoey, and Smith (1996) also looked at conflict within the families of older

adolescents. College students were asked about a recent conflict with one or both of their

parents that was resolved. Tyler and colleagues assessed individuals' perception of the

respect they felt within the group and the pride they felt in the group. They found that

pride and respect were two different constructs. They also found that relational judgments

(focusing on social bonds), separate from instrumental judgments (motivated by rewards

and punishments), were related to procedural justice. Instrumental judgments were also

related to perceptions of procedural justice, but less so than relational judgments.

Relational judgments were associated with respect and pride. Pride and respect were also

associated with compliance within the group and self-esteem. Respect was found to be

more influential on self-esteem than pride, however.

Tyler and colleagues concluded that their results supported their model. They

showed that relational components of fairness evaluations of group authorities were more

strongly related to attitudes and behaviors than were instrumental components. These

relational concerns were most strongly related to feelings of pride and respect. Feelings

of pride and respect affected compliance with group rules, group commitment, and

extrarole behavior directed at groups. Tyler and colleagues also found that procedures

communicated information relevant to the individual's identity. Self-esteem was affected

by relational judgments, specifically pride and respect. Tyler and colleagues also asserted








that unfair treatment by parents occurs in an ongoing relationship with their children, and

that this perception of ongoing unfair treatment may be more personally meaningful than

unfair treatment that occurs only one time in other contexts. Decisions made by parents

and children also may be more influential in the lives of adolescents than decisions made

in other settings.

Fondacaro and colleagues attempted to adapt a comprehensive set of procedural

justice dimensions to the context of family decision-making, and to predict adolescent

deviant behavior with these procedural justice measures (Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999).

The sample included university students between the ages of 18 and 22 who were

predominately European American. Participants completed a questionnaire battery that

included a demographic sheet, the Family Decision Making Questionnaire (FDMQ), the

Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986), and outcome measures assessing

deviant behavior (Ebata & Moos, 1991).

Jackson and Fondacaro (1999) used factor scores representing distinct facets of the

procedural justice construct (personal respect, standing/status recognition, and

instrumental participation) to predict deviant behavior. Of the three factors, personal

respect and standing/status recognition were found to independently predict deviant

behavior, even after controlling for gender and level of family conflict. Older adolescents

who reported their parents treated them with less personal respect and as less valued

members of the family reported higher levels of deviant behavior.

Jackson and Fondacaro (1999) concluded that general levels of family conflict and

specific parenting practices during conflict resolution affect adolescents' well-being.

Children who perceive they are being treated unfairly and are not being respected as








individuals may be likely to lash out. Jackson and Fondacaro concluded that the practical

application of procedural justice theory to parenting is that parents can be taught conflict-

resolution practices that treat children with respect, are nondiscriminatory, and assure

children they are valued family members. They also suggested that it is important to look

at both whether people feel they are treated with respect as individuals and as respected

members of the family. The importance of being treated as an individual versus being

treated as a valued member of a family may be culturally based. It has been found that

individuals who are likely to respond to negative feedback as relevant to their personal

identity are more likely to respond to negative feedback with anger arousal and

aggression (Cheek & Briggs, 1982).

Diamond and colleagues (Diamond, 2001; Diamond, Luescher, & Fondacaro,

2000) adapted the Family Justice Inventory (Fondacaro, Jackson, & Luescher, 2002) for

use with a group of younger adolescents (ages 11-18 years), producing the youth version

of the Family Justice Inventory (FJI-Y). Diamond and colleagues attempted to determine

the relationships among procedural and distributive justice constructs and family

cohesion, family conflict, psychological well-being, psychological distress, and deviant

behavior in younger adolescents. The sample included participants whose mean age was

14.6 years.

The participants were in regular education schools and completed a demographic

sheet, the Family Decision Making Questionnaire Youth Form (FDMQ-Y), the Family

Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986), the Daily Problems and Health-Youth Form

(DPH-Y; Ebata & Moos, 1991), and the Aspects of Identity Questionnaire, Version IIIx

(AIQ-IIIx; Cheek & Tropp, 1994). Administration of the FDMQ-Y was the same as









reported in Fondacaro et al. (2002). The Family Relationship Inventory assessed the

current quality of social relationships within the family and was comprised of the

cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness scales of the Family Environment Scale. The

DPH-Y measured adolescents' psychological well-being, psychological distress, and

deviant and aggressive behavior.

Results revealed the procedural justice indices were more related to cohesion than

conflict, and were also related to psychological well-being and psychological distress.

Consistency, dignity, standing/status recognition, trust, and voice were all negatively

related to deviant behavior. In predicting global procedural fairness, the procedural

justice subscales predicted 87% of variance, with accuracy, neutrality, and trust

accounting for unique variance. The procedural justice variables accounted for 36% of

the variance in cohesion and 27% of variance in family conflict. Correction was found to

be the best predictor of both cohesion and conflict, suggesting perceptions of family

interactions may be most affected by the adolescent having or not having the opportunity

to appeal the decision that is being made. Procedural justice accounted for 15% of the

variance in psychological well-being, with correction and process control as the best

predictors. Procedural justice accounted for 13% of variance in psychological distress.

Again, process control was the best predictor. Finally, 7% of the variance in deviant

behavior was predicted by the procedural justice dimensions, with consistency as the best

predictor.

These results differed from studies of older adolescents where trust was the best

predictor of both deviant behavior and family conflict/cohesion. It may be that as children

develop and mature, what becomes the most important aspect of the decision-making








process changes. These results suggest that younger adolescents want to feel more in

control of the decision-making process; whereas older adolescents may realize that

parents have the final say, so they want to know they can trust their parents to make the

right decision.

When the dimensions of procedural and distributive justice were combined in one

model, 40% of the variance in cohesion and 25% of the variance in conflict was

accounted for. Correction independently predicted both. Diamond (2001) concluded that

the FJI-Y is a reliable measure as demonstrated by internal consistency and inter-rater

reliability. Diamond also suggested that having control over decision-making or the final

decision in family conflict resolution is not related to adolescents' sense of happiness and

self-worth because decision control, process control, and distributive justice constructs

were not related to well-being. It appears adolescents are more likely to experience

depression and anxiety when procedural injustice is perceived. Deviant behavior is likely

to occur when decisions are handled in an inconsistent manner across persons or over

time. Also, adolescents whom their parents treat with less respect, status recognition,

trust, and voice in resolving family conflicts are more likely to engage in deviant

behavior.

Research in procedural justice thus far has confirmed that perceptions of procedural

justice affect perceptions of outcome fairness and satisfaction and that having voice in the

decision-making process increases perceptions of fairness. The research also suggests

that individuals develop ideas about themselves based on the treatment that they receive

from others, especially others from the individuals' in-groups. One problem with much of

the procedural justice literature is that in many studies, the authors develop their own








measures of procedural justice. These measures are therefore not validated across related

studies. The field needs more standardized measures of procedural justice. A second

shortcoming of most of the procedural justice research is that it has focused on legal and

workplace decision-making and conflict resolution. More attention needs to be paid to

procedural justice concerns in other extralegal and informal contexts such as the family

environment. General research on procedural justice suggests that justice considerations

will motivate behavior and affect values within the family context. The research focusing

on procedural justice in the family context has revealed higher levels of perceived

procedural justice (including higher levels of personal respect and status recognition) are

associated with higher levels of psychological well-being and family cohesion and lower

levels of family conflict, psychological distress, and deviant behavior.

Summary and Hypotheses

The literature on family functioning suggests that low to moderate levels of family

conflict are to be expected during adolescence; however, higher levels of prolonged

family conflict have been associated with decreased psychological well-being and

increased deviant behavior by adolescents. The present study attempts to investigate the

nature of family conflict resolution in families of adolescents, and to compare the family

functioning in families of adolescents reporting different types of deviant behavior

(status, nonviolent, and violent offenses).

Fondacaro and colleagues (Fondacaro et al., 2002) have developed a working

model of parent-adolescent conflict which integrates related research in the areas of

family functioning, procedural justice, and psychosocial adaptation. The present study

builds on and extends this work by incorporating concepts and research on identity

orientation into the model. The extended model is outlined as follows:








Levels of family functioning and adolescents' perceptions of procedural justice are

likely reciprocally related, that is, high levels of family conflict and low levels of family

cohesion both affect and are affected by low levels of perceived procedural justice. In

turn, low levels of perceived procedural justice leads to anger arousal, which increases

adolescents' risk for deviant (including aggressive) behavior. The present study explored

he relationship between family functioning and perceptions of procedural justice. The

possible reciprocal relationship of these variables were not be tested in the present study.

Additionally, some specific aspects of adolescents' perceptions of procedural

justice are more strongly related to anger arousal and risk for deviant and aggressive

behavior. That is, adolescents who perceive that they are not being treated with personal

respect, and are not given status recognition or voice in decision-making, are more likely

to become angry and to engage in aggressive behavior.

Finally, adolescents' major identity orientation (i.e., personal or collective) should

moderate the degree to which specific facets of perceived procedural justice (e.g.,

personal respect and status recognition) are related to deviant and aggressive behavior.

