Citation
Adolescent perspectives on family conflict resolution : exploring the relationships among procedural justice, identity orientation, and deviant behavior

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adolescents ( jstor )
Covariance ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Deviant behavior ( jstor )
Family conflict ( jstor )
Family members ( jstor )
Mathematical variables ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Procedural justice ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF
Psychology thesis, Ph. D
City of Gainesville ( local )
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
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
024499083 ( ALEPH )
847495565 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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




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. 1 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.
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER
1 Introduction 1
Family Functioning in Families of Adolescents 1
Family Conflict 1
Family Cohesion 2
Identity Orientation 3
Justice 4
Distributive Justice 4
Procedural Justice 4
Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings 5
Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Family 6
Summary 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
Family Functioning in Families of Adolescents 8
Family Conflict 8
Family Cohesion 19
Identity Orientation 23
Justice 25
Distributive Justice 26
Procedural Justice 26
Procedural Justice in Organizational and Nonfamilial Settings 29
Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Family 32
Summary and Hypotheses 39
v

3METHODS
43
Study One 43
Participants 43
Instruments 44
Family Decision Making Questionnaire-Youth form (FDMQ-Y) 44
Family Relationships Index of the Family Environment Scale (FRI) 46
Measure of psychosocial functioning 47
Aspects of Identity Questionnaire, Version IIIx (AIQ) 48
Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS) and alcohol and drug use measure49
Analyses 51
Study Two 51
Participants 51
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
Analyses 55
4 STUDY ONE RESULTS 60
Demographics 60
Analyses 61
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 TWO RESULTS 73
Demographics 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
vi

APPENDIX
A PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT AND PARTICIPANT ASSENT FORM .. 171
B MEASURES 177
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
RESEARCH PROJECT 202
F ITEMS USED TO CREATE THE VIOLENT OFFENSE SRDS SUBSCALE 204
LIST OF REFERENCES 205
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 215
vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table page
4-1 Grade Level 70
4-2 Ethnic 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 Means for SRDS Delinquency Scores 72
4-10 ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity on SRDS Drug and Status
Recognition 72
4-11 Means for SRDS Drug Scores 72
5-1 Ethnic Background 113
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
viii

5-7 Means across Age for Deviant Behavior 114
5-8 ANOVA for Gender and Deviant Behavior 114
5-9 Means 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
Demographic Variables 116
5-17 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Demographic
Variables 117
5-18 Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal Using Global Procedural
Fairness and Demographic Variables 118
5-19 Multiple Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Global Procedural
Fairness and Demographic 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 Anger Arousal 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
IX

5-26 Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of
Personal Respect and Status Recognition on Global Procedural Fairness
and Anger Arousal 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 Anger Arousal 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 Anger Arousal 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
Recognition and Anger Arousal 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 Deviant Behavior 131
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
x

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
Demographic Variables 135
5-43 Univariate Analyses for Procedural Justice Indices, Group Status, and Select
Demographic Variables 136
5-44 Means for Group Status on Personal Respect, Voice, and Status Recognition 137
xi

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
Arousal 57
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
Entire Sample 95
5-2 Model 7, Partial Mediation Model with Covariance of Global Procedural Fairness
on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal for the Entire
Sample 98
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 Sample 109
xii

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
xiii

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.
xiv

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
1

2
(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).

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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.).

7
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
8

9
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

10
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.

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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 (Dombusch 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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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.

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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 injustice 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

27
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

28
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

29
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

30
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.

31
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

32
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

33
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

34
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

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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

39
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:

40
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

41
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

42
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 5B: 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).
43

44
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

45
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 parent(s) 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

46
corrected.”); Personal Respect, three items (sample item, “Your parent(s) showed a lot of
kindness and understanding.”); Neutrality, one item (“Your parent(s) 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 parent(s)
probably gave you less respect than they would have given to other family members,”
reverse scored); Trust, three items (“Your parent(s) were truthful to you.”); and Global
Procedural Fairness, one item (“Overall, your parent(s) 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

47
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

48
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 IIIx (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

49
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 1 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 I 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.

50
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 the first 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,

51
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

52
(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

53
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

54
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 mad9” Grisso, Bamum, 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.

55
Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the adolescents’ scores on the MAYSI-2
with scores on the Millón 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

56
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, Bender's Comparative Fit Index (Bentler and Boned, 1980), compares the fit of the
specified model to the independence model (Kline). The independence model is one in

57
(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).
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

58
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.

59
voice
other
4 Voice
Global
Procedural
Fairness
SRDS
Delinquency
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.
60

61
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.

62
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 verity 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.

63
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,/?= .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

64
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,/? = .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.

65
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 parent(s) 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

66
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

67
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

68
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(l, 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

69
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.

70
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 3 weights.
><.05

71
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
.41 Ia
.470a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights.
> < .005
Table 4-6
Multiple Regression Predicting Global Procedural Fairness
Using Personal Respect, Status Recognition, and Conflict Seventy
—¿2 : .r. ; . ~ ~. — j
Global Procedural Fairness
Conflict Severity
.034
PR
1.163a
SR
-.332
Adjusted R2
,734a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights.
>=.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/?2
.21T
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights.
> = .056

72
Table 4-8
ANCOVA for Moderation of Collective Identity
on SRDS Delinquency and Status Recognition
Source
TvDe 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
\n< 05
bn= OSlS
r - - - -
Table 4-9
Means for SRDS Delina uencv Scores
Collective Identity Level Status Recognition
Low
High
Low
1.447
1.127
High
1.327
1.649
Table 4-10
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
p — .000
'n= 017
Table 4-11
Means for SRDS Drug Scores
Collective Identity Level Status Recognition
Low High
1.011
1.322
Low
High
1.522
1.103

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
73

74
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

75
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,

76
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; therefor 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 SEC1-SEC4. SEC1 represented Florida; therefore adolescents from Florida
were given scores of 1 on SEC1 and adolescents from California, Texas, and Connecticut
were given scores of 0 on SECT
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

77
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

78
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.

79
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

80
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.

81
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

82
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 parent(s) 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

83
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.

84
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.

85
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,/? = .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,/? = .000 (Table 5-21), with the demographic
variables, PR, and SR combined accounting for 10.4% of the variance in anger arousal;

86
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,/? = .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

87
barely nonsignificant (p = .051), however, SR did account for unique variance in AA. In
the third step, gender and PR accounted for unique variance, while SR did not. These
results showed that both PR and SR had significant negative relationships with AA for
the NVO group, even after controlling for the demographic variables; however, SR did
not have a relationship with AA after the relationship between PR and AA was controlled
for. In other words, for adolescents who reported engaging in status offenses and other
nonviolent offenses, perceptions of being disrespected as a person were more closely
associated with anger and irritability than were perceptions of being disrespected as a
family member, even after controlling for the relationship between gender and
anger/irritability.
In the analyses for the VO group, the two-step hierarchical regression was
significant, F(16, 306) = 4.679,/? = .000; however, neither PR, nor SR, accounted for
unique variance in AA. Gender and the variables representing California and Connecticut
did account for unique variance in AA (Table 5-21). A three-step hierarchical multiple
regression, with PR entered on the second step and SR entered on the third, was then
conducted. All three steps were significant. PR accounted for unique variance in the
second step; however, neither PR, nor SR, accounted for unique variance in the third step.
Similar results were shown in the second three-step hierarchical regression. These results
appeared to suggest that for the VO group, neither PR, nor SR, accounted for unique
variance above and beyond that accounted for by the other variables. It seems that when
the demographic variables are taken into consideration, the effects of perceptions of
being respected as an individual and perceptions of being respected as a family member

88
may cancel each other out in relation to feeling of general anger and irritability (for those
adolescents who report engaging in violent offenses).
The third part of Hypothesis 3 focused on the possible mediating effects of PR and
SR on the relationship between GFP and AA. This was tested in two ways: first, by using
the regression method for testing mediating effects reported by Baron and Kenny (1986);
and second, by using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In these analyses, the one-
item scale of GPF, the three-item scale of PR, and the three-item scale of SR were used.
The MAYSI-2 Angry/Irritable scale was again used to measure anger arousal.
Baron and Kenny (1986) described a method using regression analyses to test for
mediation. A series of regressions were conducted to separately assess for PR and SR as
mediators for the entire sample, as well as for the three subgroups. In these analyses, each
of the three regression equations used in the Baron and Kenny method were conducted as
hierarchical regressions, with the demographic variables entered on the first step of the
analysis to control for the effects of these variables.
The first series focused on PR. In the first hierarchical regression equation, the
demographic variables were entered on the first step, with the mediator (PR) regressed on
the independent variable (GPF) in the second step. For the entire sample, the results of
this regression were significant F(15, 2194) = 168.982, p = .000. In the second regression
equation, the demographic variables were again entered on the first step and the
dependent variable (AA) was regressed on the independent variable (GPF) in the second
step. This also was significant, F( 15, 2194) = 18.039,/»= .000. In the third regression
equation, the demographic variables were entered on the first step and the dependent

89
variable (AA) was regressed on both the mediator (PR) and the independent variable
(GPF) in the second step. The resulting equation was significant, F(16, 2193) = 19.050,
p = .000 (Table 5-22).
Baron and Kenny (1986) reported that a mediation effect is present if three criteria
are met. First, all three regression equations must be significant. Second, the mediator
must have an effect on the dependent variable in the third equation. Third, the effect of
independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third equation than in
the second equation. These criteria were met in these analyses. All three regression
equations were significant and the standardized beta weight of GPF in the third equation
(-.125) was smaller than that of the second equation (-.240). PR also accounted for
unique variance in AA in the third equation. The results of the three regression equations
showed both GPF and PR were related to AA for the entire sample. The results also
showed that PR partially mediated the relationship between GPF and AA. In other words,
adolescents who reported their parents treated them unfairly, during the process of
resolving family conflict, reported feelings of anger and irritability. These adolescents
also reported feeling disrespected as individuals, and these feelings partially accounted
for the relationship between perceptions of unfairness and angry and irritable feelings,
even after controlling for the effects of the demographic variables.
These analyses were replicated to assess whether SR also mediated the relationship
between GPF and AA for the entire sample. Again all three regression equations were
significant (Table 5-23) and the other Baron and Kenny (1986) criteria were met. These
results showed a mediator effect of SR on the relationship between GPF and AA. The
results showed that, similar to the results for the analyses with PR, adolescents in the

90
entire sample who perceived their parents treated them unfairly and felt disrespected as
family members reported feelings of anger and irritability. Perceptions of being
disrespected as family members partially accounted for the relationship between
perceptions of unfairness overall and feelings of general anger or irritability. These
results were significant, even after controlling for the relationships among the
demographic variables and general feelings of anger and irritability.
The analyses of the mediation by PR and SR were tested across the three groups
based on offense type. For the NO group, the first series of regression analyses focused
on the mediating effects of PR on the relationship between GPF and AA. All three
regression equations were significant (Table 5-22) and the other Baron and Kenny criteria
were met. These results showed that similar to the results of the analyses with the entire
sample, PR partially mediated the relationship between GPF and AA. For adolescents
who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, even when demographic variables were
controlled for, feeling disrespected as a person partially accounted for the relationship
between overall feelings of unfairness and feelings of anger and irritability.
The analyses for the mediation of SR on GPF and AA also were significant for the
NO group. Again, all of the Baron and Kenny (1986) criteria were met (Table 5-23).
These results showed that for adolescents who reported never engaging in delinquent and
criminal behavior, perceptions of being disrespected as a family member partially
accounted for the relationship between perceived unfairness of family conflict resolution
procedures and feelings of anger and irritability. These results were shown even after
controlling for the relationships among these variables with the demographic variables.

91
For the NVO group, PR completely mediated the relationship between GPF and
AA. In these analyses, again the three regressions were significant (Table 5-22), and PR
accounted for unique variance in AA in the third regression equation. Also, in that third
equation, GPF did not account for unique variance in AA, indicating that PR had
completely mediated the relationship between GPF and AA. For adolescents who
reported only engaging in nonviolent and status offenses, feelings of anger and irritability
were due entirely to feeling disrespected as a person. These feelings completely
accounted for the relationship between perceptions that the conflict-resolution process
overall was unfair and angry/irritable feelings. These results were robust even when the
demographic variables were included in the analyses.
The regression analyses for the mediation of SR on GPF and AA were not
significant for the NVO group (Table 5-23). All three regression equations were
significant, but neither SR nor GPF accounted for unique variance in AA in the third
equation. These results showed that, even when the demographic variables were
controlled for, feeling disrespected as a family member and perceived procedural
unfairness were related to angry and irritable feelings for adolescents who reported
engaging in nonviolent and status offenses. Feeling disrespected as a family member did
not, however, mediate the relationship between global procedural unfairness and anger
and irritability in Study Two.
For the VO group, the analyses of the mediational effect of PR were not significant
(Table 5-22). The three regression equations were significant, however neither GPF nor
PR accounted for unique variance in AA in the third equation. In this third regression,
gender, the variables representing California and Connecticut, and grade did account for

92
unique variance in AA. These results showed that in Study Two, when the demographic
variables were controlled for, perceptions of overall unfairness and disrespect at the
individual level were associated with feelings of anger and irritability for those
adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses. The perception of being
disrespected as a person, did not, however, account for the relationship between
perceived unfairness and angry or irritable feelings.
The analyses of the mediational effect of SR on GPF and AA for the VO group also
were not significant. All three hierarchical regression analyses were significant; however,
in the third equation, neither GPF, nor SR accounted for unique variance in AA. The beta
weight for SR did approach significance {p = .069). In this third equation, gender, the
variables representing California and Connecticut, and grade did account for unique
variance in AA (Table 5-23). These findings showed that in Study Two, when the
demographic variables were controlled for, perceptions of unfairness overall and being
disrespected as a family member were associated with general angry and irritable feelings
for those adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses. The perception of being
disrespected as a family member, did not, however, account for the relationship between
perceived unfairness and anger or irritability.
The mediation model also was tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
techniques. The initial two models tested, as described in Chapter 3, were the Partial
Mediation Model and the Full Mediation Model. Both were initially tested with the entire
sample. The Partial Mediation Model resulted in an overall fit of
X2{\, N = 2602) = 953.765,p = .000, GFI = 867, CFI = .806, TLI = -.163, SRMR = .132,
RMSEA = .605. All values of the fit indices suggested this model is a poor fit to the data.

93
Fitting the Full Mediation Model to the entire sample (with the path from GPF to
AA constrained to zero) resulted in an overall model fit of X2 (2, N = 2602) = 961.846,
p = 0.000, X2/df= 480.923, GFI = .865, CFI = .805, TLI = .414, SRMR = .143,
RMSEA = .430. These indices suggested poor fit of the data to Full Mediation Model as
well. A review of the modification indices suggested a covariance between the error
terms associated with PR and SR would substantially improve the model. This covariance
would suggest that PR and SR were affected by some other construct not included in the
model. There is theoretical support for including this covariance in the model. PR and SR
are related concepts. Also, the working theory on which the present study is based
suggests that Identity Orientation may be the construct that affects both PR and SR that is
not included in this model. Unfortunately identity orientation was not measured in Study
Two and cannot be included in the model; however, the covariance between the error
terms associated with PR and SR could be and was included in the model.
The Partial Mediation and Full Mediation models were refitted to the data with the
covariance added. The Partial Mediation Model with Covariance resulted in an overall fit
ofX2 (0, N = 2602) = .000, GFI = 1.000, CFI = 1.000, SRMR = .000. This model was a
just identified model, meaning all possible parameters were specified in the model. For
just identified models, the Chi-square statistic and df are zero. A p value cannot be
calculated for just-identified models. All indices indicated good fit of the data to the
model, but this is always the result with a just identified model.
The Full Mediation Model with Covariance (Figure 5-1) resulted in an overall fit of
X2(\, N = 2602) = 8.081, p = 0.004, X2/df= 8.081, GFI = .998, CFI = .999, TLI = .991,
SRMR = .039, RMSEA = .052. With the exception of the Chi-square and Chi-square/J^

94
indices, these results suggest the model fit the data well. The Chi-square Difference test
suggested the Partial Mediation Model with Covariance provided a better fit to the data,
X2difference (df= 1 - 0 = 1) = 8.081 - .000 = 8.081,/? = .004. The Partial Mediation with
Covariance Model accounted for 53% of the variance in PR, 49% of the variance in SR,
and 11% of the variance in AA. For the entire sample, the fit indices for the models are
summarized in Table 5-24 and the standardized path estimates for the Partial Mediation
with Covariance Model are in Table 5-25.
For the entire sample, the paths from PR to GPF, SR to GPF, and GPF to AA were
significant. The path from SR to AA also was significant, however, the path from PR to
AA was not. These results indicated that when PR and SR were entered as mediators
simultaneously in the model, only SR partially mediated the relationship between GPF
and AA for the entire sample. This was a somewhat different test than that conducted
with the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, which tested the mediation effects of PR and
SR separately. These results showed that for the entire sample, adolescents’ perceptions
of being disrespected as individuals and as family members were associated with overall
perceptions of unfairness. Perceptions of unfairness also were associated with angry and
irritable feelings. The perceived disrespect at the family level partially accounted for the
relationship between perceptions of overall unfairness and angry and irritable feelings.
The four models were then fit to the three subgroups based on offense type. A
summary of the model fit indices and path estimates for the four groups are provided in
Tables 5-26 and 5-27. These indicated that the Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
fit the data for the NO group well; however, the Full Mediation Model with Covariance
provided the best fit for the NVO and VO groups.

95
Personal
Respect
-06
55
\
Global
-.08
Anger
Arousal
Procedural
Fairness
\ \
/
/
\ V
.49
-.22
/
/
Figure 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 Entire Sample; Standardized Path Coefficients Appear on
Single-Headed Arrows; Squared Multiple Correlations of Endogenous
Variables Appear at the Upper Right Comer of the Variable.
For the NO group, in the Partial Mediation with Covariance Model, the paths from
PR to GPF, SR to GPF, and GPF to AA were significant. The path from SR to AA also
was significant; however, the path from PR to AA was not significant. These results
showed that, for adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, similar to
the finding for the entire sample, feeling disrespected as a family member partially
accounted for the relationship between overall unfairness and anger and irritability. This
result differed from that found with the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, which found
both PR and SR significantly mediated this relationship when tested individually as
mediators.

96
For the NVO group, the Full Mediation Model with Covariance provided the best
fit. In this model, the paths from PR to GPF and SR to GPF were significant. The path
from PR to A A also was significant, however, the path from SR to A A was not
significant. These results showed that, for adolescents who reported engaging in
nonviolent and status offenses, the perception that their parents disrespected them as
individuals accounted for the relationship between perceptions of overall unfairness in
the process of resolving the family conflict and feelings of anger and irritability. The
SEM analyses replicated the results found using the Baron and Kenny (1986) method to
test the mediational models for the NVO group.
For the VO group, the Full Mediation Model with Covariance provided the best fit.
In this model, the paths from PR to GPF and SR to GPF were significant. Also, the path
from SR to AA was significant, while the path from PR to AA was not. These results
showed that for adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses, perceptions of
being disrespected as family members completely accounted for the relationship between
perceptions of overall unfairness and angry and irritable feelings.
An alternative set of mediation models also was tested to assess the relationships
among PR, SR, GPF, and AA. In this set of models, GPF was tested as a mediator in the
relationships between PR and AA and SR and AA. Once again four versions of the model
were tested: a Partial Mediation Model without Covariance, a Full Mediation Model
without Covariance, a Partial Mediation Model with Covariance, and a Full Mediation
Model with Covariance. In these models, PR and SR were the exogenous variables (i.e.,
those variables having no causes within the model) and the covariance was between the
variables themselves, rather than the covariance between error terms as depicted in the

97
hypothesized models. These models also were tested using SEM techniques and were
initially tested with the entire sample.
The Partial Mediation Model without Covariance resulted in an overall fit of
X2(\, N = 2602) = 2428.478,p = .000, X2 df= 2428.478,GFI = 767, CFI = .506,
TLI = -1.962, SRMR = .491, RMSEA = .966. All values of the fit indices suggested this
model is a poor fit to the data. Fitting the Full Mediation Model without Covariance to
the entire sample resulted in an overall model fit of A2 (3, N = 2602) = 2523.228,
p = 0.000, X2/df= 841.076, GFI = .755, CFI = .487, TLI = -.025, SRMR = .503,
RMSEA = .568. These indices also suggested poor fit of the data to this second model as
well.
The Partial Mediation Model with Covariance resulted in an overall fit of
X2(0, N = 2602) = .000, GFI = 1.000, CFI = 1.000, and SRMR = .000. This is a just-
identified model and does not provide a good test of the fit of the data to the model. The
Full Mediation Model with Covariance resulted in an overall fit of
X2(2, N = 2602) = 94.750,p = 0.000, X2 df= 47.375, GFI = .982, CFI = .981,
TLI = .943, SRMR = .144, RMSEA = .134. The GFI, CFI, and TLI values suggest this
model fit the data well, although the other fit index values showed less than adequate fit.
The Chi-square Difference tests were used to compare the four models. The
comparison of the Partial Mediation Model with Covariance was compared with the
Partial Mediation Model without Covariance was X2 differenced= 2-1 = 1) =
2428.478 - 0 = 2428.478,p = 0.000; with the Full Mediation Model without Covariance
was X2 difference^ 3-0 = 3) = 2523.228 - 0 = 2523.228, p = 0.000; and with the Full
Mediation Model with Covariance was X2 differenced= 2-0 = 2) = 94.750 - 0 =

98
94.750,/? = 0.000. The fit indices and the Chi-square Difference tests showed that the
Partial Mediation Model with Covariance provides the best fit of the data (Figure 5-2).
The Partial Mediation with Covariance Model, in which GPF mediated the
relationships between PR and AA and SR and AA, accounted for 57% of the variance in
GPF and 11% of the variance in AA. For the entire sample, fit indices for the models are
summarized in Table 5-28 and the standardized path estimates for the Partial Mediation
with Covariance Model are in Table 5-29.
Figure5-2. Model 7, Partial Mediation Model with Covariance of Global Procedural
Fairness on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal for the
Entire Sample; Standardized Path Coefficients Appear on Single-Headed
Arrows; Squared Multiple Correlations of Endogenous Variables Appear at
the Upper Right Comer of the Variable.
For the entire sample, both paths, from PR to GPF and SR to GPF, were significant.
Also paths from GPF to AA and SR to AA, were significant. However, the path from PR
to AA was not significant. These results showed that PR and SR were both associated
with GPF, and GPF was associated with AA. The results also suggested that GPF
partially accounted for the relationship between SR and AA, and completely mediated the
relationship between PR and AA.
These results showed that for the entire sample, adolescents’ perceptions of being
disrespected as individuals and as family members were associated with overall feelings

99
of unfairness. The perceived unfairness completely accounted for the relationship
between perceptions of disrespect as a person and angry and irritable feelings. The
perceived unfairness also partially accounted for the relationship between perceptions of
disrespect as a family member and angry and irritable feelings.
The four alternative models were then fit to the three subgroups based on offense
type. Summaries of the model fit indices and the path estimates for the four groups are
provided in Tables 5-30 and 5-31. These indicated that the Partial Mediation Model with
Covariance fit the data for the NO and NVO groups best; however, the Full Mediation
Model with Covariance provided the best fit for the VO group. For the NO group (in the
Partial Mediation Model) the paths from PR and SR to GPF were significant, and the path
from GPF to AA was significant. The path from SR to AA, also was significant;
however, the path from PR to AA was not. These results showed that for adolescents who
reported never engaging in deviant behavior, the results were similar to those for the
entire sample. It appears perceptions of overall fairness partially mediated the
relationship between feeling disrespected as a family member and general
anger/irritability. Perceptions of unfairness overall also completely mediated the
relationship between feeling disrespected as an individual and angry and irritable
feelings.
For the NVO group, in the Partial Mediation Model with Covariance, a different
pattern of results was revealed. The paths between PR and GPF and SR and GPF were
significant. The paths between GPF and AA and SR and AA were not significant;
however, the path between PR and AA was significant. These results suggested that
feeling disrespected as a person and as a family member were associated with overall

100
perceptions of unfairness. However, only perceptions of being disrespected as an
individual were associated with general feelings of anger or irritability.
For the VO group, the Full Mediation Model with Covariance provided the best fit
of the data. All three paths were significant. These results showed that perceptions of
being respected as a person and as a family member were associated with perceptions of
unfairness overall. Perceptions of unfairness were associated with general angry and
irritable feelings, and appeared to completely account for relationships among feeling
disrespected both at the individual and family level and feeling angry or irritable.
The AIC, Akaike Information Criterion (Akaike, 1987), takes complexity of the
model into account and allows comparison of non-hierarchical models. Lower values
indicate better fit. The AIC values of the various models were used to determine if the
hypothesized model (PR and SR as mediators) fit the data for various groups better than
did the alternative model (GPF as mediator). For the entire sample and the NO group, the
AIC values for the two Partial Mediation Models with Covariance were compared. For
both groups, these values were the same, indicating both models fit the data equally well.
For the NVO group, the AIC value for the hypothesized Partial Mediation Model with
Covariance was compared with the AIC value for the alternative Full Mediation Model
with Covariance. These values indicated the hypothesized model fit the data better for the
NVO group. For the VO group, the AIC values for the two Full Mediation Models with
Covariance were compared. These values also indicated the hypothesized model for the
VO group fit the data better.
Voice, Global Procedural Fairness, and Deviant Behavior
Hypothesis 5 explored the relationships among global procedural fairness, voice,
and deviant behavior for the entire sample and the subgroups. These analyses used the

101
single item measure of GPF and the shortened delinquency scale from the SRDS. The
three-item Voice subscale of the FDMQ-Y also was used in these analyses and included
the following items: “You had an opportunity to tell your side of the story,” “Your
parent(s) listened to you,” and “Your parent(s) did not pay attention to what you had to
say” (reverse scored). The first part of Hypothesis 5 predicted a relationship between
Voice and SRDS. The second part of Hypothesis 5 assessed for a Voice mediation effect
on the relationship between GPF and SRDS.
To test the first part of Hypothesis 5, SRDS was regressed on Voice and the
demographic variables in a two-step hierarchical regression. For the entire sample, the
regression analysis was significant, F(15, 2194) = 40.216,/? = 000, and these variables
accounted for 21% of the variance in delinquent behavior (Table 5-32). Grades in school,
the variables representing the Hispanic American and Multiracial categories, age, gender,
the categories representing California and Connecticut, grade, and Voice accounted for
unique variance in SRDS. Voice accounted for the largest amount of unique variance.
These results showed that even after controlling for the demographic variables, having
input in the process of resolving family conflict was related to lower levels of deviant
behavior.
To test the mediation effect of Voice on the relationship between GPF and SRDS,
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) regression analysis method was again used. Again, these
analyses were conducted as hierarchical regressions with the demographic variables
entered on the first step. In the first regression equation, Voice was regressed on GPF in
the second step. This analysis was significant, F(15, 2194) = 105.148,/? = .000. In the

102
second regression equation, SRDS was regressed on GPF in the second step of the
hierarchical regression. This analysis also was significant, F(15, 2194) = 37.833,
p = .000. In the third regression equation, SRDS was regressed on both Voice and GPF in
the second step of the hierarchical regression. This equation also was significant,
F(16, 2193) = 39.815,/? = .000. Both of the other criteria to test for mediation also were
met. Voice accounted for unique variance in SRDS and GPF accounted for less variance
in the third equation than it did in the second equation (Table 5-33). These results showed
that having input into the process of resolving family conflict partially accounted for the
relationship between perceived fairness and lower levels of deviant behavior, even after
controlling for the demographic variables.
For the NO group, the relationship between having voice and deviant behavior also
was assessed. The two-step hierarchical regression (with the demographic variables
entered on the first step and Voice entered on the second step) was significant,
F(15, 1630) = 14.566, p = .000 (Table 5-32). In the second step of the regression, grades
in school, the variable representing the African American category, age, gender, and
Voice accounted for unique variance in SRDS. Voice accounted for the largest amount of
unique variance.
The mediation analysis also was significant for the NO group (Table 5-33). All of
the criteria set forth by Baron and Kenny (1986) were met. These results showed that for
adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, having input in the process
of resolving family conflict partially accounted for the relationship between their low
levels of deviant behavior and perceptions of procedural fairness. These results were
robust even when the demographic variables were included in the analyses.

103
The analyses for the NVO group revealed that there was a relationship between
Voice and SRDS, F(15, 225) = 2.266, p = .005 (Table 5-32). In the second step of the
hierarchical regression, the variables representing the European American and Hispanic
American categories, the variable representing California, and Voice accounted for
unique variance in SRDS. The variable representing California and Voice accounted for
similar amounts of unique variance and higher amounts than the other variables.
The mediational analyses for the NVO group, however, were not significant. All
three hierarchical regressions were significant, but neither Voice, nor GPF, accounted for
unique variance in the third equation (Table 5-33). In this third equation, the variable
representing the Hispanic American category and the variable representing California did
account for unique variance in SRDS. These results indicated that in Study Two, for
adolescents who reported engaging in nonviolent and status offenses, having input in the
process of resolving family conflict was associated with lower levels of self-reported
deviant behavior. However, the opportunity to provide input did not account for the
relationship between levels of deviant behavior and perceived overall fairness.
For the VO group, Voice again was significantly negatively associated with SRDS,
F(15, 307) = 4.132,/? = .000 (Table 5-32). In the second step of the hierarchical
regression, the variables representing the African American and Hispanic American
categories, age, gender, the variables representing Texas and California, and Voice
accounted for unique variance in SRDS. The mediation analyses also were significant
and for this group; Voice completely mediated the relationship between GPF and SRDS
(Table 5-33). All three regression equations were significant. Voice accounted for unique
variance in the third equation, while GPF did not. These results showed that for those

104
adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses, not having input in the process of
resolving family conflict completely accounted for the relationship between deviant
behavior and perceived procedural unfairness, even when the relationships between
deviant behavior and the various demographic variables were controlled for.
The mediation model in Hypothesis Five also was tested using SEM. The two
models tested, as described in Chapter 3, were the Partial Mediation Model and the Full
Mediation Model. Both were initially tested with the entire sample. The Partial Mediation
Model (as seen in Figure 5-3) resulted in an overall fit of X2 (0, N = 2602) = .000.
GFI = 1.000, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, and SRMR = .000. This is a just-identified model
and the fit indices do not provide a good test of the fit of the model to the data.
Fitting the Full Mediation Model to the entire sample (with the path from GPF to
SRDS constrained to zero) resulted in an overall model fit ofX2 (\, N = 2602) = 38.751,
p = 0.000%X2/df= 38.751. GFI = .990, CFI = .977, TLI = .932, SRMR = .035,
RMSEA = .120. All of these indices, with the exception of the RMSEA, indicated a good
fit of the model to the data. The Chi-square Difference test indicated the Partial
Mediating Model provided a better fit of the data, X2 difference(<7/"= 1-0=1) =
38.751 - .000 = 38.751 ,p = 0.000.
The Partial Mediation Model accounted for 41% of the variance in Voice and
10% of the variance in SRDS. For the entire sample, the fit indices for the models are
summarized in Table 5-34 and the standardized path estimates for the Partial Mediation
Model are in Table 5-35.
For the entire sample, all three paths were significant. These results indicated that
Voice partially mediated the relationship between GPF and SRDS. These results

105
replicated those found with the Baron and Kenny (1986) method. Results showed that for
the entire sample, adolescents’ perceptions of having the opportunity to provide input in
the decision-making process and overall perceptions of fairness were associated with
lower levels of deviant behavior. The perceived opportunity to provide input partially
accounted for the relationship between overall perceptions of unfairness and deviant
behavior.
The Partial and Full Mediation Models were then fit to the three subgroups based
on offense type. Summaries of the model fit indices and path estimates for the four
groups are provided in Tables 5-36 and 5-37. These indicated that the Partial Mediation
Model fit the data for the NO sample well; however, the Full Mediation Model appeared
to the fit the data for NVO and VO groups better. For the NO group, in the Partial
Mediation Model, all three paths were significant. These results showed that for
adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, perceiving that they had
the opportunity to provide input in the decision-making process partially accounted for
the relationship between perceptions of overall fairness and lower levels of deviant
behavior. These results were consistent with those found using the Baron and Kenny
(1986) method.
For the NVO group, the Full Mediation Model was found to provide a better fit to
the data. In this model, both paths, from Voice to GPF and Voice to SRDS were
significant. These findings showed that for adolescents who reported engaging in
nonviolent and status offenses, the perception that they had the opportunity to provide
input in the decision-making process completely accounted for the relationship between
overall perceptions of unfairness and deviant behavior.

106
voice \
other
*
Voice
\
/
.64
/
\
/
\
/
/
\
Global
a J1
Procedural
Fairness
-.15
â–º SRDS
srdsde
other
Figure 5-3. Revised Model 1, Partial Mediation Model of Voice on Global Procedural
Fairness and Deviant Behavior for the Entire Sample, Standardized Path
Coefficients Appear on Single-Headed Arrows; Squared Multiple Correlations
of Endogenous Variables Appear at the Upper Right Comer of the Variable.
For the VO group, the Full Mediation Model also provided the better fit of the data
to the model and both paths were significant. Similar to the results for the NVO group,
for adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses, perceptions of having input in
the decision-making process completely accounted for the relationship between
perceptions of unfairness overall and engaging in deviant behavior. The SEM analyses
replicated the results found using the Baron and Kenny (1986) method to test the
mediational models for VO group.
An alternative set of mediation models also was tested to assess the relationships
among Voice, GPF, and SRDS. In this set of models, GPF was tested as a mediator in the
relationship between Voice and SRDS. Again two models were tested: the Partial
Mediation Model and the Full Mediation Model. In the Partial Mediation Model there

107
were three paths: (1) from Voice to GPF; (2) from GPF to SRDS; and (3) from Voice to
SRDS. In the Full Mediation Model, only the first two of these paths were included, with
the third constrained to zero. These models also were tested using SEM techniques and
were initially tested with the entire sample.
The Partial Mediation Model resulted in an overall fit of X2 (0, N = 2602) = .000,
GFI =1.000, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, and SRMR = .000. This is a just-identified model
and the fit indices do not provide a good test of the model. Fitting the Full Mediation
Model to the entire sample resulted in an overall model fit of (1, N = 2602) = 82.384,
p = 0.000, X2/df= 82.384, GFI = .980, CFI = .951, TLI = .854, SRMR = .042, and
RMSEA =177. The GFI, CFI, and SRMR indicated good fit, however, the other indices
suggested less than adequate fit of the data to the model. The Chi-square difference tests
comparing the two models indicated the Partial Mediation Model fit the data better than
the Full Mediation Model, X2 difference(i#"= 1 -0= 1) = 82.384 - .000 = 82.384,
p = 0.000 (Figure 5-4).
The Partial Mediation Model, in which GPF mediated the relationship between
Voice and SRDS, accounted for 41% of the variance in GPF and 11% of the variance in
SRDS. For the entire sample, the fit indices for the models are summarized in Table 5-38
and the standardized path estimates for the Partial Mediation Model are in Table 5-39.
For the entire sample, all three paths, from Voice to GPF, GPF to SRDS, and Voice
to SRDS, were significant. The results showed that GPF partially mediated the
relationship between Voice and SRDS. These results revealed that for the entire sample,
adolescents’ perceptions of being treated fairly overall and having input in the

108
decision-making process were associated with lower levels of deviant behavior. The
perceived unfairness partially accounted for the relationship between perceptions of
having input in the decision-making process and lower levels of deviant behavior.
The Partial and Full Mediation Models were then fit to the three subgroups based
on offense type. Summaries of the model fit indices and the path estimates for the four
groups are provided in Tables 5-40 and 5-41. These indicated that the Partial Mediation
Model fit the data for the NO and VO groups well. However, the Full Mediation Model
provided a better fit for the data for the NVO group. For the NO group, in the Partial
Mediation Model, all three paths were significant. These results showed that, for
adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, the results were similar to
those for the entire sample. It appeared that perceptions of overall fairness partially
mediated the relationship between the perception of having input in the decision-making
process and lower levels of deviant behavior.
For the NVO group, the Full Mediation Model provided a better fit of the data to
the model. In this model both paths from Voice to GPF and from GPF to SRDS were
significant. These results showed that for those adolescents who reported nonviolent
and/or status offenses, perceptions of having input in the decision-making process were
associated with overall levels of fairness. Perceptions of overall fairness were associated
with lower levels of deviant behavior. These results showed that perceptions of overall
unfairness completely accounted for the relationship between having input and levels of
deviant behavior.
For the VO group, in the Partial Mediation Model, the paths from Voice to GPF
and Voice to SRDS were significant. The path between GPF and SRDS was not

109
significant. The results of the path estimates suggested that for those adolescents who
reported engaging in violent offenses, perceptions of having input in the decision-making
process alone accounted for levels of deviant behavior.
gpf
other
Figure5-4. Model 3, Partial Mediation Model of Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and
Deviant Behavior for the Entire Sample; Standardized Path Coefficients
Appear on Single-Headed Arrows; Squared Multiple Correlations of
Endogenous Variables Appear at the Upper Right Comer of the Variable.
The A1C values were used to compare the originally hypothesized model (in which
Voice was the mediator) with the alternative model (in which GPF was the mediator) for
each of the groups. For the entire sample and the NO group, the two Partial Mediation
Models were compared. The AIC values were the same for each group, indicating both
versions of the models fit the data for the entire sample and the NO group equally well.
For the NVO group, the Full Mediation Models were compared. These values indicated
the initial model, in which Voice was the mediator, provided a better fit than did the
second version, in which GPF was the mediator. For the VO group, the hypothesized Full
Mediation Model and the alternative Partial Mediation Model were compared. The AIC
values also indicated the initial model provided a better fit than did the second version.

110
Differences in Procedural Justice Indices across Offense Groups
Hypothesis 6 predicted differences across the offense status groups on three indices
of procedural justice: personal respect, status recognition, and voice. A multivariate
analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with planned repeated contrasts was conducted to
test for group differences on these three constructs. The MANCOVA also included five
of the six demographic variables that were found to vary by SRDS overall scores (age,
ethnicity, grade, grades in school, and state) to control for the effects of these
demographic variables on the relationships among group status and PR, SR, and Voice
scores. Gender was not included as a covariate because gender was not significantly
correlated with PR, SR, or Voice subscale scores. The MANCOVA showed grade, grades
in school, and group status were significantly associated with the indices of procedural
justice (Table 5-42). These findings were significant for all three multivariate test
statistics appropriate for the comparison of more than two groups (in Study Two there
were three groups: No Offense, Nonviolent and Status Offense Only, and Violent
Offense).
The follow-up univariate tests also were significant (Table 5-43). These results
showed that age, grade, grades in school, and group status were significantly associated
with PR scores. Grade, grades in school, and group status were significantly associated
with SR scores. Grade, grades in school, state, and group status were significantly
associated with Voice scores. The means and standard deviations for the three groups
separately for the PR, SR, and Voice scales are presented in Table 5-44. These results
showed the offense groups differed significantly from each other on scores of feeling
respected as individuals, feeling respected as family members, and perceiving they had

Ill
input in the decision-making process (even after controlling for age, ethnicity, grade,
grades in school, and state).
The planned repeated contrasts explored the direction of offense group differences
on the three dependent variables (PR, SR, and Voice). Repeated contrasts are pairwise
comparisons of means, in which each group level’s mean is compared to the mean of the
level immediately after it (Wendorf, 2004). In the analyses for Study Two, the repeated
contrasts compared (1) the means of the NO group and the means of the NVO group on
PR, SR, and Voice, separately; and (2) the means of the NVO group and the means of the
VO group on PR, SR, and Voice, separately.
For the PR scale, the first contrast compared the NO and NVO groups. This was
significant (p = .000) and showed adolescents in the NO group had a higher mean PR
score than the NVO group. The second contrast compared the NVO and VO groups and
also was significant (p = .001). This analysis showed that the NVO group had a higher
mean PR score than the VO group. These results showed that, consistent with Hypothesis
6, adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior perceived their parents
respected them the most as individuals followed by adolescents who reported engaging
only in nonviolent and/or status offenses. Adolescents who reported violent offenses felt
their parents respected them the least as individuals.
Both contrasts were significant for the SR scale {p < .001). The contrast analyses
showed that adolescents who never engaged in deviant behavior also reported they felt
the most respected as family members, while adolescents reporting violent offenses
indicated they felt the least respected as family members. Adolescents reporting
nonviolent offenses fell in between the other two groups. For the Voice scale, once again

112
the contrasts were significant [p < .014). The results showed that adolescents who
reported never engaging in delinquent behavior felt they had more input into the
decision-making process than those adolescents reporting nonviolent and violent
offenses. Adolescents who reported nonviolent or status offenses only indicated they felt
they had more input in the decision-making process than those adolescents who reported
engaging in violent offenses.

113
Table 5-1
Ethnic Background
Ethnicity
Number
Percent
African American
460
18.5
Asian American
102
4.1
European American
822
33.1
Hispanic American
760
30.6
Native American/
American Indian
71
2.9
Multiracial
120
4.8
Other
147
5.9
Table 5-2
ANOVA for State and Deviant Behavior
Source
Type III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
25.141
4
6.285
13.014a
Intercept
2376.883
1
2376.883
4921.594a
State
25.141
4
6.285
13.014a
Error
1244.561
2577
.483
Total
7204.851
2582
Corrected Total
1269.702
2581
03
II
O
o
o
Table 5-3
Means across States for Deviant Behavior
State
Mean
Standard Error
California
1.691
.034
Connecticut
1.385
.027
Florida
1.511
.022
New Jersey
1.470
.091
Texas
1.569
.033
Table 5-4
ANOVA for Grade and Deviant Behavior
Source
Type III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
9.198
2
4.599
9.509a
Intercept
5949.588
1
5949.588
12302.322a
Grade
9.198
2
4.599
9.509a
Error
1250.629
2586
.484
Total
7203.395
2589
Corrected Total
1259.826
2588
>=.000

114
Table 5-5
Means across Grade for Deviant Behavior
Grade
Mean
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
1.449
1.510
1.596
Standard Error
.023
.023
.025
Table 5-6
ANOVA for Age and Deviant Behavior
Source
Tvoe III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
74.300
6
12.383
27.107a
Intercept
424.590
1
424.590
929.421a
Age
74.300
6
12.383
27.107a
Error
1154.873
2528
.457
Total
7044.157
2535
Corrected Total
1229.173
2534
>=.000
Table 5-7
Means across Age for Deviant Behavior
Age
Mean
Standard Error
10 years
1.682
.338
11 years
1.373
.040
12 years
1.418
.023
13 years
1.534
.023
14 years
1.671
.030
15 years
1.720
.113
16 years
4.089
.255
Table 5-8
ANOVA for Gender and Deviant Behavior
Source
Type III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
32.982
1
32.982
70.001a
Intercept
5220.490
1
5220.490
11079.831a
Gender
32.982
1
32.982
70.001a
Error
1090.289
2314
.471
Total
6450.455
2316
Corrected Total
1123.271
2315
> = .000
Table 5-9
Means across Gender for Deviant Behavior
Gender
Mean
Standard Error
Female
1.423
.018
Male
1.669
.023

115
Table 5-10
anuva tor uraoes 1
Source
n acnooi ana
Tvoe III SS
ueviani oena'
df
/lOI
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
116.354
7
16.622
37.234a
Intercept
1733.438
1
1733.438
3883.024a
Grades in School
116.354
7
16.622
37.234a
Error
1129.428
2530
.446
Total
7076.120
2538
Corrected Total
1245.782
2537
*p = .000
Table 5-11
Means across Grades in School for Deviant Behavior
Grades Earned in School
Mean
Standard Error
Mostly A’s
1.284
.026
Mostly A’s and B’s
1.443
.023
Mostly B’s
1.485
.044
Mostly B’s and C’s
1.679
.029
Mostly C’s
2.045
.079
Mostly C’s and D’s
1.761
.053
Mostly D’s
1.734
.167
Mostly D’s and F’s
2.236
.085
Table 5-12
ANOVA for Ethnicitv and Deviant Behavior
Source
Tvpe III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
13.845
6
2.307
4.906a
Intercept
2605.087
1
2605.087
5539.058a
Ethnicity
13.845
6
2.307
4.906a
Error
1164.023
2475
.470
Total
6828.518
2482
Corrected Total
1177.868
2481
V=ooo
Table 5-13
Means across Ethnicity for Deviant Behavior
Ethnicitv
Mean
Standard Error
African American
1.593
.032
American Indian/
Native American
1.509
.081
Asian American
1.391
.068
European American
1.426
.024
Hispanic American
1.528
.025
Multiracial
1.663
.063
Other
1.563
.057

116
Table 5-14
ANOVA for Socioeconomic Status and Deviant Behavior
Source
Type III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
4.207
4
1.052
2.466a
Intercept
909.778
1
909.778
2133.189b
SES
4.207
4
1.502
2.466a
Error
578.317
1356
.426
Total
3492.201
1361
Corrected Total
582.524
1360
ap< .05
p = .000
Table 5-15
Means across Socioeconomic Status for Deviant Behavior
Social Position
Mean
Standard Error
Level 1
1.461
.139
Level 2
1.456
.047
Level 3
1.399
.031
Level 4
1.478
.030
Level 5
1.562
.044
Table 5-16
Simultaneous Entry Regressions Predicting
Deviant Behavior Using Demographic Variables
Deviant Behavior
First Eauation
Second Eauation
Age
.231a
.23 Ia
African American
-.006
.006
American Indian
-.008
-.008
Asian American
-.037
-.037
European American
-.012
-.014
Hispanic American
-,077a
-,075a
Multiracial
,084a
,083a
Gender
-. 146a
-,145a
Grade
-,101a
-.101a
Grades in School
,233a
,236a
SES
.020
California
.IIIa
,113a
Connecticut
-,101a
-,099a
Florida
.008
-.011
Texas
.003
.002
Adjusted R2
a ^ r\r
. 140a
,145a
ap < .05

117
Table 5-17
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior Using Demographic Variables
Deviant Behavior
Variable
R2 Change
Fchange
Step 1
Grades in School
.084
202.932a
.236a
Step 2
Age
.021
50.706a
.231a
Step 3
Gender
.020
50.363a
-,145a
Step 4
California
.014
9.094
.113a
Connecticut
-,099a
Florida
-.011
Texas
.002
Step 5
Grade
.004
10.048
-,101a
Step 6
African American
.007
3.133
-.006
American Indian
-.008
Asian American
-.037
European American
-.014
Hispanic American
-,075a
Multiracial
,083a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for the sixth step of the hierarchical regression.
><.05

118
Table 5-18
Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal
Using Global Procedural Fairness and Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VO
Age
.054
.010
.071
-.004
African American
-.041
,066a
-.051
-.017
American Indian
-.025
-.021
.098
-.194
Asian American
-,098a
-.113a
-.032
.097
European American
.013
.014
.047
.013
Hispanic American
-.028
-.038
.012
-.053
Multiracial
,070a
,077a
-.042
.064
Gender
,065a
.06 Ia
. 179a
. 149a
Grade
-.006
-.022
-.024
,212a
Grades in School
.119a
.081a
.075
.071
California
-.010
.025
-.052
-,180a
Connecticut
-.027
-.046
.039
.153a
Florida
.036
.040
-.076
.017
Texas
.024
.031
-.009
-.001
GPF
-.258a
-,250a
-,208a
-,113a
Adjusted R2
.112a
,089a
,056a
,149a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for the second step in the hierarchical
regression.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the
No Offense group; NVO corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group;
VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense group
><.05

119
Table 5-19
Multiple Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior
Using Global Procedural Fairness and Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VO
Age
,209a
.113a
.015
,252a
African American
.010
,096a
-.117
-.210a
American Indian
-.013
-.006
.093
.120
Asian American
-.037
-.052
-.065
.111
European American
-.023
-.032
.164
.040
Hispanic American
-.06 Ia
.034
-.161
-.238a
Multiracial
,071a
.025
.011
.036
Gender
-,157a
-. 12 Ia
-.050
-. 137a
Grade
-.119a
.018
.043
-.140
Grades in School
,194a
,089a
.038
.067
California
.113a
-.022
,157a
,238a
Connecticut
-,088a
-.049
-.079
-.066
Florida
-.015
.038
.046
-.056
Texas
-.009
.016
.038
-. 12 Ia
GPF
-,257a
-,213a
-. 126b
-. 104b
Adjusted R2
.207a
.112a
066a
,107a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for the second step in the hierarchical
regression.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the
No Offense group; NVO corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group;
VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense group
ap< .05
bp = .056

120
Table 5-20
Multiple Regression Predicting Global Procedural Fairness
Using Personal Respect, Status Recognition, Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VO
Age
-.014
-.010
-.012
-.021
African American
-.002
.011
-.073
-.040
American Indian
-.009
-.018
-.037
.068
Asian American
.007
-.011
.096
-.077
European American
.029
.041a
-.105
.029
Hispanic American
-.002
-.013
-.004
-.010
Multiracial
-.020
-.013
-.105
.031
Gender
-.019
-.022
-.053
-.039
Grade
-.002
-.015
.064
.001
Grades in School
-.005
-.002
'.007
.019
California
-.011
-.014
.038
-.034
Connecticut
.003
.008
.012
-.050
Florida
-.029
-.030
.018
l
©
Texas
-.041a
-,044a
.008
-.073
PR
,462a
,483a
,263a
.50 Ia
SR
.33 Ia
.31 Ia
,478a
.22T
Adjusted R2
,571a
,573a
,502a
,446a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for the second step in the hierarchical
regression.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the
No Offense group; NVO corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group;
VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense group
ap < .05

121
Table 5-21
Multiple Regression Predicting Anger Arousal
Using Personal Respect, Status Recognition, and Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VO
Age
.049
.006
.070
-.003
African American
.036
,058a
-.044
-.024
American Indian
-.025
-.025
.110
-.180
Asian American
-,098a
-.IIIa
-.043
.091
European American
.012
.013
.050
.006
Hispanic American
-.024
-.030
.005
-.056
Multiracial
,070a
,079a
-.038
.064
Gender
,065a
,057a
,174a
.149
Grade
-.009
-.025
-.022
03
oo
o
Grades in School
. 109a
,071a
.076
.068
California
-.014
.022
-.049
-. 188a
Connecticut
-.020
-.036
.043
-. 145a
Florida
.035
.042
-.074
.011
Texas
.024
.032
-.017
-.004
PR
-,078a
-.053
-,210a
.037
SR
-,227a
-,238a
-.019
-.118
Adjusted R2
,128a
,104a
,058a
. 155a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for the second step in the hierarchical
regression.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the
No Offense group; NVO corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group;
VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense group
><.05

122
Table 5-22
Hierarchical Regression for Mediation of Personal Respect on
Global Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal Including Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
vo
Equation One: PR (DV)
African American
.027
.020
.096
.060
American Indian
.000
.005
.051
-.133
Asian American
-Oil
-.022
-.009
.021
European American
-042a
-,056a
.012
-.043
Hispanic American
.033
.037
-.058
,122a
Multiracial
-.005
.015
-.013
-.060
Gender
-.002
-.007
-,114a
.000
Grades in School
-.075“
-,051a
-.041
-,085a
GPF
,708a
,717a
,613a
,643a
Adjusted R2
,533a
,537a
,397a
,440a
Equation Two: AA (DV)
African American
.033
,060a
-.066
-.025
American Indian
-.025
-.024
.098
-.181
Asian American
-,097a
-,108a
-.035
.085
European American
.022
.026
.041
016
Hispanic American
-.030
-.040
.016
-.059
Multiracial
,070a
,074a
-.043
.070
Gender
,065a
,061a
,192a
,150a
Grade
.001
-.015
-.003
,213a
Grades in School
,127a
,085a
.083
.076
California
-.016
.016
-.047
-,183a
Connecticut
-.027
-.044
.045
,148a
Florida
.031
.036
-.070
.010
Texas
.019
.027
-.016
-.005
GPF
-,240a
-,229a
-,174a
-,114a
Adjusted R2
104a
,080a
,043a
,149a
Equation Three: AA (DV)
African American
.037
,063a
-.048
-.020
American Indian
-.025
-.023
.108
-.191
Asian American
-,099a
-,111a
-.037
.087
European American
.015
.018
.043
.012
Hispanic American
-.025
-.034
006
-.049
Multiracial
,069a
,076a
-.045
.065
Gender
,065a
,060a
,170a
,150a
Grade
-.001
-.016
-.109
.21 Ia
Grades in School
,115a
078a
.076
.069
California
-.016
.020
-.047
-,188a
Connecticut
-.023
-.042
.043
,152a
Florida
.034
.038
-.073
.015
Texas
.023
.029
-.016
.002
PR
-,162a
-,143a
-,186a
-.081
GPF
-,125a
-,126a
-.060
-.062
Adjusted R2
,116a
,088a
,060a
,150a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for significant predictors across the four groups.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the No Offense group; NVO
corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group; VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense
group
><.05

123
Table 5-23
Hierarchical Regression for Mediation of Status Recognition on
Global Procedural Fairness and Anger Arousal Including Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
vo
Equation One: SR (DV)
African American
.008
-.006
.111
-.011
American Indian
-.001
-.011
.008
.049
Asian American
.002
-.010
-.040
.023
European American
-.032
-,042a
.052
-.072
Hispanic American
.024
.038
.014
.001
Multiracial
-.006
.015
-.038
-.033
Grades in School
-,074a
-,060a
-.014
-.051
GPF
,677a
,675a
677a
,572a
Adjusted R2
,493a
485a
,465a
,331a
Equation Two: AA (DV)
African American
.033
,060a
-.066
-.025
American Indian
-.025
-.024
.098
-.181
Asian American
-,097a
-,108a
-.035
.085
European American
.022
.026
.041
.016
Hispanic American
-.030
-.040
.016
-.059
Multiracial
,070a
,074a
-.043
.070
Gender
,065a
,061a
.192
,150a
Grade
.001
-.015
-.003
,213a
Grades in School
,127a
,085a
.083
.076
California
-.016
.016
-.047
-,183a
Connecticut
-.027
-.044
.045
,148a
Florida
.031
.036
-.070
.010
Texas
.019
.027
-.016
-.005
GPF
-,240a
-,229a
-,174a
-,114a
Adjusted R'
,104a
,080a
,043a
,149a
Equation Three: AA (DV)
African American
.035
,058a
-.055
-.026
American Indian
-.026
-.027
.099
-.175
Asian American
-,097a
-,110a
-.039
.088
European American
.015
.017
.046
.007
Hispanic American
-.025
-.031
.018
-.059
Multiracial
068a
,077a
-.047
.066
Gender
,063a
,055a
,189a
,147a
Grade
-.009
-.026
-.016
,209a
Grades in School
,110a
,072a
.082
.069
California
-.015
.021
-.048
-,189a
Connecticut
-.020
-.036
.042
142a
Florida
.032
.039
-.075
.008
Texas
.020
.028
-.015
-.008
SR
-,228a
-,226a
-.097
-. 177b
GPF
-,085a
-,076a
-.109
-.047
Adjusted R~
,130a
,105a
,044a
,155a
Note. Entries are standardized 3 weights for significant predictors across the four groups.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the No Offense group; NVO
corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group; VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense
group
> < .05
V = .069

124
Table 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 Anger Arousal
Model
Chi-square
df
P
GFI
CFI
TLI
SRMR RMSEA
Independence
4922.453
6
.000
.516
.000
.000
.790
.561
Partial Mediation
953.765
1
.000
.867
.806
-.163
.132
.605
Full Mediation
961.846
2
.000
.865
.805
.414
.143
.430
Partial Mediation
With Covariance
.000
0
1.000
1.000
.000
Full Mediation
With Covariance
8.081
1
.004
.998
.999
.991
.039
.052
Table 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
Parameter Estimate Standard Error Critical Ratio
GPF—PR
.725
.012
53.645a
GPF—SR
.697
Oil
49.627a
GFP—AA
-.080
.053
-2.845a
PR—AA
-.056
.069
-1.721
SR—AA
-.220
.072
-7.098a
ap < .005

125
Table 5-26
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of Personal Respect
Model Chi-square df
GFI CFI TLI
SRMR
RMSEA
AIC
.039
20.000
.039
.052
26.081
.000
20.000
.035
.003
23.671
.000
20.000
.042
.000
18.947
.000
20.000
.032
.000
18.618
Partial Mediation with Covariance—Entire Sample
.000 0 .998 .999
Full Mediation with Covariance—Entire Sample
8.081 1 .004 .998 .999
Partial Mediation with Covariance—NO Group
.000 0 ----- 1.000 1.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—NO Group
5.671 1 .017 .999 .999
Partial Mediation with Covariance—NVO Group
.000 0 1.000 1.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—NVO Group
.947 1 .331 .998 1.000
Partial Mediation with Covariance—VO Group
.000 0 1.000 1.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—VO Group
.618 1 .432 .999 1.000
.991
.992
1.001
1.004

126
Table 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
Parameter Estimate Standard Error Critical Ratio
Entire Sample (N = 2602), Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
GPF—PR
.725
.012
53.645a
GPF—SR
.697
.011
49.627a
GPF—AA
-.080
.053
-2.845a
PR—AA
-.056
.069
-1.721
SR—AA
-.220
.072
-7.098a
PRother=SRother
.554
.015
24.717a
No Offense Group (N =
1936), Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
GPF—PR
.728
.014
46.775a
GPF—SR
.692
.014
42.141a
GPF—AA
-.079
.067
-2.383a
PR—AA
-.012
.086
-.318
SR—AA
-.228
.086
-6.347a
PRother=SRother
.547
.015
21.000a
Nonviolent/Status Offense Group (N = 278), Full Mediation with Covariance
GPF—PR
.629
.037
13.472a
GPF—SR
.690
.032
15.844a
PR—AA
-.256
.166
-2.964a
SR—AA
-.006
.179
-.064
PRother=SRother
.545
.051
7.970a
Violent Offense Group (N
GPF—PR .655
GPF—SR .590
PR—AA -.012
SR—AA -.171
PRother=SRother .525
ap < .05
Table 5-28
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation of Global
Procedural Fairness on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal
Model
Chi-sauare
df
P
GFI
CFI
TLI SRMR RMSEA
Independence
4922.453
6
.000
.516
.000
.000 .790 .561
Partial Mediation
2428.478
1
.000
.767
.506
-1.962 .491 .966
Full Mediation
2523.228
3
.000
.755
.487
-.025 .503 .568
Partial Mediation
With Covariance
.000
0
1.000
1.000
.000
Full Mediation
With Covariance
94.750
2
.000
.982
.981
.943 .144 .134
388), Full Mediation Model with Covariance
.032 17.066a
.029 14.371a
.130 -.175
.157 -2.414a
.046 9.145a

127
Table 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
Parameter
Estimate
Standard Error
Critical Ratio
PR—GPF
.462
.023
22.512a
SR—GPF
.338
.025
16.474a
GPF—AA
-.080
.053
-2.845a
PR—AA
-.056
.069
-1.721
SR—AA
-.220
.072
-7.098a
PR=SR
.779
.033
31.342a
a/7 < .005
Table 5-30
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of
Global Procedural Fairness on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal
Model Chi-square df p GFI CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA AIC
Partial Mediation with Covariance—Entire Sample
.000 0 1.000 1.000
.000
20.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—Entire Sample
94.750 2 .000 .982 .981 .943
.144
.134
110.750
Partial Mediation with Covariance—NO Group
.000 0 —- 1.000 1.000
.000
20.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—NO Group
59.812 2 .000 .985 .984 .952
.121
.122
75.812
Partial Mediation with Covariance—NVO Group
.000 0 -— 1.000 1.000 -—
.000
20.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—NVO Group
8.525 2 .014 .985 .985 .955
.121
.109
24.525
Partial Mediation with Covariance—VO Group
.000 0 -— 1.000 1.000 -—
.000
20.000
Full Mediation with Covariance—VO Group
5.908 2 .052 .992 .992 .977
.084
.071
21.908

128
Table 5-31
Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or
Full Mediation Model with Covariance for Global Procedural Fairness
on Personal Respect/Status Recognition and Anger Arousal
Parameter
Estimate
Standard Error
Critical Ratio
Entire Sample (N = 2602), Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
PR—GPF
.462
.023
22.512a
SR—GPF
.338
.025
16.474a
GPF—AA
-.080
.053
-2.845a
PR—AA
-.056
.069
-1.721
SR—AA
-.220
.072
-7.098a
PR=SR
.779
.033
31.342a
No Offense Group (N = 1936), Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
PR—GPF
.482
.027
20.471a
SR—GPF
.319
.028
13.557a
GPF—AA
-.079
.067
-2.383a
PR—AA
-.012
.086
-.318
SR—AA
-.228
.086
-6.347a
PR=SR
774
034
26 933a
Nonviolent/Status Offense Group (N =
278), Partial Mediation Model with Covariance
PR—GPF
.262
.078
4.174a
SR—GPF
.495
.084
7.879a
GPF—AA
-.080
.127
-.974
PR—AA
-.235
.171
-2.643a
SR—AA
-.034
.198
.359
PR=SR
.741
.098
9.908a
Violent Offense Group (N = 388), Full Mediation Model with Covariance
PR—GPF
.476
.063
9.033a
SR—GPF
.253
.076
4.802a
GPF—AA
-.138
.078
-2.733a
PR=SR
.707
.082
11.354a
><.05

129
Table 5-32
Multiple Regression Predicting Deviant Behavior
Usinu Voice and Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VO
Age
,209a
.115“
.016
.247“
African American
-.001
©
00
i»
-.108
-.196“
American Indian
-.006
-.003
.107
-.123
Asian American
-.033
-.046
-.065
.103
European American
-.020
-.024
.158“
.017
Hispanic American
-. 066a
.034
-.172“
-.236“
Multiracial
,071a
.019
.008
.048
Gender
-. 153a
-.119“
-.038
-.145“
Grade
-. 118a
.020
.040
-.140“
Grades in School
. 196a
.091“
.051
.063
California
. 109a
-.027
.160“
.229“
Connecticut
-.08 Ia
-.043
-.076
-.070
Florida
-.009
.043
.056
-.052
Texas
i
O
o
.021
.045
-.128“
Voice
-.263“
-.208“
-.154“
-.177“
Adjusted R2
.210“
.110“
.073“
.127“
Note. Entries are standardized (3 weights for the second step in the hierarchical
regression.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to values for the
No Offense group; NVO corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group;
VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense group
><.05

130
Table 5-33
Regression Analyses for the Mediation of Voice on Global Procedural
Fairness and Deviant Behavior Including Demographic Variables
Variables
ES
NO
NVO
VQ
Equation One: Voice (DV)
African American
.001
-.036
.114
.118
American Indian
.018
.012
.090
-.053
Asian American
.012
.009
.033
.002
European American
-.021
-.009
-.027
-,151a
Hispanic American
.003
.020
-.090
.050
Multiracial
-.015
-.014
-.036
.034
Grades in School
-,060a
-,044a
.042
.056
California
.001
.015
.002
-.052
Connecticut
,037a
.036
-.003
-.009
Florida
.033
.028
.037
.055
Texas
.013
.019
.082
-.026
GPF
,622a
,631a
,593a
,480a
Adjusted R2
,414a
,418a
,367a
,252a
Equation Two: SRDS (DV)
Age
,209a
,114a
.013
,252a
African American
.002
.090
-.126
-,218a
American Indian
-.013
-.007
.092
.133
Asian American
-.036
-.048
-.064
.096
European American
-.014
-.022
.156
.042
Hispanic American
-,063a
.031
-.159
-,239 a
Multiracial
,071a
.022
.004
.041
Gender
-157a
-,119a
-.047
-,140a
Grade
-,112a
.026
.054
-.141
Grades in School
,201a
,096a
.042
.069
California
,107a
-.030
,162a
,229a
Connecticut
-,087a
-.048
-.075
-.073
Florida
-.020
.036
.050
-.064
Texas
-.014
.014
.034
-,127a
GPF
-,242a
-,172a
-,131a
-,145a
Adjusted R~
,200a
,097a
,067a
,118a
Equation Three: SRDS (DV)
Age
,204a
,112a
.017
,248a
African American
.002
,084a
-.112
-,202a
American Indian
-.009
-.006
.103
.126
Asian American
-.034
-.047
.060
.096
European American
-.018
-.023
.153
.021
Hispanic American
-,063a
.035
-,170a
-,232a
Multiracial
,068a
.020
.000
.046
Gender
-,157a
122a
-.046
-,148a
Grade
-,119a
.018
.042
-.142
Grades in School
,190a
,088a
.047
.061
California
,107a
-.027
,162a
,222a
Connecticut
-,080a
-.042
-.076
-.074
Florida
-.014
.040
.054
-.056
Texas
-.012
.018
.043
-,131a
Voice
-,184a
-165a
-.117
-,138a
GPF
-,127a
-,068a
-.062
-.079
Adjusted R~
,219a
,112a
,072a
,129a
Note. Entries are standardized P weights for significant predictors across the four groups.
Note. ES corresponds to values for the Entire Sample; NO corresponds to v alues for the No Offense group; NVO
corresponds to values for the Nonviolent/Status Offense group; VO corresponds to values for the Violent Offense
group
‘p < .05

131
Table 5-34
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior
Model
Chi-square
df p GFI
CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA
Independence
1677.966
3 .000 .717
.000 .000 .432
.463
Partial Mediation
.000
0 1.000
1.000 -— .000
Full Mediation
38.751
1 .000 .990
.977 .932 .035
.120
Table 5-35
Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation Model
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior
Parameter
Estimate
Standard Error
Critical Ratio
GPF—Voice
.639
.012
42.393a
GFP—SRDS
-.150
.012
-6.248a
Voice—SRDS
-.220
.015
-9.149a
ap < .005
Table 5-36
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Partial and Full Mediation Models
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior
Model Chi-square df p
GFI
CFI
TLI SRMR
RMSEA
AIC
Partial Mediation—Entire Sample
.000 0
1.000
1.000
—- .000
12.000
Full Mediation—Entire Sample
38.751 1 .000
.990
.977
.932 .035
.120
48.751
Partial Mediation—NO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000
—- .000
12.000
Full Mediation—NO Group
7.613 1 .006
.997
.994
.983 .005
.058
17.613
Partial Mediation—NVO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000
—- .000
12.000
Full Mediation—NVO Group
1.020 1 .312
.998
1.000
1.000 .009
.009
11.020
Partial Mediation—VO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000
.000
12.000
Full Mediation—VO Group
1.591 1 .207
.997
.995
.986 .026
.039
11.591

132
Table 5-37
Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation Model
for Voice on Global Procedural Fairness and Deviant Behavior
Parameter Estimate Standard Error Critical Ratio
Entire Sample (N = 2602), Partial Mediation Model
GPF—Voice
.639
.012
42.393a
GPF—SRDS
-.150
.012
-6.248a
Voice—SRDS
-.220
.015
-9.149a
No Offense Group (N = 1936), Partial Mediation Model
GPF—Voice
.644
.015
37.016a
GPF—SRDS
-.080
.004
-2.762a
Voice—SRDS
-.187
.005
-6.498a
Nonviolent/Status Offense Group (N =
278), Full Mediation Model
GPF—Voice
.593
.037
12.263a
Voice—SRDS
-.162
.017
-2.726a
Violent Offense Group (N
= 388), Full Mediation Model
GPF—Voice
.497
.030
11.264a
Voice—SRDS
-.212
.039
-4.259a
><.05
Table 5-38
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for the Entire Sample for the Mediation of
Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior
Model
Chi-square
df
P
GFI
CFI
TLI
SRMR RMSEA
Independence
1677.966
3
.000
.717
.000
.000
.432
.463
Partial Mediation
.000
0
1.000
1.000
.000
Full Mediation
82.384
1
.000
.980
.951
.854
.042
.177

133
Table 5-39
Standardized Estimates for the Entire Sample for the Partial Mediation Model
for Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior
Parameter
Estimate
Standard Error
Critical Ratio
Voice—GPF
.639
.018
42.393a
GPF—SRDS
-.150
.012
-6.248a
Voice—SRDS
-.220
.015
-9.149a
ap < .005
Table 5-40
Model Goodness of Fit Indices for All Samples for the Mediation of
Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior
Model Chi-sauare df p
GFI
CFI TLI
SRMR
RMSEA
AIC
Partial Mediation—Entire Sample
.000 0
1.000
1.000
.000
12.000
Full Mediation—Entire Sample
82.384 1 .000
.980
.951 .854
.042
.177
92.384
Partial Mediation—NO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000
.000
12.000
Full Mediation—NO Group
41.771 1 .000
.986
.965 .894
.009
.145
51.771
Partial Mediation—NVO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000 -—
.000
12.000
Full Mediation—NVO Group
2.545 1 111
.994
.988 .963
.011
.075
12.545
Partial Mediation—VO Group
.000 0
1.000
1.000 -—
.000
12.000
Full Mediation—VO Group
9.351 1 .002
.984
.934 .801
.044
.147
19.351

134
Table 5-41
Standardized Estimates for All Samples for the Partial or Full Mediation Model
for Global Procedural Fairness on Voice and Deviant Behavior
Parameter
Estimate
Standard Error Critical Ratio
Entire Sample (N =
2602), Partial Mediation Model
Voice—GPF
.639
.018
42.393a
GPF—SRDS
-.150
.012
-6.248a
Voice—SRDS
-.220
.015
-9.149a
No Offense Group (N
= 1936), Partial Mediation Model
Voice—GPF
.644
.020
37.016a
GPF—SRDS
-.080
.004
-2.762a
Voice—SRDS
-.187
.005
-6.498a
Nonviolent/Status Offense Group (N =
278), Full Mediation Model
Voice—GPF
.593
.064
12.263a
Voice—SRDS
-.144
.013
-2.423a
Violent Offense Group (N = 388), Partial Mediation Model
Voice—GPF
.497
.065
11.264a
GPF—SRDS
-.072
.030
-1.263
Voice—SRDS
-.176
.045
-3.076a
*p<. 05

135
Table 5-42
Multivariate Analyses for Procedural Justice Indices,
Group Status, and Select Demographic Variables
Effect
Value
F
Hypothesis df
Error df
Intercept
Pillai’s Trace
.127
113.107a
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.873
113.107a
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.145
113.107a
3
2339
Age
Pillai’s Trace
.002
1.375
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.998
1.375
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.002
1.375
3
2339
Ethnicity
Pillai’s Trace
.001
.841
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.999
.841
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.001
.841
3
2339
Grade
Pillai’s Trace
.003
2.640b
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.997
2.640b
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.003
2.640b
3
2339
Grades in School
Pillai’s Trace
.010
7.527a
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.990
7.527a
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.010
7.527a
3
2339
State
Pillai’s Trace
.002
1.369
3
2339
Wilks’ Lambda
.998
1.369
3
2339
Roy’s Largest Root
.002
1.369
3
2339
Offense Group Status
Pillai’s Trace
.065
26.109a
6
4680
Wilks’ Lambda
.935
26.522a
6
4678
Roy’s Largest Root
.068
53.150a
3
2340
ap=. 000
h p = .048

136
Table 5-43
Univariate Analyses for Procedural Justice Indices,
c. : : z
Source
Type III SS
df
Mean Square
F
Corrected Model
Personal Respect
359.074
7
51.296
39.851a
Voice
261.553
7
37.365
32.620a
Status Recognition
Intercept
293.990
7
41.999
37.834a
Personal Respect
360.125
1
360.125
279.772a
Voice
301.632
1
301.632
263.332a
Status Recognition
Age
313.346
1
313.346
282.274a
Personal Respect
5.165
1
5.165
4.013b
Voice
3.085
1
3.085
2.694
Status Recognition
Ethnicity
3.069
1
3.069
2.765
Personal Respect
3.025
1
3.025
2.350
Voice
.824
1
.824
.719
Status Recognition
.972
1
.972
.876
Grade
Personal Respect
7.949
1
7.949
6.167b
Voice
6.631
1
6.631
5.789b
Status Recognition
7.864
1
7.864
7.084b
Grades in School
Personal Respect
24.345
1
24.345
18.913a
Voice
15.402
1
15.402
13.447a
Status Recognition
22.756
1
22.756
20.499a
State
Personal Respect
2.225
1
2.225
1.728
Voice
1.949
1
1.949
1.701
Status Recognition
Offense Group Status
4.466
1
4.466
4.024b
Personal Respect
180.637
2
90.319
70.166a
Voice
136.469
2
68.234
59.570a
Status Recognition
141.725
2
70.863
63.836a
Error
Personal Respect
3013.349
2341
1.287
Voice
2681.486
2341
1.145
Status Recognition
2598.691
2341
1.110
Total
Personal Respect
36415.861
2349
Voice
33630.889
2349
Status Recognition
34256.500
2349
Corrected Total
Personal Respect
3372.423
2348
Voice
2943.039
2348
Status Recognition
2892.681
2348
hp < .05

137
Table 5-44
Means for Group Status on Personal Respect, Voice, and Status Recognition
Group
Personal Respect
112 : I T.2
Voice
Status Recognition
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
No Offense
Nonviolent/Status
3.913
.027
3.754
.026
3.800
.025
Offense
3.445
.073
3.376
.069
3.340
.068
Violent Offense
3.129
.064
3.063
.060
3.123
.059

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
The focus of the present study was to further explore and expand on Fondacaro and
colleagues’ (Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999; Fondacaro, Jackson, and Luescher (2002)
working model focusing on the causes and consequences of family conflict in
adolescence. A considerable body of evidence in the family functioning literature
suggests that high levels of ongoing family conflict and low levels of family cohesion are
associated with increases in deviant and externalizing behavior, as well as decreased
psychological well-being evidenced by internalizing symptoms (Ary, Duncan, Duncan, &
Hops, 1999; Daniels & Moos, 1990; Formoso, Gonzales, & Aiken, 2000; Fraser, 1996;
Gehring,Wentzel, Feldman, & Munson, 1990; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, & Huesmann,
1996; Holmbeck & O’Donnell, 1991; McCord, 1991; Moffltt, 1993; Montemayor, 1986;
Shek, 1998; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996).
Fondacaro, Dunkle, and Pathak (1998) and Fondacaro and Jackson (1999)
established a link between older adolescents’ perceptions of the overall fairness of family
conflict resolution procedures and both general levels of family conflict and cohesion.
Diamond, Luescher, and Fondacaro (2001) replicated these findings with a sample of
younger adolescents. Fondacaro and colleagues (Fondacaro et al., 1998; Jackson &
Fondacaro, 1999) suggested procedural justice as a link between family functioning and
adolescent behavior. They proposed that adolescents who perceive their parents treat
them unfairly, especially on an ongoing basis, are likely to experience anger arousal. For
138

139
some adolescents, unresolved angry feelings may translate into increased deviant and
aggressive behavior.
The present study sought to further explore the relationships among family
functioning, procedural justice, identity orientation, and deviant behavior, and to test
aspects of Fondacaro and colleagues’ working model. To that end, the present study had
six goals, corresponding to the six hypotheses under investigation in the present study.
The first goal was to replicate the previous finding that perceptions of procedural justice
are related to levels of family conflict and cohesion, even after controlling for severity of
conflict. These relationships were the focus of Hypothesis 1 and the results were
consistent with those shown in previous studies. The findings showed levels of conflict
and cohesion within the family were associated with adolescent perceptions of fairness by
parents in resolving family conflict.
Hypothesis 1 was addressed using regression methods in Study One. These
analyses controlled for the severity of conflict reported by the adolescents. This sample
was younger and from a different region of the country than those sampled in previous
studies. These results showed adolescents’ perceptions of their family’s general level of
closeness, helpfulness, and supportiveness were positively associated with overall levels
of fairness based on the adolescents’ appraisal of parental fairness in resolving a specific
family conflict. The results also showed adolescents’ perceptions of family conflict,
focusing on expressions of anger and physical aggression within the family, were
negatively associated with global justice appraisals, again based on the adolescents’
reported family conflict scenario.

140
These findings suggested that adolescents’ beliefs about the fairness or unfairness
of the process of resolving a specific family conflict may influence levels of conflict and
cohesion within the family. It may also be that adolescents’ perceptions about the degree
of conflict and cohesion within the family impact the general atmosphere in the family,
with regard to notions of fairness and appropriate, respectful treatment. It is likely that the
constructs of conflict/cohesion and procedural justice have reciprocal relationships with
one another. Although the present cross-sectional study cannot address any causal
relationships among these variables, future longitudinal research can provide further
insight into the specifics of these relationships.
Anger Arousal, Deviant Behavior, and Global Procedural Fairness
The second goal of the present study was to replicate previous findings of
relationships between adolescent perceptions of overall unfairness in the process of
resolving family conflict and both feelings of anger and deviant behavior. The findings in
the present studies were consistent with Hypothesis 2, and indicated adolescent
perceptions of unfairness were associated with both negative emotional states and deviant
behavior. These relationships were assessed in both Study One and Study Two.
The analyses in Study One controlled for the severity of the conflict reported by the
adolescents. In Study Two, the analyses controlled for the following demographic
variables: age, ethnicity, gender, grade, grades in school, and state. Adolescents in Study
One who perceived their parents did not treat them fairly in the resolution of a specific
conflict reported higher levels of both anger and negative emotional response, in response
to that same conflict. The results from Study Two revealed a modest, inverse relationship
between global procedural fairness and general feelings of anger and irritability. A

141
similar relationship was found with deviant behavior: global procedural justice was
moderately, negatively associated with deviant behavior.
The relationship between perceptions of overall fairness and angry/irritable feelings
was revealed not only for the entire sample of Study Two, but also for the subgroups
based on offense type. Examining the magnitude of the results across the three
subgroups, the relationship between overall procedural fairness and angry and irritable
feelings appeared stronger for the adolescents who reported engaging in no delinquent
offenses over the past year. For those adolescents who reported engaging in violent
offenses, the correlation between overall fairness and anger/irritability was significant,
but was smaller than that for adolescents in the no offense group and those in the
nonviolent/status offense group.
It may be that for adolescents who act out aggressively, perceptions of parental
fairness play a smaller role in the development of general angry and irritable feelings than
for adolescents who engage in nonagressive forms of deviant behavior or those who do
not engage in deviant behavior. In other words, for adolescents who engage in aggressive
forms of delinquency, a greater number of factors may contribute to their experiences of
anger and irritability. A number of other factors could account for the development of
these negative feelings in aggressive youth, in addition to perceptions of the overall
fairness provided by parents in resolving family conflict. Two possible explanations at
the individual level, which may add value to future studies of procedural justice, are
temperament/personality styles and attributional styles.
The results of the analyses of the relationships between overall perceptions of
fairness and deviant behavior varied across the three groups based on offense type in

142
Study Two. For the adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, the
findings were similar to those of the entire sample, in that perceptions of overall fairness
in the process of resolving family conflict were negatively associated with levels of
deviant behavior. The findings for the adolescents who reported engaging in nonviolent
and status offenses and those who reported engaging in violent offenses were
nonsignificant; however, the results for both of these groups approached significance.
Analyses testing the relationship between deviant behavior and global procedural
fairness for these groups in Study Two (that did not control for the demographic
variables) were significant. The addition of the demographic variables to these analyses
necessitated adding 14 predictors to the regression equations. Also, the samples for each
of these groups were substantially smaller than those used for the analyses of the entire
sample or the sample of adolescents who denied engaging in deviant behavior. It may be
that these smaller sample sizes did not provide adequate power to successfully assess the
relationship between global procedural fairness and deviant behavior while controlling
for the demographic variables for these two groups. The nearly significant p-value for
these analyses (.056) suggests that future analyses with larger samples of adolescents
who engaged in nonviolent or violent offenses would likely reveal a significant inverse
relationship between adolescent perceptions of overall fairness in the family and
delinquent and deviant behaviors.
It is also possible, however, that the effects of the demographic variables on deviant
behavior accounted for the previously achieved relationships between perceptions of
fairness and deviant behavior, when the demographic variables were not included. For the
adolescents who engage in nonviolent and status offenses, the state in which the

143
adolescent resides was significantly related to deviant behavior. For the violent
adolescents, a number of demographic variables were associated with deviant behavior.
These included age, ethnicity, gender, and state. These variables were also associated
with deviant behavior for the entire sample, as well as grades in school and grade. The
finding that perceptions of fairness were also associated with levels of deviant behavior
for the entire sample (above and beyond the effects of the demographic variables),
provides some support for the suggestion that the sample size of the analyses for the
nonviolent and violent offending groups impacted the ability to achieve a significant
relationship between perceptions of fairness and deviant behavior.
Personal Respect and Status Recognition
The third goal of the present study was to explore two possible pathways from
perceptions of injustice to anger arousal. One pathway focuses on status recognition,
which is based on Tyler’s identity-based relational model (Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Blader,
2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler, Boekmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997; Tyler & Smith, 1999).
Tyler’s model posits that injustice by group authorities provides important information to
individuals about their status within the group. Specifically, unfair treatment is believed
to imply the person has little importance or value to the group. In the particular context of
the present study, the authority figure is the parent, who, through unfair family
conflict-resolution procedures, conveys the message to the adolescent that he or she is not
an important member of the family. This in turn may fuel feelings of anger.
Fondacaro and colleagues (Jackson & Fondacaro, 1999; Fondacaro et al., 2002)
suggest a second path between justice appraisals and anger: personal respect, which
focuses more on human dignity, rather than social status as a family member. For some
adolescents, the family may be an important reference group; these adolescents may

144
focus more on status recognition. For others, being treated with dignity as unique
individuals, independent of the family reference group, may be more important. These
adolescents may focus more on personal respect. Luescher, Fondacaro, and McNatt
(2001) established relationships among personal respect, status recognition, global
procedural fairness, and anger arousal in a sample of older adolescents. Jackson and
Fondacaro (1999) found that perceptions of both personal respect and status recognition
were associated with deviant behavior in a sample of older adolescents. Diamond et al.
(2001) replicated this finding with a sample of younger adolescents.
The present study seeks to reveal relationships among these variables and to
evaluate personal respect and status recognition as mediators in the relationship between
overall perceptions of unfairness and anger arousal. This was the focus of Hypothesis 3.
The results overall were consistent with the hypothesis and mediational relationships
were revealed in Study Two. The findings also suggested differences in some of these
relationships across the groups based on offense type in Study Two.
The relationships focused on in Hypothesis 3 were assessed in both Study One and
Study Two and were established in three steps. First, the relationships between overall
perceptions of fairness and both personal respect and status recognition were assessed.
Second, the relationships between anger arousal and both personal respect and status
recognition were evaluated. Third, personal respect and status recognition were tested as
mediators in the relationship between perceptions of fairness and anger arousal. Each of
these steps was analyzed using regression techniques. In Study One the regression
analyses controlled for conflict severity, and in Study Two they controlled for the
demographic variables.