For those adolescents whose identity orientation is primarily personal, perceptions of low

personal respect should be most closely tied to anger arousal and deviant behavior. In

contrast, low status recognition should be most closely associated with anger arousal and

deviant behavior in those adolescents whose identity orientation is primarily collective.

Based on this model, the following hypotheses were tested using two different

samples in two studies. The initial goal of Study One was to compare adolescents who

are involved with the juvenile justice system with adolescents who are not involved in the

juvenile justice system. Due to the small number of system-involved adolescents who








participated in Study One, as well as the small size of the entire sample in that study,

those comparisons were not feasible. The data from Study One tested Hypotheses 1

through 5. Because of the small sample size in Study One, a second, larger sample of

adolescents was included as Study Two and tested Hypotheses 2, 3, 5, and 6.

* Hypothesis 1: Adolescents who report that their parents treated them unfairly in
resolving a specific family dispute (low global procedural fairness) will report low
levels of general family cohesion and high levels of general family conflict, even
after controlling for the intensity of the specific family dispute (Diamond et al.,
2000; Fondacaro et al., 1998; Fondacaro et al., 2002; Holmbeck & O'Donnell,
1991; Noller, 1994).

Hypothesis 2: Adolescents who report that their parents treated them unfairly (low
global procedural fairness) will report high levels of anger arousal and deviant
behavior (including aggressive behavior) (Baumrind, 1971; Fondacaro & Heller,
1990; Fondacaro et al., 1998; Holmbeck & O'Donnell, 1991; Jackson &
Fondacaro, 1999; Montemayor, 1986; Noller, 1994; Tedeschi & Feldson, 1994).

Hypothesis 3A: For adolescents, feeling disrespected as individuals (low personal
respect) will be more closely related to overall perceptions of fairness (low global
procedural justice) than will feeling disrespected as a family member (low status
recognition) (Fondacaro et al., 2002; Luescher, Fondacaro, & McNatt, 2001).

Hypothesis 3B: Adolescents who report that their parents did not respect them as
individuals (low personal respect) or as respected members of the family (low
status recognition) will report higher levels of anger arousal.

Hypothesis 3C: Also, the relationship between fairness (global procedural justice)
and anger arousal will be mediated by personal respect and status recognition
(Diamond et al., 2001; Fondacaro et al., 2002; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989,
1994; Tyler & Blader, 2000, Tyer & Lind, 1992; Tyler et al., 1997; Tyler & Smith,
1999).

Hypothesis 4A: For adolescents who report they are more focused on personal
identity issues (personal identity orientation), reports of not being respected as
individuals (low personal respect) by parents will be more closely tied to higher
levels of anger arousal and deviant behavior (Berzonsky, 1994; Cheek 1982/83,
Cheek & Tropp, 1994; Cheek et al., 1994; Diamond et al., 2000; Hogan & Cheek,
1983; Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989, 1994; Tyler &
Blader, 2000, Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler & Smith, 1999, Tyler et al., 1997).

Hypothesis 4B: For adolescents who report they are more focused on collective
identity issues (collective identity orientation), reports of not being respected as








family members (low status recognition) by parents will be more closely tied to
higher levels of anger arousal and deviant behavior.

Hypothesis 5A: Adolescents who report that they did not have any input in the
process of resolving a specific family dispute (no voice) will report higher levels of
deviant behavior (Diamond et al., 2001; Fugilini, 1998; Holmbeck & O'Donnell,
1991; Nucci & Lee, 1993; Smetana, 1988, 1989, 1995; Smetana et al., 1991; Tyler
& Blader, 2000).

* Hypothesis SB: The level of voice reported will mediate the relationship between
fairness (global procedural justice) and deviant behavior.

* Hypothesis 6A: Adolescents who report engaging in violent offenses will report
lower scores than adolescents reporting nonviolent offenses (including status
offenses) or no deviant behavior on various subscales measuring specific facets of
the procedural justice construct, including personal respect, status recognition, and
voice (Dishion et al., 1995; Patterson, 1982).

Hypothesis 6B: Adolescents reporting nonviolent offenses will also report lower
scores on these measures than adolescents who report no deviant behavior. These
results will be revealed because lower scores on these subscales indicate more
coercive parenting and family interactional styles.













CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Study One

Participants

Study One included 23 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16 years.

Participants were recruited through middle/junior high schools and community centers in

Lucas County, Ohio, as well as through the Lucas County Juvenile Court Community

Detention program (5 participants). The original focus of the present study was a

comparison of a sample of adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system (i.e.,

system-involved adolescents) with a sample of adolescents who were not involved in the

juvenile justice system (i.e., non-system-involved adolescents). Therefore,

system-involved adolescents were recruited through the Community Detention program,

which is held in a Lucas County community center. Adolescents are assigned to one of

two levels in the program: (1) those in the higher level (adolescents who require more

supervision) report to the community center 6 days per week for 34 to 51 hours of

programming per week; (2) those in the lower level (adolescents who require less

supervision) attend 6 hours of programming per week at the community center and are

contacted in person or via telephone twice per day by Community Detention staff

Community Detention programming includes cognitive behavior management, tutoring,

basic living skills, a job readiness course, drug testing, and group discussions (Juvenile

Division of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 2002).








The recruitment through the Community Detention program was unsuccessful, and

only five adolescents chose to participate in Study One. The data for those five

participants were included and analyzed with the data for the non-system-involved

adolescents in Study One. The results and discussion for Study One focus on the

relationships among the procedural justice indices and anger arousal/deviant behavior,

but do not include comparisons for system-involved and non-system-involved

adolescents. Those adolescents recruited through the schools and community centers who

returned an Informed Consent form signed by their parents or guardians, whether

agreeing or declining to participate in Study One, received either a pizza party or gift

certificates for pizza.

Written informed consent from parents and written assent from each adolescent

(Appendix A) was obtained prior to participation in Study One. Each participant

completed a pencil and paper measure (Appendix B) in a group format (with the

exception of two adolescents who participated through the Community Detention

program) at either his or her school or community center.

Participants completed a demographic measure that included the following

information: gender, grade, school, age, ethnicity, marital status of parents, occupation

and education of mother and father, questions about who lives in the home with the

adolescent, and questions focusing on whether the adolescent has ever been arrested,

spent the night in the juvenile detention center, or been found guilty of a crime.

Instruments

Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth form (FDMQ-Y)

In Study One, a revised form of the Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth

Form (FDMQ-Y) including the items that comprise the Family Justice Inventory-Youth








Version (FJI-Y) was used. The present version was revised to include a reduced number

of items (some of which were re-worded to make them more comprehensible for

younger, middle school students). The measure includes 70 items in four sections. The

first section asks the participant to describe a conflict situation that occurred with one or

both parents or guardians within the last 12 months, and to answer four yes/no and

open-ended response format questions about the specifics of that conflict (i.e., family

members involved in the conflict; whether or not the conflict was resolved; and if so how

long it took to resolve). The second section contains questions concerning procedural

justice items and the third section contains distributive justice items. The fourth section

asks the participant how the treatment he or she received in the conflict situation made

him or her feel. Responses to the questions in parts two through four are likert scale

responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

To control for the severity of the family conflict listed in the analyses, two

independent graduate student raters were used to rate the intensity of the conflicts

described by the adolescents (ranging from Low, to Medium, to High levels of conflict).

Definitions for Low, Medium, and High levels of conflict, as well as sample conflicts for

each level, were provided to the raters (Appendix C). Interrater agreement and interrater

reliability were determined by calculating intraclass correlations.

The procedural justice items used in this version of the FDMQ-Y were previously

used in a study by Miller et al. (2003). There are 8 procedural justice subscales made up

of one or three items each: Consistency, one item ("Your parents) treated you worse than

others because of your personal characteristics (for example, age, gender, etc)," reverse

scored); Correction, one item ("Any wrong decisions in this situation could be easily








corrected."); Personal Respect, three items (sample item, "Your parents) showed a lot of

kindness and understanding."); Neutrality, one item ("Your parents) were equally fair to

everyone involved."); Process Control-Voice, three items ("You had an opportunity to

tell your side of the story."); Standing/Status Recognition, three items ("Your parents)

probably gave you less respect than they would have given to other family members,"

reverse scored); Trust, three items ("Your parents) were truthful to you."); and Global

Procedural Fairness, one item ("Overall, your parents) treated you fairly."). Scores for

the three item procedural justice subscales were calculated by using the mean of the three

items for that subscale. Each subscale score ranged from 1 to 5.

There also are two distributive justice subscales made up of three items each:

Outcome Fairness (sample item, "Overall, things turned out the way they should have.")

and Outcome Satisfaction ("This situation turned out exactly how you hoped it would.").

Scores for the distributive justice subscales also were calculated by using the mean of the

three items for that subscale.

The alpha reliabilities for the three-item procedural justice subscales from the

sample in the Miller et al. (2003) study were as follows: Personal Respect = .82;

Process Control-Voice = .67; Standing/Status Recognition = .68; Trust = .86. The alpha

reliabilities for the two distributive justice scales, reported in Diamond (2001) were

Outcome Fairness = .94 and Outcome Satisfaction -= .91. Diamond reported that the

FJI-Y is a reliable measure based on both adequate internal consistency and interrater

agreement greater than chance.

Family Relationships Index of the Family Environment Scale (FRI)

This instrument measures family functioning and the quality of current familial

relationships (Holahan & Moos, 1982, 1983). It is comprised of 27 true-false items and








three subscales (Cohesion, Conflict, and Expressiveness). Holahan and Moos report an

internal consistency of .89. For Study One, separate scores were calculated for the

Cohesion and Conflict subscales. The Cohesion subscale measures how supportive and

helpful family members are to one another. A sample item from this subscale is "Family

members really help and support one another" and the internal consistency for the

subscale reported in Fondacaro, Dunkle, and Pathak (1998) was .75. The Conflict

subscale focuses on the degree to which anger and physical aggression are expressed in

the family. One item from this subscale is "We fight a lot in our family" and the internal

consistency reported for this subscale was .75 (Fondacaro et al., 1998).

The original Family Environment Scale, of which the FRI is one part, has been

found to have good validity in multiple studies (Holahan & Moos, 1982). For example, it

has been found to discriminate healthy from disturbed families. Holahan and Moos

reported that the FRI has good construct validity as compared with other measures of

social support and in its relationship to outcome indices.

Measure of psychosocial functioning

These items were compiled by Ebata and Moos (1991) and measure psychological

well-being, psychological distress, and deviant behavior. The items measuring deviant

behavior were not included in Study One. The items on the Psychological Well-Being

subscale are actually comprised of items from subscales from two other measures. The

first is the Happiness subscale of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Kanner,

Feldman, Weinberger, & Ford, 1987; Weinberger, 1989) (sample item "No matter what I

am doing, I usually have a good time."). There are seven of these items with likert

response choices ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), which were

scored by summing across the seven items. The second measure is the General









Self-Worth scale of the Harter Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1982, 1986). This scale is

made up of five items ("Some teenagers are often disappointed with themselves.") that

were scored on a likert scale from 1 (Not true for me) to 4 (Really true for me).

Internal consistency was reported for the Psychological Well-Being subscale as .89,

for the Happiness subscale of the Weinberger Adjustment Scale as .87, and for General

Self-Worth scale as .84 (Ebata & Moos, 1991; Fondacaro et al., 1998). The Psychological

Well-Being subscale was calculated by standardizing the Happiness and General

Self-Worth subscales (mean 0, standard deviation 1), summing them, and restandardizing

them (mean 50, standard deviation 10).

The Psychological Distress subscale (alpha .79, Fondacaro et al., 1998) is

comprised of the Depression subscale from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

(Kanner et al., 1987; Weinberger, 1989) (sample item, "I feel that nobody really cares

about me the way I want them to."; alpha = .83) and the Spielberger State Anxiety Scale

(Spielberger, 1973) ("I feel very calm/calm/not calm."; alpha = .91) (Ebata & Moos,

1991). There are seven items on the Depression subscale rated on a likert scale from 1

(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). This subscale was calculated by summing the

seven items. The State Anxiety Scale is comprised of 10 items that are on a 3 point likert

scale and scored by summing the ten scores. The Psychological Distress Subscale was

calculated by standardizing the Depression and State Anxiety Scales (mean 0, standard

deviation 1), summing them, and restandardizing them (mean 50, standard deviation 10).

Aspects of Identity Questionnaire, Version lIx (AIQ)

This instrument measures identity orientations (Cheek, 1982/83; Cheek, & Tropp,

1994; Cheek, Tropp, Chen, & Underwood, 1994). There are three subscales on this

instrument (Personal, Social, and Collective), which were calculated by summing the









items on each subscale. There are ten personal identity items, seven social identity items,

and ten collective identity items. Item responses are rated on a likert scale from 1 (Not

important to my sense of who I am) to 5 (Extremely important to my sense of who I am).

Items from each of the subscales include questions like "My personal values and moral

standards ( ... are important/not important to my sense of who 1 am)" (Personal), "My

popularity with other people" (Social), and "Being part of many generations of my

family" (Collective).

Internal consistency for each of three scales was reported as follows:

Personal = .84, Social = .86, and Collective = .68 (Cheek & Tropp, 1994; Cheek et al.,

1994). Cheek and colleagues also reported 60 day test-retest reliabilities for the three

subscales: Personal = .77, Social = .77, and Collective =.81.

Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS) and alcohol and drug use measure

This instrument measures delinquent and criminal behavior as well as alcohol and

drug use the individual has engaged in during the last year and was originally developed

for the National Youth Survey (Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989). With the exception

of homicide, all of the index offenses (for example, aggravated assault, grand theft,

robbery, and burglary) are covered in the instrument, as well as Uniform Crime Report

Part II offenses (misdemeanor offenses) and status offenses. The alcohol and drug use

items were modified somewhat for this survey by changing the example names for some

of the drugs to fit current slang, and by adding two questions regarding ecstasy and

inhalants that were not originally included in the survey. The examples currently included

in the measure were provided by an Alachua County, Florida Sheriff's Deputy who is a

Narcotics Officer and has contact with adolescents.








There are 38 delinquency items (sample item: "How many times in the last year

have you 'Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your parents or other

family member?' ") and 9 alcohol and drug use items ("How often in the last year have

you used 'marijuana-hashish ("weed" "pot" "crip")' ") all rated on a likert scale from 1

(Never) to 5 (Often). To calculate scores, means were calculated separately for the

delinquency items and for the alcohol and drug use items. To measure age of onset of

delinquent behavior, students were asked "If you did any of the things described in

questions 16 through 62, how old were you thefirst time you did it?"

Elliott and Ageton (1980) reported internal consistency of the SRDS as .91 in the

1977 wave of the National Youth Survey. Validity for the SRDS and Drug Use Scales

was assessed in a number of ways (Elliott, Dunford, & Huizinga, 1989). First, by

analyzing the detailed follow-up questions to determine if the self-report responses were

eliciting the appropriate response. Second, through an analysis of the proportion of

reported behaviors that would be seen as too trivial to actually be considered

delinquency. Third, using a comparison of self-report with arrest records. Fourth, through

an analysis between these self-report measures and predictor variables.

Results showed 96% of responses to follow-up questions confirmed the accuracy of

the self-report responses and 76% of all responses were considered delinquent acts. Also,

80% of arrests in a given year matched the self-report of participants. Results of validity

analyses also showed the pattern among predictor variables and delinquency and drug use

items were as expected across various demographic groups. Validity also was assessed

for the Drug Use Scales by comparing the rates of alcohol and drug use found in the

National Youth Survey with those found in the Monitoring the Future Study (Johnston,









Bachman, & O'Malley, 1979). The prevalence estimates were found to be similar across

the two studies for both alcohol and drug use.

Analyses

All of the analyses in Study One were tested at the .05 level of significance.

Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 5 were tested using regression analyses. Hypothesis 4 was tested

using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Study Two

Due to the small number of participants in Study One, the hypotheses for the

present study also were tested using an additional data set. The data used for Study Two

was originally collected as part of grant from the United States Department of Education.

The purpose of that study was to create a survey instrument for use with middle school

students to assess social factors and psychosocial characteristics associated with youth

violence for use by educational policy makers (Miller et al., 2003).

Participants

Study Two included 3,230 students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. Due to

missing data on one or more of the scales used in Study Two, 628 adolescents were

excluded from the analyses. The final sample included 2,602 adolescents between the

ages of 10 and 16 years. Participants were recruited through middle/junior high schools

across the country in five states. The number of schools that participated in Study Two

with their corresponding city and state were as follows: one school in Gainesville, FL;

one school in Havana, FL; three schools in Tampa, FL; seven schools in Miami, FL; two

schools in Beaumont, TX; two schools in Galveston, TX; one school in Liberty, TX; five

schools in Los Angeles, CA; two schools in Waterbury, CT; and three schools in Trenton,

NJ. Schools were paid two dollars for each completed parental informed consent form








(either agreeing to participate or declining to participate in Study Two) returned by the

students.

Written informed consent from parents and oral assent from each student

(Appendices D and E) were obtained prior to adolescents participating in Study Two.

Each participant completed the survey in a scantron format, within groups at their school.

Participants completed a demographic measure that included the following information:

gender, grade, age, ethnicity, average grades last year, and occupation and education of

mother and father.

Instruments

The survey included a battery of measures. The following were utilized in Study

Two: the Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS; Elliott, 1983; Elliott, Huizinga, &

Menard, 1989); the Family Decision Making Questionnaire Youth Form (FDMQ-Y); and

the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Second Version (MAYSI-2)

Angry-Irritable scale.

Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth form (FDMQ-Y)

In Study Two the FDMQ-Y, as described in Study One, also was used. This version

included the eight procedural justice scales. It also included two, one-item distributive

justice scales (Outcome Fairness and Outcome Satisfaction). This version did not include

the other items that make up the Family Justice Inventory-Youth Form (FJI-Y), as

described as the fourth section of the FDMQ-Y in Study One.

Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS)

The version of this measure used in Study Two was a shortened form of the

measure as described in Study One. This version excluded the alcohol and drug use

items, as well as the deviant behavior items associated with drug distribution ("Sold








marijuana or hashish" and "Sold hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin"). This version

also excluded three other items: "Been paid for having sexual relations with someone,"

"Taken a vehicle for a ride (drive) without the owner's permission," and "Had (or tried to

have) sexual relations with someone against their will." The version included 33 items

rated on a likert scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Often) measuring how often in the last year the

student had engaged in these behaviors. A mean score was calculated for the 33 items.

Adolescents in Study Two were divided into three groups based on their SRDS

scores. The groups were defined based on a method similar to used by Gorman-Smith,

Tolan, Zelli, and Huesmann (1993). They used the following three groups: those

adolescents reporting only minor (status offense only) or no delinquency in the last year;

those reporting participation in some nonviolent delinquent behaviors, but no acts of

violence towards another person within the last year; and those reporting some violent

offending within the last year. Similar groups were used in Study Two, with the

exception that status offenses were included with the nonviolent offenses. Therefore, the

three groups used in Study Two, based on SRDS scores, were (1) adolescents who

reported engaging in no offenses in the last year; (2) adolescents who reported engaging

in nonviolent offenses, including status offenses or other minor delinquency, in the last

year; and (3) adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses in the last year (as

well as possibly reporting engaging in status offenses and nonviolent offenses).

To determine which group an adolescent was placed in, a number of steps were

followed. First, adolescents who scored less than 2 on all the mean of all of the SRDS

items (corresponding to a score of Never on the mean of all 33 items) were placed in the

first group, the No Offense group (NO). Second, for the remaining participants, a mean








score on a violent offense subscale of the SRDS was computed (the items for this scale

are in Appendix F). Adolescents who had a mean score of 2 or above (corresponding to

Seldom to Often) on the violent offense scale were placed in the third group, the Violent

Offense group (VO). The remaining adolescents were placed in the second group, the

Status Offense/Nonviolent Offense group (NVO).

Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2)

The Angry-Irritable scale of the MAYSI-2 includes nine items in a Yes No format.

Students are asked to respond to items based on their feelings and experiences over the

last few months. Sample items include "In the last few months have you lost your temper

easily, or had a 'short fuse?' and "... hurt or broken something on purpose, just

because you were mad?" Grisso, Barnum, Fletcher, Cauffman, and Peuschold (2001)

reported the development and psychometric properties of the MAYSI-2. The measure

was created for assessment of psychological distress and/or problematic behaviors in

youth charged with or convicted of delinquent behaviors. The measure was created using

a sample of 12 to 17 year olds in juvenile justice settings in Massachusetts, and further

psychometric data was assessed using a California sample of post-adjudicated youth.

Internal consistency for the Angry-Irritable scale in the Grisso et al. (2001) study

for the Massachusetts and California samples (including the gender and ethnic

subsamples within both the Massachusetts and California samples) ranged from .79 to

.88. The internal consistency of the scale in the Miller et al. (2003) sample was .78.

Test-retest reliability was assessed for a subsample of the Massachusetts sample in the

Grisso et al study. Boys were retested an average of 8.6 days after the first administration

and girls an average of 5.6 days later. The test-retest intraclass correlations were between

.53 and .89, with the most of the scales for both genders falling between .73 and .89.








Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the adolescents' scores on the MAYSI-2

with scores on the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI, measuring personality

characteristics and clinical syndromes) and the Achenbach Youth Self-Report Form

(YSR, measuring problem behaviors). Grisso et al. reported adequate concurrent validity

for the MAYSI-2 with these two scales.

Analyses

All of the analyses in Study Two were tested at the .05 level of significance.

Hypotheses 2, 3, and 5 were tested using regression analyses. Hypothesis 6 was tested

using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).

In Hypotheses 3 and 5, in which a mediation mechanism was proposed, Structural

Equation Modeling (SEM) also was conducted. SEM models were specified using

Maximum Likelihood Estimation in AMOS 5 Student Version (Arbuckle, 2003). The

models were analyzed using the covariance matrix. Standardized estimates were reported

for the models to facilitate comparison of the values of path estimates within the model.

Standardized path estimates are interpreted like regression standardized beta weights

(Kline, 1998).

The following goodness of fit indices were used to test the fit of all models:

Chi-square, Chi-square/degrees of freedom, Chi-square difference test (as needed), GFI,

CFI, TLI, SRMR, and RMSEA. In SEM analyses, the Chi-square statistic compares the

observed covariance matrix and the predicted matrix based on the model. A large,

significant Chi-Square statistic indicates a lack of fit of the data to the model (Kline,

1998). This index is dependent on sample size and significant Chi-square statistics are

more likely with large samples. Many researchers suggest using the value of the








Chi-square statistic divided by the degrees of freedom (Arbuckle, 1997; Kline). If this

value is 3.00 or less, the model is considered to adequately fit the data.

The SEM literature suggests using a number of preselected fit indices to test

models because no one measure can adequately indicate the fit of the model to the data.

The following fit indices were selected for Study Two. The GFI, Goodness of Fit Index

(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984), is a measure of absolute fit. It measures the relative amount

of the variances and covariances in the sample model accounted for by the implied model

(Hu & Bentler, 1995). GFI should be 0.90 or greater to accept the model (Kline, 1998).

CFI, Bentler's Comparative Fit Index (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), compares the fit of the

specified model to the independence model (Kline). The independence model is one in









(personal respect, PR); and (2) being disrespected as a family member (status recognition,

SR), mediated the relationship between overall appraisals of procedural fairness (GPF)

and anger arousal (AA) (Figure 3-1).


brother


4 Personal
/I Respect






Global
Proedra ~Anger i4 anotherr
Fairn ess- Arua
/4








SStatus
Reconition 1


srother

Figure 3-1. Initial path model: Partial Mediation of Personal Respect and Status
Recognition on the Relationship between Global Procedural Fairness and
J
i/
/
I
/
Global ... Ai e ] -
procedural I- Anoesa 'aoer







FairnessAnger Arousal i








Four observed variables were included: the exogenous variable, GPF (measured

with the one item FDMQ-Y scale), and three endogenous variables (1) PR (measured

with the three-item FDMQ-Y scale); (2) SR (measured with the three-item FDMQ-Y
\











scale); and (3) AA (measured with MAYSI-2 Angry-Irritable scale). Exogenous variables










are those variables whose causes are not specified in the model (Kline, 1998).

Endogenous variables are those variables that are predicted to be caused by, or associated
SRecognitionI


(srother

Figure 3-1. Initial path model: Partial Mediation of Personal Respect and Status
Recognition on the Relationship between Global Procedural Fairness and
Anger Arousal

Four observed variables were included: the exogenous variable, GPF (measured

with the one item FDMQ-Y scale), and three endogenous variables (1) PR (measured

with the three-item FDMQ-Y scale); (2) SR (measured with the three-item FDMQ-Y

scale); and (3) AA (measured with MAYSI-2 Angry-Irritable scale). Exogenous variables

are those variables whose causes are not specified in the model (Kline, 1998).

Endogenous variables are those variables that are predicted to be caused by, or associated

with (at least partially), the other variables specified in the model. Two versions of the

model were fitted to the data. The first was a partially mediated model, which included








direct effects from GPF to AA, GPF to PR, and GPF to SR. This model also included two

indirect paths from GPF to AA via PR and SR. The second, alternative, model that was

tested eliminated (constrained to zero) the path between GPF and AA to make a fully

mediated model. The Partial Mediation Model and Full Mediation Model were also tested

to determine which provided the better fit for the various offense-type groups.

For Hypotheses 5, a model representing the proposed mediation of having input in

the decision-making process (Voice) on the relationship between overall perceptions of

fairness (GPF) and deviant behavior (SRDS) was analyzed (Figure 3-2). Three observed

variables were included: the exogenous variable, GPF (measured with the one item

FDMQ-Y scale) and two endogenous variables (1) Voice (measured with the 3 item

FDMQ-Y scale); and (2) SRDS (measured with the 33 item scale). Again, two versions

of the model were fitted to the data. The first was a partially mediated model, which

included direct effects from GPF to Voice and GPF to SRDS. This model also included

an indirect path from GPF to SRDS via Voice. The second, alternative model that was

tested eliminated (constrained to zero) the path between GPF and SRDS to make a fully

mediated model. Once again, the Partial Mediation Model and Full Mediation Model

were also tested for fit to the data of the three offense-type groups.











voice
other

1

4 Voice


Global I
Procedural
Fairness


- SRDS
Delinquency
'"I1


srdsde
other


Figure 3-2. Initial path model: Partial Mediation of Voice on the Relationship between
Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior













CHAPTER 4
STUDY ONE RESULTS

Demographics

Twenty-three adolescents participated in Study One. Fifteen (65.2%) of the

participants were male and eight (34.8%) were female. Most of the participants were in

the eighth grade (Table 4-1 ), and their mean age was 14.09 (SD = 1.164). Most of the

participants were European American (Table 4-2 for ethnic breakdown of the sample).