145
The mediational analyses were also assessed using Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) techniques. The regression and SEM methods answered similar, but somewhat
different questions regarding the nature of the mediating mechanisms. The series of
regressions tested whether personal respect and status recognition separately mediated the
relationship between global procedural fairness and anger arousal. The SEM analyses
focused on the simultaneous mediational effects of personal respect and status
recognition.
Results for both Study One and Study Two revealed perceptions of being respected
as a person and as a family member were associated with perceptions of overall fairness.
The relationship between personal respect and overall fairness was stronger than was the
relationship between status recognition and overall fairness for the entire samples in
Studies One and Two. The relationships between personal respect/status recognition and
global procedural fairness were also analyzed for each of the subgroups in Study Two.
For adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior and those who reported
engaging in violent offenses, results were similar to those found for the entire sample. For
adolescents who reported engaging in nonviolent and status offenses, the opposite result
was revealed: there was a stronger relationship between being respected as a family
member and overall perceptions of fairness.
The results for both Studies One and Two also revealed perceptions of being
respected as individuals and as family members were independently related to anger
arousal. In Study Two, status recognition had a stronger relationship with anger arousal
than did personal respect for the entire sample. The analyses of the subgroups based on
offense type revealed only one of either personal respect or status recognition was

146
significantly related to anger arousal in these groups. For the nonoffending adolescents,
perceptions of being disrespected as a family member were associated with general
feelings of anger and irritability. For the nonviolent and status offending adolescents,
only perceptions of being disrespected as an individual were associated with general
feelings of anger and irritability.
In the analyses for the violent adolescents, both perceptions of being disrespected
as an individual and as a family member were associated with general feelings of anger
and irritability. However, this result was achieved when only one or the other of these
perceptions was included in the analyses. When both perceptions were included, neither
was independently associated with angry and irritable feelings. It appears that for the
sample in Study Two (when the demographic variables were controlled for) the
individual and family level perceptions of respect, when combined, inhibited the effect of
the other. In previous analyses that did not include the demographic variables (for this
group in Study Two) these results were not revealed. It appears that, for the adolescents
who reported engaging in violent offenses, the demographic variables (particularly
gender and the state in which the adolescent resides) partially accounted for angry and
irritable feelings, and attenuated the relationships among perceptions of personal and
familial respect on anger and irritability.
The regression analyses of a mediating mechanism in Study Two were conducted
separately for the entire sample and for each of the three offense-type groups. Results of
the analyses for the entire sample and the group of nonoffending adolescents suggested
adolescent perceptions of both being respected as individuals and as family members
separately mediated the relationship between overall perceptions of fairness and general

147
feelings of anger and irritability. For the group of nonviolent and status offending
adolescents, the regression analyses indicated that personal respect alone completely
mediated the relationship between global procedural fairness and anger arousal.
The results of the regression mediation analyses for the violent offenders were
nonsignificant; however, the analyses for complete mediation by status recognition did
approach significance. Once again, this result may have been due to the relatively small
sample size and the inclusion of the numerous demographic variables in the regression
analyses. Analyses for the violent offenders in Study Two, which excluded the
demographic variables, showed that perceptions of being respected as a family member
completely mediated the relationship between overall perceptions of fairness and anger
arousal. Future, larger scale studies can determine if the present findings, in which no
mediation was indicated, are robust, or if the demographic variables (including gender,
grade, and state) weakened the effect of status recognition as a mediator.
The mediational analyses were also tested with a series of structural equation
models. In all, eight models were tested to assess the relationships among personal
respect, status recognition, global procedural fairness, and anger arousal. Four of these
models were based on the hypothesized relationships among these variables, such that
personal respect and status recognition were the mediators in the models. The other four
models were based on an alternative model which hypothesized global procedural
fairness mediated the relationships between personal respect/status recognition and anger
arousal. These eight models varied along three dimensions. The first dimension differed
as to whether the model was based on the hypothesized or alternative relationships. The
second dimension focused on the inclusion or exclusion of a covariance between either

148
personal respect and status recognition or between the error terms associated with these
variables. The third dimension varied as whether the model predicted full or partial
mediation.
The SEM analyses necessitated a determination of which of the two sets of models
best fit the data. The two sets of models varied as to which variable(s) played the role of
the mediator: personal respect/status recognition or global procedural fairness. Selecting
between alternative models should be based on the fit of the models to the data as well as
theoretical considerations. The fit indices could only provide guidance with regard to
selecting between the models for the nonviolent and violent adolescents. These values
indicated the hypothesized models, in which personal respect and status recognition
mediated the relationship between global procedural fairness and anger arousal, provided
the best fit.
The models for the entire sample and nonoffending adolescents revealed that the
Partial Mediation Model with Covariance best fit the data. The path estimates suggested
status recognition partially mediated the relationship between global procedural fairness
and anger/irritability for both groups. The results of the SEM analyses differed from the
regression analyses for these two groups, which assessed the possible mediating effects
of personal respect and status recognition separately. The SEM results suggested that for
the entire sample and the nonoffending adolescents (when both variables were
simultaneously assessed as mediators), perceptions of being respected as an individual no
longer significantly mediated the relationship between anger arousal and global
procedural fairness; however, perceptions of being respected within the family did
mediate this relationship.

149
For both the nonviolent and violent offenders, the Full Mediation Model with
Covariance provided the best fit to the data. The path estimates for the nonviolent group
suggested personal respect completely mediated the relationship between global
procedural fairness and angry and irritable feelings. This was consisted with the
regression analyses. For the violent group, the path estimates for the Full Mediation
Model with Covariance suggested status recognition completely mediated the
relationship between anger arousal and global procedural fairness.
The results of the analyses for Hypothesis 3 are interesting in that, overall, the
impact of the personal and familial respect variables on global procedural fairness were
in the opposite direction of the effect of those same variables on anger arousal. For
example, for the adolescents who reported nonviolent and status offenses, status
recognition was associated with global procedural fairness and personal respect was
associated with anger arousal. Similar, yet contradictory results were revealed for the
other groups. One possible explanation for these findings is that perceptions of fairness
and anger arousal are occurring at two separate points in time and therefore are impacted
differently by the personal and familial respect variables.
In Studies One and Two, adolescents were asked to describe a recent conflict with
their parents/guardians and to answer questions specific to that conflict. Exploring the
findings of the present study necessitates the assumption that students did only consider
the specific conflict in answering questions. Although the instructions ask them to do so,
adolescents may have answered questions based on their conceptualization of their
family’s general practices of conflict resolution that have developed over a period of
time. It is likely that adolescents’ answers were based on both the specific conflict

150
scenario they described, as well as a pattern of treatment by their parents that has
accumulated over time.
The results suggested that for most of the adolescents, personal respect was more
closely tied to global procedural fairness, while status recognition was more closely
associated with anger arousal. This contrast in results could be due to the adolescent
forming these perceptions at different points in time. It may be that adolescents who feel
they are treated unfairly initially, or in a specific situation, feel they are not valued as
individuals. The adolescent may make the assumption that they “must not be important.”
However, over time, if adolescents continue to feel they are receiving poor treatment
within the family, they may perceive their parents do not value them as family members.
The adolescent may begin to believe “my parent keeps treating me unfairly, I must not be
important to this family.” These beliefs, in turn might fuel angry feelings.
The present study’s cross-sectional survey design cannot assess these issues. There
is no way to determine if the adolescents completely focused on the conflict scenario they
reported. Longitudinal designs, especially those including interviews, observations of
family conflict resolution procedures, and qualitative analyses, may provide a better
framework for determining any time effects on the adolescents’ perceptions. These
designs might also allow the determination of any cumulative effects that occur to change
these perceptions and the impact these effects have on anger arousal.
The second interesting aspect of the results was that the pattern, for both the
regression and mediational analyses, appeared to differ across the offense-type groups.
This finding suggests some aspect of offense type contributes to whether the adolescent
focuses more on issues of personal respect or on issues of status recognition in

151
judgements regarding fairness and feelings of anger and irritability. The results indicated
that in some respects, the entire sample of adolescents, those in the no offense group, and
those in the violent offense group appeared to be responding similarly, and in contrast to
those adolescents in the nonviolent and status offense group.
It is likely that the similarity in results between the entire sample and the group of
adolescents who reported never engaging in deviant behavior was due to extensive
overlap between these two samples (the nonoffending group made up approximately
three-fourths of the entire sample). Theories of the causes and types of delinquency
associated with adolescent offending may provide some guidance with regard to
explaining the contrasting results revealed when comparing the nonoffending adolescents
with those reporting nonviolent and status offenses. Moffitt (1993) describes two
trajectories of delinquent behavior. The first is referred to as life-course persistent. These
adolescents begin engaging in deviant and aggressive behaviors at earlier ages and tend
to continue their offending throughout adolescence and into adulthood.
The second, and much larger, group of adolescents Moffitt (1993) refers to as
adolescent-limited. These adolescents only begin engaging in deviant behavior during
adolescence and desist before moving into adulthood. Moffitt believes that
adolescent-limited deviant behavior is so common that it is normative for adolescence.
Moffitt posits that these adolescent-limited offenders engage in deviant behavior to assert
their independence and feel a greater sense of maturity. Moffitt suggests the
adolescent-limited group views their peers who have already developed deviant behavior
(the life-course persistent group) as having greater status, privilege, and power associated

152
with their deviant lifestyle. The adolescent-limited group then begins mimicking these
behaviors.
Moffitt’s (1993) theory, that adolescents’ engage in deviant behavior out of desire
for power and to be viewed as independent, may help explain the differences revealed
across the nonoffending and nonviolent adolescents in Study Two. Those adolescents
who engage in nonviolent offenses are also likely to be more involved with their peers.
Research has established that delinquent behavior is likely to occur within groups and
that one risk factor for delinquent behavior is the presence of deviant peers (e.g., Ary et
al., 1999; Lahey, Waldmann, & McBumett, 1999; Sedylitz & Jenkins, 1998). Research
has also shown that as children move through adolescence, peer relationships begin to
rival familial relationships, in terms of the importance they have in, and the impact they
have on, the adolescents’ lives as they attempt to individuate from their families.
The adolescents who reported nonviolent and status offenses in Study Two may
have moved further into the stage in which peers are seen as having greater value and
may be asserting their independence from their family, while becoming more invested
with their peer groups. This would contribute to their deviant behavior and may also
affect their perceptions of family conflict resolution procedures. The adolescents who
reported they engage in nonviolent and status offenses may be attempting to assert their
independence from their parents and wish to have status equal to their parents within the
family. This could impact their desire to be seen as important members within the family
by their parents. This expectation might explain why there is a stronger relationship
between perceptions of status recognition and overall fairness for these adolescents. At
the same time, these adolescents are also striving to stand on their own and therefore be

153
seen as important individuals. This could also explain the relationship between personal
respect and anger arousal for this group.
Another possible explanation for the greater focus of most adolescents on status
recognition with regard to anger arousal, as well as the different pattern of results for the
nonviolent offending group, is the concept of identity orientation. Hypothesis 4 predicted
that an adolescent’s identity orientation, whether individual or collective, impacts
whether the adolescent is more focused on personal respect or status recognition. The
measure of identity orientation was not included in Study Two, and the results of the
analyses for Hypothesis 4 in Study One were inconclusive. However, these results did
suggest identity orientation moderated the relationship between perceptions of status
recognition and deviant behavior. Also, a covariance was included in the structural
equation models for Hypothesis 3 partly due to the presumption that identity orientation
might account for the shared variance of personal respect and status recognition. If
identity orientation does play a role in these relationships, a possible explanation for the
finding that the nonoffending adolescents are more focused on status recognition is that
these adolescents are more focused on collective identity. The finding that personal
respect was more strongly associated with anger arousal for the nonviolent offenders
would suggest a greater focus on personal identity by these adolescents. The differences
in identity orientation may also be associated with the nonviolent offenders’ attempts to
be more independent and mature.
Little research has been conducted on the concept of identity orientation within the
family. It is likely, however, that younger children are more focused on collective
identity, in that their status within the family, as well as other sociological and communal

154
aspects of identity, would be more important to their self-concept. It could be that as
children enter and move through adolescence they become more focused on individual
aspects of identity, including seeing themselves as individuals, with their own unique
qualities and characteristics. According to Moffitt, many adolescents engage in deviant
behavior to accelerate the process of growing up and separating themselves from their
parents. Their involvement in deviant behavior may assist in the transition to a focus on
individual identity from a collective identity orientation. Including measures of identity
orientation in future studies, which differentiate adolescents with regard to deviant
behavior, would assess whether identity orientation may be playing a role in the
adolescents’ perceptions of the family conflict resolution procedures.
The results of the present study suggest a method for improving adolescents’
perceptions of fairness of family conflict resolution procedures and decreasing conflict
within the family. Findings of the present study showed adolescent perceptions of the
methods used to resolve family conflict were associated with judgements about the level
of conflict and cohesion within the family, feelings of anger and irritability, and deviant
behavior. These findings suggest that parents who utilize conflict-resolution procedures
that are perceived as fair by the adolescent may decrease their child’s angry feelings and
deviant behavior. The findings from Hypothesis 3 suggest that parents should make
diligent efforts to express to their children that they value and respect them both as
important members of the family and important individuals (independent of their status
within the family). The results also suggest that for adolescents who are engaging in
nonviolent offenses, parents’ expression of respect for their child as an individual may be

155
even more likely to decrease or prevent angry feelings (as compared with expressions of
respecting the child as a family member).
Identity Orientation
The fourth goal of the present study was to incorporate identity orientation into
Fondacaro and colleagues’ working model of the relationships among facets of
procedural justice, anger arousal, and deviant behavior. Cheek and colleagues (Cheek,
1982/83; Cheek & Briggs, 1994; Cheek, Trop, Chen, & Underwood, 1994)
conceptualized two identity orientations believed to be relevant to the present theory:
personal identity orientation and collective identity orientation. Personal identity
orientation is a focus on private ideas about selfhood and subjective feelings of
uniqueness and continuity, while collective identity orientation focuses on sociological
variables and feelings of commitment to one’s community.
For the present study, Hypothesis 4 predicted an adolescent’s predominant identity
orientation, whether personal or collective, would dictate which of the two paths to anger
and deviant behavior (either perceptions of low personal respect or low status
recognition) was more salient for the adolescent. Study One tested whether identity
orientation moderated the relationships between personal respect/status recognition and
anger arousal/deviant behavior. The hypothesis predicted that adolescents who focus
more on personal identity and perceive their parents do not respect them as individuals
would experience increased anger arousal and deviant behavior. For adolescents who are
more focused on collective identity, perceptions of being devalued as a family member
would lead to higher levels of anger arousal and deviant behavior.
Study One revealed collective identity did moderate the relationships between
delinquency/drug use and perceptions of being respected as a family member. However,

156
these findings were not in the predicted direction and suggested high collective identity
was associated with lower levels of deviant behavior when adolescents perceived their
parents did not respect them as family members.
The relationships focused on in Hypothesis 4 were assessed using ANCOVA
analyses, which controlled for conflict severity, in Study One. Due to the small sample
size of Study One, these results are considered exploratory. The analyses focusing on
personal identity as a moderator were not significant. Moreover, the analyses testing
collective identity as a moderator to the relationship between status recognition and anger
arousal were nonsignificant. It is suspected that these nonsignificant results were due to
the small sample size used in Study One. Unfortunately, the Aspects of Identity
Questionnaire, which measures the identity orientation construct, was not included in
Study Two, and the proposed relationships with identity orientation and the procedural
justice indices could not be explored in Study Two. Future research should incorporate
identity orientation to reassess these relationships and to attempt to establish relationships
among these variables.
The two significant analyses for the moderation effect of collective identity focused
on predicting delinquent behavior and drug use. The results revealed that for adolescents
who described themselves as less focused on collective identity, higher levels of
perceived familial disrespect were associated with higher levels of deviant behavior
(including both delinquency and drug use). In contrast, for those adolescents who
self-described as focusing a great deal on collective identity, higher perceptions of
disrespect at the familial level were associated with lower levels of deviant behavior. It
may be that these unexpected results are idiosyncratic to this small data set. Future

157
studies, which include larger sample sizes, are needed to further assess the relationships
among these variables.
Voice, Global Procedural Fairness, and Deviant Behavior
The fifth goal of the present study was to replicate previous findings of a voice
effect. Voice is another aspect of procedural justice, focusing on having the opportunity
to provide input into the decision-making process prior to a decision being made. This is
seen as a very important aspect of procedural justice. Voice has been positively
associated with perceptions of overall fairness and negatively associated with deviant
behavior and negative emotional response (e.g., Diamond et al., 2001; Fondacaro, Brank,
Villeneuva-Abraham, Luescher, & McNatt, 2004). The results of the analyses of Study
Two revealed a relationship between voice and lower levels of deviant behavior, as well a
mediating effect of voice on the relationship between global procedural fairness and
deviant behavior. Differences in the mediational analyses were also revealed across the
offense-type groups.
These relationships were assessed in both Study One and Study Two; however, the
results for Study One were nonsignificant. In Study Two, the relationships were assessed
utilizing regression techniques, which controlled for the effects of the demographic
variables. The analyses of a mediating mechanism were also analyzed using SEM
techniques. Similar to the analyses for Hypothesis 3, multiple versions of the structural
equation models were tested. The models varied as to whether or not they were based on
the hypothesized relationship among the variables or an alternative relationship. The
hypothesized relationship was that voice mediated the relationship between global
procedural fairness and deviant behavior. In the alternative set of models, global

158
procedural fairness was assessed as a mediator for the relationship between voice and
deviant behavior.
Within these sets of models, two versions of the models were tested. The first
version was a Partial Mediation Model and the second a Full Mediation Model. Fit
indices were again used to assist in determining which of the two sets of structural
equation models appeared to best fit the data. Differences in fit were only evident for the
models for the nonviolent and violent offenders. Those values indicated the hypothesized
models provided the better fit. This was the model in which perceptions of having input
in the decision-making process partially or completed accounted for the relationship
between perceptions of overall fairness and deviant behavior.
The results of the regression analyses focusing on the relationship between deviant
behavior and voice revealed these variables were associated with one another for the
entire sample and for each of the three groups based on offense type in Study Two. The
regression mediation analyses for entire sample and the group of adolescents who
reported never engaging in deviant behavior revealed having input in the
decision-making process partially mediated the relationship between overall perceptions
of unfairness and deviant behavior. The regression analyses of the mediation were
nonsignificant for the nonviolent adolescents. Perceptions of having opportunity to
provide input in the decision-making process and of the overall fairness of the
conflict-resolution procedures were both associated with deviant behavior; however,
perceptions of having input did not mediate the relationship between unfairness and
deviant behavior. None of the demographic variables in the analyses for the nonviolent
offenders appeared to provide a mediating function. The analyses for the group of

159
adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses revealed that not having input
completely accounted for the relationship between overall unfairness and deviant
behavior.
The SEM analyses of the mediation of voice on the relationship between global
procedural fairness and deviant behavior revealed that, for both the entire sample and for
those who reported never engaging in deviant behavior, the Partial Mediation Model (in
which voice partially accounted for the relationship between global procedural fairness
and deviant behavior) fit the data best. For the nonviolent and violent offenders, the Full
Mediation Model, in which voice completely accounted for deviant behavior, provided
the best fit. It is unclear why the SEM analyses revealed a mediation effect for the
nonviolent offenders when the regression analyses did not. Future studies will be needed
to determine if voice does in fact provide a mediating effect on the relationship between
global procedural fairness and deviant behavior for nonviolent adolescents.
The results for Hypothesis 5 suggested that, similar to the mediation results for
Hypothesis 3, the type of deviant behavior the adolescents reported engaging in impacted
the nature of the effect of the mediator. The SEM analyses for Hypothesis 5 suggested
having input in the decision-making process had a greater impact on deviant behavior for
the nonviolent and violent offenders, as compared to those who reported no deviant
behavior. These findings also seem consistent with the view that adolescents use deviant
behavior as a method of asserting their independence. A desire to be listened to and
consulted with in regard to decision-making within the family would be consistent with
adolescents wishing to be perceived as mature and adult-like.

160
Much of the research on procedural justice conceptualizes voice as one aspect of
this construct. This approach suggests that voice affects an outcome (in this case, deviant
behavior) through perceptions of fairness overall, which suggests global procedural
fairness as the mediator. The findings of the regression and SEM analyses, in Study Two
showed the opposite effect, in which voice mediated the relationship between global
procedural fairness and deviant behavior. This finding suggests that perceptions of
fairness are filtered through the concept of having voice; however, the order of these
perceptions seems unlikely. It may be, however, that voice impacts perceptions of
fairness as a moderator, rather than a mediator. It might be that when adolescents
perceive their parents have treated them fairly, they are unconcerned with whether or not
they had the opportunity to provide input. In contrast, when adolescents view their
parents’ behavior as unfair, they attempt to determine what may have contributed to this
unfairness and focus on whether or not they had the opportunity to provide input before
the decision was made.
Post-hoc analyses for the data in Study Two suggested partial support for this
explanation. Holmbeck (1997) described a regression method for testing for linear
moderation effects. In this approach, an interaction term (calculated by the multiplicative
product of the predictor and the moderator) is included in the regression equation. In
Study Two, the product of multiplying the Voice and one-item Global Procedural
Fairness scale scores was the interaction term. Voice and GPF were entered in the first
step of a hierarchical regression, followed by the interaction term on the second step. This
was tested for the entire sample and the three subgroups. The interaction term was
significant in the analyses for the entire sample and the group of nonoffending

161
adolescents, indicating a moderator effect. Future studies will be needed to further assess
whether voice acts as a moderator or mediator, and whether there is any difference in its
effect across the offense-type groups.
Although the results of the present study do not definitively determine the
mechanisms of the effect of voice on deviant behavior, they do reveal that there is a
relationship. The findings suggest that parents may improve their children’s perceptions
of the fairness of family decision procedures and possibly decrease deviant behavior by
allowing adolescents the opportunity to present their version of the situation before the
parents make a decision and apply any consequences to the adolescents.
Differences in Procedural Justice Indices across Offense Groups
The sixth and final goal of the present study was to make comparisons on specific
aspects of the procedural justice construct (including personal respect, status recognition,
and voice), across the groups based on the type of deviant behavior in which the
adolescent reported engaging. The original goal of the present study was to compare
system-involved and non-system-involved adolescents on these aspects of procedural
justice. Due to recruitment difficulties with regard to system-involved adolescents in
Study One, this comparison was not possible. In Study Two, adolescents were divided
into three groups based on offense type (i.e., no offense, nonviolent and/or status offense
only, and violent offense). These three groups were compared on the three specific
aspects of procedural justice.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that lower levels of deviant behavior would be associated
with higher levels of perceived personal respect, status recognition, and voice. The
findings for Study Two were consistent with this hypothesis for all three procedural
justice constructs. These relationships were assessed via a MANCOVA that controlled

162
for age, ethnicity, grade, grades in school, and state. The results showed adolescents in
the No Offense group reported the highest scores on these constructs, followed by
adolescents who report engaging in nonviolent and status offenses. Adolescents who
reported engaging in violent offenses reported the lowest scores on these constructs.
The results of Hypothesis 6 were consistent with previous research on the impact of
parenting styles on deviant behavior. Montemayor (1986) reported that deficits in
parenting skills (including monitoring, effective discipline, and reinforcement of positive
behavior) increase coercive interactions between parents and adolescents, which, in turn,
are associated with increased aggressiveness and rule-breaking behaviors by the
adolescent. Patterson (1982) found that more coercive parenting styles were associated
with increased deviant behavior. Baumrind (1971) also described parenting styles
(authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) associated with adolescent behavior.
Patterson’s coercive and Baumrind’s authoritarian parenting styles are least likely to
incorporate aspects of procedural justice in family decision-making, including personal
respect, status recognition, and voice.
In the authoritarian style, parents are unlikely to provide the adolescent input into
the family decision-making process. These parents make and set rules for the family,
which are to be followed by family members without question. The coercive parenting
style is often associated with inconsistent parenting. These parents frequently do not
monitor their children and may not always enforce family rules. However, at times they
then harshly and without explanation enforce rules. Punishment may also be excessive in
these families. This inconsistent style would also decrease the adolescent’s ability to have
input in the family decision-making process.

163
Both Baumrind (1971) and Patterson’s (1982) parenting styles appear to consider
the importance of the child having input into the decision-making process (i.e., voice).
The findings of the present study suggest additional constructs for parents to consider
when resolving conflict with their adolescents, including personal respect and status
recognition. Although, Study Two was not longitudinal and causation cannot be inferred,
the results do suggest parenting practices that may increase adolescents’ perceptions of
the family dispute resolution procedures as fair. Perceptions of fair conflict-resolution
procedures may then decrease angry and other negative feelings, as well as deviant
behavior. It is recommended that parents allow adolescents to share their opinions and
beliefs about the nature of the conflict and the possible consequences for their behavior.
Parents should also utilize language and procedures that indicate they respect and value
their child, both as an individual and as a family member. This is likely to be especially
important in conflicts that involve multiple children. These approaches will likely
improve communication within the family and decrease overall family conflict.
Implications
The results of the present study indicate that adolescents’ perceptions of their
parents’ treatment during family conflict resolution are related to adolescent affective
states and behaviors. Possible interventions for decreasing adolescent anger and deviant
behavior would include those that reduce actual or perceived unfairness in the process of
resolving family conflict. Parents and adolescents could be taught, through both
parent-training and family therapy, conflict-resolution strategies that are consistent with
aspects of procedural fairness. These would include strategies that allow all parties the
opportunity to provide input in decision-making processes, as well as being able to safely
provide feedback about feelings regarding conflict outcomes. Family conflict resolution

164
strategies should also increase the self-worth of all family members by communicating
that family members are both important and valued individuals and members of the
family. Parents and adolescents could be taught communication skills that allow
discussion of individual feelings and beliefs without derogating other family members.
Limitations and Future Directions
The first limitation to the present study was the inability to recruit an adequate
sample of system-involved adolescents. Difficulties with recruitment, specifically
adolescents’ refusal to take home and return parental informed consent forms, were a
major roadblock to the present study. It is recommended that future studies include
system-involved adolescents and make comparisons with non-system-involved
adolescents on aspects of procedural justice. To accomplish this goal, it will be necessary
to establish a very close relationship with the juvenile court. A great deal of effort and
planning will need to be put into helping juvenile court personnel to understand the
importance and value of the research, to increase their involvement and stake in the
research. Investment by juvenile court personnel would likely increase their efforts to
actively encourage adolescents to participate. Non-coercive, appropriate reinforcement
and compensation for the adolescents should also be explored to obtain a large enough
sample size to successfully assess the complex relationships among the variables of
interest.
The small sample size in Study One was the second limitation to the present study.
Many of the nonsignificant findings in Study One may be due to the small sample size;
there may have been insufficient power to detect significant results. The small sample did
not allow for a complete test of the impact of identity orientation on the other variables of
interest in Study One. It is recommended that future studies focus on the possible

165
contribution identity orientation may have on understanding the relationship between
family functioning and deviant behavior.
A third limitation of the present study is the general measure of anger and
irritability used as a proxy measure of anger arousal in Study Two. Study One used an
item measuring the adolescents’ anger as a specific response to the self-reported conflict
with their parents. This more specific measure allowed for the measurement of anger as a
response to perceived fairness or unfairness, rather than the measurement of anger as a
typical affective style of the adolescent. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument,
Second Version (MAYSI-2) measure of anger and irritability provided a more static and
global measure of the adolescent’s level of these negative emotions over the course of the
last few months. The use of this measure did not allow the assertion that angry feelings
were due to the parents’ actions during the course of conflict resolution, based on the
results of Study Two. Futures studies that utilize different measures of anger arousal may
reveal different results from those found here.
It is possible that adolescents who are not typically angry were angered by their
parents’ treatment during the course of the specific conflict they reported in Study Two.
For these adolescents, their level of anger arousal based on perceived unfairness would be
underestimated by the MAYSI. It could also be that adolescents who feel angry and
irritable on a frequent basis were not angered by their parents’ treatment on the specified
occasion. For these adolescents, the relationship between their perceptions of fairness and
anger in response to those perceptions would be overestimated. It is recommended that
future research include, at a minimum, an assessment of adolescents’ feelings of anger in
response to their perceptions of treatment by their parents.

166
Longitudinal research could also assist with clarification of these issues and could
provide better understanding of the specific nature of the relationship between
perceptions of unfairness and anger. Specifically, longitudinal studies would allow
measurement of anger after the conflict situation, as well as for a time period extending
beyond the conflict situation, to assess the endurance of angry feelings. It is also
recommended that future longitudinal studies be conducted in which the data is collected
in years prior to the child entering adolescence, as well as during adolescence. This type
of study would facilitate the determination of two issues. First, whether participants
experience increased anger in response to increases in family conflict as the children
enter and move through adolescence. Second, whether anger, in response to family
conflict, is associated with current and future deviant behavior.
Another methodological concern of the present study relates to the deviant behavior
measure. It should be noted that although there was enough variability in the Study Two
sample on the Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS) to divide the adolescents into three
groups, most of the adolescents’ SRDS total scores were on the lower end of the scale.
SRDS total scores range from 1 to 5 for adolescent deviant behavior within the last year,
with scores of 1 corresponding to Never, scores of 3 corresponding to Sometimes, and
scores of five corresponding to Often. For the entire sample in Study Two, total scores
ranged from 1.00 to 5.00; however 95% of the scores were less than 3.00.
For the adolescents who reported engaging in violent offenses, there was greater
variability in scores, with 68% of scores below 3.00 and 22% of scores between 3.00 and
4.00. However, overall the number of adolescents who reported engaging in deviant
behavior in the range of Sometimes to Often was small. The results of the present study

167
need to be replicated in samples of adolescents who report higher levels of deviant
behavior to determine if the relationships among aspects of procedural justice and deviant
behavior are the same at the higher level of deviant behavior (both for adolescents who
are and are not involved in the juvenile justice system).
A number of findings from the present study will need to be replicated in future
research. One of these pertains to the pattern of results revealed for Hypothesis 3 across
the three offense-type groups. The impact of identity orientation and Moffitf s theory of
the causes of adolescent-limited deviant behavior were used to explain the differences
between the nonoffending adolescents and nonviolent offenders in Study Two. However,
neither of these explanations accounts for the finding that the violent offenders’ responses
were more similar to the nonoffending group than those of the nonviolent offenders. If
this finding is replicated in future studies, aspects specific to nonviolent and status
offenders will need to be explored to determine what causes this group to respond
differently from both nonoffenders and violent offenders.
The survey design of the present study does not allow a deeper analysis of the
adolescents’ understanding of or justifications for their offending and how perceptions of
family conflict resolution procedures impact their offending. This information would
allow a determination of whether the proffered explanation of the pattern of findings in
Study Two is accurate. Future research that includes interview formats and qualitative
analyses would provide better insight into the adolescents’ understanding of their own
experiences and perceptions within the family.
In the SEM analyses for Hypothesis 3 and 5, the hypothesized versions of the
models, in which personal respect/status recognition and voice were the mediators, were

168
selected as the best fitting models for the data. However, the selection of these models
was based on data-drive modifications to the Hypothesis 3 models (the inclusion of the
covariances) and the fit indices. Because group-specific models were used, each model
was only tested with one sample of adolescents. In addition, the models in Study Two
were also fairly simplistic, in that they only measured the effects of one or two aspects of
procedural justice (personal respect and status recognition or voice). It is possible that
these models will not generalize to other samples. Future studies will be needed to
replicate the present results and validate the models. More complex models that take the
multiple processes involved in procedural justice judgements into account, which may be
occurring simultaneously or serially, will also be needed to fully understand the complex
nature by which justice appraisals impact family functioning and adolescents’ emotions
and behaviors.
The present study, because of its cross-sectional nature, does not provide guidance
with regard to theoretical, rather than data driven, tests of whether the hypothesized or
alternative models in Hypotheses 3 provide the better fit to the data. Within the proposed
theoretical framework for the relationships assessed by Hypothesis 3, both sets of models
would be plausible. It may be that adolescents who perceive their parents’
decision-making methods as unfair feel disrespected and therefore become angry. It is
also possible that the adolescents initially perceive the conflict-resolution procedures as
disrespectful, which contributes to their judgment that the process is unfair. This, in turn,
may fuel feelings of anger. Future longitudinal studies that include SEM analyses,
especially those that include observations of family conflict resolution practices and
qualitative analyses, should provide a mechanism for more definitively testing whether

169
personal respect and status recognition truly play mediating roles. These future studies
would provide more in-depth opportunities for explicating these constructs and
determining the causal mechanisms involved.
Eventually, studies that include very large samples of adolescents, who vary as to
involvement with the juvenile court and the degree to which they are involved in deviant
behavior, will be needed to assess more complex structural equation models (that allow
for simultaneous assessment of the various relationships approached individually in the
present study). These models would include the family functioning variables, identity
orientation, various aspects of procedural justice (including an overall measure, personal
respect, status recognition, and voice), anger arousal, and deviant behavior. Here too,
interview and qualitative approaches may facilitate distinguishing the effects of the
different aspects of procedural justice. It may also be beneficial to include measures of
the degree to which adolescents are invested in their peer groups and assessments of their
sense of their own maturity and degree of individuation from their parents. Measurements
of these constructs would assist in determining if they act as an impetus for engaging in
deviant behavior and account for the offense-type group differences seen in the present
study.
The present study and most other studies focusing on procedural justice within the
family context have relied on adolescent self-report of the family conflict resolution
process. Future studies that supplement adolescent perspectives with parental
perspectives and observations of actual conflict resolution procedures should allow
further understanding of family conflict from a procedural justice perspective. This, in
turn, will allow for better intervention strategies to increase procedurally just family

170
conflict resolution procedures, decrease negative feelings by family members related to
conflict resolution procedures, and decrease adolescent deviant behavior.

APPENDIX A
PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT AND PARTICIPANT ASSENT FORM
RESEARCH CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTAL/GUARDIAN
INFORMED CONSENT
ASSENT STATEMENT
ADOLESCENT PERSPECTIVES ON PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
IN RESOL VINO FAMIL Y CONFLICT
Principal Investigator Michael P. Carey. Ph D.
Co-Investigator(s) Jennifer Luescher, M.S.
Phone number(s) 419-383-3815; 419-392-7604
What you should know about this research study:
• We give you this consent form so that you may read about the purpose, risks,
and benefits of this research study. All information in this fonn will be
communicated to you verbally by the research staff as well.
• The main goal of research studies is to gain knowledge that may help future
children.
• We cannot promise that this research will benefit your child. Just like regular
care, this research can have side effects that can be serious or minor.
• You have the right to refuse to allow your child to take part, or agree for your
child to take part now and change your mind later.
• Whatever you decide, it will not affect your child’s regular care, relationship
with your child’s school or any other institution.
• Please review this consent form carefully. Ask any questions before you make a
decision.
• Your choice to allow your child to participate is voluntary.
PURPOSE
You are being asked to allow your child to participate in a research study of family
conflict. The purpose of the study is to assess children’s beliefs about fairness during family
conflicts. Your child was selected as a possible participant in this study because he or she is a
seventh or eighth grade student. He or she is also a student in a regular classroom at a Lucas
County School or has had some contact with the Juvenile Justice System. This study will involve
two hundred seventh and eighth grade students.
171

172
PROCEDURES AND DURATION
If you decide to allow your child to participate, your child will fill out several
questionnaires. Your child’s name or other identifying information will not be asked nor will it
be collected. The questionnaires will be distributed and collected by a member of the study team.
In this way, your child’s anonymity will be protected and school and/or justice personnel will not
see your child’s responses. Your child will describe a conflict that occurred with his or her
parent(s). Your child will then answer questions about that conflict. Questions will also be asked
about how students feel about themselves, what is important to them, and if they have engaged in
any deviant behaviors. Your child will complete the questionnaire once. It should take forty-five
to sixty minutes.
RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no known risks to participating in this study.
BENEFITS AND/OR COMPENSATION
There are no known immediate benefits to your child for participating in this study. This
research may help other families in the future by better understanding the impact of family
conflict on the family and the adolescents.
Children who return completed consent forms for this study will either receive a pizza party or
gift certificates for pizza after completing the questionnaire.
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES OR TREATMENTS
Students recruited through schools who do not participate in this study will be given an
alternative activity determined by school personnel.
CONFIDENTIALITY
By agreeing to have your child take part in this research study, you give to the Medical
College of Ohio, the Principal Investigator and all personnel associated with this research study
your permission to use or disclose personal information that can be identified with you or your
child that we obtain in connection with this study. We will use this information for the purpose
of conducting the research study as described in the research consent form.
The information that we will use or disclose includes your child completing a survey including
information on a conflict your child had with his or her parent(s) or guardian(s) and how your
child feels about that conflict, how your child feels about him or herself, what is important to
your child, and if your child has engaged in any deviant behaviors. We may use this information
ourselves for the purpose of research as part of the research study. Under some circumstances,
the Institutional Review Board and Research and Grants Administration of the Medical College
of Ohio may review your information for compliance audits.
The Medical College of Ohio is required by law to protect the privacy of your child's personal
information, and to use or disclose the information we obtain about your child in connection with
this research study only as authorized by you in this form. There is a possibility that the
information we disclose may be re-disclosed by the persons we give it to, and no longer
protected. However, we will encourage any person who receives your information from us to
continue to protect and not re-disclose the information.
Your permission for us to use or disclose your child’s personal information as described in this
section is voluntary. However, your child will not be allowed to participate in the research

173
study unless you give us your permission to use or disclose your child’s personal information by
signing this document.
You have the right to revoke (cancel) the permission you have given to us to use or disclose your
child’s personal information at any time by giving written notice to Dr. Michael P. Carey, Ph.D.
However, a cancellation will not apply if we have acted with your permission, for example,
information that already has been used or disclosed prior to the cancellation. Also, a cancellation
will not prevent us from continuing to use and disclose information that was obtained prior to the
cancellation as necessary to maintain the integrity of the research study.
Except as noted in the above paragraph, your permission for us to use and disclose your child’s
personal information has no expiration date.
A more complete statement of Medical College of Ohio’s Privacy Practices are set forth in its
Joint Notice of Privacy Practice. If you have not already received this Notice, a member of the
research team will provide this to you. If you have any further questions concerning privacy, you
may contact the person identified in the Notice.
If you indicate your willingness for your child to participate in this study by signing this
document, your child will not be asked to identify him or herself on the questionnaire. No
identifying information can or will be disclosed to any school or justice system official or anyone
else. Under some circumstances, the Institutional Review Board and Research and Grants
Administration of the Medical College of Ohio may need to review patient records for
compliance audits.
COST TO YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY
All costs associated with this study will be the responsibility of the investigators. No
costs will be the responsibility of the participants.
IN THE EVENT OF A RESEARCH RELATED INJURY
In the event of injury resulting from your child's participation in this study, treatment can
be obtained at the healthcare facility of your choice. You should understand that the costs of such
treatment will be your responsibility. Financial compensation is not available. By signing this
form you are not giving up any of your child’s legal rights as a research subject.
In the event of injury, contact Dr. Michael P. Carey, Ph D., Clinical Psychologist, by pager at
419-444-0359.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Taking part in this study is voluntary. If you decide not to allow your child to participate
in this study, your decision will not affect your or your child's future relations with the Medical
College of Ohio, its personnel, and associated hospitals, schools, or juvenile court system. If you
decide to allow your child to participate, you and your child are free to withdraw your consent
and assent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty.
OFFER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
Before you sign this form, please ask any questions on any aspect of this study
That is unclear to you. You may take as much time as necessary to think it over. If you have any
Questions concerning this study or consent form please contact Jennifer Luescher, M.S. at
419-392-7604 or Dr. Michael P. Carey, Ph D. at 419-383-3815.

174
AUTHORIZATION
YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW YOUR CHILD
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT
YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE, HAVE
HAD ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND HAVE DECIDED TO ALLOW YOUR
CHILD TO PARTICIPATE.
BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT YOU AUTHORIZE US TO USE OR DISCLOSE
YOUR CHILD’S PERSONAL INFORMATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS FORM.

175
The date you sign this document to enroll in this study, that is, today’s date, MUST
fall between the dates indicated on the approval stamp affixed to the bottom of each page.
These dates indicate that this form is valid When you enroll in the study but do not reflect
How long you may participate in the study. Each page of this Informed Consent Form is
Stamped to indicate the form’s validity as approved by the MCO Institutional Review
Board (IRB).
Name of Subject (please print)
Signature of Subject or Legally Authorized Representative Date
Relationship to Subject
am.
Time p.m.
Name of Person Obtaining
Informed Consent (please print)
Signature of Person Obtaining Informed Consent
(as required by ICH guidelines)
Signature of Witness to Consent Process
(as required by ICH guidelines)
YOU WILL BE GIVEN A SIGNED COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP.
If you have any questions concerning this study or consent form beyond those
answered by the investigator, including questions about the research, your rights
as a research subject or research-related injuries, please feel free to contact
R. Douglas Wilkerson, Ph.D.; Associate Vice President for Research;
Medical College of Ohio at (419) 383-4251.

176
ASSENT STATEMENT
My participation in this research study is voluntary. I have read and understood
the above information, asked any questions which I may have and have agreed to
participate. I will be given a signed copy of this form to keep.
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject

APPENDIX B
MEASURES
Demographic Sheet
Please circle or mark one response for each of the following questions:
1. Gender: Female Male
2. Grade: 7 8 9 10 11 12
3. School attending:
4. Please indicate your age in years:
5. Ethnic origin:
African-American Asian-American European-American
Hispanic-American Native American
Bi-racial (please list)
Other (please list)
6. Marital status of your biological parents:
Married Widowed Divorced
Separated Never married
7. How far did your father (or guardian) go in school?
Less than 7th grade
9th grade or less
Some high school
Finished high school
Some college or other schooling after high school
Finished college
Graduate or professional school (for example, doctor or lawyer)
Don’t know
177

178
8.How far did your mother (or guardian) go in school?
Less than 7th grade
9th grade or less
Some high school
Finished high school
Some college or other schooling after high school
Finished college
Graduate or professional school (for example, doctor or lawyer)
Don’t know
9.If your father (or guardian) works, please write what he does for his job.
10.If your mother (or guardian) works, please write what she does for a job.
11. Who are you living with? Circle aH that apply
Biological mother Adoptive mother Stepmother
Biological father Adoptive father Stepfather
Siblings, if so, number of siblings
Other (please list)
12. Have you ever been arrested? Yes No
If so, how many times?
How long ago was the last time?
13. Have you ever spent the night in a juvenile detention center? Yes
If so, how many times?
How long ago was the last time?
14. Have you ever been adjudicated delinquent or found guilty of a crime?
Yes No
If so, how many times?
How long ago was the last time?
No

179
Family Decision Making Questionnaire
Please think about an important conflict or disagreement you have had with one or both
of your parents or guardians over the last twelve months (for example, about helping
around the house, cleaning your room, homework, low grades, etc). Briefly describe the
situation in the space provided below. If you have not had an important conflict situation
with one or both of your parents or guardians over the last 12 months, list any situation
involving a dispute or disagreement with your parents or guardians where a decision was
made that affects you or others.
Write down a few words to describe the situation.
Section A
Please answer the following questions about the conflict situation you have listed.
1. Who were the adults involved in the situation? Circle all that apply
Mother Stepmother Father Stepfather
Female guardian Male guardian
Grandmother Grandfather Other (please list)
2. Did one or more of your siblings get involved in the situation? Yes No
3. When did the conflict occur? month year
4. Has this situation been resolved yet? Yes No
5. If yes, how long did it take to resolve the situation?

180
Section B
The purpose of this section is to better understand the conflict or disagreement you just
described. For the purposes of this section, the term “parent(s)” refers to your parent(s)
and/or guardian(s). Read each item carefully.
For the following items, circle a number from (1) for Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly
Agree that best describes your level of agreement related to the situation you described.
Examples:
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1. Your parent(s) asked for your
input before a decision was made
1 2
3
® 5
4 - This student agreed but not strongly.
2. Your parent(s) favored others over you..
1 2
<3>
4 5
3 - This student did not agree or disagree with this statement.
The student’s feelings were either neutral or undecided.
Circle the number that most closely describes the conflict situation you specified.
Your parent(s) showed a lot of
kindness and understanding
Strongly
Disagree
1 2
3
4
Strongly
Agree
5
You had an opportunity to tell
your side of the story
1
2
3
4
5
Your parent(s) probably gave you less
respect than they would have given
to other family members
1
2
3
4
5
Your parent(s) were truthful to you
1
2
3
4
5
Your parent(s) treated you with respect
1
2
3
4
5
Your parent(s) listened to you
1
2
3
4
5
You were treated as a
valued member of your family
1
2
3
4
5

181
Strongly
Disagree
8. Yourparent(s)handledthe
situation in a good and proper way 1 2 3
9. Your parent(s) cared about you as
an individual 1 2 3
10. Your parent(s) did not pay attention to what
you had to say 1 2 3
11. Your parent(s) treated you as if you were
somebody really important 1 2 3
12. You trust the way your parent(s) handled
the situation 1 2 3
13. Any wrong decisions in this situation
could be easily corrected 1 2 3
14. Your parent(s) were equally fair
to everyone involved 1 2 3
15. Your parent(s) treated you worse than
others because of your personal characteristics
(for example, age, gender, etc.) 1 2 3
16. Overall, your parent(s)
treated you fairly 1 2 3
Section C
Strongly
Agree
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Now, focus on the outcome of the situation you listed above. Read each item carefully.
Circle the number that most closely describes the conflict situation you specified.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1.Overall, things turned out the way
they should have 1 2 3 4 5
2.This situation turned out exactly how
you hoped it would 1
2 3 4 5
3.You got the full amount of what you
deserved in this situation 1
2 3 4 5

182
4. The outcome of this situation was very
favorable for you
5. The outcome of this situation was
very fair
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
1 2
3
4 5
1 2
3
4 5
6.You felt very satisfied with the
final outcome 1
2 3 4 5
Section D
Now, focus again on your response to the situation you described above. Read each item
carefully. Please circle the number that most closely matches your response to each item.
Strongly
Disagree
The way my parent(s) treated me indicated that they:
Strongly
Agree
l.
respect me as a unique individual...
1
2
3
4
5
2.
respect me as a person
1
2
3
4
5
The way my parents treated me indicated that they saw me as being:
3.
a valued son/daughter
1
2
3
4
5
4.
a valued member of the family
1
2
3
4
5
5.
intelligent
1
2
3
4
5
6.
competent
1
2
3
4
5
7.
mature
1
2
3
4
5
8.
responsible
1
2
3
4
5
9.
conscientious
1
2
3
4
5
10.
strong
1
2
3
4
5
11. powerful
1
2
3
4
5
12
. stable
1
2
3
4
5

183
13. friendly
Strongly
Disaeree
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Aeree
5
14. warm
1
2
3
4
5
It is important to me to be:
15. respected as a unique individual
1
2
3
4
5
16. respected as a person
1
2
3
4
5
It is important to me to be perceived as being:
17. a valued son/daughter
1
2
3
4
5
18. a valued member of the family
1
2
3
4
5
It is important to me to be perceived as being:
19. intelligent
1
2
3
4
5
20. competent
1
2
3
4
5
21. mature
1
2
3
4
5
22. responsible
1
2
3
4
5
23. conscientious
1
2
3
4
5
24. strong
1
2
3
4
5
25. powerful
1
2
3
4
5
26. stable
1
2
3
4
5
27. friendly
1
2
3
4
5
28. warm
1
2
3
4
5
The way my parents treated me made me feel:
29. better about myself as a person
1
2
3
4
5

184
Strongly
Disagree
30. better about myself as a
unique individual 1 2
31. more valued as a son/daughter 1 2
32.more valued as a member of the family... 1 2
The way my parents treated me made me feel:
33. worse about myself as a person 1 2
34. worse about myself as a
unique individual 1 2
35. less valued as a son/daughter 1 2
36. less valued as a member of the family 1 2
The way my parents treated me made me feel:
37. angry 1 2
38. sad 1 2
39. embarrassed 1 2
40. ashamed 1 2
41. depressed 1 2
42. pleased 1 2
43. proud 1 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Strongly
Agree
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

185
Family Environment Scale
There are 27 statements below. They are statements about families. You are to decide
which of these statements are true of your family and which are false. If you think the
statement is True or mostly True of your family, circle the T next to the statement. If you
think the statement is False or mostly False of your family, circle the F next to the
statement.
You may feel that some of the statements are true for some family members and false for
others. Circle T if the statement is true for most members. If members are evenly divided,
decide what is the stronger overall impression and answer accordingly.
Remember we would like to know what your family seems like to you. So do not try to
figure out how other members see your family, but do give us your general impression of
your family for each statement.
T F 1. Family members really help and support one another.
T F 2. Family members often keep their feelings to themselves.
T F 3. We fight a lot in our family.
T F 4. We often seem to be killing time at home.
T F 5. We say anything we want around home.
T F 6. Family members rarely become openly angry.
T F 7. We put a lot of energy into what we do at home.
T F 8. It’s hard to “blow off steam” at home without upsetting somebody.
T F 9. Family members sometimes get so angry they throw things.
T F 10. There is a feeling of togetherness in our family.
T F 11. We tell each other about our personal problems.
T F 12. Family members hardly ever lose their tempers.
T F 13. We rarely volunteer when something has to be done at home.
T F 14. If we feel like doing something on the spur of the moment we often
just pick up and go.
T F 15. Family members often criticized each other.

186
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
T F
16. Family members really back each other up.
17. Someone usually gets upset if you complain in our family.
18. Family members sometimes hit each other.
19. There is little group spirit in our family.
20. Money and paying bills is openly talked about in our family.
21. If there is a disagreement in our family, we try hard to smooth things
over and keep the peace.
22. We really get along well with each other.
23. We are usually careful about what we say to each other.
24. Family members often try to one-up or out-do each other.
25. There is plenty of time and attention for everyone in our family.
26. There are a lot of spontaneous discussions on our family.
27. In our family, we believe you don’t ever get anywhere by raising your
voice.
Questions About the Kind of Person You Are
Please rate your behavior by circling the number that best describes you for each item.
No statement will apply to you in every situation, but try to think about your usual
behavior. Please answer quickly and honestly - there are no right or wrong answers.
1. I feel that nobody really cares
about me the way I want them to
Strongly
Disagree
1 2
3
4
Strongly
Agree
5
2. No matter what I am doing, I usually
have a good time
1 2
3
4
5
3. There are times when I’ve felt
unhappy or down about something
1 2
3
4
5
4. I usually think of myself as a
happy person
1 2
3
4
5

187
Strongly
Disagree
5. I sometimes get into such a bad
mood that I feel like just sitting
around and doing nothing 1 2
6. I enjoy most of the things I do
during the week 1 2
7.1 am the kind of person who has a
lot of fun 1 2
8.1 sometimes feel lonely and sad 1 2
9.1 am the kind of person who smiles
and laughs a lot 1 2
10.1 sometimes feel so down and unhappy
that nothing makes me feel better 1 2
11.1 often feel a little sad or unhappy 1 2
12.1 sometimes feel like not trying
anymore because I can’t seem to
make things better 1 2
13.1 usually have a great time when I
do things with other people 1 2
14.1 almost always feel very happy 1 2
Question About Your Grades in School
15. What grades did you get last year in school?
Mostly A’s
Strongly
Agree
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
Mostly C’s
Mostly A’s and B’s Mostly C’s and D’s
Mostly B’s Mostly D’s
Mostly B’s and C’s Mostly D’s and F’s

188
Aspects of Identity Questionnaire
Instructions: These items describe different aspects of identity. Please read each item
carefully and consider how it applies to you. Please circle the number that most closely
matches your response to each item.
l=Not Important to My Sense of Who I Am
2=Slightly Important to My Sense of Who I Am
3=Somewhat Important to My Sense of Who I Am
4=Very Important to My Sense of Who I Am
5=Extremely Important to My Sense of Who I Am
1. The things I own, my possessions 1 2
2. My personal values and moral standards 1 2
3. My popularity with other people 1 2
4. Being part of many generations
of my family 1 2
5. My dreams and imagination 1 2
6. The ways in which other people
react to what I say and do 1 2
7. My race or ethnic background 1 2
8.My personal goals and hopes for the future.... 1 2
9. My physical appearance: my height,
my weight, and the shape of my body 1 2
10. My religion 1 2
11. My emotions and feelings 1 2
12. My reputation, what others think of me 1 2
13. Places where I have lived or where
I was raised 1 2
14. My thoughts and ideas 1 2
15. My attractiveness to other people 1 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

l=Not Important to My Sense of Who I Am
2=Slightly Important to My Sense of Who I Am
3=Somewhat Important to My Sense of Who I Am
4=Very Important to My Sense of Who I Am
5=Extremely Important to My Sense of Who I Am
16. My age, belonging to my age group
Or being part of my generation 1 2 3
17. The ways I deal with my fears and anxieties.. 1 2 3
18. My role of being a student 1 2 3
19. My feeling of being a unique person,
being distinct from others 1 2 3
20. My social class, the economic group
I belong to whether lower, middle,
or upper class 1 2 3
21. Knowing that I continue to be
essentially the same inside even though
life involves many external changes 1 2 3
22. My gestures and mannerisms,
the impression I make on others 1 2 3
23. My feeling of belonging to the community.... 1 2 3
24. My self-knowledge, my ideas about
what kind of person I really am 1 2 3
25. My social behavior, such as the way
I act when meeting people 1 2 3
26. My feeling of pride in my country,
being proud to be a citizen 1 2 3
27. My physical abilities, being coordinated
and good at athletic activities 1 2 3
28. My personal self-evaluation, the private
opinion I have of myself. 1 2 3
29. Being a sports fan, identifying
with a sports team 1 2 3

190
l=Not Important to My Sense of Who I Am
2=Slightly Important to My Sense of Who I Am
3=Somewhat Important to My Sense of Who I Am
4=Very Important to My Sense of Who I Am
5=Extremely Important to My Sense of Who I Am
30. My occupational choice and career plans 1 2 3 4 5
31. My commitments of political issues or
my political activities 1 2 3 4 5
32.My academic ability and performance,
such as the grades I earn and comments
I get from teachers 1 2 3 4 5
33.My language, such as my religious accent
or dialect or second language that I know 1 2 3
4 5
34.My sex, being male or female
1
2 3 4 5
Questions About How You Feel About Yourself
Here are several statements about teenagers. Please circle the number following each
statement depending on how true the statement is about you.
Not true Sort of True Really
for me true for me for me true for me
1. Some teenagers feel that they are
just as smart as others their age 1 2 3 4
2. Some teenagers find it hard to make
friends 1 2 3 4
3. Some teenagers are often
disappointed with themselves 1 2 3 4
4. Some teenagers are pretty slow in
finishing their school work 1 2 3 4
5. Some teenagers have lots
of friends 1 2 3 4
6.Some teenagers don’t like the
way they are leading their life 1
2 3 4

191
Not true
for me
7. Some teenagers do very well at
their classwork 1
8. Some teenagers are very
hard to like 1
9. Some teenagers are happy with
themselves most of the time 1
10. Some teenagers have trouble
figuring out the answers in school.... 1
11. Some teenagers are popular with
others their age 1
12. Some teenagers like the kind of
person they are 1
13. Some teenagers feel that they are
pretty intelligent 1
14. Some teenagers feel that they
are socially accepted 1
15. Some teenagers are very happy being
the way they are 1
Questions About Thing You Have Done Lately
How many times in the last year have you:
Never
16. Purposely damaged or destroyed
property belonging to your parents
or other family member? 1
17. Purposely damaged or destroyed
property belonging to a school 1
18. Purposely damaged or destroyed
other property that did not belong
to you (not counting family or
school property)
Sort of True Really
true for me for me true for me
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
Some- Fairly
Seldom times Often Often
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5

192
Never
Seldom
Some¬
times
Fairly
Often
Often
19. Stolen (or tried to steal) a motor
vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle....
1
2
3
4
5
20. Stolen (or tired to steal) something
worth greater than $50
1
2
3
4
5
21. Knowingly bought, sold, or held
stolen goods (or tried to do any)
of these things)
1
2
3
4
5
22. Thrown objects (such as rocks,
snowballs, or bottles) at cars or
people
1
2
3
4
5
23. Run away from home
1
2
3
4
5
24. Lied about your age to gain entrance
or to purchase something; for
example, lying about your age to buy
liquor or get into a movie
1
2
3
4
5
25. Carried a hidden weapon other than
a plain pocket knife
1
2
3
4
5
26. Stolen (or tried to steal) things
worth $5 or less
1
2
3
4
5
27. Attacked someone with the idea of
seriously hurting or killing him/her
1
2
3
4
5
28. Been paid for having sexual relations
with someone
1
2
3
4
5
29. Been involved in gang fights
1
2
3
4
5
30. Sold marijuana and hashish
(“weed” “pot” “crip”)
1
2
3
4
5
31. Cheated on school tests
1
2
3
4
5
32. Hitchhiked where it was
illegal to do so
1
2
3
4
5

193
Never
Seldom
Some¬
times
Fairly
Often
Often
33. Stolen money or other things from
your parents or other members
of your family
1
2
3
4
5
34. Hit (or threatened to hit) a
teacher or other adult at school
1
2
3
4
5
35. Hit (or threatened to hit) one
of your parents
1
2
3
4
5
36. Hit (or threatened to hit)
other students
1
2
3
4
5
37. Been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a
public place (disorderly conduct)..
1
2
3
4
5
38. Sold hard drugs, such as heroin,
cocaine, and LSD
1
2
3
4
5
39. Taken a vehicle for a ride
(drive) without the owner’s
permission
1
2
3
4
5
40. Had (or tried to have) sexual
relations with someone against
their will
1
2
3
4
5
41. Used force (strong-arm methods)
to get money or things from other
students
1
2
3
4
5
42. Used force (strong-arm methods)
to get money or things from a
teacher or other adult at school
1
2
3
4
5
43. Used force (strong-arm methods)
to get money or things from other
people (not students or teachers)...
1
2
3
4
5
44. Avoided paying for such things
as movies, bus or subway rides,
and food
1
2
3
4
5
45. Been drunk in a public place
1
2
3
4
5

194
Never Seldom
46. Stolen (or tried to steal) things
worth between $5 and $50 1 2
47. Stolen (or tried to steal) something
at school, such as someone’s coat
from a classroom, locker, or cafeteria,
or a book from the library 1 2
48. Broken into a building or vehicle (or
tried to break in) to steal something
or j ust 1 ook around 1 2
49. Begged for money or stolen
something from strangers 1 2
50. Skipped class without an excuse 1 2
51. Failed to return extra change that
a cashier gave you by mistake 1 2
52. Been suspended from school 1 2
53. Made obscene telephone calls,
such as calling someone and saying
dirty things 1 2
How often in the last year have you used:
54. alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and
hard liquor) 1 2
55. inhalants (“huffing” “whippits”) 1 2
56. marijuana-hashish
(“weed” “pot” “crip”) 1 2
57. hallucinogens
(“LSD” “acid” “shrooms”) 1 2
58. ecstasy (“X” “rolls” “beans”) 1 2
59. amphetamines
(“speed” “crank”) 1 2
Some- Fairly
times Often Often
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5

195
Never
Seldom
Some¬
times
Fairly
Often
Often
60. barbiturates (“pills” “downers”) 1
2
3
4
5
61. heroin
(“horse” “smack” “china white”) 1
2
3
4
5
62. cocaine
(“coke” “powder” “crack” “rock”) 1
2
3
4
5
Questions About How You Are Feeling Today
For the next set of questions, read each statement carefully and decide how you feel
today. Then put an X in the space in front of the word or phrase that best describes how
you are feeling TODAY.
61.1 feel very calm calm not calm
62.1 feel very pleasant pleasant not pleasant
63.1 feel very relaxed relaxed not relaxed
64.1 feel very worried worried not worried
65.1 feel very happy happy not happy
66.1 feel very good good not good
67.1 feel very troubled ____ troubled not trouble
68.1 feel very bothered bothered not bothered
69.1 feel very mixed-up mixed-up not mixed-up
70.1 feel very cheerful cheerful not cheerful
Thank you very much for your help in our study. If you have any comments or
suggestions about our survey, we would like to have them. Please write them on the back
of this page.

APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING CONFLICT SEVERITY
You are asked to place adolescent descriptions of family conflict into three categories:
low, medium, and high. Definitions for these three levels are as follows:
Low level conflicts are those that appear to involve little disagreement (i.e., the
adolescent does not describing any yelling, arguing, or physical violence/threat of
physical violence) or little negative emotional response.
Many of conflicts also refer to only one specific situation (rather than a pattern of
disagreements over an issue/particular type of conflict).
Medium level conflicts refer to yelling (verbal aggression), a feeling of being teamed up
against (multiple individuals involved in the disagreement all “siding” against the
adolescent), feelings of being unappreciated, disrespected, not listened to (or some other
similar feeling), or negative feelings towards the individuals involved in the conflict that
persist over time.
High level conflicts include physical violence or threats of physical violence.
Examples of the three levels are seen below.
Low
My mom wanted me to clean my room and I was mad.
My parents wanted be to stay home so we compromised and I only went out for a little
while.
I don’t like it when my parents won’t let me watch T.V.
Cleaning my room
Medium
My dad yelled at me all day because I forgot to take the trash out.
My parents always take my brother’s side in arguments.
My parents never care what I think about the kind of chores I should have to do.
My mom acts like I’m stupid when I don’t do well in school.
High
My dad was mad because I didn’t clean my room and he got in all in my face.
My mother said she was going to slap me because I was rude to her.
My father hit me after he found out I snuck out of the house.
My mother told my dad he should have hit me for disrespecting him.
196

197
Some conflicts may seem to fit two of these categories. Please use your best judgment
and determine which category the conflict seems to fit into BEST. There do not have to
be equal numbers of conflicts in the categories.
Please make three lists, each headed by the level of Conflict (i.e, Low, then list number 1,
2, 3, etc; Medium, 1, 2, 3., etc; High, 1, 2, 3, etc). Be sure that the ID number listed at the
end of the adolescent’s description remains at the end of the description on your three
lists.
Thank you so much for you help with this!
List of Adolescents’ Descriptions of Conflict Severity
1. I didn’t want to do extra chores, so instead I split them up by negotiation with my
parents. (ED 1)
2. I fought with my mom about not wanting to go see my sister in college, my dad got
mad at me for being upset because I had special plans that weekend. It turned into
everyone against me. (ID 2)
3. Helping around the house (ID 3)
4. I didn’t put my clothes away when they asked (ID 4)
5. No important conflict situation has happened between my parents and me that I can
recall from the past twelve months or really, ever. My mother and I got in a [semi]
argument in the car on the way to my dance recital but I was a little cranky because I
always stress out before a performance. (ID 5)
6. My parents are always giving me lectures and getting angry with me because of my
grade in Spanish that doesn’t even count for me. Also not cleaning my room and instead
being online. (ID 6)
7. My mom wants me to clean the house and I refused, so I got in trouble. Me and my
mom did not talk for four hours. (ID 7)
8. I had an argument with my real father because he feels I am too young to have a
boyfriend when I have already had three before. (ID 8)
9. Both of my parents smoke and I strongly disagree with it. (ID 9)
10. My stepfather and I were yelled at for not helping clean up the house. (ID 10)
11. I was getting a low grade in my science class and my parents were disappointed
(ID 11)

198
12. I yelled at my mom because she made me clean my room when I didn’t want to.
(ID 12)
13. I wanted to go glow bowling but at first they said no. I described it then we agreed.
(ID 13)
14. Getting another pet. (ID 14)
15. We fought over what show to watch tv (ID 16)
16. 1 had caught an attitude with my dad because I didn’t move out of the way and he
said he was going to slap me and I said “whatever.” (ID 18)
17. Not giving permission for me to go with my cousin to a festival on house arrest, got
in trouble, we got into an argument (ID 19)
18. My mom wanted me to watch my brother and sister but I left the house. She yelled
at me the entire day. (ID20)
19. My mother takes sides with my sister all the time, even if she is wrong. (ID21)
20. Not able to have friends over. (ID22)
21. I got in trouble and got it straighten out and my mom got all in my face and slapped
me. (ID23)
22. Having to do a chore and I don’t want to. Not being able to talk and tell my side of
the story. (ID 24)
23. My mother tried to tell me I had to wash the dishes and it was not my day and she
started yelling at me and I tried to tell her it as not my day. (ID 25)

APPENDIX D
PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECT
Dear Parent:
A research team from the University of Florida is currently conducting a project at your
child’s school. The purpose of this letter is to explain the project and to ask your
permission for us to include your child in the testing.
The goal of our project is to develop and to test a survey for middle-school students. The
survey is intended to identify some of the important thoughts and concerns and
characteristics of the present generation of middle-school students. We believe that the
results will provide some new and valuable information about this age group for the
educators and policy makers who shape children’s school experiences. Your child’s
school is one of about 25 schools around the country at which we are administering the
survey.
The survey will be given during regular school hours and will take about 50 minutes to
complete. The questions will address a number of topics that are important in the lives of
middle-school students. Some will ask students to reflect about themselves—what they
feel especially satisfied or dissatisfied about, what their expectations are for the future.
Others will ask about the child’s relations with the important people in his or her life.
Still others will ask about experiences at school, including possible worries or fears about
bullying and school violence. In each case, we have worked hard to make the questions
as clear as possible for students this age, and to try to ensure that none will be upsetting
to the child.
An important point to note about the survey is that responses will be completely
anonymous. Students will not put their names on the response forms, and there will be no
information on the forms from which individual children could ever be identified. This
means that no one will ever know how particular children responded—no one at your
child’s school, for example, and indeed none of us on the research team. Our interest is in
general patterns of response and in possible variations across different groups (for
example, boys compared with girls, or 6th graders compared with 8th graders). We have
no need ever to know particular children’s names.
The fact that responses are anonymous is something that we will explain carefully to the
children. We want the children to feel free to answer honestly—and we want to be sure
that no child is ever concerned that someone might know how he or she responded.
Please indicate on the attached form whether you are willing to have your child
participate in the survey. The form should be returned to the child’s school. Children who
199

200
do not participate will be given an appropriate alternative activity by their teachers. There
will be no negative consequences of any sort for children who do not participate.
In addition to asking your permission we will be asking your child’s permission. Prior to
administering the survey, the researcher will provide a general description of the
questions to be asked and will emphasize that children are free to decide not to take part
—either from the start or at any point after beginning the survey. Children will also be
told that they do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer. Again,
there will be no negative consequences for children who decide not to participate.
Our work is supported by grant from the Department of Education’s Fund for the
Improvement of Education program. This project has been approved by the University of
Florida’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. It has also been approved by
the principal of your child’s school.
We hope that both you and your child will decide to help us with the project. Because of
the safeguards we have described, we believe that there are no risks involved in
participation. There also are no direct benefits for children who participate; we hope,
however, that our results will provide valuable information about today’s middle-school
students, information that may eventually help to make the school experience a more
rewarding one for all children. The greater the number of students who participate, the
more accurate and helpful the results will be.
If you have any questions about the project, please call or e-mail Scott Miller at the
number or address given below. Questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a
research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box
112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433.
Scott A. Miller
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-0605, x 216 samiller@ufl.edu

201
University of Florida—Middle-School Survey
Child’s name
Child’s grade
I am willing to have my child participate in the project.
parent/guardian
2nd parent/witness
I do not wish to have my child participate in the project.
parent/guardian
2nd parent/witness

APPENDIX E
ASSENT SCRIPT FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FUNDED RESEARCH
PROJECT
National Middle-School Survey: School Violence and Beliefs About Self, Others, and the
Future
Scott A. Miller
Assent Script for Middle-School Participants
We’re from the University of Florida and we’re doing a project at your school.
The project is for students in middle school, and your principal and teachers have given
us permission to do it at School. We’re hoping that you’ll decide to help us out.
The way you can help us out is by answering some questions about yourself—what
you’re like, how you feel or think about different things. The questions are on this survey
[tester holds up copy], and you answer them on your own without anyone seeing your
answers. We’ll give out the survey here in a few minutes, and it should take about 40 or
50 minutes to finish.
We can’t tell you in advance about all the questions on the survey, but we’ll try to
give you some idea of what they’re like. Some of them are about things about yourself
that you’re happy or perhaps not so happy about—for example, what you feel you’re
good at and what you feel you’re not so good at. Some of them are about your relations
with other people—for example, how you feel about other kids, or about your teachers or
parents. And some of them are about things that sometimes worry kids at school—for
example, the problem of bullies or school violence. In each case, we just want to know
what you honestly think.
There are several things that are very important to understand before we start. One
is that you don’t have to do this. You can decide not to do it before we even start. Or if
you start and decide you don’t want to do it that’s OK too. Nothing bad will happen to
you if you decide not to do the survey—for example, your teachers won’t be mad or give
you bad grades. If you decide not to do it [Here, we will describe whatever alternative
activity the teachers have decided is appropriate for nonparticipants.]
Another thing that’s important is that you don’t have to answer any question that you
don’t want to answer. If there’s anything that you just don’t want to think about or don’t
want to give an answer to you can leave it out. Now, if there’s ever simply something that
you don’t understand you should raise your hand and ask us. We want you to skip a
question only if you really don’t want to answer it.
202

203
One last thing is very important. All the answers you give on the survey will be
anonymous. This means that no one will ever know how you answered. Your teachers
won’t know, your parents won’t know, and those of us doing the project won’t know. We
won’t know because you won’t put your name on the survey. Also, all the copies of the
survey are the same, so no one can tell which one you got. Finally, when you’re done you
drop your survey in this box, and when we take them out later we’ll have no way to know
which one is yours. We set it up this way for a couple reasons. One is that what we’re
interested in finding out is how kids your age in general think—we don’t need to know
how any one particular kid thinks. The other is that we want you to feel free to answer
honestly, because you know that no one will ever know how you answered.
One more thing. We hope that taking the survey will be an interesting experience,
but apart from that there won’t be any benefits for you—that is, there won’t be any
rewards or any changes because you filled out the survey. We’ve worked hard to try to be
sure that there also won’t be any risks—that is, no bad things that can happen.. But
there’s a chance that some kids might find some of the questions upsetting to think about,
or might have some things that they want to talk about afterwards. Your counselors know
this, and they’ll be ready to talk to anyone who wants to talk. [Here, we will provide
more specifics if the school desires—e.g., “Mrs. Smith will be in her office from 3 to 4
every day this week.”]
We hope all this is clear! Does anyone have any questions before we start?
Remember, if you have questions when you’re taking the survey just raise your hand and
we’ll try to answer them. And if you have any questions after you’re done we’ll be here
to talk to you.

APPENDIX F
ITEMS USED TO CREATE THE VIOLENT OFFENSE SRDS SUBSCALE
How many times in the last year have you
22. Thrown objects (such as rocks, snowballs, or bottles) at cars or people
25. Carried a hidden weapon other than a plain pocket knife
27. Attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing him/her
29. Been involved in gang fights
34. Hit (or threatened to hit) a teacher or other adult at school
35. Hit (or threatened to hit) one of your parents
36. Hit (or threatened to hit) other students
41. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from other students
42. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from a teacher or other adult
at school
43. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from other people (not
students or teachers)
204

LIST OF REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL4-18, YSR, and TRF
profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist
and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-322.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS users guide: Version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters
Corporation.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS (Student Version 5.0)[Computer software], Chicago, IL:
SmallWaters Corporation.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well¬
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.
Arnett, J. J. (1999) Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist,
54,317-326.
Ary, D. V., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C, & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem
behavior: The influence of parents and peers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37,
217-230.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph, 4, 1-103.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between process and content.
Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 453-460.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
205

206
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA. Sage.
Chan, D. W. (1985). The Chinese version of the General Health Questionnaire: Does
language make a difference? Psychological Medicine, 15, 147-155.
Cheek, J. M. (1982/83). The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire: Revised scales assessing
persona! and social identity. Unpublished manuscript, Wellesley College,
Wellesley, MA.
Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal
of Research in Personality, 16, 401-408.
Cheek, J. M., & Tropp, L. R. (1994). The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire: History and
bibliography. Unpublished Manuscript, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
Cheek, J. M., Tropp, L. R., Chen, L. C., & Underwood, M. K. (1994, August). Identity
orientations: Personal, social, and collective aspects of identity. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Los Angeles.
Cohen, B. H. (2001). Explaining psychological statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Comstock, J. (1994). Parent-adolescent conflict: A developmental approach. Western
Journal of Communication, 58, 263-282.
Crumbaugh, J. C. (1968). Cross-validation of Purpose-in-Life Test based on FrankTs
concepts. Journal of Individual Psychology, 24, 74-81.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147-167.
Daniels, D., & Moos, R. H. (1990). Assessing life stressors and social resources among
adolescents: Applications to depressed youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5,
268-289.
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and
discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender.
Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161-175.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be
used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.

207
Diamond, A. K. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice in family decision-making:
Reliability of the Family Justice Inventory-Youth Form. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Diamond, A. K., Luescher, J., & Fondacaro, M. (2000, March). Procedural and
distributive justice in family decision making: A psychosocial analysis of individual
and family functioning in adolescents. Poster session presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society, New Orleans, LA.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of
antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology, Volume 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421-471). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dombusch, S., Carlsmith, J., Bushwall, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, H., Hastorf, A., &
Gross, R. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of
adolescents. Child Development, 57, 879-894.
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy
adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33-54.
Elliott, D. S. (1983). National Youth Survey, Wave VI. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Elliott, D. S. & Ageton, S. A. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-
reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45,
95-110.
Elliott, D. S., Dunford, F. W., & Huizinga, D. (1987). The identification and prediction of
career offenders utilizing self-reported and official data. In J. Burchard & S.
Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behavior (pp. 90-121). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency,
substance use, and mental health problems (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Fondacaro, M. R., Brank, E. M., Villeneuva-Abraham, S., Luescher J., & McNatt, P.
(2004). The relationship between voice andjudgments ofprocedural justice in
resolving family conflict among ethnically diverse older adolescents: An
examination of moderating and mediating influences. Manuscript submitted for
publication.

208
Fondacaro, M. R., Dunkle, M. E., & Pathak, M. K. (1998). Procedural justice in resolving
family disputes: A psychosocial analysis of individual and family functioning in
late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 101-119.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Heller, K. (1983). Social support factors and drinking among
college student males. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 285-299.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Jackson, S. L. (1999). The legal and psychosocial context of
family violence: Toward a social ecological analysis. Law & Policy, 21, 91-100.
Fondacaro, M. R., Jackson, S. L., & Luescher, J. (2002). Toward the assessment of
procedural and distributive justice in resolving family disputes. Social Justice
Research, 15, 341-371.
Formoso, D., Gonzales, N. A., & Aiken, L. S. (2000). Family conflict and children’s
internalizing behavior: Protective factors. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 28, 175-199.
Fraser, M. W. (1996). Aggressive behavior in childhood and early adolescence: An
ecological-developmental perspective on youth violence. Social Work, 41, 347-361.
Fuligini, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion:
A study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European
backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34, 782-792.
Gehring, T. M., & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Adolescents’ perceptions of family cohesion
and power: A methodological study of the Family Systems Test. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 3, 33-52.
Gehring, T. M., Wentzel, K. R., Feldman, S. S., & Munson, J. (1990). Conflict in families
of adolescents: The impact on cohesion and power structures. Journal of Family
Psychology, 3, 290-309.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relation of
family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10, 115-129.
Grisso, T., Bamum, R., Fletcher, K. E., Cauffman, E., & Peuschold, D. (2001).
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument for mental health needs of juvenile
justice youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 541-548.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53,
87-97.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children: Revision of the
Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

209
Harter, S. (1986). Self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of
Denver, Department of Psychology.
Hetherington, E. M, Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Hagen, M. S.,
Holder, E. A., & Lindner, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family
systems perspective. Monographs for the Society of Research in Child
Development, 57, 1-242.
Hogan, R., & Cheek, J. (1983). Identity, authenticity, and maturity. In T. Sarbin, & K.
Scheibe (Eds.), Studies in social identity. New York, NY: Praeger Scientific
Studies.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Social support and adjustment: Predictive benefits
of social climate indices. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 403-
415.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1983). The quality of social support: Measures of family
and work relationships. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 157-162.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1957). Two factor index of social position. New Haven, CT: Author.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-
610.
Holmbeck, G. N., & O’Donnell, K. (1991). Discrepancies between perceptions of
decision making and behavioral autonomy. New Directions for Child Development,
51, 51-69.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling {pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S. & Fondacaro, M. (1999). Procedural justice in resolving family conflict:
Implications for youth violence prevention. Law and Policy, 21, 101-127.
Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1979). Drugs and the class of ’78:
Behaviors, attitudes, and recent national trends. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Jóreskog, K. G„ & Sórbom, D. (1984). L1SREL VI user's guide (3rd Edition).
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

210
Juvenile Division of Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. (2002). 2002 annual report.
Toledo, OH: Author. Retrieved July 14,2004, from
http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/Juvenile
Kanner, A. D., Feldman, S. S., Weinberger, D. A., & Ford, M. E. (1987). Uplifts, hassles,
and adaptational outcomes in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7,
371-394.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBumett, K. (1999). Annotation: The development of
antisocial behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 669-682.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology ofprocedural justice. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Luescher, J., Fondacaro, M., & McNatt, P. (2001, August). Ethnicity and procedural
justice in resolving family conflict. Poster session presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
McCord, J. (1991). Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality.
Criminology, 29, 397-417.
Miller, S. A., Fondacaro, M. R., Woolard, J. L., Boggs, S., Brank, E., Cliett, W., Lucas,
M., & Smith, S. W. (2003). National middle school survey: School violence and
beliefs about self, others, and the future. Final Report to U.S. Department of
Education: Fund for the Improvement of Education Program. Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior:
A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Montemayor, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 1, 15-31.
Moos, R. H. (1975). Families. In R. Moos (Ed.), Evaluating correctional and community
settings. New York, NY: Wiley.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). The Family Environment Scale. Stanford, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

211
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Noller, P. (1994). Relationships with parents in adolescence: Process and outcome. In R.
Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullota (Eds./ Personal relationships during
adolescence (pp. 37-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nucci, L. & Lee, J. (1993). Morality and personal autonomy. In G. Noam & T. Wren
(Eds.), The moral self: Studies in contemporary thought (pp. 123-148). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
O’Donnell, K., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1989). The Desire for Autonomy Scale. Unpublished
measure. Loyola University, Department of Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family
Process, 25, 337-351.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). Faces III (Family Adaptability and
Cohesion Evaluation Scales). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family
Social Science Department.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and
family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical
applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach: Coercive family process (pp. 215-
235). Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992/ Antisocial boys: A social
interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company.
Prinz, R. J., Foster, S. L., Kent, R. N., & O’Leary, K. D. (1979). Multivariate assessment
of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother-adolescent dyads. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Analysis, 12, 691-700.
Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1984). Problem-solving communication training: A
behavioral-family systems approach to parent-adolescent conflict. Advances in
Child Behavioral Analysis and Therapy, 3, 195-240.
Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1989). Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict: A
behavioral-family systems approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Roehling, P. V., Robin, A. L. (1986). Development and validation of the Family Beliefs
Inventory: A measure of unrealistic beliefs among parents and adolescents. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 693-697.

212
Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting
the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340-
356.
Seydlitz, R., & Jenkins, P. (1998). The influence of families, friends, schools, and
community on delinquent behavior. In T. P. Gullotta, G. R. Adams, and R.
Montemayor (Eds.), Delinquent violent youth: Theory and interventions (pp. 53-
97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shek, D. T. L. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of the
Purpose in Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 384-392.
Shek, D. T. L. (1992). Meaning in life and psychological well-being: An empirical study
using the Chinese version of the purpose of life questionnaire. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 153, 185-200.
Shek, D. T. L. (1993). Measurement of pessimism in Chinese adolescents: The Chinese
Hopelessness Scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 107-119.
Shek, D. T. L. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relations between parent-adolescent
conflict and adolescent psychological well-being. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 159, 53-67.
Skinner, H. A., Steinhauer, P. D., Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The Family Assessment
Measure. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, 91-105.
Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority. Child
Development, 59, 321-335.
Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents’ and parents’ reasoning about actual family conflict.
Child Development, 60, 1052-1067.
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Context, conflict, and constraint in adolescent-parent authority
relationships. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life (pp. 225-
255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smetana, J. G., Braeges, J. L., & Yau, J. (1991). Doing what you say and saying what
you do: Reasoning about adolescent-parent conflict in interviews and interactions.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 276-295.
Spielberger, C. D. (1973). State-trait anxiety inventory for children, Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist Press.
Steil, J. M. (1994). Equality and entitlement in marriage: Benefits and barriers. In M.
Lemer & G. Mikula (Eds ), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close
relationships (pp. 229-258). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

213
Steinberg, L. (1987). Impact of puberty on family relations: Effects of pubertal status and
pubertal timing. Developmental Psychopathology, 23, 451-460.
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early
adolescents. Child Development, 57, 841-851.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (1974). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective
judgments. Research Methodology, 358-376.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of
distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 850-863.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social
identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., Boekmann, R., Smith, H., Huo, Y. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group value model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group process. In T.
Tyler, R. Kramer, & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self: Applied
social research (pp.223-264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaulm Associates, Inc.
Weinberger, D. A. (1989). Social-emotional adjustment in older children and adults: 1.
Psychometric properties of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.