According to Hollinghead's Two Factor index of social position, which is based on

mother or father's education level and current occupation, most of the participants

(76.2%) were in the third and fourth levels (with the first level corresponding to high

social position and the fifth level corresponding to low social position). Most of the

participants lived with their biological mother (95.5%) and nearly two-thirds (68.2%)

lived with their biological father (Table 4-3).

Participants for Study One were recruited through schools, community centers, and

the Community Detention program of the Lucas County Juvenile Court. Few adolescents

from the Community Detention program (5 adolescents) chose to participate in Study

One. Demographic data regarding involvement in the juvenile justice system was

collected from all adolescents. For those five participants recruited through the

Community Detention program, the mean number of lifetime arrests was 4.50

(SD = 4.123) and the mean number of lifetime stays in detention was 2.20 (SD = 2.387).

Only one participant reported being adjudicated delinquent or found guilty by a court on

one occasion.









Analyses

Due to barriers to recruitment through Lucas County schools and low return rates

for parental consent forms for recruitment through the Community Detention program

and community centers, the sample size for Study One was extremely small. Smaller

samples often produce low levels of power, which make it difficult to attain significant

results in empirical studies. Power refers to the probability of rejecting the null

hypothesis for a given sample size, effect size, and significance criterion (alpha level)

(Cohen, 1992). Many of the analyses for Study One were found to be nonsignificant,

indicating that the results were not consistent with the hypotheses. A nonsignificant result

does not necessarily mean that the phenomenon of interest is not present, rather that

Study One was not able to produce significant findings consistent with the phenomenon

of interest.

These nonsignificant findings included the analyses to assess Hypothesis 2

(focusing on the relationship between global procedural fairness and both delinquent

behavior and drug use), some of the analyses related to Hypothesis 3 (those focusing on

the relationships among negative emotional response, personal respect, and status

recognition and the mediation analyses focusing on the relationships among personal

respect/status recognition, anger arousal, and global procedural fairness), some of the

moderation analyses for Hypothesis 4 (all of the analyses focusing on high personal

identity orientation and the analysis focusing on the effect of high collective identity

orientation on the relationship between high status recognition and anger arousal), and

the analyses for Hypothesis 5. These nonsignificant results may have been due to low

power caused by the small sample size in Study One.








Alternatively, they may have been nonsignificant in their own right as well, not

because of insufficient sample size, but because the hypotheses would not have been

supported even with an adequate sample size. For either reason, future studies with

adequate power will need to be conducted to reassess the significance of those

relationships in Study One that failed to reach significance.

Study Two provided an opportunity to test, in a large sample, hypotheses that were

similar to some of the hypotheses proposed, but not fully addressed, in Study One.

However, before turning to Study Two, it should be noted that some of the results of the

analyses relevant to the hypotheses in Study One were significant. Although these

significant findings suggest that the power was adequate to test these hypotheses in this

specific sample (Study One), these results are based on a very small sample and will need

to be replicated in future studies (in addition to Study Two). Future studies can verify that

these findings are stable and are not idiosyncratic to the Study One sample. Overall, the

significant findings of Study One should be considered exploratory in nature.

Family Cohesion and Global Procedural Fairness

Hypothesis 1 focused on the relationships between family cohesion/family conflict

and global procedural fairness. For this hypothesis, a composite measure of global

procedural fairness (GPF) was used. This scale was calculated as a mean of all 16

procedural justice items. Severity of conflict also was controlled for in these analyses.

Each adolescent provided a written conflict he or she recently had with one or both of his

or her parents/guardians. The severity of conflict was later rated as High, Medium, or

Low, by two independent graduate student raters. The mean of the two ratings was used

as the measure of conflict severity.








Two intraclass correlations were computed: one to assess interrater agreement and

another to assess interrater reliability. Interrater agreement assesses whether judges give

the same score to the objects being categorized (Tinsley & Weiss, 1974). In Study One,

agreement occurs when both judges assign the same rating to the conflict scenario (i.e.,

both give a Low rating for the level of conflict). Interrater reliability refers to the degree

to which a judge's rating deviates from the mean of all judges ratings (Tinsley & Weiss).

The intraclasss correlations for interrater agreement and interrater reliability were both

1.000.

The first part of Hypothesis 1, focusing on family cohesion, was tested via a

two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis. When conflict severity was entered on

the first step, the model was not significant, F(1, 21) = .018, p = .895. When GPF was

entered on the second step, the model was significant, F(2, 20) = 7.908,p = .003, and

accounted for 38.6% of the variance in family cohesion (Table 4-4). These results

showed that adolescent perceptions of fairness in the process of resolving conflict were

significantly related to perceptions of togetherness within the family, even after

controlling for the severity of the conflict the adolescent reported.

Family Conflict and Global Procedural Fairness

The second part of Hypothesis 1 considered the relationship between family

conflict and GPF, again controlling for conflict severity. The same GPF scale and

measurement of conflict severity were used in these regression analyses. For this

analysis, another two-step hierarchical multiple regression was conducted and the results

were similar to those for family cohesion. The second step of the hierarchical regression

was significant, F(2, 20) = 3.635,p = .045 and GPF accounted for 19.3% of the variance

family conflict (Table 4-4). These results showed that similar to the relationship with








family cohesion, adolescent perceptions of overall fairness in resolving family conflict

were significantly associated with perceptions of general conflict levels within the family

(even after controlling for the severity of the specific conflict the adolescent reported).

Anger Arousal, Negative Emotional Response, and Global Procedural Fairness

Hypothesis 2 focused of the relationship between GPF and affective and behavioral

indicators. In these analyses the composite measure of GPF was again used. The item

measuring anger arousal referred to the conflict provided by the adolescent as part of the

Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth Form (FDMQ-Y), and stated "The way

my parents treated me made me feel angry." Negative emotional response (NER) was

calculated using the mean of seven items, which all began with "The way my parents

treated me made me feel .... The feelings included in these items were angry, sad,

embarrassed, ashamed, depressed, pleased, and proud. The pleased and proud items were

reverse scored, such that higher scores on this scale indicated greater negative emotional

response.

The first set of regression analyses examined the relationship between anger

arousal (AA) and GPF and controlled for conflict severity. These relationships were

assessed in two steps. First, a simultaneous regression analysis was conducted in which

conflict severity and GPF were regressed on AA. This analysis was significant,

F(2, 20)- 8.691, p = .002, with GPF and conflict severity accounting for 41% of the

variance in AA (Table 4-5). Only GPF accounted for unique variance in AA. Second, a

hierarchical regression was conducted in which conflict severity was entered on the first

step and global procedural fairness was entered on the second step. The first step was

nonsignificant, while the second step was significant. Once again, only GPF accounted

for unique variance in AA.








The second set of regression analyses explored the relationship between NER and

GPF, controlling for conflict severity, and was again conducted in two steps. Similar

results were shown for both the simultaneous and hierarchical regressions as for the

analyses for AA (Table 4-5). GPF and conflict severity accounted for 47% of the

variance in NER and only GPF accounted for unique variance. These results showed that

adolescents who perceived their parents treated them fairly in the process of resolving

family conflict reported feeling less angry and had lower levels of overall negative

feelings.

Personal Respect and Status Recognition

Hypothesis 3 focused on the relationships among aspects of procedural justice

(personal respect (PR), status recognition (SR), and GPF) and affective outcomes (AA

and NER). For these analyses, PR was measured by the mean of two items: "The way my

parents treated me indicated that they respect me as a unique individual" and

"... respect me as a person." SR also was measured by the mean of two items: "The

way my parents treated me indicated that they saw me as being a valued son/daughter"

and"... a valued member of the family." In these analyses GPF was measured with a

single item of overall procedural fairness, "Overall, your parents) treated you fairly."

This measure was used because the composite measure used in previous analyses

included aspects of personal respect and status recognition and may have confounded the

analyses. AA and NER were measured the same way as in Hypothesis 2.

The first part of Hypothesis 3 focused on whether PR or SR had a larger effect on

GPF, while controlling for conflict severity. Four regression analyses were conducted:

(1) a simultaneous entry regression including conflict severity, PR, and SR; (2) a








two-step hierarchical regression in which conflict severity was entered on the first step of

the analysis, and PR and SR were entered on the second step; (3) a three-step hierarchical

regression in which conflict severity was entered on the first step, PR on the second step,

and SR on the third; and (4) a second three-step hierarchical regression in which conflict

severity was again entered on the first step, SR on the second step, and PR on the third.

These analyses showed PR had a stronger effect on GPF than did SR, even when conflict

severity was controlled for (Table 4-6). In each of the four analyses, PR alone accounted

for unique variance in GPF. These results showed that perceptions of being respected as

an individual were more closely associated to perceptions of overall fairness than were

perceptions of being respected as a family member.

The second part of Hypothesis 3 focused on the relationships among PR, SR and

AA, while controlling for conflict severity. These relationships were assessed similarly to

the analyses of the impact of these variables on GPF. The first equation, in which all

three variables were regressed on AA was nonsignificant, but did approach significance,

F(3, 19) = 2.963,p = .058. The three variables combined accounted for 21.1% of the

variance in AA, however, none of the variables accounted for unique variance

(Table 4-7). Similar results were revealed for the two-step hierarchical regression and the

three-step hierarchical regression in which SR was entered on the second step.

In the three-step hierarchical regression in which PR was entered on the second

step, the second step of the analysis was significant and PR accounted for unique

variance in AA. However, in the third step, the equation again only approached

significance and none of the variables accounted for unique variance. The results showed

that even after controlling for conflict severity, adolescent perceptions of being








disrespected as an individual or as a family member were related to reported feelings of

anger arousal; however, neither perception had an effect above beyond that of the other.

Identity Orientation

Hypothesis 4 focused on the relationships among personal and collective identity

orientation, personal respect/status recognition, and anger arousal/deviant behavior. It

was hypothesized that adolescents high in personal identity orientation would be more

focused on perceptions of personal respect, and this aspect of procedural justice would

therefore be more strongly related to anger arousal and deviant behavior. For those

adolescents with a stronger collective identity orientation, it was suggested their focus

would be more on status recognition, and this aspect would be more strongly related to

anger arousal and deviant behavior for this group. These analyses tested whether or not

identity orientation was a moderator variable for the relationship between PR/SR and

anger arousal/deviant behavior. A moderator variable is one that affects the relation or

strength of the relationship between an independent and dependent variable (Baron &

Kenny, 1986).

For these analyses, the AIQ Personal Identity and Collective Identity scale scores

were used. Adolescents were divided into high and low personal and collective identity

based on a median split of the scores on these two scales. Because the AIQ

conceptualizes the personal and collective identity scales and concepts as orthogonal,

adolescents could be considered high on both the scales, low on both, or high on one and

low on the other. PR and SR again were measured using the two-item scales. Participants

also were divided into high and low PR and SR based on a median split on the two scales.

Again, these constructs are considered orthogonal and adolescents could be high or low

on both or either of the scales. AA was measured with the one item scale and the deviant








behavior measures for these analyses were the Delinquency and Drug scales from the

SRDS.

Baron and Kenny (1986) described a method using Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) to test for moderation effects with dichotomous variables. To test for a

moderator effect, one explores the significance of the interaction term in the ANOVA

between the independent variable (in this case, High Personal Respect, HPR, or High

Status Recognition, HSR) and the moderator variable (in this case High Personal Identity,

HPI, or High Collective Identity, HCI). Baron and Kenny asserted that if the interaction

term is significant, there is a moderator effect. Means can then be evaluated to determine

the extent of the moderator effect.

A series of ANCOVAs was conducted. The covariate in the analyses was conflict

severity. None of the analyses of the moderator effect of high personal identity were

significant. The analysis for the moderation of high collective identity on the relationship

between high status recognition and anger arousal also was not significant. A nearly

significant result was found for the ANCOVA that assessed whether collective identity

orientation moderated the relationship between status recognition and SRDS Delinquency

scores. In this analysis, HCI was the moderating variable, HSR the independent variable,

and SRDS Delinquency scores the dependent variable (Table 4-8). The results of these

analyses revealed the interaction term in the analysis approached significance,

F(1, 18) = 4.163, p = .056. In the ANCOVA focusing on SRDS Drug scores, the

interaction term was significant, F(1, 18) = 6.420, p = .021 (Table 4-10).

The predicted relationship between SR and SRDS scores was that those adolescents

who felt they were disrespected as family members would report increased delinquent








behavior and drug use. It also was hypothesized that collective identity would moderate

this relationship, by making those adolescents who focused on communal aspects of

identity engage in even more deviant behavior when they felt disrespected as family

members. The results of the present analyses did not fit this pattern. For those adolescents

low on collective identity, low levels of perceived familial disrespect were associated

with higher levels of deviant behavior (as compared with high levels of perceived

respect). However, for adolescents high on collective identity, low levels of perceived

respect at the family level were associated with lower levels of deviant behavior (as

compared with high levels of feeling respected as a family member) (Table 4-9 and

4-11). These results are opposite from the relationship predicted Hypothesis 4.









Table 4-1
Grade Level
Grade Number Percent
Seventh 1 4.3
Eighth 18 78.3
Ninth 1 4.3
Tenth 1 4.3
Eleventh 2 8.7

Table 4-2
Ethnic Background
Ethnicity Number Percent
African American 4 17.4
European American 12 52.2
Hispanic American 3 13.0
Multiracial 1 4.3
Other 3 13.0

Table 4-3
Individuals Living in the Household with Participants
Relationship Number Percent
Biological Mother 21 91.3
Biological Father 15 65.2
Stepmother 2 8.7
Stepfather 2 8.7
Siblings 13 56.5
Other: Grandparents 2 8.7
Other: Nephew 1 4.3

Table 4-4
Multiple Regression Predicting Family Cohesion and Family Conflict
Using Global Procedural Fairness and Conflict Severity
Family Cohesion Family Conflict
Conflict Severity .005 -.268
GPF .665a -.455a
Adjusted R2 .386a .193a
Note. Entries are standardized 0 weights.
ap <.05








Table 4-5
Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal and Negative Emotional Response
Using Global Procedural Fairness and Conflict Severity
Anger Arousal Negative Emotional Response
Conflict Severity .003 .100
GPF -.682a -.708a
Adjusted R2 .411 a .470a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights.
a p < .005

Table 4-6
Multiple Regression Predicting Global Procedural Fairness
Using Personal Respect, Status Recognition, and Conflict Severity
Global Procedural Fairness
Conflict Severity .034
PR 1.163a
SR -.332
Adjusted R2 .734"
Note. Entries are standardized 13 weights.
ap =.000

Table 4-7
Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal
Using Personal Respect, Status Recognition, and Conflict Severity
Anger Arousal
Conflict Severity .002
PR -.573
SR .010
Adjusted R2 .211 a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights.
ap =.056









Table 4-8
ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity
on SRDS Delinquency and Status Recognition
Source Type III SS df Mean Square F
Corrected Model 1.570 4 .393 3.088a
Intercept 38.890 1 38.890 305.975a
Conflict Severity .370 1 .370 2.908
HSR .000 1 .000 .000
HCI .231 1 .231 1.814
HSR*HCI .529 1 .529 4.163b
Error 2.288 18 .127
Total 47.969 23
Corrected Total 3.858 22
an<
an< 05
b =
b' = .056


Table 4-9
Means for SRDS Delinquency Scores
Collective Identity Level Status Recognition
Low High
Low 1.447 1.127
High 1.327 1.649

Table 4-10
ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity on SRDS Drug and Status Recognition
Source Type III SS df Mean Square F
Corrected Model .806 4 .202 1.888
Intercept 32.926 1 32.926 308.417a
Conflict Severity .015 1 .015 .140
HSR .121 1 .121 1.133
HCI .016 1 .016 .154
HSR*HCI .685 1 .685 6.420b
Error 1.922 19 .102
Total 37.358 23
Corrected Total 2.728 22
a n= 000
b"
np= 017

Table 4-11
Means for SRDS Drug Scores
Collective Identity Level Status Recognition
Low High
Low 1.522 1.011
High 1.103 1.322













CHAPTER 5
STUDY TWO RESULTS

Demographics

Study Two included 2,602 adolescents between the ages of 10 and 16 years. This

sample included students from California (15.8% of sample), Connecticut (25.6%),

Florida (39.3%), New Jersey (2.2%), and Texas (17.1%). Sixth graders made up 35% of

the sample, seventh graders 34.3%, and eighth graders 30.7%. Participants' mean age

was 12.67 (SD = .987). One third of the participants were European American and nearly

one third was Hispanic (Table 5-1). Sixty-two percent of the participants were female and

38% were male. Socioeconomic status was calculated using the Hollingshead Two Factor

Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957), based on the occupation and education

level of either the father or mother. Many students could not provide the data necessary to

calculate this measure. For those that did (approximately 50% of the sample), 15.6%

were in the first two levels (corresponding to high social position), 33.3% were in the

third level, and 51.1% were in the fourth and fifth levels (corresponding to low social

position).

The relevant hypotheses were tested with the entire sample of Study Two, as well

as with the subgroups created in Study Two based on the type of deviant behavior

reported by the adolescent. Three subgroups were created: adolescents who reported no

deviant behaviors (NO group, N = 1936), adolescents who reported engaging only in

status offenses and/or nonviolent offenses (NVO group, N = 278), and adolescents who

reported engaging in violent offenses (VO group, N = 388). Most adolescents in the VO








group also reported engaging in status and/or nonviolent offenses. A series of analyses of

variances (ANOVAs) and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) follow-up

tests were conducted to assess for relationships between the demographic variables and

Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRDS) scores. All of the demographic variables were

found to be significantly related to SRDS.