214
Wendorf, C. A. (2004). Primer on multiple regression coding: Common forms and the
additional case of repeated contrasts. Understanding Statistics, 31, 47-57.
Wentzel, K. R. & Feldman, S. S. (1996). Relations of cohesion and power in family
dyads to social and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 6, 225-244.
Zaslow, M. J., & Hayes, C. D. (1986). Sex differences in children’s response to
Psychosocial stress: Toward a cross-context analysis. In M. Lamb, A. Brown, & B.
Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jennifer L. Luescher graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of
Science degree (with Honors) in psychology, in December 1997. She completed a
Bachelor of Arts degree in criminology and law from the University of Florida in August
1999, and began the doctoral program in counseling psychology that same year. She
earned her Master of Science degree in psychology in August 2002. Ms. Luescher
completed her internship at the Northwest Ohio Internship Consortium in Toledo, Ohio.
Her clinical work during internship included working with severely mentally ill adults
and severely emotionally disturbed, children in both inpatient and outpatient settings. She
conducted individual therapy, family therapy, and therapeutic groups, and completed
psychological testing assessments. After completing her internship, Ms. Luescher began
work as a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Adolescent Forensics in Boston, Massachusetts.
Ms. Luescher’s research interests lie in the areas of procedural justice, delinquency,
risk assessment and management with both adolescents and adults, and mental health and
juvenile justice policy. She completed the Doctor of Philosophy degree in counseling
psychology in December 2004. She is interested in pursuing work combining the
assessment and treatment of adolescents involved in the legal system with applied
research in related areas.
215

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Phi losophy.
m A
Mark Fondacaro, Chair
Associate Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
ígory Neimeyer
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Vs
Scott
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in/$cGpp and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor
Lonn Lanza-Kaduce
Professor of Sociology
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of
Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
December 2004
Dean, Graduate School




PAGE 1

$'2/(6&(17 3(563(&7,9(6 21 )$0,/< &21)/,&7 5(62/87,21 (;3/25,1* 7+( 5(/$7,216+,36 $021* 352&('85$/ -867,&( ,'(17,7< 25,(17$7,21 $1' '(9,$17 %(+$9,25 %\ -(11,)(5 / /8(6&+(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ -HQQLIHU / /XHVFKHU

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*0(176 )LUVW ZLVK WR WKDQN P\ VXSHUYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH FKDLU 'U 0DUN )RQGDFDUR IRU DVVLVWLQJ ZLWK DOO VWDJHV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ DOVR DSSUHFLDWH KLV DVVLVWDQFH ZLWK DOO DVSHFWV RI P\ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO FDUHHU WKDQN 'U )RQGDFDUR DQG WKH RWKHU PHPEHUV RI P\ VXSHUYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH 'UV /RQQ /DQ]D.DGXFH 6FRWW 0LOOHU DQG *UHJ 1HLPH\HUf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

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

0(7+2'6 6WXG\ 2QH 3DUWLFLSDQWV ,QVWUXPHQWV )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH
PAGE 7

$33(1',; $ 3$5(17$/ ,1)250(' &216(17 $1' 3$57,&,3$17 $66(17 )250 % 0($685(6 & ,16758&7,216 )25 5$7,1* &21)/,&7 6(9(5,7< 3$5(17$/ ,1)250(' &216(17 )25 7+( '(3$570(17 2) ('8&$7,21 )81'(' 5($6(5&+ 352-(&7 ( $66(17 6&5,37 )25 7+( '(3$570(17 2) ('8&$7,21 )81'(' 5(6($5&+ 352-(&7 ) ,7(06 86(' 72 &5($7( 7+( 9,2/(17 2))(16( 65'6 68%6&$/( /,67 2) 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YLL

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

0HDQV DFURVV $JH IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU $129$ IRU *HQGHU DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0HDQV DFURVV *HQGHU IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU $129$ IRU *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0HDQV DFURVV *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU $129$ IRU (WKQLFLW\ DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0HDQV DFURVV (WKQLFLW\ IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU $129$ IRU 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 6WDWXV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0HDQV DFURVV 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 6WDWXV IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 6LPXOWDQHRXV (QWU\ 5HJUHVVLRQV 3UHGLFWLQJ 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 8VLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 8VLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ $QJHU $URXVDO 8VLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 8VLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV 8VLQJ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ $QJHU $URXVDO 8VLQJ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU 0HGLDWLRQ RI 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO ,QFOXGLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU 0HGLDWLRQ RI 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO ,QFOXGLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH IRU 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO ,;

PAGE 10

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

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

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

PAGE 13

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
PAGE 14

SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH ZHUH UHODWHG WR DQJHU DURXVDO DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 6SHFLILF IDFHWV RI WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQVWUXFW LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFH ZHUH DOVR H[SORUHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR JHQHUDO SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH MXGJPHQWV DQJHU DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 3HUFHSWLRQV RI SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW IHHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW LQGLYLGXDOf DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ IHHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDPLO\ PHPEHUf ZHUH IRXQG WR PHGLDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG JHQHUDO IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU 9RLFH KDYLQJ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW LQ WKH FRQIOLFWUHVROXWLRQ SURFHVVf ZDV UHODWHG WR OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 3DUWLFLSDQWV LQ RQH RI WKH VDPSOHV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKUHH JURXSV EDVHG RQ WKH W\SH RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKH\ UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW \HDU 7KH WKUHH JURXSV LQFOXGHG DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKRVH ZKR UHSRUWHG RQO\ HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW DQGRU VWDWXV RIIHQVHV DQG WKRVH ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV &RPSDULVRQV ZHUH PDGH DFURVV JURXSV RQ DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKHVH VSHFLILF IDFHWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV ZHUH PDGH IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV RI WKHVH ILQGLQJV WR SDUHQWLQJVNLOOV WUDLQLQJ IDPLO\ WKHUDS\ DQG IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ [LY

PAGE 15

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fV HIIRUWV WR DWWDLQ LQFUHDVHG DXWRQRP\ 5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ KRZHYHU WKDW FRQWLQXHG XQUHVROYHG FRQIOLFW ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ GRHV OHDG WR SV\FKRVRFLDO GLIILFXOWLHV IRU DGROHVFHQWV LQFOXGLQJ MXYHQLOH GHOLQTXHQF\ 0RQWHPD\RU f )DPLO\ )XQFWLRQLQJ LQ )DPLOLHV RI $GROHVFHQWV 'XULQJ DGROHVFHQFH FKLOGUHQ H[SHULHQFH DQ LQFUHDVHG GHVLUH IRU JUHDWHU DXWRQRP\ IURP SDUHQWV &RQVHTXHQWO\ FRQIOLFW LQFUHDVHV EHWZHHQ SDUHQWV DQG FKLOGUHQ EHFDXVH RI SDUHQWVf GLIILFXOW\ LQ DOORZLQJ IRU LQFUHDVHG DXWRQRP\ &RPVWRFN f +RZHYHU PRVW DGROHVFHQWV VWLOO GHVFULEH WKHLU IDPLOLHV DV EHLQJ FORVH SRVLWLYH DQG IOH[LEOH GHVSLWH LQFUHDVHG FRQIOLFW GXULQJ WKLV SHULRG 0RQWHPD\RU f )DPLO\ &RQIOLFW 0DQ\ FRQIOLFWV WKDW DULVH GXULQJ DGROHVFHQFH LQ $PHULFDQ IDPLOLHV DUH FDXVHG E\ DGROHVFHQWV SURJUHVVLYHO\ SHUFHLYLQJ PRUH DVSHFWV RI WKHLU OLYHV DV EHLQJ ZLWKLQ WKHLU RZQ SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ LH DV SULYDWH PDWWHUVf LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR FUHDWH DQ DXWRQRPRXV VHOI

PAGE 16

)XOLJLQL 1XFFL t /HH 6PHWDQD f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f $U\ 'XQFDQ 'XQFDQ t +RSV 'DQLHOV t 0RRV )RUPRVR *RQ]DOHV t $LNHQ )UDVHU *RUPDQ6PLWK 7RODQ =HOOL t +XHVPDQQ +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO 0F&RUG 0RIILWW 0RQWHPD\RU f +LJK OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DOVR KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG LQWHUQDOL]LQJ EHKDYLRUV LQ DGROHVFHQFH LQFOXGLQJ JUHDWHU HPRWLRQDO GHWDFKPHQW IURP RWKHUV GHFUHDVHV LQ VHOIFRQFHSW DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHSUHVVLRQ 'DQLHOV t 0RRV )RUPRVR HW DO )UDVHU *RUPDQ6PLWK HW DO +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO 0F&RUG 0RIILWW 0RQWHPD\RU 6KHN f )DPLO\ &RKHVLRQ +LJK OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHFUHDVHV LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ LQ DGROHVFHQWV +RZHYHU KLJK OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH UHODWHG WR JUHDWHU VHOIFRQILGHQFH DQG ORZ OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV DQG SUREOHP EHKDYLRUV LQ DGROHVFHQWV 'DQLHOV t 0RRV f /RZ OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG KDYH EHHQ VKRZQ WR FRQWULEXWH WR ERWK KLJKHU OHYHOV RI LQWHUQDOL]LQJ EHKDYLRUV LH KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG ORZHU VHOIFRQFHSW VFRUHVf DQG H[WHUQDOL]LQJ EHKDYLRUV LQ DGROHVFHQWV LH KLJKHU OHYHOV RI &RQGXFW 'LVRUGHUf *HKULQJ :HQW]HO )HOGPDQ t 0XQVRQ :HQW]HO t )HOGPDQ f

PAGE 17

5HVHDUFK RQ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ LQ IDPLOLHV RI DGROHVFHQWV KDV VKRZQ WKDW SDUHQWDGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW GRHV LQFUHDVH GXULQJ DGROHVFHQFH 2QJRLQJ LQWHQVH FRQIOLFW LQ WKH IDPLO\ QHJDWLYHO\ DIIHFWV IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DQG WKH DGROHVFHQWfV SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ /RZ OHYHOV RI FRKHVLRQ LQ WKH IDPLO\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KH IDPLO\ OHYHO YDULDEOHV RI FRQIOLFW DQG FRKHVLRQ DOVR PD\ EH WLHG WR LQGLYLGXDOOHYHO YDULDEOHV HVSHFLDOO\ LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH SODFHG RQ LGHQWLW\ DWWULEXWHV ZKHQ FUHDWLQJ QRWLRQV RI VHOI &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV &KHHN &KHHN t 7URSS &KHHN 7URS &KHQ t 8QGHUZRRG f GHVFULEHG WKUHH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ 3HUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV SULYDWH LGHDV DERXW KLV RU KHU VHOIKRRG DQG VXEMHFWLYH IHHOLQJV RI XQLTXHQHVV DQG FRQWLQXLW\ %HU]RQVN\ &KHHN HW DOf 6RFLDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV DVSHFWV RI WKH VHOI GHILQHG E\ VRFLDO UROHV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV &ROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ VRFLRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV DQG IHHOLQJV RI FRPPLWPHQW WR RQHfV FRPPXQLW\ %HU]RQVN\ &KHHN HW DOf &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV VXJJHVW WKDW PRVW LQGLYLGXDOV OLNHO\ H[SHULHQFH RQH RI WKHVH LGHQWLWLHV DV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ WKH RWKHU WZR WR WKHLU FRQFHSWLRQ RI WKHPVHOYHV 6WXGLHV KDYH FRQVLGHUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKHVH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV DQG RWKHU SHUVRQDOLW\ DWWULEXWHV DQG EHKDYLRU EXW QRQH KDYH IRFXVHG VSHFLILFDOO\ RQ WKH IDPLO\ FRQWH[W %DVHG RQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH UHVHDUFK DQG ILQGLQJV UHODWHG WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IHHOLQJ SHUVRQDOO\ UHVSHFWHG DQG UHFRJQL]HG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW PHPEHU RI D

PAGE 18

JURXS LW LV EHOLHYHG WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV SULPDU\ LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ PD\ DIIHFW KLV RU KHU DSSUDLVDOV RI IDLUQHVV DQG MXVWLFH LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI UHVROYLQJ SDUHQWFKLOG FRQIOLFW -XVWLFH -XVWLFH FRQVLGHUDWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ FRQWH[W DOVR PD\ DIIHFW SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU LQ DGROHVFHQWV )RQGDFDUR 'XQNOH t 3DWKDN f 'LVWULEXWLYH -XVWLFH 'LVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH IRFXVHV RQ WKH SHUFHLYHG IDLUQHVV RI WKH RXWFRPH DFKLHYHG GXULQJ WKH SURFHVV RI FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ 7KUHH SULQFLSOHV RI GLVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH DUH HTXLW\ HTXDOLW\ DQG QHHG (TXLW\ IRFXVHV RQ GLVWULEXWLRQV ZKHUH WKH RXWSXWV DUH HTXDO WR WKH LQSXWV 'HXWVFK f DQG LV RIWHQ SUHIHUUHG LQ GLVSXWHV LQYROYLQJ HFRQRPLF LVVXHV 6WHLO f 7KH SULQFLSOH RI HTXDOLW\ LV RIWHQ XVHG LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG LV EDVHG RQ GLYLGLQJ RXWSXWV HTXDOO\ 'HXWVFK 6WHLOf 1HHG LQYROYHV DOORFDWLQJ RXWSXWV EDVHG RQ WKH QHHGV RI JURXS PHPEHUV DQG LV XVHG PRVW RIWHQ E\ SHRSOH ZKR DUH PHPEHUV RI LQWLPDWH JURXSV OLNH IDPLOLHV 'HXWVFKf 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH 3URFHGXUDO MXVWLFH IRFXVHV RQ WKH IDLUQHVV RI SURFHGXUHV XVHG GXULQJ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHU f GHYHORSHG DQG GHVFULEHG RQH RI WKH ILUVW WKHRULHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH IRFXVLQJ RQ OHJDO GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ 7KHLU WKHRU\ HPSKDVL]HV SURFHVV FRQWURO WKDW LV FRQWURO RYHU WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RU HYLGHQFHf DQG GHFLVLRQ FRQWURO ZKLFK LQYROYHV FRQWURO RYHU WKH RXWFRPH RU GHFLVLRQf /HYHQWKDO f DOVR GHYHORSHG D WKHRU\ RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH HQFRPSDVVLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ FRQVWUXFWV UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ FRQVLVWHQF\ LPSDUWLDOLW\ DFFXUDF\ FRUUHFWLELOLW\ DQG HWKLFDOLW\ $ WKLUG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH WKHRU\ LV 7\OHUfV LGHQWLW\EDVHG UHODWLRQDO PRGHO 7\OHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU %RHNPDQQ 6PLWK t +XR f 7KLV PRGHO LQFOXGHV WKUHH

PAGE 19

FRQVWUXFWV QHXWUDOLW\ WUXVW DQG VWDQGLQJVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf DQG LV EDVHG RQ VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ WKHRU\ 7\OHUfV SUHPLVH LV WKDW FRQVLGHUDWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DUH LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH WKH\ JLYH SHRSOH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKHLU VWDWXV LQ JURXSV DQG WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK JURXS DXWKRULWLHV )DLU WUHDWPHQW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH D VLJQ WKDW WKH SHUVRQ LV D UHVSHFWHG PHPEHU RI WKH JURXS ZKLOH XQIDLU WUHDWPHQW VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV QRW DQ LPSRUWDQW PHPEHU RI WKH JURXS RU WKDW WKH JURXS LV QRW FRQFHUQHG DERXW WKH ZHOIDUH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO 7KHVH PRGHOV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH KDYH EHHQ H[SORUHG LQ ZRUN DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VHWWLQJV DV ZHOO DV LQ WKH IDPLO\ FRQWH[W 'LDPRQG 'LDPRQG /XHVFKHU t )RQGDFDUR )RQGDFDUR HW DO )RQGDFDUR t +HOOHU -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR /XHVFKHU )RQGDFDUR t 0F1DWW 7\OHU 7\OHU t %ODGHU 7\OHU t 6PLWK f 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH LQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO DQG 1RQIDPLOLDO 6HWWLQJV 6HYHUDO UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG RQ 7\OHUfV PRGHOV LQ ZRUNSODFH DQG OHJDO FRQWH[WV 7KHVH VWXGLHV FRQFOXGHG WKDW D UHODWLRQGRPLQDWHG PRGHO IRFXVLQJ RQ VRFLDO ERQGV EHWZHHQ SHRSOH DQG JURXSV LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG JURXS DXWKRULWLHVf DSSHDUHG WR EHVW H[SODLQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH MXGJPHQWV 7\OHU f 5HVXOWV DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW DXWKRULWLHV ZKR ZHUH LQJURXS PHPEHUV KDG WKH JUHDWHVW LPSDFWV RQ LQGLYLGXDOVf VHOIHVWHHP DQG GHJUHH RI JURXS FRQIRUPLQJ EHKDYLRU 7\OHU t 6PLWK f 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU f GHVFULEHG D JURXS HQJDJHPHQW PRGHO WKDW IRFXVHV RQ KDYLQJ YRLFH LQ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ DQG VXJJHVWV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV SDUWLFLSDWH LQ JURXSV WR ILQG HYLGHQFH RI WKHLU RZQ SRVLWLYH DWWULEXWHV 5HVHDUFK RQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQ ZRUNSODFH DQG QRQIDPLOLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VHWWLQJV KDV VKRZQ WKDW SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DIIHFW SHUFHSWLRQV RI RXWFRPH IDLUQHVV DQG VDWLVIDFWLRQ 5HVXOWV DOVR KDYH VKRZQ WKDW KDYLQJ YRLFH LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ

PAGE 20

SURFHVV LQFUHDVHV SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV 7\OHU t %ODGHU f )LQDOO\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV GHYHORS LGHDV DERXW WKHPVHOYHV EDVHG RQ WKH WUHDWPHQW WKH\ UHFHLYH IURP RWKHUV HVSHFLDOO\ RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKHLU LQJURXSV 7\OHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU t 6PLWK 7\OHU HW DOf f 3URFHGXUDO DQG 'LVWULEXWLYH -XVWLFH LQ WKH )DPLO\ 3URFHGXUDO MXVWLFH WKHRULHV FDQ KHOS XQGHUVWDQG IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW E\ SURYLGLQJ DQ H[SODQDWLRQ IRU ZK\ KLJK OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW PD\ FDXVH DGROHVFHQWV WR H[SHULHQFH GHFUHDVHG SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG WR HQJDJH LQ LQFUHDVHG GHYLDQW DQG DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU 'LIIHUHQW SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR DIIHFW RYHUDOO IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DV ZHOO DV LQGLYLGXDO IXQFWLRQLQJ DPRQJ DGROHVFHQWV 6PHWDQD f $Q DXWKRULWDWLYH SDUHQWLQJ VW\OH LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SURFHGXUHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ IRXQG LQ WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH OLWHUDWXUH HJ YRLFH VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWf WR LPSURYH SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV LQ WKH UHVROXWLRQ RI FRQIOLFW /HYHQWKDO 7KLEDXW t :DONHU 7\OHU f $XWKRULWDWLYH SDUHQWLQJ KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR ORZ OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU %DXPULQG f 5HVHDUFK IRFXVLQJ RQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ KDV VKRZQ WKDW ZKHQ DQ DGROHVFHQW SHUFHLYHV SURFHGXUDO LQMXVWLFH GXULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ WKH DGROHVFHQW IHHOV GLVUHVSHFWHG DQG GHYDOXHG DV D PHPEHU RI WKH IDPLO\ DQG H[SHULHQFHV LQFUHDVHG DQJHU DURXVDO )RQGDFDUR HW DO )RQGDFDUR t +HOOHU -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR /XHVFKHU HW DO f 7KHVH IDPLOLHV ZHUH DOVR FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ORZHU OHYHOV RI RYHUDOO IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW ZKLOH WKH FKLOG H[SHULHQFHG ORZHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV 'LDPRQG 'LDPRQG HW DO )RQGDFDUR HW DOf

PAGE 21

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f IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG FRKHVLRQ f SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH RYHUDOO IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHVV DV ZHOO DV SHUFHSWLRQV RI VSHFLILF IDFHWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DV DSSOLHG WR WKDW SURFHVV f DIIHFWLYH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH FRQIOLFWUHVROXWLRQ SURFHVV f LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG f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

PAGE 22

&+$37(5 /,7(5$785( 5(9,(: 7KLV OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ LV RUJDQL]HG LQ WKH VDPH RUGHU DV &KDSWHU ,W FRYHUV WKH IROORZLQJ OLWHUDWXUH IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ LQ IDPLOLHV RI DGROHVFHQWV LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG MXVWLFH )DPLO\ )XQFWLRQLQJ LQ )DPLOLHV RI $GROHVFHQWV 7KH SKDVHV RI DGROHVFHQFH UHIOHFW SURJUHVVLYH SK\VLFDO DQG FRJQLWLYH GHYHORSPHQW DQG LQFUHDVHV LQ WKH DGROHVFHQWfV QHHG IRU DXWRQRP\ &RPVWRFN f ,Q HDUO\ DGROHVFHQFH FKLOGUHQ EHJLQ WR FKDOOHQJH RU UHMHFW SDUHQWDO DXWKRULW\ DQG YDFLOODWH EHWZHHQ D GHVLUH WR EH REHGLHQW DQG D GHVLUH WR EH DXWRQRPRXV ,Q PLGGOH DGROHVFHQFH IDPLOLHV H[SHULHQFH LQFUHDVHG FRQIOLFW EHFDXVH SDUHQWV DUH QRW DFFXVWRPHG WR OLVWHQLQJ WR WKH DGROHVFHQWVf DWWHPSWV DW UHDVRQLQJ ZLWK WKHP &RPVWRFNf $GROHVFHQFH LV D SHULRG WKDW LQYROYHV D JUHDW GHDO RI WUDQVLWLRQ DQG FRQIOLFW ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ XQLW +RZHYHU PRVW DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUW WKDW HYHQ WKRXJK WKH\ DUJXH ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV WKH\ FRQVLGHU WKHLU IDPLOLHV WR EH FORVH SRVLWLYH DQG IOH[LEOH 6PHWDQD f DUJXHV WKDW ERWK DXWRQRP\ DQG FRQVWUDLQW FKDUDFWHUL]H SDUHQWDGROHVFHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKDW WKH DPRXQW RI HDFK YDULHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH FRQIOLFW $GROHVFHQWV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR FKDOOHQJH SDUHQWDO DXWKRULW\ UHJDUGLQJ LVVXHV WKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYH WR EH ZLWKLQ WKHLU SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ )DPLO\ &RQIOLFW 1XFFL DQG /HH f GHILQHG SHUVRQDO GRPDLQV DV WKRVH WKDW FRPSULVH WKH SULYDWH DVSHFWV RI RQHfV OLIH DQG WKRVH WKDW HQWDLO LVVXHV RI SUHIHUHQFH RU FKRLFH 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW

PAGE 23

DGROHVFHQWV VKLIW IURP GHILQLQJ SHUVRQDO LVVXHV LQ WHUPV RI EHKDYLRUV WR GHILQLQJ SHUVRQDO LVVXHV LQ WHUPV RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ D GLVWLQFW VHW RI RSLQLRQV SUHIHUHQFHV DQG YDOXHV WKDW GHILQH WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV XQLTXHQHVV ,QFUHDVHG XVH RI SHUVRQDO MXVWLILFDWLRQV MXVWLILFDWLRQV EDVHG RQ LQGLYLGXDO SUHIHUHQFHV DQG FKRLFHVf LV WLHG WR \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWVf DWWHPSWV WR GHILQH WKHPVHOYHV DV XQLTXH IURP RWKHUV ZLWK DQ DXWRQRPRXV VHOI 2IWHQ SDUHQWV GR QRW IHHO WKDW D SDUWLFXODU LVVXH LV ZLWKLQ WKH FKLOGfV SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG DV D UHVXOW FRQIOLFW RFFXUV 6PHWDQD f DUJXHV WKDW FXOWXUH SOD\V D UROH LQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI FRQIOLFW DQG WKDW ZLWKLQ WKH FXOWXUH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZKLFK LV PRUH LQGLYLGXDOLVWLF WKDQ PDQ\ RWKHUV WKHUH DUH PRUH DUHDV DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHLYH WR EH ZLWKLQ WKHLU RZQ SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ 7KHVH DUHDV LQFOXGH LVVXHV RI VRFLDO DQG QRQVRFLDO DFWLYLWLHV DFWLRQV WKDW IRFXV RQ WKH VWDWH RI WKHLU ERGLHV DQG EHKDYLRUDO VW\OH $UQHWW f $UQHWW DJUHHV WKDW PDQ\ RI WKH FRQIOLFWV LQ DGROHVFHQFH DUH GXH WR DGROHVFHQWV EHFRPLQJ PRUH LQGLYLGXDOLVWLF DV LV H[SHFWHG LQ WKLV FXOWXUH DQG WKHLU SDUHQWVf DWWHPSWV WR GHDO ZLWK WKHLU LQFUHDVLQJ SXVK WRZDUG LQGHSHQGHQFH 2IWHQ SDUHQWV DQG DGROHVFHQWV GLVDJUHH DV WR WKH UDWH DW ZKLFK DGROHVFHQWV VKRXOG EHFRPH LQGHSHQGHQW 6PHWDQD f IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRQIOLFWV WKDW DULVH DV DGROHVFHQWV EHJLQ WR YLHZ PRUH DVSHFWV RI WKHLU OLYHV ZLWKLQ WKHLU RZQ SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG GHVLUH JUHDWHU DXWRQRP\ LQ WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV ,Q 6PHWDQDfV VWXG\ ILIWK WKURXJK WZHOIWK JUDGH PLGGOH DQG XSSHU FODVV (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ DGROHVFHQWV DQG WKHLU SDUHQWV SDUWLFLSDWHG $GROHVFHQWV DQG SDUHQWV VRUWHG FDUGV GHVFULELQJ FRQIOLFWV DV ZLWKLQ WKH UHDOP RI GLIIHUHQW GRPDLQV PRUDO LVVXHV SHUWDLQLQJ WR ULJKWV DQG ZHOIDUH RI RWKHUVf VRFLDOFRQYHQWLRQDO DJUHHG XSRQ EHKDYLRUDO UXOHV IRU VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQVf SHUVRQDO LVVXHV WKDW SHUWDLQ RQO\ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKDW DUH VHHQ DV EH\RQG VRFLHW\fV FRQWUROf DQG

PAGE 24

PXOWLIDFHWHG LVVXHV WKDW IDOO LQWR PRUH WKDQ RQH RI WKHVH GRPDLQVf 7KH\ DOVR UHSRUWHG ZKR WKH\ IHOW KDG DXWKRULW\ ZLWKLQ WKHVH GLIIHUHQW GRPDLQV 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW PRWKHUV DQG IDWKHUV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WKDQ DGROHVFHQWV WR VHH WKH SHUVRQDO DQG PXOWLIDFHWHG LVVXHV DV ZLWKLQ SDUHQWDO DXWKRULW\ WKDQ ZHUH DGROHVFHQWV 7KLV ZDV PRVW DSSDUHQW ZLWK WKH \RXQJHVW SDUWLFLSDQWV $GROHVFHQWV DOVR XVHG PRUH SHUVRQDO UHDVRQLQJ LH EHOLHYHG WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV WKHLUV WR PDNHf DERXW WKH FRQIOLFWV DV WKH\ LQFUHDVHG LQ DJH ZKLOH SDUHQWVf UHDVRQLQJ GLG QRW FKDQJH 6PHWDQD DQG FROOHDJXHV VXJJHVWHG WKDW FRQIOLFW LQFUHDVHV EHFDXVH DV DGROHVFHQWV EHJLQ WR VHH PRUH GHFLVLRQV DV SHUVRQDO LQ QDWXUH SDUHQWV IHHO WKLV FKDQJH LV LQ GLUHFW FRQIOLFW ZLWK IDPLO\ UXOHV DQG QRUPV )XOLJLQL f VXJJHVWHG WKDW LI VWULYLQJ IRU DXWRQRP\ LV WKH UHDVRQ IRU LQFUHDVHG FRQIOLFW LQ DGROHVFHQFH WKHQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI DXWRQRP\ DFURVV GLIIHUHQW FXOWXUHV DQG ZLWKLQ GLIIHUHQW HWKQLF JURXSV ZLWKLQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV VKRXOG EH H[DPLQHG ,Q IDPLOLHV IURP GLIIHUHQW HWKQLF EDFNJURXQGV ZLWKLQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WKH GHJUHH RI DFFXOWXUDWLRQ PD\ DIIHFW WKH OHYHO RI LPSRUWDQFH SODFHG RQ DXWRQRP\ E\ DGROHVFHQWV )XOLJLQL VWXGLHG VL[WK HLJKWK DQG WHQWK JUDGH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHVf RI 0H[LFDQ &KLQHVH )LOLSLQR DQG (XURSHDQ DQFHVWU\ 0HDQ DJHV IRU WKH WKUHH JUDGHV ZHUH \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV UHVSHFWLYHO\ $GROHVFHQWV ZHUH FODVVLILHG DV ILUVW JHQHUDWLRQ VHFRQG JHQHUDWLRQ RU WKLUG JHQHUDWLRQ RU JUHDWHU 7KH\ ZHUH DVVHVVHG DV WR KRZ DSSURSULDWH WKH\ IHOW LW ZDV WR GLVDJUHH ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV KRZ OHJLWLPDWH WKH\ IHOW WKHLU SDUHQWVf DXWKRULW\ ZDV DQG ZKDW WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV ZHUH RI WKH DJHV DW ZKLFK WKH\ ZRXOG EH DOORZHG WR HQJDJH LQ YDULRXV DXWRQRPRXV EHKDYLRUV

PAGE 25

7KH ,VVXHV &KHFNOLVW 3ULQ] )RVWHU .HQW t 2f/HDU\ 5RELQ t )RVWHU f ZDV XVHG WR PHDVXUH DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH IUHTXHQF\ DQG LQWHQVLW\ RI FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV )DPLO\ FRKHVLRQ ZDV PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH FRKHVLRQ VXEVFDOH RI WKH )DPLO\ $GDSWDWLRQ DQG &RKHVLRQ (YDOXDWLRQ 6FDOHV ,, 2OVRQ 6SUHQNOH t 5XVVHOO f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fV VWXG\ VXJJHVWHG WKDW ZKLOH YLHZV DERXW DXWRQRP\ GLIIHU DPRQJ HWKQLF JURXSV ZLWKLQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WKH EHKDYLRU RI WKH DGROHVFHQWV LQ DOO IRXU HWKQLF JURXSV ZDV FRQVLVWHQW DQG VKRZHG DQ LQFUHDVHG GHVLUH IRU DXWRQRP\ DV WKH FKLOG SURJUHVVHG WKURXJK DGROHVFHQFH 5HVHDUFK VXJJHVWV $PHULFDQ DGROHVFHQWV LQFUHDVLQJO\ YLHZ LVVXHV DV ZLWKLQ WKHLU SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH IHHO WKDW WKH\ VKRXOG EH DEOH WR PDNH GHFLVLRQV RQ WKHLU

PAGE 26

RZQ 7KH DGROHVFHQWV WKXV DVVHUWV DQG WHVWV WKLV DXWRQRP\ RIWHQ FDXVLQJ FRQIOLFW LQ WKH IDPLO\ EHFDXVH SDUHQWV DUH QRW UHDG\ WR UHOLQTXLVK DXWKRULW\ 7KH VWXGLHV DOVR VXJJHVW WKDW ZKLOH DGROHVFHQWVf OHYHOV RI DXWRQRP\ DQG DVVHUWLRQ RI SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ PD\ YDU\ VRPHZKDW DFURVV HWKQLF JURXSV ZLWKLQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DGROHVFHQWV IURP GLYHUVH HWKQLF EDFNJURXQGV DUH VLPLODU LQ WKDW WKH\ DOO DWWHPSW WR DFKLHYH VRPH GHJUHH RI LQFUHDVHG DXWRQRP\ IURP SDUHQWV GXULQJ WKLV SHULRG 7KH VWXGLHV IRFXVLQJ RQ SHUVRQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ VXJJHVW WKDW FRQIOLFW LQFUHDVHV LQ IDPLOLHV DV FKLOGUHQ PRYH WKURXJK DGROHVFHQFH +LJKHU OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU LPPDWXULW\ DQG ORZ VHOIHVWHHP 6PHWDQD %UDHJHV DQG
PAGE 27

VW\OH FKLOGDGROHVFHQW PDQDJHPHQW WHFKQLTXHV DQG H[FKDQJH RI SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH EHKDYLRUV 0RQWHPD\RUf 3RRU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG SUREOHP VROYLQJ OHDGV WR XQUHVROYHG FRQIOLFW EHFDXVH WKHVH GHILFLWV LQ SDUHQWLQJ UHVXOW LQ LQFUHDVHG FRHUFLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ SDUHQWV DQG FKLOGUHQ 7KHVH FRHUFLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV PD\ OHDG WR FKLOG DEXVH E\ SDUHQWV DQG WR DJJUHVVLYH DQG RXWRIFRQWURO EHKDYLRUV E\ FKLOGUHQ 7KH SDUHQWDO PDQDJHPHQW VNLOOV WKDW PRVW DIIHFW OHYHOV RI SDUHQWDGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW VHHP WR EH SDUHQWDO PRQLWRULQJ RI FKLOGUHQ GLVFLSOLQH DQG UHLQIRUFHPHQW RI SRVLWLYH EHKDYLRU 'LVKLRQ )UHQFK t 3DWWHUVRQ 0RQWHPD\RUf $GROHVFHQW GHYLDQFH DQG IDPLO\ G\VIXQFWLRQ DUH PRVW RIWHQ VHHQ LQ IDPLOLHV ZLWK SDUHQWV ZKR DUH HLWKHU WRR DXWKRULWDULDQ RU WRR OHQLHQW $OVR LQ IDPLOLHV ZLWK KLJK OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW PHPEHUV UHFLSURFDWH HDFK RWKHUfV DYHUVLYH EHKDYLRUV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ WKDQ LQ IDPLOLHV ZLWK ORZHU OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW 0RQWHPD\RU 3DWWHUVRQ f )DPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG KDUVK SXQLVKPHQW PD\ OHDG WR DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRU ZLWK RQVHW LQ FKLOGKRRG 'DQLHOV t 0RRV 'HDWHU'HFNDUG t 'RGJH )UDVHU *RUPDQ6PLWK 7RODQ =HOOL DQG +XHVPDQQ 0F&RUG 0RILILWW f 2QJRLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW KDV EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZ VHOIFRQILGHQFH SV\FKRVRFLDO GLVWUHVV DQG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV ,Q FRQWUDVW IDPLO\ UHVRXUFHV DQG FRKHVLRQ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK JUHDWHU VHOIFRQILGHQFH OHVV SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV DQG IHZHU SUREOHP EHKDYLRUV LQ DGROHVFHQWV 'DQLHOV t 0RRVf 7KH IROORZLQJ VWXGLHV FRQVLGHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW LQFUHDVHG SUREOHP EHKDYLRU DQG GHFUHDVHG SV\FKRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQLQJ +ROPEHFN DQG 2f'RQQHOO f VWXGLHG DGROHVFHQWV DQG WKHLU PRWKHUV ZKR DQVZHUHG TXHVWLRQQDLUHV FRQFHUQLQJ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG DGROHVFHQW DGMXVWPHQW DW

PAGE 28

ERWK 7LPH 2QH DQG 7LPH 7ZR PRQWKV ODWHUf 7KH DGROHVFHQWV DQG PRWKHUV FRPSOHWHG WKH 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH WKH 'HVLUH IRU $XWRQRP\ 6FDOH WKH ,VVXHV &KHFNOLVW DQG +DUWHUfV 5HYLVHG 6HOI3HUFHSWLRQ 3URILOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 7KH 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 'RPEXVFK HW DO 6WHLQEHUJ f DVVHVVHV SHUFHSWLRQV RI ZKR PDNHV GHFLVLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ ZLWK UHJDUG WR D VSHFLILF OLVW RI LVVXHV 7KH 'HVLUH IRU $XWRQRP\ 6FDOH 2f'RQQHOO t +ROPEHFN f IRFXVHV RQ SDUHQW DQG DGROHVFHQW GHVLUH IRU PRUH RU OHVV FRQWURO RYHU WKH VDPH LVVXHV FRYHUHG LQ WKH 'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH ,VVXHV &KHFNOLVW 5RELQ t )RVWHU f LV D PHDVXUH RI SDUHQWDGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW DQG FRYHUV WKH VDPH LVVXHV IRFXVHG RQ LQ WKH RWKHU PHDVXUHV 7KH +DUWHU 5HYLVHG 6HOI3HUFHSWLRQ 3URILOH IRU &KLOGUHQ +DUWHU f LV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO PHDVXUH RI WKH FKLOGfV VHOIFRQFHSW $GROHVFHQWV DOVR FRPSOHWHG WKH (PRWLRQDO $XWRQRP\ 6FDOH 6WHLQEHUJ t 6LOYHUEHUJ f DQG D PHDVXUH RI GHWDFKPHQW 5\DQ t /\QFK f 0RWKHUV DOVR FRPSOHWHG WKH )DPLO\ $GDSWDELOLW\ DQG &RKHVLRQ (YDOXDWLRQ 6FDOHV 2OVRQ IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH FRKHVLYHQHVV VXEVFDOHf DQG WKH ,QYHQWRU\ RI 3DUHQW $WWDFKPHQW $UPVGHQ t *UHHQEHUJ PHDVXULQJ PDWHUQDO DWWDFKPHQW WR WKH DGROHVFHQWf 0RWKHUV DQG WHDFKHUV FRPSOHWHG WKH $FKHQEDFK &KLOG %HKDYLRU &KHFNOLVW $FKHQEDFK t (GHOEURFN PHDVXULQJ DGROHVFHQW LQWHUQDOL]LQJ DQG H[WHUQDOL]LQJ EHKDYLRUVf 5HVXOWV VKRZHG JUHDWHU OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW IRU PRWKHUFKLOG SDLUV LQ ZKLFK WKH PRWKHU DQG DGROHVFHQW GLVDJUHHG RYHU ZKR VKRXOG EH WKH GHFLVLRQPDNHU ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ $GROHVFHQWV DOVR UHSRUWHG OHVV FRQIOLFW DQG JUHDWHU GHWDFKPHQW IURP PRWKHUV LQ IDPLOLHV ZKHUH WKH DGROHVFHQW IHOW LQ FKDUJH RI GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ ,Q IDPLOLHV ZLWK PRWKHUV ZKR ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR JUDQW DXWRQRP\ DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWHG PRUH HPRWLRQDO GHWDFKPHQW

PAGE 29

IURP PRWKHUV DQG WKHLU WHDFKHUV UHSRUWHG JUHDWHU LQWHUQDOL]LQJ V\PSWRPV 0RWKHUV UHSRUWHG PRUH FRQIOLFW DQG H[WHUQDOL]LQJ V\PSWRPV DPRQJ DGROHVFHQWV ZKR DWWHPSWHG WR JDLQ PRUH DXWRQRP\ WKDQ WKH PRWKHUV ZHUH ZLOOLQJ WR JUDQW $GROHVFHQWV LQ IDPLOLHV LQ ZKLFK PRWKHUV ZHUH QRW ZLOOLQJ WR JUDQW DXWRQRP\ KDG GHFUHDVHG VHOIFRQFHSW VFRUHV RYHU WKH PRQWK SHULRG 6KHN f DOVR ORRNHG DW WKH HIIHFW RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW RQ DGROHVFHQW EHKDYLRU DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ LQ D ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI IDPLOLHV IURP +RQJ .RQJ 3V\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ ZDV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV ERWK ODFN RI SV\FKLDWULF PRUELGLW\ DQG WKH H[LVWHQFH RI SRVLWLYH PHQWDO KHDOWK 3RVLWLYH PHQWDO KHDOWK ZDV PHDVXUHG DV ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKH &KLQHVH +RSHOHVVQHVV 6FDOH 6KHN f DQG WKH &KLQHVH YHUVLRQ RI WKH *HQHUDO +HDOWK 4XHVWLRQQDLUH &KDQ f DQG KLJK VFRUHV RQ WKH 6DWLVIDFWLRQ :LWK /LIH 6FDOH 'LHQHU (PPRQV /DUVHQ t *ULIIHQ 6KHN f &KLQHVH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 6KHN f DQG &KLQHVH 3XUSRVH LQ /LIH 4XHVWLRQQDLUH &UXPEDXJK 6KHN f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f IRXQG WKDW IDWKHU DGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW DIIHFWHG ZHOOEHLQJ PRUH WKDQ PRWKHUDGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW GLG 7KH

PAGE 30

UHVXOWV DOVR VKRZHG WKDW FRQIOLFW DIIHFWHG ZHOOEHLQJ HTXDOO\ IRU PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV 6KHN DVVHUWHG WKDW WKLV ILQGLQJ ZDV QRW VXUSULVLQJ EHFDXVH FRQIOLFW LQ &KLQHVH FXOWXUH LV IURZQHG RQ IRU ERWK WKH VH[HV $U\ 'XQFDQ 'XQFDQ DQG +RSV f DOVR IRFXVHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV DQG IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW 7KH\ EDVHG WKHLU ZRUN RQ 3DWWHUVRQ 5HLG DQG 'LVKLRQfV f GHYHORSPHQWDO PRGHO RI DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU ZKLFK DVVHUWV WKDW GHOLQTXHQF\ LV GXH SUR[LPDOO\ WR SHHU LQIOXHQFHV EXW WKDW DVVRFLDWLRQV ZLWK SDUWLFXODU SHHUV DUH DIIHFWHG E\ SDUHQWDO EHKDYLRU LQFOXGLQJ FRHUFLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG SRRU SDUHQWDO PRQLWRULQJf ,Q WKHLU VWXG\ WKH\ LQWHUYLHZHG IDPLOLHV DQQXDOO\ IRU \HDUV +DOI RI WKH IDPLOLHV ZHUH VLQJOHSDUHQW IDPLOLHV DQG WKH PHDQ DJH RI WKH DGROHVFHQWV ZDV \HDUV DW WKH ILUVW DVVHVVPHQW )DPLO\ FRQIOLFW ZDV PHDVXUHG XVLQJ WKH &RQIOLFW %HKDYLRU 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 3ULQ] HW DO f DQG SRVLWLYH IDPLO\ UHODWLRQV ZHUH PHDVXUHG XVLQJ WKH FRKHVLRQ VXEVFDOH RI WKH )DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH 0RRV f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f DWWHPSWHG WR DVVHVV ZKHWKHU VSHFLILF SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV DIIHFW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDPLO\

PAGE 31

FRQIOLFW DQG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV 3URWHFWLYH IDFWRUV DUH WKRVH WKDW EXIIHU FKLOGUHQ DJDLQVW WKH QHJDWLYH HIIHFWV RI IDPLO\ VWUHVV DQG RIWHQ LQFOXGH WHPSHUDPHQW IDPLOLDO IDFWRUV DQG H[WUDIDPLOLDO VXSSRUW )RUPRVR DQG FROOHDJXHV VRXJKW WR GHWHUPLQH VSHFLILFDOO\ ZKHWKHU WKH VRXUFH RI SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV ZKHWKHU IURP SDUHQWV D SDUWLFXODU SDUHQW RU IURP SHHUVf PDWWHUV DQG ZKHWKHU WKH LQIOXHQFH RI SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV YDULHV E\ JHQGHU RU HWKQLFLW\ 7KH VDPSOH IRU )RUPRVR DQG FROOHDJXHVf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t *UHHQEHUJ f ZKLFK DVVHVVHV SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKH DGROHVFHQWVf DWWDFKPHQW WR SDUHQWV DQG SHHUV 3DUHQWDO PRQLWRULQJ ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH $VVHVVPHQW RI &KLOG 0RQLWRULQJ +HWKHULQJWRQ HW DO f ZKLFK IRFXVHV RQ KRZ PXFK SDUHQWV PRQLWRU WKHLU FKLOGUHQ 5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW PDWHUQDO DWWDFKPHQW PDWHUQDO PRQLWRULQJ DQG SDWHUQDO PRQLWRULQJ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHFUHDVHG OHYHOV RI FRQGXFW SUREOHPV LQ IHPDOHV 7KHVH SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV PRGHUDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG FRQGXFW SUREOHPV IRU IHPDOHV 3DWHUQDO DWWDFKPHQW KRZHYHU ZDV QRW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW RU FRQGXFW SUREOHPV LQ IHPDOHV )RU PDOHV PDWHUQDO DWWDFKPHQW PDWHUQDO

PAGE 32

PRQLWRULQJ DQG SDWHUQDO PRQLWRULQJ ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG OHYHO RI FRQGXFW SUREOHPV +RZHYHU ORZHU SDWHUQDO DWWDFKPHQW ZDV UHODWHG WR ORZHU OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG FRQGXFW SUREOHPV 5HVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW ULVN DQG SURWHFWLYH IDFWRUV ZRUNHG VLPLODUO\ DFURVV WKH GLIIHUHQW HWKQLF JURXSV ,W DSSHDUV WKDW FORVHU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK DQG JUHDWHU PRQLWRULQJ E\ SDUHQWV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHFUHDVHV LQ WKH OHYHO RI JLUOVf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t +D\HV f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