The first demographic variable assessed was the state in which the data was

collected (Tables 5-2 and 5-3). Adolescents from Florida reported engaging in

significantly less delinquent behavior than did adolescents from California. Adolescents

from Connecticut reported engaging in significantly less deviant behavior than did

adolescents from Florida, Texas, and California. The second demographic variable was

grade in school, with eighth graders reporting significantly higher levels of delinquent

behavior than sixth or seventh graders (Tables 5-4 and 5-5). Sixth and seventh graders

did not significantly differ. The third demographic variable was age. The trend for these

results was similar to those for grade in school, with older adolescents reporting higher

levels of deviant behavior than did younger adolescents (Table 5-6 and 5-7). The fourth

demographic variable was gender, with males reportedly engaging in significantly more

delinquent behavior than females (Table 5-8 and 5-9).

The fifth demographic variable was grades in school. The trend for these scores

was for adolescents who had higher grades to report lower levels of deviant behavior than

did adolescents who reported lower grades (Tables 5-10 and 5-11). The sixth

demographic variable was ethnicity (Table 5-12 and 5-13). There were some significant

ethnic differences on rates of delinquent behavior, with adolescents who described their

ethnicity as African American, Hispanic American, or Multiracial reporting significantly








higher levels of deviant behavior than those adolescents who described themselves as

European American. Also, adolescents who self-described as Multiracial reported

engaging in significantly higher levels of delinquent behavior than those adolescents who

described themselves as Asian American.

The final demographic variable assessed was socioeconomic status, based on

Hollingshead's Two Factor Social Position Index (Table 5-14 and 5-15). The only

significant group differences were between adolescents ranked in the third position

(middle class) and those ranked in the fifth position (lower class). Lower social position

adolescents reported higher level of deviant behavior than did adolescents in the middle

social position.

A series of regression analyses were conducted to determine which demographic

variables continued to be significantly associated with SRDS when all of the

demographic variables were entered into the model. In the first regression equation,

SRDS was regressed on all of the demographic variables (state, grade, age, gender,

grades in school, ethnicity, and family social position) simultaneously. Because the

variables state and ethnicity were measured as categorical, nominal variables (i.e., the

scores are not on a continuous distribution, nor do they have an underlying order), these

variables had to be transformed before they could be included in the regression equation

and effect coding was used.

Effect coding is often applied when none of the categories can be used as a control

or comparison group (Cohen, 2001). None of the levels of the two categorical variables

used in the present analyses (state and ethnicity) could be considered a control or base

group against which the other levels of the variable could be compared. In effect coding,








instead of comparing the different levels to a control group, each level is compared to the

grand mean (which corresponds to the mean of the entire sample for the variable of

interest). The number of effect-coded variables always equals one fewer than the number

of levels of the original variable to control for multicollinaerity. To compute the effect

codes for state, which had five levels, four new variables were created (in Study Two

these were labeled SEC1-SEC4).

One of the levels is arbitrarily chosen as the base, and is given a code of-1 for each

of the new effect-coded variables. This level does not have a corresponding variable to

represent it; therefore in the present analyses the two levels either having the fewest

number of participants (New Jersey) or being the least salient category (the "Other"

ethnicity category) were selected. Each of the other levels is given scores of 1 or 0 on

each of the codes. For example, in creating the effect-coded variables for state, New

Jersey was selected as the base. Each adolescent from New Jersey was given a score of

-1 on each of SEC I -SEC4. SEC I represented Florida; therefore adolescents from Florida

were given scores of 1 on SEC I and adolescents from California, Texas, and Connecticut

were given scores of 0 on SEC 1.

This was repeated for the other three state effect-coded variables. Similar

procedures were used to develop the six effect-coded variables representing the ethnic

groups. During regression analyses, effect-coded variables are entered together as a block

to represent the categorical variables. In the results of the regression analysis, the slope

for a specific effect-coded variable corresponds to the difference between the mean of

that level of the category and the grand mean on the variable of interest. For example, a

significant, positive value for the effect-coded variable representing California in a









regression predicting SRDS, would indicate that adolescents from California reported

significantly higher SRDS scores (as compared to the entire sample of adolescents in

Study Two).

For Study Two, the initial regression analysis included age, the six effect-coded

variables for ethnicity, gender, grade, grades in school, the Hollingshead social position

score, and the four effect-coded variables for state entered simultaneously. This analysis

showed the demographic variables accounted for 14% of the variance in SRDS

(Table 5-16). State (specifically the effect-coded variables representing California and

Connecticut), age, gender, grades in school, grade, and ethnicity (specifically the

effect-coded variables representing the Hispanic American and Multiracial categories)

each accounted for unique variance in SRDS. A second simultaneous entry regression

analysis was conducted which included these significant demographic variables as

predictors. The six demographic variables accounted for 14.5% of the variance in SRDS

and all continued to accounted for unique variance in SRDS scores (Table 5-16).

A hierarchical regression analysis was then conducted with each of the six

demographic variables entered individually in six steps (the two sets of effect-coded

variables were entered together in two of those six steps). The order of entry was

determined by the standardized beta weights in the previous regression. The variable with

largest beta weight was entered first and the order of the variables was as follows: grades

in school, age, gender, the effect-coded variables representing state, grade, and the

effect-coded variables representing ethnicity. In this analysis each variable continued to

account for unique variance in SRDS (Table 5-17). Overall, the regression analyses

showed grades in school, age, gender, state, grade, and ethnicity were significantly








related to SRDS (even when controlling for the other demographic variables). These

demographic variables were therefore controlled for in the following regression analyses.

Anger Arousal, Deviant Behavior, and Global Procedural Fairness

Hypothesis 2, focusing on the relationship between global procedural fairness and

affective and behavioral indicators, was tested both with the entire sample and within the

specific subgroups created for Study Two. For this hypothesis, a composite measure of

global procedural fairness (GPF) was used. This scale was calculated as a mean of all

sixteen procedural justice items. The shortened form of the SRDS, including the 33

delinquent behavior items, and a proxy measure of anger arousal, the Massachusetts

Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2) Angry-Irritable Scale, also

were used. This measure is different from the anger arousal measure completed by

adolescents in Study One, in that it does not reflect the adolescent's perception of his or

her angry feelings in response to treatment received during the course of resolving the

family conflict. Rather, it is a reflection of the adolescent's perception of his or her angry

or irritable mood over the past few months.

It was predicted that this measure of affective response would still be significantly

associated with perceived procedural unfairness. However, the strength of this

relationship was hypothesized to possibly be less than that observed in previous studies

using the conflict-specific measure of anger arousal for two reasons: (1) there is no

temporal relationship between the procedural fairness dimensions and this measure of

anger arousal; (2) The MAYSI-2 is a more general measure of anger and irritability. For

Study Two, the first analysis was a hierarchical regression to predict feelings of anger

and irritability (AA) for the entire sample.








In the first step of this hierarchical regression, the six demographic variables were

entered, followed by the composite GPF variable in the second step. This regression was

significant, F(15, 2194) = 19.609,p = .000, with GPF and the demographic variables

accounting for 11.2% of the variance in anger arousal. Grades in school, gender, the

effect-coded variables representing the categories Asian American and Multiracial, and

GPF all accounted for unique variance in AA. GPF accounted for the largest amount of

variance (Table 5-18). These results showed that even after controlling for the

relationships between the demographic variables and anger arousal, perceptions of

overall unfairness were related to feelings of anger and irritability for the entire sample.

This analysis was replicated across the three subgroups determined by offense

severity. For the NO group, the demographic variables and GPF accounted for 8.9% of

the variance in AA. Grades in school, the African American, Asian American, and

Multiracial categories, and gender accounted for unique variance in AA. GPF also

accounted for unique variance in, and had the strongest relationship with, AA

(Table 5-18). For the NVO group, the demographic variables in the first step of the

hierarchical regression were not associated with AA. The second step in the hierarchical

regression was significant, with GPF and gender accounting for unique variance in AA

(Table 5-18). GPF accounted for the largest amount of unique variance in AA.

The results of the analyses for the VO group were somewhat similar to those found

for the entire sample and the NO group. The hierarchical regression for this group

revealed the demographic variables and GPF combined accounted for 14.9% of the

variance in AA. Gender, grade, and the variables representing California and Connecticut

accounted for unique variance in AA, as did GPF (Table 5-18). These results showed that








for adolescents across the three offense-type groups, even after controlling for

relationships between the demographic variables and anger arousal, perceptions of

overall unfairness were associated with higher levels of general anger and irritability.

A second series of regression analyses was conducted to assess the relationships

between delinquent behavior and global procedural fairness (controlling for the

demographic variables) across the entire sample and the three subgroups. Separate

hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each of the groups, in which SRDS

was regressed on the demographic variables in the first step and GPF in the second step.

For the entire sample, the hierarchical regression was significant, F(15, 2194) = 39.452,

p = .000. Grades in school, age, gender, grade, the variables representing the Hispanic

American and Multiracial categories, and the variables representing California and

Connecticut, as well as GPF, accounted for 20.7% of the variance in deviant behavior.

GPF accounted for the largest amount of unique variance (Table 5-19).

For the NO group, the demographic variables and GPF were significantly

associated with deviant behavior and accounted for 11.2% of the variance. Grades in

school, gender, age, the variable representing the African American category, and GPF

each accounted for unique variance in SRDS (Table 5-19). GPF accounted for the largest

amount of unique variance in deviant behavior. These results showed that, for the entire

sample and the adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, the

demographic variables were related to levels of deviant behavior. However, even after

taking these relationships into account, overall perceptions of unfairness continued to be

associated with higher levels of deviant behavior.








For the NVO group, the hierarchical regression analysis was significant, with the

variable representing the European American category and the variable representing

California accounting for unique variance in the first step. In the second step of the

regression, only the variable representing California accounted for unique variance in

SRDS, but the beta weight for GPF approached significance (p = .056) (Table 5-19).

These results showed that in Study Two, for those adolescents who reported engaging in

nonviolent and status offenses, perceptions of overall unfairness were not associated with

deviant behavior, after controlling for the relationships among the demographic variables

and deviant behavior.

The results for the VO group were somewhat similar to the results for the NVO

group. The first step of the hierarchical regression was significant. The effect-coded

variables representing the African American and Hispanic American categories, age,

gender, and the variables representing California and Texas accounted for unique

variance. These variables remained significant in the second step of the regression, but

GPF was not a significant predictor in this step. Although, once again, the beta weight

approached significance (p = .056) (Table 5-19). These results showed that for those

adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses in Study Two (when demographic

variables were included in the regression analyses), levels of deviant behavior were no

longer associated with overall perceptions of procedural injustice.

Personal Respect and Status Recognition

Hypothesis 3 focused on the relationships among personal respect (PR) and status

recognition (SR), GPF, and AA. For the following analyses, PR was measured with the

three-item personal respect subscale of the Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth

Form (FDMQ-Y) which included the following items: "Your parents showed a lot of








kindness and understanding," "Your parents treated you with respect," and "Your parents

cared about you as an individual." SR also was measured as a three-item scale from the

FDMQ-Y, of these three items: "Your parents probably gave you less respect than they

would have given to other family members," "You were treated as a valued member of

your family," and "Your parents treated you as if you were somebody really important."

In these analyses GPF was measured with a single item of overall procedural fairness,

"Overall, your parents) treated you fairly." This measure was used because the

composite measure used in previous analyses included aspects of personal respect and

status recognition and may have confounded the analyses. AA was again measured using

the Angry/Irritable subscale from the MAYSI-2.

The first part of Hypothesis 3 predicted both PR and SR would be associated with

GPF. It also posited PR would have a stronger relationship with GPF than would SR.

This was tested using a series of regression analyses for the entire sample and the

subgroups. For the entire sample, a two-step hierarchical regression was conducted with

the demographic variables entered on the first step of the regression. PR and SR were

then entered on the second step of the regression. This step was significant,

F(16, 2193) = 184.767, p = .000, and the demographic variables, PR, and SR accounted

for 57.1% of the variance in GPF. PR, SR, and the variable representing Texas accounted

for unique variance in GPF. PR accounted for the largest amount of unique variance

(Table 5-20).

Next, a three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted with the

demographic variables entered on the first step, PR entered into the equation on the

second step, and SR entered on the third step. This analysis also was significant and PR








and SR both accounted for unique variance in GPF. The final step in this series of

analyses was a second three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis with SR

entered on the second step and PR entered on the third step. This analysis was significant

and revealed the same results. In both three-step hierarchical regressions, PR accounted

for a larger amount of unique variance in GPF than did SR. These results showed that

both feeling disrespected as an individual and as a family member were related to

perceptions of overall unfairness in the process of resolving family conflict (even after

controlling for the effects of the state). Feeling disrespected as an individual was more

closely related to perceived overall unfairness than was feeling disrespected as a family

member.

These analyses were replicated across the three offense status subgroups. For the

NO group, the two-step hierarchical regression was significant, with the variable

representing the European American category, the variable representing Texas, PR, and

SR accounting for unique variance in GPF (Table 5-20). In the 2 three-step hierarchical

regression analyses (with PR and SR entered separately on the second and third steps of

the regressions), both continued to account for unique variance in GPF. In all three of

these analyses, PR accounted for the largest amount of unique variance. These results

showed that for those adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, both

feeling respected as an individual and as a family member were associated with

perceptions of fairness overall. Perceptions of being respected as an individual were more

closely associated with overall justice appraisals than were perceptions of status within

the family. These results remained significant, even after controlling for the relationships

among the state the adolescent was from, ethnicity, and overall perceptions of fairness.








The two-step hierarchical regression for the NVO group also was significant. PR

and SR accounted for unique variance in GPF, while the demographic variables did not

(Table 5-20). PR and SR continued to account for unique variance in GPF in both of the

three-step hierarchical regression analyses. SR accounted for the largest amount of

unique variance in all three regression analyses. The results showed that perceptions of

being respected as an individual and as a family member were significantly related to

perceptions of overall fairness for adolescents who reported engaging in nonviolent and

status offenses. For this group, in contrast to the results for the entire sample and for the

adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, perceived status within the

family was more closely associated with overall perceptions of fairness than was feeling

respected as an individual.

For the VO group, the first step in the two-step hierarchical regression, which

included the demographic variables, was not significant. The second step, including PR

and SR, was significant. PR and SR only accounted for unique variance in this second

step (Table 5-20). PR and SR each continued to account for unique variance in the 2

three-step hierarchical regression analyses. In all three analyses, PR accounted for a

larger amount of unique variance in GPF. The results showed that for those adolescents

who reported engaging in violent offenses, the demographic variables were not associated

with perceptions of overall fairness. Both perceptions of being respected as an individual

and as a family member were associated with global justice appraisals; however, similar

to the results for the entire sample and for those adolescents who reported never engaging

in deviant offenses, perceptions of being respected as an individual were more closely

associated with overall perceptions of fairness.








The second part of Hypothesis 3 predicted adolescents who perceived their parents

did not respect them as individuals (low PR) or as family members (low SR), would

experience higher levels of anger arousal even, after controlling for the demographic

variables. A series of hierarchical regression analyses (the same as those used to predict

GPF) were conducted to test this hypothesis for the entire sample and each of the

subgroups. For the entire sample, the second step of the two-step hierarchical regression

was significant, F(16, 2193) = 21.335,p =.000, with the demographic variables, PR, and

SR combined accounting for 12.8% of the variance in AA (Table 5-21). Grades in school,

the variables representing the Asian American and Multiracial categories, gender, PR,

and SR accounted for unique variance in AA.

In both three-step hierarchical regression analyses, those same demographic

variables, PR, and SR accounted for unique variance. In all three hierarchical regression

analyses, SR accounted for the largest amount of unique variance in AA. These results

indicated that even after controlling for the effects of the demographic variables, both PR

and SR had significant inverse relationships with AA, independent of the effect of the

other variable. In other words, adolescents who perceived their parents disrespected them

as individuals and those who perceived their parents disrespected them as family

members experienced anger and irritability. Perceptions of being disrespected as a family

member were more closely associated with overall feeling of unfairness.

These analyses were replicated across the subgroups based on offense type, with

somewhat varied results. For the NO group, the two-step hierarchical regression analysis

was significant, F(16, 1629) = 12.879, p= .000 (Table 5-21), with the demographic

variables, PR, and SR combined accounting for 10.4% of the variance in anger arousal;








however, PR did not account for unique variance in AA. SR, grades in school, the

variables representing the Asian American, African American, and Multiracial categories,

and gender did account for unique variance in AA.

Next, a three-step hierarchical multiple regression in which PR was entered into the

equation on the second step, followed by SR on the third step, was conducted. This

analysis also was significant. PR accounted for unique variance in second step; however,

after SR was entered into the model in the third step, PR no longer accounted for unique

variance. These results showed that both PR and SR were significantly related to AA in

the NO group, even after controlling for the demographic variables; however, PR did not

account for unique variance above and beyond that accounted for by SR. For adolescents

who reported never engaging in delinquent offenses, feeling disrespected as a family

member was more strongly associated with feelings of anger and irritability than was

feeling disrespected as a person (even after controlling for the relationships among the

demographic variables and angry/irritable feelings).

For the NVO group, opposite results were revealed. In the first regression analysis,

the demographic variables were again entered on the first step, followed by PR and SR on

the second step. The first step of this analysis was not significant, but the second step

was, F(16, 224) = 1.926,p = .019 (Table 5-21). The demographic variables, PR, and SR

accounted for 5.8% of the variance in AA; however, only gender and PR accounted for

unique variance in AA.

The three-step hierarchical multiple regression (with the demographic variables

entered on the first step, SR on the second step, and PR on the third step) was significant

overall; however, once again the first step was not significant. The second step was just