PAGE 33

SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ LQFOXGLQJ SV\FKRVRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW VXEVWDQFH XVH GHSUHVVLRQ DQG FRQGXFW SUREOHPV DQG DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRUf )DPLO\ &RKHVLRQ &RKHVLRQ LV DOVR RIWHQ PHDVXUHG WR DVVHVV IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ *HKULQJ DQG FROOHDJXHV *HKULQJ :HQW]HO )HOGPDQ t 0XQVRQ f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t )HOGPDQ f ZKLFK FKDUDFWHUL]HV OHYHOV RI FRKHVLRQ DQG SRZHU ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ 7KH )DPLO\ 6\VWHPV 7HVW ZDV FRPSOHWHG WR UHSUHVHQW SUHVHQW IDPLO\ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG IDPLO\ UHODWLRQVKLSV DV WKH\ H[LVW GXULQJ D FRQIOLFW VLWXDWLRQ )RXU G\DG VFRUHV ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG IDWKHUPRWKHU IDWKHUDGROHVFHQW PRWKHUDGROHVFHQW DQG DGROHVFHQWVLEOLQJ &RQIOLFWV ZHUH GHVFULEHG DORQJ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI ORFXV LH ZKLFK IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZHUH FHQWUDOO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH FRQIOLFWf FRQWHQW FRGHG LQWR FDWHJRULHV GLVFLSOLQH XVH RI WLPH FKRUHV PRQH\ DXWRQRP\ GHYLDQFH PDULWDO SUREOHPV DQG VLEOLQJ ILJKWLQJf DQG IUHTXHQF\ LQIUHTXHQW FRQIOLFWV RFFXUUHG WLPHV RU OHVV SHU \HDU RFFDVLRQDO FRQIOLFWV RFFXUUHG RU WLPHV SHU PRQWK DQG IUHTXHQW FRQIOLFWV RFFXUUHG RQFH RU PRUH SHU ZHHNf &RQIOLFW ZDV IRXQG DFURVV DOO IRXU G\DGV ZLWK WKH PRWKHUDGROHVFHQW DQG IDWKHUDGROHVFHQW G\DGV H[SHULHQFLQJ WKH JUHDWHVW DPRXQW RI FRQIOLFW (DUO\ DGROHVFHQWV KDG IHZHU FRQIOLFWV ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV WKDQ GLG ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV &RQIOLFW LQFUHDVHG

PAGE 34

GXULQJ PLGGOH DGROHVFHQFH (DUO\ DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWHG FRQIOLFWV DERXW GLVFLSOLQH DQG XVH RI WLPH PRVW RIWHQ DQG PLGDGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWHG XVH RI WLPH DQG DXWRQRP\ LVVXHV PRVW RIWHQ 5HSRUWV RI DXWRQRP\UHODWHG LVVXHV LQFUHDVHG ZLWK DJH 2OGHU DGROHVFHQWV GHVFULEHG PRUH LGLRV\QFUDWLF DQG PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQIOLFWV WKDQ GLG WKH \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW FRQIOLFW GHFUHDVHG FRKHVLRQ LQ WKH IDPLO\ DV D ZKROH EXW GLG QRW LQFUHDVH RU GHFUHDVH SRZHU LQ WKH G\DGV $QRWKHU VWXG\ EDVHG RQ IDPLO\ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ :HQW]HO DQG )HOGPDQ f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f EHWZHHQ WKH ER\V DQG HDFK RI WKHLU SDUHQWV ZHUH UHODWHG WR GHSUHVVLYH DIIHFW DQG ORZ VRFLDO VHOIFRQFHSW *RUPDQ6PLWK HW DO f UHSRUWHG WKDW SDUHQWLQJ YDULDEOHV DQG IDPLO\UHODWLRQVKLS YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ ORZ OHYHOV RI SDUHQWDO ZDUPWK DFFHSWDQFH DQG DIIHFWLRQ ORZ IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DQG KLJK OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW DQG KRVWLOLW\f KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH VWURQJ SUHGLFWRUV RI DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU 3DUWLFLSDQWV LQ *RUPDQ6PLWK DQG FROOHDJXHVf VWXG\ ZHUH IURP D ODUJHU ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ 7KH &KLFDJR
PAGE 35

VHYHQWK JUDGH 6FRUHV IURP WKH ER\Vf VHOIUHSRUWV DQG SDUHQWVf UHSRUWV ZHUH FRPELQHG WR SURYLGH RYHUDOO VFRUHV IRU WKH YDULRXV FRQVWUXFWV PHDVXUHG LQ *RUPDQ6PLWK DQG FROOHDJXHVf VWXG\ +DOI RI WKH ER\V LQ WKH VDPSOH KDG KLJK VFRUHV RQ WKH $FKHQEDFK 7HDFKHU 5HSRUW )RUP $JJUHVVLRQ 6FDOH $FKHQEDFK f DQG WKH RWKHU KDOI RI WKH ER\V KDG ORZ WR PHGLXP VFRUHV RQ WKLV PHDVXUH %DVHG RQ WKH FKLOGfV VHOIUHSRUW RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU WKH\ ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKUHH JURXSV ER\V UHSRUWLQJ QR GHOLQTXHQW RU YLROHQW RIIHQVHV ER\V UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV DQG ER\V UHSRUWLQJ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV %R\V DQG WKHLU FDUHJLYHUV VHSDUDWHO\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ D VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ LQ WKHLU RZQ KRPH DQG WRJHWKHU HQJDJHG LQ D VWUXFWXUHG SUREOHPVROYLQJ WDVN WKDW ZDV YLGHRWDSHG &KLOG UHSRUWV RI GHOLQTXHQW DQG YLROHQW EHKDYLRU ZHUH REWDLQHG XVLQJ WKH 6HOI 5HSRUW 'HOLQTXHQF\ 6FDOH (OOLRWW 'XQIRUG t +XL]LQJD f D OLVW RI FULPLQDO DFWV ZKLFK VHUYHG DV WKH EDVLV IRU GLYLGLQJ WKH ER\V LQWR WKH WKUHH JURXSVf 7R PHDVXUH UDWHV RI QRQYLROHQW RIIHQGLQJ UHSRUWV RI QRQYLROHQW IHORQ\ RIIHQVHV ZHUH ZHLJKWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR VHULRXVQHVV DQG HDFK VFRUH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ VXPPLQJ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI HDFK DFW PXOWLSOLHG E\ LWV ZHLJKW *RUPDQ6PLWK DQG FROOHDJXHV DOVR ORRNHG DW DJH RI RQVHW RI RIIHQGLQJ FRPSDULQJ ER\V ZKR EHJDQ RIIHQGLQJ SULRU WR DJH ZLWK WKRVH ZKR EHJDQ RIIHQGLQJ DIWHU DJH f )DPLO\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH PHDVXUHG ZLWK D LWHP PHDVXUH WKDW ZDV FUHDWHG E\ FRPELQLQJ TXHVWLRQV IURP WKH IROORZLQJ IDPLO\ VFDOHV )DPLO\ $VVHVVPHQW 0HDVXUH,OO 6NLQQHU 6WHLQKDXHU t 6DQWD%DUEDUD f )DPLO\ $GDSWDELOLW\ DQG &RKHVLYHQHVV (YDOXDWLRQ 6FDOHV 2OVRQ 3RUWQHU t /DYHH f )DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH 0RRV t 0RRV f )DPLO\ %HOLHIV ,QYHQWRU\ 5RHKOLQJ t 5RELQ f DQG VL[ LWHPV DVVHVVLQJ GHYLDQW EHOLHIV DQG IRXU LWHPV DVVHVVLQJ VRPDWL]DWLRQ $ IDFWRU DQDO\VLV SURGXFHG VL[ IDFWRUV Df %HOLHIV $ERXW WKH )DPLO\ ZLWK

PAGE 36

WZR VXEIDFWRUV ,PSRUWDQFH RI )DPLO\ 5HODWLRQVKLSV DQG %HOLHIV $ERXW 'HYHORSPHQWf Ef (PRWLRQDO &RKHVLRQ Ff 6XSSRUW Gf &RPPXQLFDWLRQ Hf 6KDUHG 'HYLDQW %HOLHIV DQG If 2UJDQL]DWLRQ 5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG SDUHQWLQJ SUDFWLFHV DQG IDPLO\ UHODWLRQV ZHUH WZR GLVWLQFW SURFHVVHV 7KHUH ZHUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKHVH FRQVWUXFWV DFURVV IDPLOLHV ZKRVH ER\V ZHUHZHUH QRW HQJDJLQJ LQ GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI GHOLQTXHQW DQG YLROHQW EHKDYLRU 7KHUH ZHUH QR GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV RI GHOLQTXHQWV QRQYLROHQW RIIHQGHUV DQG YLROHQW RIIHQGHUVf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f /HYHOV RI IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ PD\ DIIHFW DQG EH DIIHFWHG E\ RWKHU YDULDEOHV DW WKH IDPLO\ DQG LQGLYLGXDO OHYHOV RI DQDO\VLV 2QH RI WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOOHYHO YDULDEOHV PD\ EH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ

PAGE 37

,GHQWLW\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV GHVFULEHG DV WKH LPSRUWDQFH SHRSOH SODFH RQ LGHQWLW\ DWWULEXWHV RU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKHQ FUHDWLQJ WKHLU QRWLRQV RI VHOI 7KUHH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG E\ &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV &KHHN t %ULJJV &KHHN t 7URSS &KHHN 7URSS &KHQ t 8QGHUZRRG +RJDQ t &KHHN f SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV RULJLQDOO\ FRQFHSWXDOL]HG WZR LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV SHUVRQDO DQG VRFLDO 3HUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV SULYDWH LGHDV DERXW KLV RU KHU VHOIKRRG DQG VXEMHFWLYH IHHOLQJV RI XQLTXHQHVV DQG FRQWLQXLW\ LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO YDOXHV DQG JRDOV %HU]RQVN\ &KHHN HW DOf 6RFLDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ WKH VHOI DQ LQGLYLGXDO SUHVHQWV SXEOLFO\ LQ VRFLDO UROHV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG GHDOV ZLWK RQHfV UHSXWDWLRQ DQG SRSXODULW\ +RJDQ DQG &KHHN FUHDWHG WKHVH WZR LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV DV VHSDUDWH FRQVWUXFWV UDWKHU WKDQ WZR HQGV RI D FRQWLQXXP DQG DUJXHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV GLIIHU DV WR KRZ PXFK WKH\ LGHQWLI\ ZLWK HDFK RI WKHVH IRUPV RI LGHQWLW\ 7KH LQGLYLGXDOfV OHYHO RI LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK ERWK SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ DQG VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ DIIHFWV KLV RU KHU VRFLDO EHKDYLRU $IWHU WKH FRQVWUXFWV RI SHUVRQDO DQG VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV UHDOL]HG WKDW D WKLUG DVSHFW RI LGHQWLW\ H[LVWHG WKDW ZDV QRW HQWLUHO\ VXEVXPHG XQGHU WKH VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ FRQVWUXFW &KHHN HW DO f 7KH\ H[SORUHG DQG GHYHORSHG D PHDVXUH IRU WKLV WKLUG LGHQWLW\ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ &ROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV GHVFULEHG DV IRFXVLQJ RQ VRFLRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV IRU H[DPSOH HWKQLFLW\ JHQGHU UHOLJLRQf IHHOLQJV RI FRPPLWPHQW WR RQHfV FRPPXQLW\ DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG QRUPDWLYH VWDQGDUGV RI VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV DQG UHIHUHQFH JURXSV %HU]RQVN\ &KHHN HW DOf &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV DUJXH WKDW HDFK LQGLYLGXDO YLHZV KLV RU KHU VHOI WKURXJK DOO

PAGE 38

WKUHH OHQVHV SHUVRQDO VRFLDO DQG FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQf EXW WKDW PRVW LQGLYLGXDOV OLNHO\ H[SHULHQFH RQH RI WKHVH LGHQWLWLHV DV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WR WKHLU FRQFHSWLRQ RI WKHPVHOYHV 0DQ\ VWXGLHV KDYH ORRNHG DW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKHVH WKUHH IRUPV RI LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ SHUVRQDO VRFLDO DQG FROOHFWLYHf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f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

PAGE 39

IDLUQHVV DQG HQJDJH LQ KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR f 2WKHU DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUW IHHOLQJ WKDW WKHLU SDUHQWV GR QRW WUHDW WKHP DV YDOXHG PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ GLVSXWHV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ 7KLV LV UHIHUUHG WR DV ORZ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG WKHVH DGROHVFHQWV KDYH VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV DQG UDWHV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DV WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW ORZ OHYHOV RI SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDURf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

PAGE 40

IDLUQHVV DFURVV PXOWLSOH GRPDLQV LQFOXGLQJ WKH IDPLO\ FRQWH[W %URQIHQEUHQQHU f ,Q WKH IDPLO\ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ FRQWH[W UHSHDWHG XQIDLU RXWFRPHV RU XQIDLU WUHDWPHQW PD\ OHDG WR D VWURQJ VHQVH RI LQMXVWLFH DQG UHVHQWPHQW ZKLFK LQ WXUQ PD\ IXHO DQJHU DURXVDO DQG RQJRLQJ OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW )RQGDFDUR t +HOOHU 7HGHVFKL t )HOVRQ f 'LVWULEXWLYH -XVWLFH 7KUHH SULQFLSOHV RI GLVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH HTXLW\ HTXDOLW\ DQG QHHG 7KH W\SH RI GLVWULEXWLRQ WKDW LV IDYRUHG LQ D SDUWLFXODU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ H[SHULHQFH LV RIWHQ DIIHFWHG E\ DVSHFWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHGXUH DQG WKH JRDOV HDFK SDUWLFLSDQW KDV (TXLWDEOH GLVWULEXWLRQV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ GLVWULEXWLRQ HTXDO WR LQSXWV 'HXWVFK f 7KLV SHUVSHFWLYH LV RIWHQ XVHG LQMXVWLFH GHFLVLRQV LQYROYLQJ HFRQRPLF LVVXHV 5HODWLRQVKLSV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ HTXLWDEOH GLVWULEXWLRQV DUH RIWHQ FRPSHWLWLYH DQG LPSHUVRQDO 6WHLO f (TXDOLW\ SULQFLSOHV RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG DUH RIWHQ HQFRXQWHUHG ZLWK GHFLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ LQWHUSHUVRQDO KDUPRQ\ DQG VWDWXV FRQJUXHQFH DQG RFFXU PRVW RIWHQ LQ UHODWLRQVKLSV LQYROYLQJ VROLGDULW\ FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG OLNLQJ 6WHLOf 7KH ILQDO GLPHQVLRQ RI GLVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH LV QHHG ZKLFK FKDUDFWHUL]HV FDULQJ JURXSV LQ ZKLFK IRVWHULQJ SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG ZHOIDUH LV WKH SULPDU\ JRDO RI LQWHUDFWLRQV ,Q WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV PHPEHUV IHHO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU RQH DQRWKHU DQG DUH LQWLPDWHO\ WLHG WR HDFK RWKHU 'HXWVFKf 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH 0XOWLSOH WKHRULHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG KDYH EHHQ WHVWHG DFURVV PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW FRQWH[WV 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHU f GHYHORSHG RQH RI WKH ILUVW WKHRULHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 7KHLU WKHRU\ IRFXVHV RQ OHJDO

PAGE 41

GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHU VWUHVV MXGJPHQWV RI FRQWURO RYHU ERWK SURFHVV DQG RXWFRPHV 7KHLU LQVWUXPHQWDO FRQWURO WKHRU\ HPSKDVL]HV SURFHVV FRQWURO DQG GHFLVLRQ FRQWURO 3URFHVV FRQWURO UHIHUV WR D SHUVRQfV FRQWURO RYHU WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RU HYLGHQFH WR WKH GHFLVLRQPDNHU ZKHUHDV GHFLVLRQ FRQWURO UHIHUV WR FRQWURO RYHU WKH DFWXDO GHFLVLRQ PDGH 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHU WKHRUL]H WKDW SHRSOH FDUH PRUH DERXW KRZ WKH\ DUH WUHDWHG GXULQJ WKH SURFHVV RI FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ WKDQ DERXW WKH DFWXDO RXWFRPHV $ VHFRQG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH WKHRULVW /HYHQWKDO f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f /LQG DQG 7\OHU f SURSRVHG DQRWKHU WKHRU\ RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH WKH JURXS YDOXH PRGHO ZKLFK IRFXVHV RQ WKH HIIHFWV RI IDLUQHVV RI JURXS SURFHGXUHV DQG JURXS PHPEHUVKLS RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV DWWLWXGHV DERXW DQG EHKDYLRU WRZDUGV WKDW JURXS /LQG DQG

PAGE 42

7\OHU DUJXH WKDW DOWKRXJK WKHUH ZLOO EH GLIIHUHQFHV DFURVV JURXSV FHUWDLQ YDOXHV DUH XQLYHUVDO WR PRVW JURXSV LQFOXGLQJ VROLGDULW\ PDLQWHQDQFH RI DXWKRULW\ UHODWLRQV DQG D VHQVH RI VWDWXV DQG VHFXULW\ GXH WR JURXS PHPEHUVKLSf 7KHUH DOVR DUH SURFHGXUHV WKDW DUH VHHQ DV XQLYHUVDOO\ IDLU WKDW SURPRWH WKHVH YDOXHV 7KHVH LQFOXGH YRLFH KDYLQJ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW SULRU WR D GHFLVLRQ EHLQJ PDGHf GLJQLW\ DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV VWDWXV ZLWKLQ WKH JURXS $W WKH FRUH RI WKLV PRGHO LV WKH LGHD WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO H[SHFWV DQ RQJRLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK JURXS DXWKRULWLHV 7\OHU f DWWHPSWHG WR LQFRUSRUDWH 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHUfV f DQG /HYHQWKDOfV f PRGHOV ZLWK KLV RZQ JURXS YDOXH PRGHO DQG VXJJHVWHG D FRPSUHKHQVLYH PRGHO RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH IRFXVLQJ RQ LVVXHV RI QHXWUDOLW\ VWDQGLQJ FRQWURO DQG WUXVW +H EHOLHYHV WKHVH DVSHFWV DUH PRVW LPSRUWDQW WR LQGLYLGXDOV LQ IRUPLQJ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH MXGJPHQWV DQG FRPSULVH WKH FRUH RI D UHODWLRQDO PRGHO RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 7\OHU t /LQG f 1HXWUDOLW\ LV LPSDUWLDO HYHQKDQGHG WUHDWPHQW DQG LQFRUSRUDWHV /HYHQWKDOfV FRQVLVWHQF\ LPSDUWLDOLW\ DFFXUDF\ DQG FRUUHFWLELOLW\ 7UXVW UHIHUV WR ZKHWKHU SHRSOH KDYH IDLWK LQ WKH JRRG LQWHQWLRQV RI DXWKRULW\ ILJXUHV DQG FRPHV IURP 7\OHUfV RZQ PRGHO 6WDQGLQJ LQFOXGHV ZKHWKHU DQ DXWKRULW\ ILJXUH WUHDWV D SHUVRQ DV D YDOXHG PHPEHU RI D UHOHYDQW JURXS DQG LQFOXGHV /HYHQWKDOnV HWKLFDOLW\ &RQWURO LV FRPSULVHG RI 7KLEDXW DQG :DONHUfV SURFHVV FRQWURO DQG GHFLVLRQ FRQWURO DQG /HYHQWKDOfV UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ 7\OHUfV LGHQWLW\EDVHG UHODWLRQDO PRGHO 7\OHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU t 6PLWK 7\OHU %RHNPDQQ 6PLWK t +XR f SRVLWV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV FDUH DERXW LVVXHV OLNH EHLQJ WUHDWHG ZLWK UHVSHFW EHLQJ KHDUG DQG KDYLQJ DQ LQIOXHQFH RQ

PAGE 43

GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ 7KH EDVLF DVVXPSWLRQ RI WKLV LGHQWLW\EDVHG UHODWLRQDO PRGHO LV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV DUH SUHGLVSRVHG WR EHLQJ PHPEHUV RI VRFLDO JURXSV 7\OHU f DQG DUH YHU\ DWWHQWLYH WR VLJQV DQG V\PEROV IURP RWKHUV LQ WKHVH JURXSV $XWKRULW\ ILJXUHV DUH SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW JURXS PHPEHUV EHFDXVH WKH\ FRPPXQLFDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH LQGLYLGXDOVf SRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH JURXS 3HRSOH DUH FRQFHUQHG DERXW WKHLU SRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ D JURXS EHFDXVH KLJK VWDWXV YDOLGDWHV WKHLU VHQVH RI VHOI LQFOXGLQJ VHOIHVWHHP 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH LQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO DQG 1RQIDPLOLDO 6HWWLQJV 0DQ\ VWXGLHV RI WKH PRGHOV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VHWWLQJV DQG XVXDOO\ FRQVLGHU WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG FRQIOLFWV EHWZHHQ ZRUNHUV DQG VXSHUYLVRUV 2QH VWXG\ RI 7\OHUfV PRGHO 7\OHU f FRQVLGHUHG WZR FRQWH[WV RQH OHJDO DQG RQH ZRUNUHODWHG DQG IRFXVHG RQ LVVXHV RI SURFHGXUDO DQG GLVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH UHVLGHQWV RI &KLFDJR ZKR ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG YLD WHOHSKRQH 7KH VWXGLHV LQFOXGHG PHDVXUHPHQWV RI DIIHFW UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH FRQIOLFW 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR HYDOXDWH WKH IDYRUDELOLW\ RI WKH RXWFRPH RI WKHLU H[SHULHQFH HLWKHU ZLWK WKH SROLFH RU LQ WKH ZRUNSODFHf WKH RXWFRPH WKH\ UHFHLYHG UHODWLYH WR WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV WKH RXWFRPH UHODWLYH WR ZKDW RWKHUV ZRXOG KDYH UHFHLYHG DQG WKHLU FRQWURO RYHU GHFLVLRQV PDGH 5HVSRQGHQWV DOVR ZHUH DVNHG DERXW WKHLU FRQWURO RYHU WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVV FRQWUROf QHXWUDOLW\ PHDVXUHG E\ D VFDOH UHIOHFWLQJ MXGJPHQWV RI ELDV KRQHVW\ DQG IDFWXDO GHFLVLRQPDNLQJf WUXVW DVVHVVHG ZLWK D VFDOH PHDVXULQJ WUXVW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNHUfV PRWLYHVf DQG VWDQGLQJ PHDVXUHG E\ D VFDOH IRFXVLQJ RQ SROLWHQHVV DQG UHVSHFW IRU WKH SDUWLFLSDQWVf ULJKWVf 7\OHU WHVWHG VHYHUDO YHUVLRQV RI WKH PRGHO WR VHH ZKLFK RQH EHVW GHVFULEHG WKH HIIHFW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOVf H[SHULHQFHV ZLWK OHJDO DQG ZRUNSODFH DXWKRULWLHV RQ MXGJPHQWV RI GLVWULEXWLYH DQG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 7KH PRGHOV YDULHG E\ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH\

PAGE 44

LQFRUSRUDWHG UHODWLRQDO DQG UHVRXUFH FRQFHUQV 5HVRXUFH FRQFHUQV IRFXV RQ LQGLYLGXDOVf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f DOVR GHVFULEHG WKH UHODWLRQDO PRGHO RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH ZLWKLQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VHWWLQJV 7KH\ DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH JURXSV SHRSOH DUH PHPEHUV RI GHILQH ZKR WKH\ DUH DQG DVVLVW WKHP LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKHLU ZRUWK 7\OHU DQG 6PLWK VWDWHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV FDUH DERXW KRZ WKH\ DUH WUHDWHG E\ DXWKRULWLHV LQGHSHQGHQW RI ZKHWKHU WKH\ IHHO WKH\ UHFHLYH WKH DSSURSULDWH RXWFRPH 7UHDWPHQW E\ DXWKRULWLHV DIIHFWV LQGLYLGXDOVf VDWLVIDFWLRQ WKHLU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR DFFHSW GHFLVLRQV DQG WKHLU DWWLWXGHV DERXW WKH JURXS LQFOXGLQJ FRPPLWPHQW RSLQLRQV DERXW WKH OHJLWLPDF\ RI DXWKRULWLHV DQG YROXQWDU\ EHKDYLRU RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKDW LV SRVLWLYH IRU WKH JURXSf 7\OHU DQG 6PLWK f VWDWHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV PDNH DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW WKHLU LPSRUWDQFH WR WKH JURXS EDVHG RQ WKH EHKDYLRU RI DXWKRULW\ ILJXUHV WRZDUG WKHP

PAGE 45

,QGLYLGXDOV ZKR SHUFHLYH WKH\ DUH WUHDWHG IDLUO\ IHHO IDYRUDEOH VWDWXV DQG VRFLDO LPSRUWDQFH 8QIDLU WUHDWPHQW PDNHV LQGLYLGXDOV IHHO PDUJLQDOL]HG DQG H[FOXGHG 7KH UHODWLRQDO PRGHO DVVHUWV LQGLYLGXDOVf IHHOLQJV RI VHOIZRUWK DUH DIIHFWHG E\ WKHVH IHHOLQJV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ DIIHFWV WKH LQGLYLGXDOVf EHKDYLRU WRZDUG WKH JURXS 7\OHU DQG 6PLWK IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ DQ DXWKRULW\ ZDV D PHPEHU RI RQHfV LQJURXS DV LV WKH FDVH LQ WKH IDPLO\ FRQWH[Wf SHUFHLYHG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DIIHFWHG VHOIHVWHHP HVSHFLDOO\ WKH HOHPHQW RI UHVSHFW $OVR LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR H[SHULHQFHG PRUH UHVSHFW ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR HQJDJH LQ JURXSFRQIRUPLQJ EHKDYLRU 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU f FRQVLGHUHG ZKDW IDFWRUV DIIHFW LQGLYLGXDOVf SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU LQ JURXSV 7KH\ VRXJKW WR H[SODLQ ZK\ LQGLYLGXDOV YDOXH JURXS PHPEHUVKLS DQG ZKDW JURXSV PHDQ WR LQGLYLGXDOV 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU GHILQHG FRRSHUDWLRQ DV ZKHWKHU RU QRW LQGLYLGXDOV SURPRWHG WKH JRDOV RI WKH JURXS DQG GLIIHUHQWLDWHG EHWZHHQ LQVWUXPHQWDO MXGJPHQWV RI FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU ZKLFK DUH PRWLYDWHG E\ UHZDUGV DQG SXQLVKPHQWV DQG GLVFUHWLRQDU\ EHKDYLRU DQRWKHU W\SH RI FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRUf ZKLFK LV PRUH PRWLYDWHG E\ DWWLWXGHV DQG LQWHUQDO YDOXHV 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU SXW IRUWK D IRXUFRPSRQHQW PRGHO RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH ZKLFK WKH\ FDOOHG WKH JURXS HQJDJHPHQW PRGHO 7KH PRGHO ZDV WHVWHG ZLWKLQ WKH ZRUNRUJDQL]DWLRQ VHWWLQJ 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU IRXQG WKDW ZKHUHDV LQVWUXPHQWDO MXGJPHQWV DIIHFWHG LQGLYLGXDOVf FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU DWWLWXGHV DQG YDOXHV ZHUH PRUH SUHGLFWLYH RI WKLV GLVFUHWLRQDU\ IRUP RI FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU 5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW YDOXHV DIIHFWHG UXOHRULHQWHG EHKDYLRU DQG DWWLWXGHV DIIHFWHG KHOSLQJ EHKDYLRU 7KH IRXU FRPSRQHQWV LQYROYHG LQ WKHLU PRGHO LQFOXGHG WZR W\SHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WZR VRXUFHV IRU WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH WZR W\SHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQIRUPDWLRQ DUH WKH SURFHGXUHV UHODWHG WR

PAGE 46

WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV DQG WKH SURFHGXUHV UHODWHG WR WKH WUHDWPHQW SHRSOH H[SHULHQFH GXULQJ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV 7KH WZR VRXUFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DUH IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO 7KH IRUPDO EDVHV DUH WKH IRUPDO UXOHV DQG SURFHGXUHV RI WKH JURXS DQG DUH GHVFULEHG DV VWUXFWXUDO DQG FRQVWDQW DFURVV WLPH DQG VLWXDWLRQ 7KH LQIRUPDO EDVHV DUH WKH JURXS DXWKRULWLHV ZLWK ZKRP WKH LQGLYLGXDO LQWHUDFWV RQ D GDLO\ EDVLV 7KHVH LQWHUDFWLRQV DUH VHHQ DV PRUH G\QDPLF 7KH PRGHO SXW IRUWK E\ 7\OHU DQG %ODGHU f VXJJHVWV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV UHFHLYH SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ ERWK GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHGXUHV DQG WUHDWPHQW E\ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNHU IURP ERWK VRXUFHV IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO 7\OHU DQG %ODGHUf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f VXJJHVW WKDW IDPLOLHV GLIIHU LQ WKH PHWKRGV WKH\ XWLOL]H LQ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ DQG WKDW WKHVH GLIIHUHQW PHWKRGV PD\ DIIHFW IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG DGROHVFHQW ZHOOEHLQJ 5HVHDUFK RQ SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK SDUHQWV HQIRUFH UXOHV DQG

PAGE 47

H[HUFLVH DXWKRULW\ LV WLHG WR ERWK IDPLO\ DQG LQGLYLGXDO DGROHVFHQW IXQFWLRQLQJ 6PHWDQD f 7KH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH OLWHUDWXUH KDV LGHQWLILHG D EURDG DUUD\ RI GLPHQVLRQV DORQJ ZKLFK SDUHQWDO VWUDWHJLHV DQG SUDFWLFHV IRU UHVROYLQJ FRQIOLFWV ZLWK WKHLU DGROHVFHQW RIIVSULQJ PD\ EH HYDOXDWHG /HYHQWKDO 7KLEDXW t :DONHU 7\OHU f 3URFHGXUDO MXVWLFH GLPHQVLRQV VXFK DV YRLFH VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWf DUH UHIOHFWHG LQ D VW\OH RI SDUHQWLQJ UHIHUUHG WR DV DXWKRULWDWLYH SDUHQWLQJ %DXPULQG f %DXPULQG HPSLULFDOO\ FRQILUPHG WKDW DXWKRULWDWLYH SDUHQWLQJ LV UHODWHG WR ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU )RQGDFDUR 'XQNOH DQG 3DWKDN f IRXQG WKDW ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV ZKRVH SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP ZLWK PRUH GLJQLW\ DQG UHVSHFW DQG LQ D PRUH QHXWUDO DQG WUXVWZRUWK\ PDQQHU UHSRUWHG JUHDWHU OHYHOV RI RYHUDOO IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ ORZHU OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ ORZHU OHYHOV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV DQG ORZHU OHYHOV RI DGROHVFHQW GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHVf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t +HOOHU 7HGHVFKL t )HOVRQ f 7\OHUfV LGHQWLW\EDVHG UHODWLRQDO PRGHO ZKLFK

PAGE 48

SURSRVHV WKDW IDLU WUHDWPHQW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH D VLJQ WKDW WKH SHUVRQ LV D UHVSHFWHG PHPEHU RI WKH JURXS 7\OHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU HW DO f VXJJHVWV WKDW FKLOGUHQ PD\ IHHO WKH\ DUH WUHDWHG DV OHVV YDOXHG PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ LI WKH\ SHUFHLYH WKDW WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDW WKHP XQIDLUO\ 7\OHU 'HJRH\ DQG 6PLWK f DOVR ORRNHG DW FRQIOLFW ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLOLHV RI ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV &ROOHJH VWXGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG DERXW D UHFHQW FRQIOLFW ZLWK RQH RU ERWK RI WKHLU SDUHQWV WKDW ZDV UHVROYHG 7\OHU DQG FROOHDJXHV DVVHVVHG LQGLYLGXDOVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH UHVSHFW WKH\ IHOW ZLWKLQ WKH JURXS DQG WKH SULGH WKH\ IHOW LQ WKH JURXS 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW SULGH DQG UHVSHFW ZHUH WZR GLIIHUHQW FRQVWUXFWV 7KH\ DOVR IRXQG WKDW UHODWLRQDO MXGJPHQWV IRFXVLQJ RQ VRFLDO ERQGVf VHSDUDWH IURP LQVWUXPHQWDO MXGJPHQWV PRWLYDWHG E\ UHZDUGV DQG SXQLVKPHQWVf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fV LGHQWLW\ 6HOIHVWHHP ZDV DIIHFWHG E\ UHODWLRQDO MXGJPHQWV VSHFLILFDOO\ SULGH DQG UHVSHFW 7\OHU DQG FROOHDJXHV DOVR DVVHUWHG

PAGE 49

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t )RQGDFDUR f 7KH VDPSOH LQFOXGHG XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQWV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG ZKR ZHUH SUHGRPLQDWHO\ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ 3DUWLFLSDQWV FRPSOHWHG D TXHVWLRQQDLUH EDWWHU\ WKDW LQFOXGHG D GHPRJUDSKLF VKHHW WKH )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH )'04f WKH )DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH 0RRV t 0RRV f DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV DVVHVVLQJ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU (EDWD t 0RRV f -DFNVRQ DQG )RQGDFDUR f XVHG IDFWRU VFRUHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ GLVWLQFW IDFHWV RI WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQVWUXFW SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDQGLQJVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG LQVWUXPHQWDO SDUWLFLSDWLRQf WR SUHGLFW GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 2I WKH WKUHH IDFWRUV SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDQGLQJVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG WR LQGHSHQGHQWO\ SUHGLFW GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU JHQGHU DQG OHYHO RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW 2OGHU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP ZLWK OHVV SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG DV OHVV YDOXHG PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ UHSRUWHG KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU -DFNVRQ DQG )RQGDFDUR f FRQFOXGHG WKDW JHQHUDO OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG VSHFLILF SDUHQWLQJ SUDFWLFHV GXULQJ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ DIIHFW DGROHVFHQWVf ZHOOEHLQJ &KLOGUHQ ZKR SHUFHLYH WKH\ DUH EHLQJ WUHDWHG XQIDLUO\ DQG DUH QRW EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV

PAGE 50

LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ EH OLNHO\ WR ODVK RXW -DFNVRQ DQG )RQGDFDUR FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH SUDFWLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQ RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH WKHRU\ WR SDUHQWLQJ LV WKDW SDUHQWV FDQ EH WDXJKW FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SUDFWLFHV WKDW WUHDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK UHVSHFW DUH QRQGLVFULPLQDWRU\ DQG DVVXUH FKLOGUHQ WKH\ DUH YDOXHG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV 7KH\ DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR ORRN DW ERWK ZKHWKHU SHRSOH IHHO WKH\ DUH WUHDWHG ZLWK UHVSHFW DV LQGLYLGXDOV DQG DV UHVSHFWHG PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI EHLQJ WUHDWHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO YHUVXV EHLQJ WUHDWHG DV D YDOXHG PHPEHU RI D IDPLO\ PD\ EH FXOWXUDOO\ EDVHG ,W KDV EHHQ IRXQG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR DUH OLNHO\ WR UHVSRQG WR QHJDWLYH IHHGEDFN DV UHOHYDQW WR WKHLU SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR UHVSRQG WR QHJDWLYH IHHGEDFN ZLWK DQJHU DURXVDO DQG DJJUHVVLRQ &KHHN t %ULJJV f 'LDPRQG DQG FROOHDJXHV 'LDPRQG 'LDPRQG /XHVFKHU t )RQGDFDUR f DGDSWHG WKH )DPLO\ -XVWLFH ,QYHQWRU\ )RQGDFDUR -DFNVRQ t /XHVFKHU f IRU XVH ZLWK D JURXS RI \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV DJHV \HDUVf SURGXFLQJ WKH \RXWK YHUVLRQ RI WKH )DPLO\ -XVWLFH ,QYHQWRU\ )-,
PAGE 51

UHSRUWHG LQ )RQGDFDUR HW DO f 7KH )DPLO\ 5HODWLRQVKLS ,QYHQWRU\ DVVHVVHG WKH FXUUHQW TXDOLW\ RI VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ DQG ZDV FRPSULVHG RI WKH FRKHVLRQ FRQIOLFW DQG H[SUHVVLYHQHVV VFDOHV RI WKH )DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH 7KH '3+< PHDVXUHG DGROHVFHQWVf SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV DQG GHYLDQW DQG DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRU 5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQGLFHV ZHUH PRUH UHODWHG WR FRKHVLRQ WKDQ FRQIOLFW DQG ZHUH DOVR UHODWHG WR SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV &RQVLVWHQF\ GLJQLW\ VWDQGLQJVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ WUXVW DQG YRLFH ZHUH DOO QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ,Q SUHGLFWLQJ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH VXEVFDOHV SUHGLFWHG b RI YDULDQFH ZLWK DFFXUDF\ QHXWUDOLW\ DQG WUXVW DFFRXQWLQJ IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH 7KH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ FRKHVLRQ DQG b RI YDULDQFH LQ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW &RUUHFWLRQ ZDV IRXQG WR EH WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRU RI ERWK FRKHVLRQ DQG FRQIOLFW VXJJHVWLQJ SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDPLO\ LQWHUDFWLRQV PD\ EH PRVW DIIHFWHG E\ WKH DGROHVFHQW KDYLQJ RU QRW KDYLQJ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR DSSHDO WKH GHFLVLRQ WKDW LV EHLQJ PDGH 3URFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ ZLWK FRUUHFWLRQ DQG SURFHVV FRQWURO DV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRUV 3URFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI YDULDQFH LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV $JDLQ SURFHVV FRQWURO ZDV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRU )LQDOO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZDV SUHGLFWHG E\ WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH GLPHQVLRQV ZLWK FRQVLVWHQF\ DV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRU 7KHVH UHVXOWV GLIIHUHG IURP VWXGLHV RI ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV ZKHUH WUXVW ZDV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRU RI ERWK GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DQG IDPLO\ FRQIOLFWFRKHVLRQ ,W PD\ EH WKDW DV FKLOGUHQ GHYHORS DQG PDWXUH ZKDW EHFRPHV WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ

PAGE 52

SURFHVV FKDQJHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV VXJJHVW WKDW \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV ZDQW WR IHHO PRUH LQ FRQWURO RI WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV ZKHUHDV ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV PD\ UHDOL]H WKDW SDUHQWV KDYH WKH ILQDO VD\ VR WKH\ ZDQW WR NQRZ WKH\ FDQ WUXVW WKHLU SDUHQWV WR PDNH WKH ULJKW GHFLVLRQ :KHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO DQG GLVWULEXWLYH MXVWLFH ZHUH FRPELQHG LQ RQH PRGHO b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ FRKHVLRQ DQG b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ FRQIOLFW ZDV DFFRXQWHG IRU &RUUHFWLRQ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ SUHGLFWHG ERWK 'LDPRQG f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH )-,< LV D UHOLDEOH PHDVXUH DV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ DQG LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ 'LDPRQG DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW KDYLQJ FRQWURO RYHU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ RU WKH ILQDO GHFLVLRQ LQ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ LV QRW UHODWHG WR DGROHVFHQWVf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f LQJURXSV 2QH SUREOHP ZLWK PXFK RI WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH OLWHUDWXUH LV WKDW LQ PDQ\ VWXGLHV WKH DXWKRUV GHYHORS WKHLU RZQ

PAGE 53

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f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f )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHV )RQGDFDUR HW DO f KDYH GHYHORSHG D ZRUNLQJ PRGHO RI SDUHQWDGROHVFHQW FRQIOLFW ZKLFK LQWHJUDWHV UHODWHG UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHDV RI IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO DGDSWDWLRQ 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ EXLOGV RQ DQG H[WHQGV WKLV ZRUN E\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ FRQFHSWV DQG UHVHDUFK RQ LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LQWR WKH PRGHO 7KH H[WHQGHG PRGHO LV RXWOLQHG DV IROORZV

PAGE 54

/HYHOV RI IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DUH OLNHO\ UHFLSURFDOO\ UHODWHG WKDW LV KLJK OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG ORZ OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ ERWK DIIHFW DQG DUH DIIHFWHG E\ ORZ OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH ,Q WXUQ ORZ OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH OHDGV WR DQJHU DURXVDO ZKLFK LQFUHDVHV DGROHVFHQWVf ULVN IRU GHYLDQW LQFOXGLQJ DJJUHVVLYHf EHKDYLRU 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ H[SORUHG KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 7KH SRVVLEOH UHFLSURFDO UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZHUH QRW EH WHVWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ VRPH VSHFLILF DVSHFWV RI DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DUH PRUH VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR DQJHU DURXVDO DQG ULVN IRU GHYLDQW DQG DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRU 7KDW LV DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SHUFHLYH WKDW WKH\ DUH QRW EHLQJ WUHDWHG ZLWK SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG DUH QRW JLYHQ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ RU YRLFH LQ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR EHFRPH DQJU\ DQG WR HQJDJH LQ DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRU )LQDOO\ DGROHVFHQWVf PDMRU LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LH SHUVRQDO RU FROOHFWLYHf VKRXOG PRGHUDWH WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK VSHFLILF IDFHWV RI SHUFHLYHG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH H J SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf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

PAGE 55

SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ 6WXG\ 2QH DV ZHOO DV WKH VPDOO VL]H RI WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH LQ WKDW VWXG\ WKRVH FRPSDULVRQV ZHUH QRW IHDVLEOH 7KH GDWD IURP 6WXG\ 2QH WHVWHG +\SRWKHVHV WKURXJK %HFDXVH RI WKH VPDOO VDPSOH VL]H LQ 6WXG\ 2QH D VHFRQG ODUJHU VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV ZDV LQFOXGHG DV 6WXG\ 7ZR DQG WHVWHG +\SRWKHVHV DQG f +\SRWKHVLV $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKDW WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP XQIDLUO\ LQ UHVROYLQJ D VSHFLILF IDPLO\ GLVSXWH ORZ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVVf ZLOO UHSRUW ORZ OHYHOV RI JHQHUDO IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DQG KLJK OHYHOV RI JHQHUDO IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH VSHFLILF IDPLO\ GLVSXWH 'LDPRQG HW DO )RQGDFDUR HW DO )RQGDFDUR HW DO +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO 1ROOHU f f +\SRWKHVLV $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKDW WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP XQIDLUO\ ORZ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVVf ZLOO UHSRUW KLJK OHYHOV RI DQJHU DURXVDO DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU LQFOXGLQJ DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRUf %DXPULQG )RQGDFDUR t +HOOHU )RQGDFDUR HW DO +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR 0RQWHPD\RU 1ROOHU 7HGHVFKL t )HOGVRQ f f +\SRWKHVLV $ )RU DGROHVFHQWV IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV LQGLYLGXDOV ORZ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWf ZLOO EH PRUH FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV ORZ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFHf WKDQ ZLOO IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU ORZ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf )RQGDFDUR HW DO /XHVFKHU )RQGDFDUR t 0F1DWW f f +\SRWKHVLV % $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKDW WKHLU SDUHQWV GLG QRW UHVSHFW WKHP DV LQGLYLGXDOV ORZ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWf RU DV UHVSHFWHG PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ ORZ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf ZLOO UHSRUW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI DQJHU DURXVDO f +\SRWKHVLV & $OVR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDLUQHVV JOREDO SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFHf DQG DQJHU DURXVDO ZLOO EH PHGLDWHG E\ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ 'LDPRQG HW DO )RQGDFDUR HW DO /LQG t 7\OHU 7\OHU 7\OHU t %ODGHU 7\HU t /LQG 7\OHU HW DO 7\OHU t 6PLWK f A f +\SRWKHVLV $ )RU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKH\ DUH PRUH IRFXVHG RQ SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ LVVXHV SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQf UHSRUWV RI QRW EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV LQGLYLGXDOV ORZ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWf E\ SDUHQWV ZLOO EH PRUH FORVHO\ WLHG WR KLJKHU OHYHOV RI DQJHU DURXVDO DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU %HU]RQVN\ &KHHN &KHHN t 7URSS &KHHN HW DO 'LDPRQG HW DO +RJDQ t &KHHN -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR /LQG t 7\OHU 7\OHU 7\OHU t %ODGHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU t 6PLWK 7\OHU HW DO f +\SRWKHVLV % )RU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKH\ DUH PRUH IRFXVHG RQ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ LVVXHV FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQf UHSRUWV RI QRW EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV

PAGE 56

IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ORZ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf E\ SDUHQWV ZLOO EH PRUH FORVHO\ WLHG WR KLJKHU OHYHOV RI DQJHU DURXVDO DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU f +\SRWKHVLV $ $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW KDYH DQ\ LQSXW LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ D VSHFLILF IDPLO\ GLVSXWH QR YRLFHf ZLOO UHSRUW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 'LDPRQG HW DO )XJLOLQL +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO 1XFFL t /HH 6PHWDQD 6PHWDQD HW DO 7\OHU t %ODGHU f f +\SRWKHVLV % 7KH OHYHO RI YRLFH UHSRUWHG ZLOO PHGLDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDLUQHVV JOREDO SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFHf DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU f +\SRWKHVLV $ $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV ZLOO UHSRUW ORZHU VFRUHV WKDQ DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV LQFOXGLQJ VWDWXV RIIHQVHVf RU QR GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU RQ YDULRXV VXEVFDOHV PHDVXULQJ VSHFLILF IDFHWV RI WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQVWUXFW LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFH 'LVKLRQ HW DO 3DWWHUVRQ f f +\SRWKHVLV % $GROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV ZLOO DOVR UHSRUW ORZHU VFRUHV RQ WKHVH PHDVXUHV WKDQ DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW QR GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZLOO EH UHYHDOHG EHFDXVH ORZHU VFRUHV RQ WKHVH VXEVFDOHV LQGLFDWH PRUH FRHUFLYH SDUHQWLQJ DQG IDPLO\ LQWHUDFWLRQDO VW\OHV

PAGE 57

&+$37(5 0(7+2'6 6WXG\ 2QH 3DUWLFLSDQWV 6WXG\ 2QH LQFOXGHG DGROHVFHQWV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG \HDUV 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK PLGGOHMXQLRU KLJK VFKRROV DQG FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHUV LQ /XFDV &RXQW\ 2KLR DV ZHOO DV WKURXJK WKH /XFDV &RXQW\ -XYHQLOH &RXUW &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP SDUWLFLSDQWVf 7KH RULJLQDO IRFXV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV D FRPSDULVRQ RI D VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV LQYROYHG LQ WKH MXYHQLOH MXVWLFH V\VWHP LH V\VWHPLQYROYHG DGROHVFHQWVf ZLWK D VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV ZKR ZHUH QRW LQYROYHG LQ WKH MXYHQLOH MXVWLFH V\VWHP LH QRQV\VWHPLQYROYHG DGROHVFHQWVf 7KHUHIRUH V\VWHPLQYROYHG DGROHVFHQWV ZHUH UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP ZKLFK LV KHOG LQ D /XFDV &RXQW\ FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHU $GROHVFHQWV DUH DVVLJQHG WR RQH RI WZR OHYHOV LQ WKH SURJUDP f WKRVH LQ WKH KLJKHU OHYHO DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHTXLUH PRUH VXSHUYLVLRQf UHSRUW WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHU GD\V SHU ZHHN IRU WR KRXUV RI SURJUDPPLQJ SHU ZHHN f WKRVH LQ WKH ORZHU OHYHO DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHTXLUH OHVV VXSHUYLVLRQf DWWHQG KRXUV RI SURJUDPPLQJ SHU ZHHN DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHU DQG DUH FRQWDFWHG LQ SHUVRQ RU YLD WHOHSKRQH WZLFH SHU GD\ E\ &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ VWDII &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDPPLQJ LQFOXGHV FRJQLWLYH EHKDYLRU PDQDJHPHQW WXWRULQJ EDVLF OLYLQJ VNLOOV D MRE UHDGLQHVV FRXUVH GUXJ WHVWLQJ DQG JURXS GLVFXVVLRQV -XYHQLOH 'LYLVLRQ RI WKH /XFDV &RXQW\ &RXUW RI &RPPRQ 3OHDV f

PAGE 58

7KH UHFUXLWPHQW WKURXJK WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP ZDV XQVXFFHVVIXO DQG RQO\ ILYH DGROHVFHQWV FKRVH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ 6WXG\ 2QH 7KH GDWD IRU WKRVH ILYH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH LQFOXGHG DQG DQDO\]HG ZLWK WKH GDWD IRU WKH QRQV\VWHPLQYROYHG DGROHVFHQWV LQ 6WXG\ 2QH 7KH UHVXOWV DQG GLVFXVVLRQ IRU 6WXG\ 2QH IRFXV RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQGLFHV DQG DQJHU DURXVDOGHYLDQW EHKDYLRU EXW GR QRW LQFOXGH FRPSDULVRQV IRU V\VWHPLQYROYHG DQG QRQV\VWHPLQYROYHG DGROHVFHQWV 7KRVH DGROHVFHQWV UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK WKH VFKRROV DQG FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHUV ZKR UHWXUQHG DQ ,QIRUPHG &RQVHQW IRUP VLJQHG E\ WKHLU SDUHQWV RU JXDUGLDQV ZKHWKHU DJUHHLQJ RU GHFOLQLQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ 6WXG\ 2QH UHFHLYHG HLWKHU D SL]]D SDUW\ RU JLIW FHUWLILFDWHV IRU SL]]D :ULWWHQ LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW IURP SDUHQWV DQG ZULWWHQ DVVHQW IURP HDFK DGROHVFHQW $SSHQGL[ $f ZDV REWDLQHG SULRU WR SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ 6WXG\ 2QH (DFK SDUWLFLSDQW FRPSOHWHG D SHQFLO DQG SDSHU PHDVXUH $SSHQGL[ %f LQ D JURXS IRUPDW ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WZR DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG WKURXJK WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDPf DW HLWKHU KLV RU KHU VFKRRO RU FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHU 3DUWLFLSDQWV FRPSOHWHG D GHPRJUDSKLF PHDVXUH WKDW LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ JHQGHU JUDGH VFKRRO DJH HWKQLFLW\ PDULWDO VWDWXV RI SDUHQWV RFFXSDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQ RI PRWKHU DQG IDWKHU TXHVWLRQV DERXW ZKR OLYHV LQ WKH KRPH ZLWK WKH DGROHVFHQW DQG TXHVWLRQV IRFXVLQJ RQ ZKHWKHU WKH DGROHVFHQW KDV HYHU EHHQ DUUHVWHG VSHQW WKH QLJKW LQ WKH MXYHQLOH GHWHQWLRQ FHQWHU RU EHHQ IRXQG JXLOW\ RI D FULPH ,QVWUXPHQWV )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH
PAGE 59

9HUVLRQ )-,
PAGE 60

FRUUHFWHGff 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW WKUHH LWHPV VDPSOH LWHP f
PAGE 61

WKUHH VXEVFDOHV &RKHVLRQ &RQIOLFW DQG ([SUHVVLYHQHVVf +RODKDQ DQG 0RRV UHSRUW DQ LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RI )RU 6WXG\ 2QH VHSDUDWH VFRUHV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG IRU WKH &RKHVLRQ DQG &RQIOLFW VXEVFDOHV 7KH &RKHVLRQ VXEVFDOH PHDVXUHV KRZ VXSSRUWLYH DQG KHOSIXO IDPLO\ PHPEHUV DUH WR RQH DQRWKHU $ VDPSOH LWHP IURP WKLV VXEVFDOH LV f)DPLO\ PHPEHUV UHDOO\ KHOS DQG VXSSRUW RQH DQRWKHUf DQG WKH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ IRU WKH VXEVFDOH UHSRUWHG LQ )RQGDFDUR 'XQNOH DQG 3DWKDN f ZDV 7KH &RQIOLFW VXEVFDOH IRFXVHV RQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DQJHU DQG SK\VLFDO DJJUHVVLRQ DUH H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH IDPLO\ 2QH LWHP IURP WKLV VXEVFDOH LV f:H ILJKW D ORW LQ RXU IDPLO\f DQG WKH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UHSRUWHG IRU WKLV VXEVFDOH ZDV )RQGDFDUR HW DO f 7KH RULJLQDO )DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH RI ZKLFK WKH )5, LV RQH SDUW KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH JRRG YDOLGLW\ LQ PXOWLSOH VWXGLHV +RODKDQ t 0RRV f )RU H[DPSOH LW KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR GLVFULPLQDWH KHDOWK\ IURP GLVWXUEHG IDPLOLHV +RODKDQ DQG 0RRV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH )5, KDV JRRG FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK RWKHU PHDVXUHV RI VRFLDO VXSSRUW DQG LQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR RXWFRPH LQGLFHV 0HDVXUH RI SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQLQJ 7KHVH LWHPV ZHUH FRPSLOHG E\ (EDWD DQG 0RRV f DQG PHDVXUH SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ SV\FKRORJLFDO GLVWUHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KH LWHPV PHDVXULQJ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZHUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ 6WXG\ 2QH 7KH LWHPV RQ WKH 3V\FKRORJLFDO :HOO%HLQJ VXEVFDOH DUH DFWXDOO\ FRPSULVHG RI LWHPV IURP VXEVFDOHV IURP WZR RWKHU PHDVXUHV 7KH ILUVW LV WKH +DSSLQHVV VXEVFDOH RI WKH :HLQEHUJHU $GMXVWPHQW ,QYHQWRU\ .DQQHU )HOGPDQ :HLQEHUJHU t )RUG :HLQEHUJHU f VDPSOH LWHP f1R PDWWHU ZKDW DP GRLQJ XVXDOO\ KDYH D JRRG WLPH ff 7KHUH DUH VHYHQ RI WKHVH LWHPV ZLWK OLNHUW UHVSRQVH FKRLFHV UDQJLQJ IURP 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHHf WR ^6WURQJO\ $JUHHf ZKLFK ZHUH VFRUHG E\ VXPPLQJ DFURVV WKH VHYHQ LWHPV 7KH VHFRQG PHDVXUH LV WKH *HQHUDO

PAGE 62

6HOI:RUWK VFDOH RI WKH +DUWHU 6HOI3HUFHSWLRQ 3URILOH +DUWHU f 7KLV VFDOH LV PDGH XS RI ILYH LWHPV f6RPH WHHQDJHUV DUH RIWHQ GLVDSSRLQWHG ZLWK WKHPVHOYHVff WKDW ZHUH VFRUHG RQ D OLNHUW VFDOH IURP 1RW WUXH IRU PHf WR 5HDOO\ WUXH IRU PHf ,QWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ ZDV UHSRUWHG IRU WKH 3V\FKRORJLFDO :HOO%HLQJ VXEVFDOH DV IRU WKH +DSSLQHVV VXEVFDOH RI WKH :HLQEHUJHU $GMXVWPHQW 6FDOH DV DQG IRU *HQHUDO 6HOI:RUWK VFDOH DV (EDWD t 0RRV )RQGDFDUR HW DO f 7KH 3V\FKRORJLFDO :HOO%HLQJ VXEVFDOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ VWDQGDUGL]LQJ WKH +DSSLQHVV DQG *HQHUDO 6HOI:RUWK VXEVFDOHV PHDQ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ f VXPPLQJ WKHP DQG UHVWDQGDUGL]LQJ WKHP PHDQ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ f 7KH 3V\FKRORJLFDO 'LVWUHVV VXEVFDOH DOSKD )RQGDFDUR HW DO f LV FRPSULVHG RI WKH 'HSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH IURP WKH :HLQEHUJHU $GMXVWPHQW ,QYHQWRU\ .DQQHU HW DO :HLQEHUJHU f VDPSOH LWHP f, IHHO WKDW QRERG\ UHDOO\ FDUHV DERXW PH WKH ZD\ ZDQW WKHP WRf DOSKD f DQG WKH 6SLHOEHUJHU 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH 6SLHOEHUJHU f f, IHHO YHU\ FDOPFDOPQRW FDOPf DOSKD f (EDWD t 0RRV f 7KHUH DUH VHYHQ LWHPV RQ WKH 'HSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH UDWHG RQ D OLNHUW VFDOH IURP 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHHf WR 6WURQJO\ $JUHHf 7KLV VXEVFDOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ VXPPLQJ WKH VHYHQ LWHPV 7KH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH LV FRPSULVHG RI LWHPV WKDW DUH RQ D SRLQW OLNHUW VFDOH DQG VFRUHG E\ VXPPLQJ WKH WHQ VFRUHV 7KH 3V\FKRORJLFDO 'LVWUHVV 6XEVFDOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ VWDQGDUGL]LQJ WKH 'HSUHVVLRQ DQG 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6FDOHV PHDQ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ f VXPPLQJ WKHP DQG UHVWDQGDUGL]LQJ WKHP PHDQ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ f $VSHFWV RI ,GHQWLW\ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 9HUVLRQ ,,,[ $,4f 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW PHDVXUHV LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV &KHHN &KHHN t 7URSS &KHHN 7URSS &KHQ t 8QGHUZRRG f 7KHUH DUH WKUHH VXEVFDOHV RQ WKLV LQVWUXPHQW 3HUVRQDO 6RFLDO DQG &ROOHFWLYHf ZKLFK ZHUH FDOFXODWHG E\ VXPPLQJ WKH

PAGE 63

LWHPV RQ HDFK VXEVFDOH 7KHUH DUH WHQ SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ LWHPV VHYHQ VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ LWHPV DQG WHQ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ LWHPV ,WHP UHVSRQVHV DUH UDWHG RQ D OLNHUW VFDOH IURP 1RW LPSRUWDQW WR P\ VHQVH RI ZKR DPf WR ([WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW WR P\ VHQVH RI ZKR DPf ,WHPV IURP HDFK RI WKH VXEVFDOHV LQFOXGH TXHVWLRQV OLNH f0\ SHUVRQDO YDOXHV DQG PRUDO VWDQGDUGV DUH LPSRUWDQW QRW LPSRUWDQW WR P\ VHQVH RI ZKR DPff 3HUVRQDOf f0\ SRSXODULW\ ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOHf 6RFLDOf DQG f%HLQJ SDUW RI PDQ\ JHQHUDWLRQV RI P\ IDPLO\f &ROOHFWLYHf ,QWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ IRU HDFK RI WKUHH VFDOHV ZDV UHSRUWHG DV IROORZV 3HUVRQDO 6RFLDO DQG &ROOHFWLYH &KHHN t 7URSS &KHHN HW DO f &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV DOVR UHSRUWHG GD\ WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLWLHV IRU WKH WKUHH VXEVFDOHV 3HUVRQDO 6RFLDO DQG &ROOHFWLYH 6HOI5HSRUW 'HOLQTXHQF\ 6FDOH 65'6f DQG DOFRKRO DQG GUXJ XVH PHDVXUH 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW PHDVXUHV GHOLQTXHQW DQG FULPLQDO EHKDYLRU DV ZHOO DV DOFRKRO DQG GUXJ XVH WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDV HQJDJHG LQ GXULQJ WKH ODVW \HDU DQG ZDV RULJLQDOO\ GHYHORSHG IRU WKH 1DWLRQDO
PAGE 64

7KHUH DUH GHOLQTXHQF\ LWHPV VDPSOH LWHP f+RZ PDQ\ WLPHV LQ WKH ODVW \HDU KDYH \RX f3XUSRVHO\ GDPDJHG RU GHVWUR\HG SURSHUW\ EHORQJLQJ WR \RXU SDUHQWV RU RWKHU IDPLO\ PHPEHU"f ff DQG DOFRKRO DQG GUXJ XVH LWHPV f+RZ RIWHQ LQ WKH ODVW \HDU KDYH \RX XVHG fPDULMXDQDKDVKLVK fZHHGf fSRWf fFULSfff ff DOO UDWHG RQ D OLNHUW VFDOH IURP ^1HYHUf WR ^2IWHQf 7R FDOFXODWH VFRUHV PHDQV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG VHSDUDWHO\ IRU WKH GHOLQTXHQF\ LWHPV DQG IRU WKH DOFRKRO DQG GUXJ XVH LWHPV 7R PHDVXUH DJH RI RQVHW RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU VWXGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG ,I \RX GLG DQ\ RI WKH WKLQJV GHVFULEHG LQ TXHVWLRQV WKURXJK KRZ ROG ZHUH \RX WKH ILUVW WLPH \RX GLG LW" (OOLRWW DQG $JHWRQ f UHSRUWHG LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH 65'6 DV LQ WKH ZDYH RI WKH 1DWLRQDO
PAGE 65

%DFKPDQ t 2f0DOOH\ f 7KH SUHYDOHQFH HVWLPDWHV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH VLPLODU DFURVV WKH WZR VWXGLHV IRU ERWK DOFRKRO DQG GUXJ XVH $QDO\VHV $OO RI WKH DQDO\VHV LQ 6WXG\ 2QH ZHUH WHVWHG DW WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH +\SRWKHVHV DQG ZHUH WHVWHG XVLQJ UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV +\SRWKHVLV ZDV WHVWHG XVLQJ DQDO\VLV RI FRYDULDQFH $1&29$f 6WXG\ 7ZR 'XH WR WKH VPDOO QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ 6WXG\ 2QH WKH K\SRWKHVHV IRU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ DOVR ZHUH WHVWHG XVLQJ DQ DGGLWLRQDO GDWD VHW 7KH GDWD XVHG IRU 6WXG\ 7ZR ZDV RULJLQDOO\ FROOHFWHG DV SDUW RI JUDQW IURP WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKDW VWXG\ ZDV WR FUHDWH D VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW IRU XVH ZLWK PLGGOH VFKRRO VWXGHQWV WR DVVHVV VRFLDO IDFWRUV DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK \RXWK YLROHQFH IRU XVH E\ HGXFDWLRQDO SROLF\ PDNHUV 0LOOHU HW DO f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

PAGE 66

HLWKHU DJUHHLQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH RU GHFOLQLQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ 6WXG\ 7ZRf UHWXUQHG E\ WKH VWXGHQWV :ULWWHQ LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW IURP SDUHQWV DQG RUDO DVVHQW IURP HDFK VWXGHQW $SSHQGLFHV DQG (f ZHUH REWDLQHG SULRU WR DGROHVFHQWV SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR (DFK SDUWLFLSDQW FRPSOHWHG WKH VXUYH\ LQ D VFDQWURQ IRUPDW ZLWKLQ JURXSV DW WKHLU VFKRRO 3DUWLFLSDQWV FRPSOHWHG D GHPRJUDSKLF PHDVXUH WKDW LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ JHQGHU JUDGH DJH HWKQLFLW\ DYHUDJH JUDGHV ODVW \HDU DQG RFFXSDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQ RI PRWKHU DQG IDWKHU ,QVWUXPHQWV 7KH VXUYH\ LQFOXGHG D EDWWHU\ RI PHDVXUHV 7KH IROORZLQJ ZHUH XWLOL]HG LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR WKH 6HOI5HSRUW 'HOLQTXHQF\ 6FDOH 65'6 (OOLRWW (OOLRWW +XL]LQJD t 0HQDUG f WKH )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH
PAGE 67

PDULMXDQD RU KDVKLVKf DQG f6ROG KDUG GUXJV VXFK DV FRFDLQH DQG KHURLQff 7KLV YHUVLRQ DOVR H[FOXGHG WKUHH RWKHU LWHPV f%HHQ SDLG IRU KDYLQJ VH[XDO UHODWLRQV ZLWK VRPHRQHf f7DNHQ D YHKLFOH IRU D ULGH GULYHf ZLWKRXW WKH RZQHUfV SHUPLVVLRQf DQG f+DG RU WULHG WR KDYHf VH[XDO UHODWLRQV ZLWK VRPHRQH DJDLQVW WKHLU ZLOOf 7KH YHUVLRQ LQFOXGHG LWHPV UDWHG RQ D OLNHUW VFDOH IURP 1HYHUf WR 2IWHQf PHDVXULQJ KRZ RIWHQ LQ WKH ODVW \HDU WKH VWXGHQW KDG HQJDJHG LQ WKHVH EHKDYLRUV $ PHDQ VFRUH ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU WKH LWHPV $GROHVFHQWV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKUHH JURXSV EDVHG RQ WKHLU 65'6 VFRUHV 7KH JURXSV ZHUH GHILQHG EDVHG RQ D PHWKRG VLPLODU WR XVHG E\ *RUPDQ6PLWK 7RODQ =HOOL DQG +XHVPDQQ f 7KH\ XVHG WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH JURXSV WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ RQO\ PLQRU VWDWXV RIIHQVH RQO\f RU QR GHOLQTXHQF\ LQ WKH ODVW \HDU WKRVH UHSRUWLQJ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VRPH QRQYLROHQW GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRUV EXW QR DFWV RI YLROHQFH WRZDUGV DQRWKHU SHUVRQ ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW \HDU DQG WKRVH UHSRUWLQJ VRPH YLROHQW RIIHQGLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW \HDU 6LPLODU JURXSV ZHUH XVHG LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ WKDW VWDWXV RIIHQVHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV 7KHUHIRUH WKH WKUHH JURXSV XVHG LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR EDVHG RQ 65'6 VFRUHV ZHUH f DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ QR RIIHQVHV LQ WKH ODVW \HDU f DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV LQFOXGLQJ VWDWXV RIIHQVHV RU RWKHU PLQRU GHOLQTXHQF\ LQ WKH ODVW \HDU DQG f DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV LQ WKH ODVW \HDU DV ZHOO DV SRVVLEO\ UHSRUWLQJ HQJDJLQJ LQ VWDWXV RIIHQVHV DQG QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHVf 7R GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK JURXS DQ DGROHVFHQW ZDV SODFHG LQ D QXPEHU RI VWHSV ZHUH IROORZHG )LUVW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR VFRUHG OHVV WKDQ RQ DOO WKH PHDQ RI DOO RI WKH 65'6 LWHPV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR D VFRUH RI 1HYHU RQ WKH PHDQ RI DOO LWHPVf ZHUH SODFHG LQ WKH ILUVW JURXS WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS 12f 6HFRQG IRU WKH UHPDLQLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV D PHDQ

PAGE 68

VFRUH RQ D YLROHQW RIIHQVH VXEVFDOH RI WKH 65'6 ZDV FRPSXWHG WKH LWHPV IRU WKLV VFDOH DUH LQ $SSHQGL[ )f $GROHVFHQWV ZKR KDG D PHDQ VFRUH RI RU DERYH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR 6HOGRP WR 2IWHQf RQ WKH YLROHQW RIIHQVH VFDOH ZHUH SODFHG LQ WKH WKLUG JURXS WKH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS 92f 7KH UHPDLQLQJ DGROHVFHQWV ZHUH SODFHG LQ WKH VHFRQG JURXS WKH 6WDWXV 2IIHQVH1RQYLROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS 192f 0DVVDFKXVHWWV
PAGE 69

&RQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ ZDV DVVHVVHG E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf VFRUHV RQ WKH 0$<6, ZLWK VFRUHV RQ WKH 0LOOQ $GROHVFHQW &OLQLFDO ,QYHQWRU\ 0$&, PHDVXULQJ SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FOLQLFDO V\QGURPHVf DQG WKH $FKHQEDFK
PAGE 70

&KLVTXDUH VWDWLVWLF GLYLGHG E\ WKH GHJUHHV RI IUHHGRP $UEXFNOH .OLQHf ,I WKLV YDOXH LV RU OHVV WKH PRGHO LV FRQVLGHUHG WR DGHTXDWHO\ ILW WKH GDWD 7KH 6(0 OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV XVLQJ D QXPEHU RI SUHVHOHFWHG ILW LQGLFHV WR WHVW PRGHOV EHFDXVH QR RQH PHDVXUH FDQ DGHTXDWHO\ LQGLFDWH WKH ILW RI WKH PRGHO WR WKH GDWD 7KH IROORZLQJ ILW LQGLFHV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU 6WXG\ 7ZR 7KH *), *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGH[ -RUHVNRJ t 6RUERP f LV D PHDVXUH RI DEVROXWH ILW ,W PHDVXUHV WKH UHODWLYH DPRXQW RI WKH YDULDQFHV DQG FRYDULDQFHV LQ WKH VDPSOH PRGHO DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ WKH LPSOLHG PRGHO +X t %HQWOHU f *), VKRXOG EH RU JUHDWHU WR DFFHSW WKH PRGHO .OLQH f &), %HQGHUnV &RPSDUDWLYH )LW ,QGH[ %HQWOHU DQG %RQHG f FRPSDUHV WKH ILW RI WKH VSHFLILHG PRGHO WR WKH LQGHSHQGHQFH PRGHO .OLQHf 7KH LQGHSHQGHQFH PRGHO LV RQH LQ

PAGE 71

SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW 35f DQG f EHLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ 65f PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ RYHUDOO DSSUDLVDOV RI SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV *3)f DQG DQJHU DURXVDO $$f )LJXUH f )LJXUH ,QLWLDO SDWK PRGHO 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ RI 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO )RXU REVHUYHG YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG WKH H[RJHQRXV YDULDEOH *3) PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH RQH LWHP )'04< VFDOHf DQG WKUHH HQGRJHQRXV YDULDEOHV f 35 PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH WKUHHLWHP )'04< VFDOHf f 65 PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH WKUHHLWHP )'04< VFDOHf DQG f $$ PHDVXUHG ZLWK 0$<6, $QJU\,UULWDEOH VFDOHf ([RJHQRXV YDULDEOHV DUH WKRVH YDULDEOHV ZKRVH FDXVHV DUH QRW VSHFLILHG LQ WKH PRGHO .OLQH f (QGRJHQRXV YDULDEOHV DUH WKRVH YDULDEOHV WKDW DUH SUHGLFWHG WR EH FDXVHG E\ RU DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DW OHDVW SDUWLDOO\f WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV VSHFLILHG LQ WKH PRGHO 7ZR YHUVLRQV RI WKH PRGHO ZHUH ILWWHG WR WKH GDWD 7KH ILUVW ZDV D SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG

PAGE 72

GLUHFW HIIHFWV IURP *3) WR $$ *3) WR 35 DQG *3) WR 65 7KLV PRGHO DOVR LQFOXGHG WZR LQGLUHFW SDWKV IURP *3) WR $$ YLD 35 DQG 65 7KH VHFRQG DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHO WKDW ZDV WHVWHG HOLPLQDWHG FRQVWUDLQHG WR ]HURf WKH SDWK EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ WR PDNH D IXOO\ PHGLDWHG PRGHO 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DQG )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZHUH DOVR WHVWHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK SURYLGHG WKH EHWWHU ILW IRU WKH YDULRXV RIIHQVHW\SH JURXSV )RU +\SRWKHVHV D PRGHO UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH SURSRVHG PHGLDWLRQ RI KDYLQJ LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV 9RLFHf RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV *3)f DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 65'6f ZDV DQDO\]HG )LJXUH f 7KUHH REVHUYHG YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG WKH H[RJHQRXV YDULDEOH *3) PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH RQH LWHP )'04< VFDOHf DQG WZR HQGRJHQRXV YDULDEOHV f 9RLFH PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH LWHP )'04< VFDOHf DQG f 65'6 PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH LWHP VFDOHf $JDLQ WZR YHUVLRQV RI WKH PRGHO ZHUH ILWWHG WR WKH GDWD 7KH ILUVW ZDV D SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG GLUHFW HIIHFWV IURP *3) WR 9RLFH DQG *3) WR 65'6 7KLV PRGHO DOVR LQFOXGHG DQ LQGLUHFW SDWK IURP *3) WR 65'6 YLD 9RLFH 7KH VHFRQG DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHO WKDW ZDV WHVWHG HOLPLQDWHG FRQVWUDLQHG WR ]HURf WKH SDWK EHWZHHQ *3) DQG 65'6 WR PDNH D IXOO\ PHGLDWHG PRGHO 2QFH DJDLQ WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DQG )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZHUH DOVR WHVWHG IRU ILW WR WKH GDWD RI WKH WKUHH RIIHQVHW\SH JURXSV

PAGE 73

YRLFH RWKHU 9RLFH / *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV 65'6 'HOLQTXHQF\ VUGVGH RWKHU )LJXUH ,QLWLDO SDWK PRGHO 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ RI 9RLFH RQ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU

PAGE 74

&+$37(5 678'< 21( 5(68/76 'HPRJUDSKLFV 7ZHQW\WKUHH DGROHVFHQWV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ 6WXG\ 2QH )LIWHHQ bf RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH PDOH DQG HLJKW bf ZHUH IHPDOH 0RVW RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH LQ WKH HLJKWK JUDGH 7DEOH f DQG WKHLU PHDQ DJH ZDV 6' f 0RVW RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ 7DEOH IRU HWKQLF EUHDNGRZQ RI WKH VDPSOHf $FFRUGLQJ WR +ROOLQJKHDGfV 7ZR )DFWRU LQGH[ RI VRFLDO SRVLWLRQ ZKLFK LV EDVHG RQ PRWKHU RU IDWKHUfV HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO DQG FXUUHQW RFFXSDWLRQ PRVW RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV bf ZHUH LQ WKH WKLUG DQG IRXUWK OHYHOV ZLWK WKH ILUVW OHYHO FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR KLJK VRFLDO SRVLWLRQ DQG WKH ILIWK OHYHO FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR ORZ VRFLDO SRVLWLRQf 0RVW RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV OLYHG ZLWK WKHLU ELRORJLFDO PRWKHU bf DQG QHDUO\ WZRWKLUGV bf OLYHG ZLWK WKHLU ELRORJLFDO IDWKHU 7DEOH f 3DUWLFLSDQWV IRU 6WXG\ 2QH ZHUH UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK VFKRROV FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHUV DQG WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP RI WKH /XFDV &RXQW\ -XYHQLOH &RXUW )HZ DGROHVFHQWV IURP WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP DGROHVFHQWVf FKRVH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ 6WXG\ 2QH 'HPRJUDSKLF GDWD UHJDUGLQJ LQYROYHPHQW LQ WKH MXYHQLOH MXVWLFH V\VWHP ZDV FROOHFWHG IURP DOO DGROHVFHQWV )RU WKRVH ILYH SDUWLFLSDQWV UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HWHQWLRQ SURJUDP WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI OLIHWLPH DUUHVWV ZDV 6' f DQG WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI OLIHWLPH VWD\V LQ GHWHQWLRQ ZDV 6' f 2QO\ RQH SDUWLFLSDQW UHSRUWHG EHLQJ DGMXGLFDWHG GHOLQTXHQW RU IRXQG JXLOW\ E\ D FRXUW RQ RQH RFFDVLRQ

PAGE 75

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f &RKHQ f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f VRPH RI WKH DQDO\VHV UHODWHG WR +\SRWKHVLV WKRVH IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVH SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG WKH PHGLDWLRQ DQDO\VHV IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQJHU DURXVDO DQG JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVVf VRPH RI WKH PRGHUDWLRQ DQDO\VHV IRU +\SRWKHVLV DOO RI WKH DQDO\VHV IRFXVLQJ RQ KLJK SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG WKH DQDO\VLV IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH HIIHFW RI KLJK FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KLJK VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG DQJHU DURXVDOf DQG WKH DQDO\VHV IRU +\SRWKHVLV 7KHVH QRQVLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ GXH WR ORZ SRZHU FDXVHG E\ WKH VPDOO VDPSOH VL]H LQ 6WXG\ 2QH

PAGE 76

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f WKHVH UHVXOWV DUH EDVHG RQ D YHU\ VPDOO VDPSOH DQG ZLOO QHHG WR EH UHSOLFDWHG LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR 6WXG\ 7ZRf )XWXUH VWXGLHV FDQ YHULW\ WKDW WKHVH ILQGLQJV DUH VWDEOH DQG DUH QRW LGLRV\QFUDWLF WR WKH 6WXG\ 2QH VDPSOH 2YHUDOO WKH VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV RI 6WXG\ 2QH VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG H[SORUDWRU\ LQ QDWXUH )DPLO\ &RKHVLRQ DQG *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQIDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV )RU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV D FRPSRVLWH PHDVXUH RI JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV *3)f ZDV XVHG 7KLV VFDOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG DV D PHDQ RI DOO SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LWHPV 6HYHULW\ RI FRQIOLFW DOVR ZDV FRQWUROOHG IRU LQ WKHVH DQDO\VHV (DFK DGROHVFHQW SURYLGHG D ZULWWHQ FRQIOLFW KH RU VKH UHFHQWO\ KDG ZLWK RQH RU ERWK RI KLV RU KHU SDUHQWVJXDUGLDQV 7KH VHYHULW\ RI FRQIOLFW ZDV ODWHU UDWHG DV +LJK 0HGLXP RU /RZ E\ WZR LQGHSHQGHQW JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW UDWHUV 7KH PHDQ RI WKH WZR UDWLQJV ZDV XVHG DV WKH PHDVXUH RI FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\

PAGE 77

7ZR LQWUDFODVV FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH FRPSXWHG RQH WR DVVHVV LQWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW DQG DQRWKHU WR DVVHVV LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ,QWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW DVVHVVHV ZKHWKHU MXGJHV JLYH WKH VDPH VFRUH WR WKH REMHFWV EHLQJ FDWHJRUL]HG 7LQVOH\ t :HLVV f ,Q 6WXG\ 2QH DJUHHPHQW RFFXUV ZKHQ ERWK MXGJHV DVVLJQ WKH VDPH UDWLQJ WR WKH FRQIOLFW VFHQDULR LH ERWK JLYH D /RZ UDWLQJ IRU WKH OHYHO RI FRQIOLFWf ,QWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ UHIHUV WR WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK D MXGJHfV UDWLQJ GHYLDWHV IURP WKH PHDQ RI DOO MXGJHV UDWLQJV 7LQVOH\ t :HLVVf 7KH LQWUDFODVVV FRUUHODWLRQV IRU LQWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW DQG LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZHUH ERWK 7KH ILUVW SDUW RI +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVLQJ RQ IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ ZDV WHVWHG YLD D WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV :KHQ FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ ZDV HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS WKH PRGHO ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW )O f :KHQ *3) ZDV HQWHUHG RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS WKH PRGHO ZDV VLJQLILFDQW )f S DQG DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ 7DEOH f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f S DQG *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW VLPLODU WR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK

PAGE 78

IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DGROHVFHQW SHUFHSWLRQV RI RYHUDOO IDLUQHVV LQ UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SHUFHSWLRQV RI JHQHUDO FRQIOLFW OHYHOV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH VHYHULW\ RI WKH VSHFLILF FRQIOLFW WKH DGROHVFHQW UHSRUWHGf $QJHU $URXVDO 1HJDWLYH (PRWLRQDO 5HVSRQVH DQG *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG DIIHFWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO LQGLFDWRUV ,Q WKHVH DQDO\VHV WKH FRPSRVLWH PHDVXUH RI *3) ZDV DJDLQ XVHG 7KH LWHP PHDVXULQJ DQJHU DURXVDO UHIHUUHG WR WKH FRQIOLFW SURYLGHG E\ WKH DGROHVFHQW DV SDUW RI WKH )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH
PAGE 79

7KH VHFRQG VHW RI UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 1(5 DQG *3) FRQWUROOLQJ IRU FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ DQG ZDV DJDLQ FRQGXFWHG LQ WZR VWHSV 6LPLODU UHVXOWV ZHUH VKRZQ IRU ERWK WKH VLPXOWDQHRXV DQG KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQV DV IRU WKH DQDO\VHV IRU $$ 7DEOH f *3) DQG FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 1(5 DQG RQO\ *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SHUFHLYHG WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP IDLUO\ LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHSRUWHG IHHOLQJ OHVV DQJU\ DQG KDG ORZHU OHYHOV RI RYHUDOO QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW 35f VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ 65f DQG *3)f DQG DIIHFWLYH RXWFRPHV $$ DQG 1(5f )RU WKHVH DQDO\VHV 35 ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH PHDQ RI WZR LWHPV f7KH ZD\ P\ SDUHQWV WUHDWHG PH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ UHVSHFW PH DV D XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDOf DQG f UHVSHFW PH DV D SHUVRQf 65 DOVR ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH PHDQ RI WZR LWHPV f7KH ZD\ P\ SDUHQWV WUHDWHG PH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ VDZ PH DV EHLQJ D YDOXHG VRQGDXJKWHUf DQG f D YDOXHG PHPEHU RI WKH IDPLO\f ,Q WKHVH DQDO\VHV *3) ZDV PHDVXUHG ZLWK D VLQJOH LWHP RI RYHUDOO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV f2YHUDOO \RXU SDUHQWVf WUHDWHG \RX IDLUO\f 7KLV PHDVXUH ZDV XVHG EHFDXVH WKH FRPSRVLWH PHDVXUH XVHG LQ SUHYLRXV DQDO\VHV LQFOXGHG DVSHFWV RI SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG PD\ KDYH FRQIRXQGHG WKH DQDO\VHV $$ DQG 1(5 ZHUH PHDVXUHG WKH VDPH ZD\ DV LQ +\SRWKHVLV 7KH ILUVW SDUW RI +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ ZKHWKHU 35 RU 65 KDG D ODUJHU HIIHFW RQ *3) ZKLOH FRQWUROOLQJ IRU FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ )RXU UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG f D VLPXOWDQHRXV HQWU\ UHJUHVVLRQ LQFOXGLQJ FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ 35 DQG 65 f D

PAGE 80

WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ LQ ZKLFK FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ ZDV HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS RI WKH DQDO\VLV DQG 35 DQG 65 ZHUH HQWHUHG RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS f D WKUHHVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ LQ ZKLFK FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ ZDV HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS 35 RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS DQG 65 RQ WKH WKLUG DQG f D VHFRQG WKUHHVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ LQ ZKLFK FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ ZDV DJDLQ HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS 65 RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS DQG 35 RQ WKH WKLUG 7KHVH DQDO\VHV VKRZHG 35 KDG D VWURQJHU HIIHFW RQ *3) WKDQ GLG 65 HYHQ ZKHQ FRQIOLFW VHYHULW\ ZDV FRQWUROOHG IRU 7DEOH f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f S 7KH WKUHH YDULDEOHV FRPELQHG DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ $$ KRZHYHU QRQH RI WKH YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH 7DEOH f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

PAGE 81

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t .HQQ\ f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

PAGE 82

EHKDYLRU PHDVXUHV IRU WKHVH DQDO\VHV ZHUH WKH 'HOLQTXHQF\ DQG 'UXJ VFDOHV IURP WKH 65'6 %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f GHVFULEHG D PHWKRG XVLQJ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH $129$f WR WHVW IRU PRGHUDWLRQ HIIHFWV ZLWK GLFKRWRPRXV YDULDEOHV 7R WHVW IRU D PRGHUDWRU HIIHFW RQH H[SORUHV WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP LQ WKH $129$ EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKLV FDVH +LJK 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW +35 RU +LJK 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ +65f DQG WKH PRGHUDWRU YDULDEOH LQ WKLV FDVH +LJK 3HUVRQDO ,GHQWLW\ +3, RU +LJK &ROOHFWLYH ,GHQWLW\ +&,f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f 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH DQDO\VHV UHYHDOHG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP LQ WKH DQDO\VLV DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH )^ f S ,Q WKH $1&29$ IRFXVLQJ RQ 65'6 'UXJ VFRUHV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP ZDV VLJQLILFDQW )O f S 7DEOH f 7KH SUHGLFWHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 65 DQG 65'6 VFRUHV ZDV WKDW WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR IHOW WKH\ ZHUH GLVUHVSHFWHG DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZRXOG UHSRUW LQFUHDVHG GHOLQTXHQW

PAGE 83

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f +RZHYHU IRU DGROHVFHQWV KLJK RQ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ ORZ OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG UHVSHFW DW WKH IDPLO\ OHYHO ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK KLJK OHYHOV RI IHHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHUf 7DEOH DQG f 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH RSSRVLWH IURP WKH UHODWLRQVKLS SUHGLFWHG +\SRWKHVLV

PAGE 84

7DEOH *UDGH /HYHO *UDGH 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW 6HYHQWK (LJKWK 1LQWK 7HQWK (OHYHQWK 7DEOH (WKQLF %DFNJURXQG (WKQLFLW\ 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO 2WKHU 7DEOH ,QGLYLGXDOV /LYLQJ LQ WKH +RXVHKROG ZLWK 3DUWLFLSDQWV 5HODWLRQVKLS 1XPEHU 3HUFHQW %LRORJLFDO 0RWKHU %LRORJLFDO )DWKHU 6WHSPRWKHU 6WHSIDWKHU 6LEOLQJV 2WKHU *UDQGSDUHQWV 2WKHU 1HSKHZ 7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ )DPLO\ &RKHVLRQ DQG )DPLO\ &RQIOLFW 8VLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ )DPLO\ &RKHVLRQ )DPLO\ &RQIOLFW &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ *3) D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV !

PAGE 85

7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ $QJHU $URXVDO DQG 1HJDWLYH (PRWLRQDO 5HVSRQVH 8VLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ $QJHU $URXVDO 1HJDWLYH (PRWLRQDO 5HVSRQVH &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ *3) D D $GMXVWHG 5 ,D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV 7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV 8VLQJ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG &RQIOLFW 6HYHQW\ f§ U f§f§ f f§ M *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ 35 D 65 $GMXVWHG 5 D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV 7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ $QJHU $URXVDO 8VLQJ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ $QJHU $URXVDO &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ 35 65 $GMXVWHG" 7 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV

PAGE 86

7DEOH $1&29$ IRU 0RGHUDWLRQ RI &ROOHFWLYH ,GHQWLW\ RQ 65'6 'HOLQTXHQF\ DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 6RXUFH 7Y'H ,,, 66 GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) &RUUHFWHG 0RGHO D ,QWHUFHSW D &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ +65 +&, +65r+&, E (UURU 7RWDO &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO ?Q EQ U 7DEOH 0HDQV IRU 65'6 'HOLQTXHQF\ 6FRUHV &ROOHFWLYH ,GHQWLW\ /HYHO 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ /RZ +LJK /RZ +LJK 7DEOH $1&29$ IRU 0RGHUDWLRQ RI &ROOHFWLYH ,GHQWLW\ RQ 65'6 'UXJ DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 6RXUFH 7\SH ,,, 66 GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) &RUUHFWHG 0RGHO ,QWHUFHSW D &RQIOLFW 6HYHULW\ +65 +&, +65r+&, E (UURU 7RWDO &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO EQ U r f§ f 7DEOH 0HDQV IRU 65'6 'UXJ 6FRUHV &ROOHFWLYH ,GHQWLW\ /HYHO 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ /RZ +LJK /RZ +LJK

PAGE 87

&+$37(5 678'< 7:2 5(68/76 'HPRJUDSKLFV 6WXG\ 7ZR LQFOXGHG DGROHVFHQWV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG \HDUV 7KLV VDPSOH LQFOXGHG VWXGHQWV IURP &DOLIRUQLD b RI VDPSOHf &RQQHFWLFXW bf )ORULGD bf 1HZ -HUVH\ bf DQG 7H[DV bf 6L[WK JUDGHUV PDGH XS b RI WKH VDPSOH VHYHQWK JUDGHUV b DQG HLJKWK JUDGHUV b 3DUWLFLSDQWVf PHDQ DJH ZDV 6' f 2QH WKLUG RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ DQG QHDUO\ RQH WKLUG ZDV +LVSDQLF 7DEOH f 6L[W\WZR SHUFHQW RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH IHPDOH DQG b ZHUH PDOH 6RFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV ZDV FDOFXODWHG XVLQJ WKH +ROOLQJVKHDG 7ZR )DFWRU ,QGH[ RI 6RFLDO 3RVLWLRQ +ROOLQJVKHDG f EDVHG RQ WKH RFFXSDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO RI HLWKHU WKH IDWKHU RU PRWKHU 0DQ\ VWXGHQWV FRXOG QRW SURYLGH WKH GDWD QHFHVVDU\ WR FDOFXODWH WKLV PHDVXUH )RU WKRVH WKDW GLG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH VDPSOHf b ZHUH LQ WKH ILUVW WZR OHYHOV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR KLJK VRFLDO SRVLWLRQf b ZHUH LQ WKH WKLUG OHYHO DQG b ZHUH LQ WKH IRXUWK DQG ILIWK OHYHOV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR ORZ VRFLDO SRVLWLRQf 7KH UHOHYDQW K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH RI 6WXG\ 7ZR DV ZHOO DV ZLWK WKH VXEJURXSV FUHDWHG LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR EDVHG RQ WKH W\SH RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU UHSRUWHG E\ WKH DGROHVFHQW 7KUHH VXEJURXSV ZHUH FUHDWHG DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QR GHYLDQW EHKDYLRUV 12 JURXS 1 f DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ RQO\ LQ VWDWXV RIIHQVHV DQGRU QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV 192 JURXS 1 f DQG DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV 92 JURXS 1 f 0RVW DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH 92

PAGE 88

JURXS DOVR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ VWDWXV DQGRU QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV $ VHULHV RI DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFHV $129$Vf DQG 7XNH\fV +RQHVWO\ 6LJQLILFDQW 'LIIHUHQFH +6'f IROORZXS WHVWV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR DVVHVV IRU UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG 6HOI5HSRUWHG 'HOLQTXHQF\ 6FDOH 65'6f VFRUHV $OO RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 65'6 7KH ILUVW GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH DVVHVVHG ZDV WKH VWDWH LQ ZKLFK WKH GDWD ZDV FROOHFWHG 7DEOHV DQG f $GROHVFHQWV IURP )ORULGD UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ GLG DGROHVFHQWV IURP &DOLIRUQLD $GROHVFHQWV IURP &RQQHFWLFXW UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ GLG DGROHVFHQWV IURP )ORULGD 7H[DV DQG &DOLIRUQLD 7KH VHFRQG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH ZDV JUDGH LQ VFKRRO ZLWK HLJKWK JUDGHUV UHSRUWLQJ VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ VL[WK RU VHYHQWK JUDGHUV 7DEOHV DQG f 6L[WK DQG VHYHQWK JUDGHUV GLG QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHU 7KH WKLUG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH ZDV DJH 7KH WUHQG IRU WKHVH UHVXOWV ZDV VLPLODU WR WKRVH IRU JUDGH LQ VFKRRO ZLWK ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ GLG \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV 7DEOH DQG f 7KH IRXUWK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH ZDV JHQGHU ZLWK PDOHV UHSRUWHGO\ HQJDJLQJ LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ IHPDOHV 7DEOH DQG f 7KH ILIWK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH ZDV JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO 7KH WUHQG IRU WKHVH VFRUHV ZDV IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR KDG KLJKHU JUDGHV WR UHSRUW ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ GLG DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG ORZHU JUDGHV 7DEOHV DQG f 7KH VL[WK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH ZDV HWKQLFLW\ 7DEOH DQG f 7KHUH ZHUH VRPH VLJQLILFDQW HWKQLF GLIIHUHQFHV RQ UDWHV RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU ZLWK DGROHVFHQWV ZKR GHVFULEHG WKHLU HWKQLFLW\ DV $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ RU 0XOWLUDFLDO UHSRUWLQJ VLJQLILFDQWO\

PAGE 89

KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR GHVFULEHG WKHPVHOYHV DV (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ $OVR DGROHVFHQWV ZKR VHOIGHVFULEHG DV 0XOWLUDFLDO UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR GHVFULEHG WKHPVHOYHV DV $VLDQ $PHULFDQ 7KH ILQDO GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH DVVHVVHG ZDV VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV EDVHG RQ +ROOLQJVKHDGfV 7ZR )DFWRU 6RFLDO 3RVLWLRQ ,QGH[ 7DEOH DQG f 7KH RQO\ VLJQLILFDQW JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH EHWZHHQ DGROHVFHQWV UDQNHG LQ WKH WKLUG SRVLWLRQ PLGGOH FODVVf DQG WKRVH UDQNHG LQ WKH ILIWK SRVLWLRQ ORZHU FODVVf /RZHU VRFLDO SRVLWLRQ DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWHG KLJKHU OHYHO RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKDQ GLG DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH PLGGOH VRFLDO SRVLWLRQ $ VHULHV RI UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV FRQWLQXHG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK 65'6 ZKHQ DOO RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH HQWHUHG LQWR WKH PRGHO ,Q WKH ILUVW UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ 65'6 ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ DOO RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV VWDWH JUDGH DJH JHQGHU JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO HWKQLFLW\ DQG IDPLO\ VRFLDO SRVLWLRQf VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ %HFDXVH WKH YDULDEOHV VWDWH DQG HWKQLFLW\ ZHUH PHDVXUHG DV FDWHJRULFDO QRPLQDO YDULDEOHV LH WKH VFRUHV DUH QRW RQ D FRQWLQXRXV GLVWULEXWLRQ QRU GR WKH\ KDYH DQ XQGHUO\LQJ RUGHUf WKHVH YDULDEOHV KDG WR EH WUDQVIRUPHG EHIRUH WKH\ FRXOG EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ DQG HIIHFW FRGLQJ ZDV XVHG (IIHFW FRGLQJ LV RIWHQ DSSOLHG ZKHQ QRQH RI WKH FDWHJRULHV FDQ EH XVHG DV D FRQWURO RU FRPSDULVRQ JURXS &RKHQ f 1RQH RI WKH OHYHOV RI WKH WZR FDWHJRULFDO YDULDEOHV XVHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW DQDO\VHV VWDWH DQG HWKQLFLW\f FRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG D FRQWURO RU EDVH JURXS DJDLQVW ZKLFK WKH RWKHU OHYHOV RI WKH YDULDEOH FRXOG EH FRPSDUHG ,Q HIIHFW FRGLQJ

PAGE 90

LQVWHDG RI FRPSDULQJ WKH GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV WR D FRQWURO JURXS HDFK OHYHO LV FRPSDUHG WR WKH JUDQG PHDQ ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQGV WR WKH PHDQ RI WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH IRU WKH YDULDEOH RI LQWHUHVWf 7KH QXPEHU RI HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV DOZD\V HTXDOV RQH IHZHU WKDQ WKH QXPEHU RI OHYHOV RI WKH RULJLQDO YDULDEOH WR FRQWURO IRU PXOWLFROOLQDHULW\ 7R FRPSXWH WKH HIIHFW FRGHV IRU VWDWH ZKLFK KDG ILYH OHYHOV IRXU QHZ YDULDEOHV ZHUH FUHDWHG LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR WKHVH ZHUH ODEHOHG 6(&6(&f 2QH RI WKH OHYHOV LV DUELWUDULO\ FKRVHQ DV WKH EDVH DQG LV JLYHQ D FRGH RI IRU HDFK RI WKH QHZ HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV 7KLV OHYHO GRHV QRW KDYH D FRUUHVSRQGLQJ YDULDEOH WR UHSUHVHQW LW WKHUHIRU LQ WKH SUHVHQW DQDO\VHV WKH WZR OHYHOV HLWKHU KDYLQJ WKH IHZHVW QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV 1HZ -HUVH\f RU EHLQJ WKH OHDVW VDOLHQW FDWHJRU\ WKH f2WKHUf HWKQLFLW\ FDWHJRU\f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

PAGE 91

UHJUHVVLRQ SUHGLFWLQJ 65'6 ZRXOG LQGLFDWH WKDW DGROHVFHQWV IURP &DOLIRUQLD UHSRUWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU 65'6 VFRUHV DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZRf )RU 6WXG\ 7ZR WKH LQLWLDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV LQFOXGHG DJH WKH VL[ HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV IRU HWKQLFLW\ JHQGHU JUDGH JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO WKH +ROOLQJVKHDG VRFLDO SRVLWLRQ VFRUH DQG WKH IRXU HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV IRU VWDWH HQWHUHG VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ 7KLV DQDO\VLV VKRZHG WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 7DEOH f 6WDWH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXWf DJH JHQGHU JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO JUDGH DQG HWKQLFLW\ VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ DQG 0XOWLUDFLDO FDWHJRULHVf HDFK DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 $ VHFRQG VLPXOWDQHRXV HQWU\ UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKHVH VLJQLILFDQW GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DV SUHGLFWRUV 7KH VL[ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 DQG DOO FRQWLQXHG WR DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 VFRUHV 7DEOH f $ KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV ZDV WKHQ FRQGXFWHG ZLWK HDFK RI WKH VL[ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ LQ VL[ VWHSV WKH WZR VHWV RI HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV ZHUH HQWHUHG WRJHWKHU LQ WZR RI WKRVH VL[ VWHSVf 7KH RUGHU RI HQWU\ ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG EHWD ZHLJKWV LQ WKH SUHYLRXV UHJUHVVLRQ 7KH YDULDEOH ZLWK ODUJHVW EHWD ZHLJKW ZDV HQWHUHG ILUVW DQG WKH RUGHU RI WKH YDULDEOHV ZDV DV IROORZV JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DJH JHQGHU WKH HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ VWDWH JUDGH DQG WKH HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ HWKQLFLW\ ,Q WKLV DQDO\VLV HDFK YDULDEOH FRQWLQXHG WR DFFRXQW IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 7DEOH f 2YHUDOO WKH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV VKRZHG JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DJH JHQGHU VWDWH JUDGH DQG HWKQLFLW\ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\

PAGE 92

UHODWHG WR 65'6 HYHQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHVf 7KHVH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH WKHUHIRUH FRQWUROOHG IRU LQ WKH IROORZLQJ UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV $QJHU $URXVDO 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU DQG *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG DIIHFWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO LQGLFDWRUV ZDV WHVWHG ERWK ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG ZLWKLQ WKH VSHFLILF VXEJURXSV FUHDWHG IRU 6WXG\ 7ZR )RU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV D FRPSRVLWH PHDVXUH RI JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV *3)f ZDV XVHG 7KLV VFDOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG DV D PHDQ RI DOO VL[WHHQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LWHPV 7KH VKRUWHQHG IRUP RI WKH 65'6 LQFOXGLQJ WKH GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU LWHPV DQG D SUR[\ PHDVXUH RI DQJHU DURXVDO WKH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV
PAGE 93

,Q WKH ILUVW VWHS RI WKLV KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ WKH VL[ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH HQWHUHG IROORZHG E\ WKH FRPSRVLWH *3) YDULDEOH LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS 7KLV UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f S ZLWK *3) DQG WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWLQJ IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ DQJHU DURXVDO *UDGHV LQ VFKRRO JHQGHU WKH HIIHFWFRGHG YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH FDWHJRULHV $VLDQ $PHULFDQ DQG 0XOWLUDFLDO DQG *3) DOO DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI YDULDQFH 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG DQJHU DURXVDO SHUFHSWLRQV RI RYHUDOO XQIDLUQHVV ZHUH UHODWHG WR IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 7KLV DQDO\VLV ZDV UHSOLFDWHG DFURVV WKH WKUHH VXEJURXSV GHWHUPLQHG E\ RIIHQVH VHYHULW\ )RU WKH 12 JURXS WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ $$ *UDGHV LQ VFKRRO WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ DQG 0XOWLUDFLDO FDWHJRULHV DQG JHQGHU DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ *3) DOVR DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ DQG KDG WKH VWURQJHVW UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK $$ 7DEOH f )RU WKH 192 JURXS WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV LQ WKH ILUVW VWHS RI WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZHUH QRW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK $$ 7KH VHFRQG VWHS LQ WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK *3) DQG JHQGHU DFFRXQWLQJ IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7DEOH f *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VHV IRU WKH 92 JURXS ZHUH VRPHZKDW VLPLODU WR WKRVH IRXQG IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH 12 JURXS 7KH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ IRU WKLV JURXS UHYHDOHG WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG *3) FRPELQHG DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ $$ *HQGHU JUDGH DQG WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXW DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ DV GLG *3) 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW

PAGE 94

IRU DGROHVFHQWV DFURVV WKH WKUHH RIIHQVHW\SH JURXSV HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG DQJHU DURXVDO SHUFHSWLRQV RI RYHUDOO XQIDLUQHVV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU OHYHOV RI JHQHUDO DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ $ VHFRQG VHULHV RI UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR DVVHVV WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU DQG JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHVf DFURVV WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH WKUHH VXEJURXSV 6HSDUDWH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG IRU HDFK RI WKH JURXSV LQ ZKLFK 65'6 ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV LQ WKH ILUVW VWHS DQG *3) LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f S *UDGHV LQ VFKRRO DJH JHQGHU JUDGH WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ DQG 0XOWLUDFLDO FDWHJRULHV DQG WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXW DV ZHOO DV *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI XQLTXH YDULDQFH 7DEOH f )RU WKH 12 JURXS WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG *3) ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DQG DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH *UDGHV LQ VFKRRO JHQGHU DJH WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ FDWHJRU\ DQG *3) HDFK DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 7DEOH f *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH UHODWHG WR OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU +RZHYHU HYHQ DIWHU WDNLQJ WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV LQWR DFFRXQW RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI XQIDLUQHVV FRQWLQXHG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU

PAGE 95

)RU WKH 192 JURXS WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ FDWHJRU\ DQG WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DFFRXQWLQJ IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ WKH ILUVW VWHS ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH UHJUHVVLRQ RQO\ WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 EXW WKH EHWD ZHLJKW IRU *3) DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH S f 7DEOH f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f 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR ZKHQ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHVf OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZHUH QR ORQJHU DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO LQMXVWLFH 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW 35f DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ 65f *3) DQG $$ )RU WKH IROORZLQJ DQDO\VHV 35 ZDV PHDVXUHG ZLWK WKH WKUHHLWHP SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VXEVFDOH RI WKH )DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH
PAGE 96

NLQGQHVV DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJf f
PAGE 97

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f )HHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZDV PRUH FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG RYHUDOO XQIDLUQHVV WKDQ ZDV IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU 7KHVH DQDO\VHV ZHUH UHSOLFDWHG DFURVV WKH WKUHH RIIHQVH VWDWXV VXEJURXSV )RU WKH 12 JURXS WKH WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ FDWHJRU\ WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ 7H[DV 35 DQG 65 DFFRXQWLQJ IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ *3) 7DEOH f ,Q WKH WKUHHVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZLWK 35 DQG 65 HQWHUHG VHSDUDWHO\ RQ WKH VHFRQG DQG WKLUG VWHSV RI WKH UHJUHVVLRQVf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

PAGE 98

7KH WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ IRU WKH 192 JURXS DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW 35 DQG 65 DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ *3) ZKLOH WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV GLG QRW 7DEOH f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f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

PAGE 99

7KH VHFRQG SDUW RI +\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SHUFHLYHG WKHLU SDUHQWV GLG QRW UHVSHFW WKHP DV LQGLYLGXDOV ORZ 35f RU DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ORZ 65f ZRXOG H[SHULHQFH KLJKHU OHYHOV RI DQJHU DURXVDO HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV $ VHULHV RI KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV WKH VDPH DV WKRVH XVHG WR SUHGLFW *3)f ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG HDFK RI WKH VXEJURXSV )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f ZLWK WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 35 DQG 65 FRPELQHG DFFRXQWLQJ IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7DEOH f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f 7DEOH f ZLWK WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 35 DQG 65 FRPELQHG DFFRXQWLQJ IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ DQJHU DURXVDO

PAGE 100

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f )RU WKH 192 JURXS RSSRVLWH UHVXOWV ZHUH UHYHDOHG ,Q WKH ILUVW UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH DJDLQ HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS IROORZHG E\ 35 DQG 65 RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS 7KH ILUVW VWHS RI WKLV DQDO\VLV ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW EXW WKH VHFRQG VWHS ZDV ) f 7DEOH f 7KH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 35 DQG 65 DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ $$ KRZHYHU RQO\ JHQGHU DQG 35 DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7KH WKUHHVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ ZLWK WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS 65 RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS DQG 35 RQ WKH WKLUG VWHSf ZDV VLJQLILFDQW RYHUDOO KRZHYHU RQFH DJDLQ WKH ILUVW VWHS ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW 7KH VHFRQG VWHS ZDV MXVW

PAGE 101

EDUHO\ QRQVLJQLILFDQW ^S f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f KRZHYHU QHLWKHU 35 QRU 65 DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ *HQGHU DQG WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXW GLG DFFRXQW IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7DEOH f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

PAGE 102

PD\ FDQFHO HDFK RWKHU RXW LQ UHODWLRQ WR IHHOLQJ RI JHQHUDO DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ IRU WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHVf 7KH WKLUG SDUW RI +\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ WKH SRVVLEOH PHGLDWLQJ HIIHFWV RI 35 DQG 65 RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *)3 DQG $$ 7KLV ZDV WHVWHG LQ WZR ZD\V ILUVW E\ XVLQJ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ PHWKRG IRU WHVWLQJ PHGLDWLQJ HIIHFWV UHSRUWHG E\ %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f DQG VHFRQG E\ XVLQJ 6WUXFWXUDO (TXDWLRQ 0RGHOLQJ 6(0f ,Q WKHVH DQDO\VHV WKH RQH LWHP VFDOH RI *3) WKH WKUHHLWHP VFDOH RI 35 DQG WKH WKUHHLWHP VFDOH RI 65 ZHUH XVHG 7KH 0$<6, $QJU\,UULWDEOH VFDOH ZDV DJDLQ XVHG WR PHDVXUH DQJHU DURXVDO %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f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f UHJUHVVHG RQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH *3)f LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV UHJUHVVLRQ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW ) f S ,Q WKH VHFRQG UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH DJDLQ HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS DQG WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH $$f ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH *3)f LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS 7KLV DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f ,Q WKH WKLUG UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS DQG WKH GHSHQGHQW

PAGE 103

YDULDEOH $$f ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ ERWK WKH PHGLDWRU 35f DQG WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH *3)f LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS 7KH UHVXOWLQJ HTXDWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f S 7DEOH f %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f UHSRUWHG WKDW D PHGLDWLRQ HIIHFW LV SUHVHQW LI WKUHH FULWHULD DUH PHW )LUVW DOO WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV PXVW EH VLJQLILFDQW 6HFRQG WKH PHGLDWRU PXVW KDYH DQ HIIHFW RQ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ 7KLUG WKH HIIHFW RI LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RQ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH PXVW EH OHVV LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ WKDQ LQ WKH VHFRQG HTXDWLRQ 7KHVH FULWHULD ZHUH PHW LQ WKHVH DQDO\VHV $OO WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DQG WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG EHWD ZHLJKW RI *3) LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ f ZDV VPDOOHU WKDQ WKDW RI WKH VHFRQG HTXDWLRQ f 35 DOVR DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV VKRZHG ERWK *3) DQG 35 ZHUH UHODWHG WR $$ IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 7KH UHVXOWV DOVR VKRZHG WKDW 35 SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDWHG WKHP XQIDLUO\ GXULQJ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHSRUWHG IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ 7KHVH DGROHVFHQWV DOVR UHSRUWHG IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV LQGLYLGXDOV DQG WKHVH IHHOLQJV SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI XQIDLUQHVV DQG DQJU\ DQG LUULWDEOH IHHOLQJV HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 7KHVH DQDO\VHV ZHUH UHSOLFDWHG WR DVVHVV ZKHWKHU 65 DOVR PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH $JDLQ DOO WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH f DQG WKH RWKHU %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f FULWHULD ZHUH PHW 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG D PHGLDWRU HIIHFW RI 65 RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW VLPLODU WR WKH UHVXOWV IRU WKH DQDO\VHV ZLWK 35 DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH

PAGE 104

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f DQG WKH RWKHU %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ FULWHULD ZHUH PHW 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW VLPLODU WR WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VHV ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 35 SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ )RU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU HYHQ ZKHQ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG IRU IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D SHUVRQ SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ RYHUDOO IHHOLQJV RI XQIDLUQHVV DQG IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ 7KH DQDO\VHV IRU WKH PHGLDWLRQ RI 65 RQ *3) DQG $$ DOVR ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH 12 JURXS $JDLQ DOO RI WKH %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f FULWHULD ZHUH PHW 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHOLQTXHQW DQG FULPLQDO EHKDYLRU SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHLYHG XQIDLUQHVV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV DQG IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH VKRZQ HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZLWK WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV

PAGE 105

)RU WKH 192 JURXS 35 FRPSOHWHO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ ,Q WKHVH DQDO\VHV DJDLQ WKH WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH f DQG 35 DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ LQ WKH WKLUG UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ $OVR LQ WKDW WKLUG HTXDWLRQ *3) GLG QRW DFFRXQW IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW 35 KDG FRPSOHWHO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG $$ )RU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG RQO\ HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ ZHUH GXH HQWLUHO\ WR IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D SHUVRQ 7KHVH IHHOLQJV FRPSOHWHO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHSWLRQV WKDW WKH FRQIOLFWUHVROXWLRQ SURFHVV RYHUDOO ZDV XQIDLU DQG DQJU\LUULWDEOH IHHOLQJV 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH UREXVW HYHQ ZKHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VHV 7KH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV IRU WKH PHGLDWLRQ RI 65 RQ *3) DQG $$ ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH 192 JURXS 7DEOH f $OO WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW EXW QHLWKHU 65 QRU *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW HYHQ ZKHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG IRU IHHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU DQG SHUFHLYHG SURFHGXUDO XQIDLUQHVV ZHUH UHODWHG WR DQJU\ DQG LUULWDEOH IHHOLQJV IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV )HHOLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU GLG QRW KRZHYHU PHGLDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO XQIDLUQHVV DQG DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR )RU WKH 92 JURXS WKH DQDO\VHV RI WKH PHGLDWLRQDO HIIHFW RI 35 ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH f 7KH WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW KRZHYHU QHLWKHU *3) QRU 35 DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ ,Q WKLV WKLUG UHJUHVVLRQ JHQGHU WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXW DQG JUDGH GLG DFFRXQW IRU

PAGE 106

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f ,Q WKLV WKLUG HTXDWLRQ JHQGHU WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ &DOLIRUQLD DQG &RQQHFWLFXW DQG JUDGH GLG DFFRXQW IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ $$ 7DEOH f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f WHFKQLTXHV 7KH LQLWLDO WZR PRGHOV WHVWHG DV GHVFULEHG LQ &KDSWHU ZHUH WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DQG WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO %RWK ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ WHVWHG ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ;? 1 f S *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $OO YDOXHV RI WKH ILW LQGLFHV VXJJHVWHG WKLV PRGHO LV D SRRU ILW WR WKH GDWD

PAGE 107

)LWWLQJ WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO WR WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH ZLWK WKH SDWK IURP *3) WR $$ FRQVWUDLQHG WR ]HURf UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO PRGHO ILW RI ; 1 f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f *), &), 6505 7KLV PRGHO ZDV D MXVW LGHQWLILHG PRGHO PHDQLQJ DOO SRVVLEOH SDUDPHWHUV ZHUH VSHFLILHG LQ WKH PRGHO )RU MXVW LGHQWLILHG PRGHOV WKH &KLVTXDUH VWDWLVWLF DQG GI DUH ]HUR $ S YDOXH FDQQRW EH FDOFXODWHG IRU MXVWLGHQWLILHG PRGHOV $OO LQGLFHV LQGLFDWHG JRRG ILW RI WKH GDWD WR WKH PRGHO EXW WKLV LV DOZD\V WKH UHVXOW ZLWK D MXVW LGHQWLILHG PRGHO 7KH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH )LJXUH f UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ;? 1 f ;GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH &KLVTXDUH DQG &KLVTXDUHLA

PAGE 108

LQGLFHV WKHVH UHVXOWV VXJJHVW WKH PRGHO ILW WKH GDWD ZHOO 7KH &KLVTXDUH 'LIIHUHQFH WHVW VXJJHVWHG WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH SURYLGHG D EHWWHU ILW WR WKH GDWD ;GLIIHUHQFH GI f 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 0RGHO DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 35 b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 65 DQG b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f PHWKRG ZKLFK WHVWHG WKH PHGLDWLRQ HIIHFWV RI 35 DQG 65 VHSDUDWHO\ 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DGROHVFHQWVf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

PAGE 109

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f PHWKRG ZKLFK IRXQG ERWK 35 DQG 65 VLJQLILFDQWO\ PHGLDWHG WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS ZKHQ WHVWHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ DV PHGLDWRUV

PAGE 110

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f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f DQG WKH FRYDULDQFH ZDV EHWZHHQ WKH YDULDEOHV WKHPVHOYHV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH FRYDULDQFH EHWZHHQ HUURU WHUPV DV GHSLFWHG LQ WKH

PAGE 111

K\SRWKHVL]HG PRGHOV 7KHVH PRGHOV DOVR ZHUH WHVWHG XVLQJ 6(0 WHFKQLTXHV DQG ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ WHVWHG ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWKRXW &RYDULDQFH UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ;? 1 f ;GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $OO YDOXHV RI WKH ILW LQGLFHV VXJJHVWHG WKLV PRGHO LV D SRRU ILW WR WKH GDWD )LWWLQJ WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWKRXW &RYDULDQFH WR WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO PRGHO ILW RI $ 1 f S ;GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ 7KHVH LQGLFHV DOVR VXJJHVWHG SRRU ILW RI WKH GDWD WR WKLV VHFRQG PRGHO DV ZHOO 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ; 1 f *), &), DQG 6505 7KLV LV D MXVW LGHQWLILHG PRGHO DQG GRHV QRW SURYLGH D JRRG WHVW RI WKH ILW RI WKH GDWD WR WKH PRGHO 7KH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ; 1 f S ; GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ 7KH *), &), DQG 7/, YDOXHV VXJJHVW WKLV PRGHO ILW WKH GDWD ZHOO DOWKRXJK WKH RWKHU ILW LQGH[ YDOXHV VKRZHG OHVV WKDQ DGHTXDWH ILW 7KH &KLVTXDUH 'LIIHUHQFH WHVWV ZHUH XVHG WR FRPSDUH WKH IRXU PRGHOV 7KH FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH ZDV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWKRXW &RYDULDQFH ZDV ; GLIIHUHQFHG f ZLWK WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWKRXW &RYDULDQFH ZDV ; GLIIHUHQFHA f S DQG ZLWK WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH ZDV ; GLIIHUHQFHG f

PAGE 112

" 7KH ILW LQGLFHV DQG WKH &KLVTXDUH 'LIIHUHQFH WHVWV VKRZHG WKDW WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH SURYLGHV WKH EHVW ILW RI WKH GDWD )LJXUH f 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 0RGHO LQ ZKLFK *3) PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ 35 DQG $$ DQG 65 DQG $$ DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ *3) DQG b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f SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ GLVUHVSHFWHG DV LQGLYLGXDOV DQG DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK RYHUDOO IHHOLQJV

PAGE 113

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f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

PAGE 114

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f WDNHV FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH PRGHO LQWR DFFRXQW DQG DOORZV FRPSDULVRQ RI QRQKLHUDUFKLFDO PRGHOV /RZHU YDOXHV LQGLFDWH EHWWHU ILW 7KH $,& YDOXHV RI WKH YDULRXV PRGHOV ZHUH XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG PRGHO 35 DQG 65 DV PHGLDWRUVf ILW WKH GDWD IRU YDULRXV JURXSV EHWWHU WKDQ GLG WKH DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHO *3) DV PHGLDWRUf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

PAGE 115

VLQJOH LWHP PHDVXUH RI *3) DQG WKH VKRUWHQHG GHOLQTXHQF\ VFDOH IURP WKH 65'6 7KH WKUHHLWHP 9RLFH VXEVFDOH RI WKH )'04< DOVR ZDV XVHG LQ WKHVH DQDO\VHV DQG LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ LWHPV f
PAGE 116

VHFRQG UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ 65'6 ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ *3) LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ 7KLV DQDO\VLV DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f S ,Q WKH WKLUG UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ 65'6 ZDV UHJUHVVHG RQ ERWK 9RLFH DQG *3) LQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ 7KLV HTXDWLRQ DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f %RWK RI WKH RWKHU FULWHULD WR WHVW IRU PHGLDWLRQ DOVR ZHUH PHW 9RLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 DQG *3) DFFRXQWHG IRU OHVV YDULDQFH LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ WKDQ LW GLG LQ WKH VHFRQG HTXDWLRQ 7DEOH f 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW KDYLQJ LQSXW LQWR WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHLYHG IDLUQHVV DQG ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV )RU WKH 12 JURXS WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KDYLQJ YRLFH DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DOVR ZDV DVVHVVHG 7KH WZRVWHS KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ ZLWK WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG RQ WKH ILUVW VWHS DQG 9RLFH HQWHUHG RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHSf ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) f S 7DEOH f ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH UHJUHVVLRQ JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO WKH YDULDEOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ FDWHJRU\ DJH JHQGHU DQG 9RLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 9RLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI XQLTXH YDULDQFH 7KH PHGLDWLRQ DQDO\VLV DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH 12 JURXS 7DEOH f $OO RI WKH FULWHULD VHW IRUWK E\ %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f ZHUH PHW 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU KDYLQJ LQSXW LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHLU ORZ OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH UREXVW HYHQ ZKHQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VHV

PAGE 117

7KH DQDO\VHV IRU WKH 192 JURXS UHYHDOHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 9RLFH DQG 65'6 ) f S 7DEOH f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f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f 7DEOH f ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWHS RI WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ DQG +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ FDWHJRULHV DJH JHQGHU WKH YDULDEOHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ 7H[DV DQG &DOLIRUQLD DQG 9RLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 7KH PHGLDWLRQ DQDO\VHV DOVR ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DQG IRU WKLV JURXS 9RLFH FRPSOHWHO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG 65'6 7DEOH f $OO WKUHH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 9RLFH DFFRXQWHG IRU XQLTXH YDULDQFH LQ WKH WKLUG HTXDWLRQ ZKLOH *3) GLG QRW 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU WKRVH

PAGE 118

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f UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ; 1 f *), &), 7/, DQG 6505 7KLV LV D MXVWLGHQWLILHG PRGHO DQG WKH ILW LQGLFHV GR QRW SURYLGH D JRRG WHVW RI WKH ILW RI WKH PRGHO WR WKH GDWD )LWWLQJ WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO WR WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH ZLWK WKH SDWK IURP *3) WR 65'6 FRQVWUDLQHG WR ]HURf UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO PRGHO ILW RI; ? 1 f S ;GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $OO RI WKHVH LQGLFHV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH 506($ LQGLFDWHG D JRRG ILW RI WKH PRGHO WR WKH GDWD 7KH &KLVTXDUH 'LIIHUHQFH WHVW LQGLFDWHG WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLQJ 0RGHO SURYLGHG D EHWWHU ILW RI WKH GDWD ; GLIIHUHQFH f 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 9RLFH DQG b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH WKH ILW LQGLFHV IRU WKH PRGHOV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH DQG WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG SDWK HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DUH LQ 7DEOH )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DOO WKUHH SDWKV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KHVH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW 9RLFH SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ *3) DQG 65'6 7KHVH UHVXOWV

PAGE 119

UHSOLFDWHG WKRVH IRXQG ZLWK WKH %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f PHWKRG 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI KDYLQJ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV DQG RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KH SHUFHLYHG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI XQIDLUQHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KH 3DUWLDO DQG )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHOV ZHUH WKHQ ILW WR WKH WKUHH VXEJURXSV EDVHG RQ RIIHQVH W\SH 6XPPDULHV RI WKH PRGHO ILW LQGLFHV DQG SDWK HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH IRXU JURXSV DUH SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOHV DQG 7KHVH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ILW WKH GDWD IRU WKH 12 VDPSOH ZHOO KRZHYHU WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DSSHDUHG WR WKH ILW WKH GDWD IRU 192 DQG 92 JURXSV EHWWHU )RU WKH 12 JURXS LQ WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DOO WKUHH SDWKV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KHVH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU SHUFHLYLQJ WKDW WKH\ KDG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV SDUWLDOO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI RYHUDOO IDLUQHVV DQG ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKRVH IRXQG XVLQJ WKH %DURQ DQG .HQQ\ f PHWKRG )RU WKH 192 JURXS WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZDV IRXQG WR SURYLGH D EHWWHU ILW WR WKH GDWD ,Q WKLV PRGHO ERWK SDWKV IURP 9RLFH WR *3) DQG 9RLFH WR 65'6 ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KHVH ILQGLQJV VKRZHG WKDW IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV WKH SHUFHSWLRQ WKDW WKH\ KDG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV FRPSOHWHO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ RYHUDOO SHUFHSWLRQV RI XQIDLUQHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU

PAGE 120

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f PHWKRG WR WHVW WKH PHGLDWLRQDO PRGHOV IRU 92 JURXS $Q DOWHUQDWLYH VHW RI PHGLDWLRQ PRGHOV DOVR ZDV WHVWHG WR DVVHVV WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ 9RLFH *3) DQG 65'6 ,Q WKLV VHW RI PRGHOV *3) ZDV WHVWHG DV D PHGLDWRU LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 9RLFH DQG 65'6 $JDLQ WZR PRGHOV ZHUH WHVWHG WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DQG WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ,Q WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO WKHUH

PAGE 121

ZHUH WKUHH SDWKV f IURP 9RLFH WR *3) f IURP *3) WR 65'6 DQG f IURP 9RLFH WR 65'6 ,Q WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO RQO\ WKH ILUVW WZR RI WKHVH SDWKV ZHUH LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH WKLUG FRQVWUDLQHG WR ]HUR 7KHVH PRGHOV DOVR ZHUH WHVWHG XVLQJ 6(0 WHFKQLTXHV DQG ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ WHVWHG ZLWK WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO ILW RI ; 1 f *), &), 7/, DQG 6505 7KLV LV D MXVWLGHQWLILHG PRGHO DQG WKH ILW LQGLFHV GR QRW SURYLGH D JRRG WHVW RI WKH PRGHO )LWWLQJ WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO WR WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH UHVXOWHG LQ DQ RYHUDOO PRGHO ILW RI 1 f S ;GI *), &), 7/, 6505 DQG 506($ 7KH *), &), DQG 6505 LQGLFDWHG JRRG ILW KRZHYHU WKH RWKHU LQGLFHV VXJJHVWHG OHVV WKDQ DGHTXDWH ILW RI WKH GDWD WR WKH PRGHO 7KH &KLVTXDUH GLIIHUHQFH WHVWV FRPSDULQJ WKH WZR PRGHOV LQGLFDWHG WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ILW WKH GDWD EHWWHU WKDQ WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ; GLIIHUHQFHL f S )LJXUH f 7KH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO LQ ZKLFK *3) PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 9RLFH DQG 65'6 DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ *3) DQG b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 65'6 )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH WKH ILW LQGLFHV IRU WKH PRGHOV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH DQG WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG SDWK HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO DUH LQ 7DEOH )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DOO WKUHH SDWKV IURP 9RLFH WR *3) *3) WR 65'6 DQG 9RLFH WR 65'6 ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW *3) SDUWLDOO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 9RLFH DQG 65'6 7KHVH UHVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ WUHDWHG IDLUO\ RYHUDOO DQG KDYLQJ LQSXW LQ WKH

PAGE 122

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

PAGE 123

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f ZLWK WKH DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHO LQ ZKLFK *3) ZDV WKH PHGLDWRUf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

PAGE 124

'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH ,QGLFHV DFURVV 2IIHQVH *URXSV +\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG GLIIHUHQFHV DFURVV WKH RIIHQVH VWDWXV JURXSV RQ WKUHH LQGLFHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFH $ PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI FRYDULDQFH 0$1&29$f ZLWK SODQQHG UHSHDWHG FRQWUDVWV ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW IRU JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV RQ WKHVH WKUHH FRQVWUXFWV 7KH 0$1&29$ DOVR LQFOXGHG ILYH RI WKH VL[ GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV WKDW ZHUH IRXQG WR YDU\ E\ 65'6 RYHUDOO VFRUHV DJH HWKQLFLW\ JUDGH JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DQG VWDWHf WR FRQWURO IRU WKH HIIHFWV RI WKHVH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ JURXS VWDWXV DQG 35 65 DQG 9RLFH VFRUHV *HQGHU ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG DV D FRYDULDWH EHFDXVH JHQGHU ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK 35 65 RU 9RLFH VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 7KH 0$1&29$ VKRZHG JUDGH JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DQG JURXS VWDWXV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH LQGLFHV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH 7DEOH f 7KHVH ILQGLQJV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW IRU DOO WKUHH PXOWLYDULDWH WHVW VWDWLVWLFV DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI PRUH WKDQ WZR JURXSV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR WKHUH ZHUH WKUHH JURXSV 1R 2IIHQVH 1RQYLROHQW DQG 6WDWXV 2IIHQVH 2QO\ DQG 9LROHQW 2IIHQVHf 7KH IROORZXS XQLYDULDWH WHVWV DOVR ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7DEOH f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

PAGE 125

,OO LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU DJH HWKQLFLW\ JUDGH JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DQG VWDWHf 7KH SODQQHG UHSHDWHG FRQWUDVWV H[SORUHG WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI RIIHQVH JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV RQ WKH WKUHH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV 35 65 DQG 9RLFHf 5HSHDWHG FRQWUDVWV DUH SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV RI PHDQV LQ ZKLFK HDFK JURXS OHYHOfV PHDQ LV FRPSDUHG WR WKH PHDQ RI WKH OHYHO LPPHGLDWHO\ DIWHU LW :HQGRUI f ,Q WKH DQDO\VHV IRU 6WXG\ 7ZR WKH UHSHDWHG FRQWUDVWV FRPSDUHG f WKH PHDQV RI WKH 12 JURXS DQG WKH PHDQV RI WKH 192 JURXS RQ 35 65 DQG 9RLFH VHSDUDWHO\ DQG f WKH PHDQV RI WKH 192 JURXS DQG WKH PHDQV RI WKH 92 JURXS RQ 35 65 DQG 9RLFH VHSDUDWHO\ )RU WKH 35 VFDOH WKH ILUVW FRQWUDVW FRPSDUHG WKH 12 DQG 192 JURXSV 7KLV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW S f DQG VKRZHG DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH 12 JURXS KDG D KLJKHU PHDQ 35 VFRUH WKDQ WKH 192 JURXS 7KH VHFRQG FRQWUDVW FRPSDUHG WKH 192 DQG 92 JURXSV DQG DOVR ZDV VLJQLILFDQW S f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f 7KH FRQWUDVW DQDO\VHV VKRZHG WKDW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR QHYHU HQJDJHG LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DOVR UHSRUWHG WKH\ IHOW WKH PRVW UHVSHFWHG DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZKLOH DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV LQGLFDWHG WKH\ IHOW WKH OHDVW UHVSHFWHG DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV $GROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV IHOO LQ EHWZHHQ WKH RWKHU WZR JURXSV )RU WKH 9RLFH VFDOH RQFH DJDLQ

PAGE 126

WKH FRQWUDVWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW S f 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU IHOW WKH\ KDG PRUH LQSXW LQWR WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV WKDQ WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW DQG YLROHQW RIIHQVHV $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QRQYLROHQW RU VWDWXV RIIHQVHV RQO\ LQGLFDWHG WKH\ IHOW WKH\ KDG PRUH LQSXW LQ WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV WKDQ WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV

PAGE 127

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

PAGE 128

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

PAGE 129

7DEOH DQXYD WRU XUDRHV 6RXUFH Q DFQRRL DQD 7YRH ,,, 66 XHYLDQL RHQDn GI O2, 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) &RUUHFWHG 0RGHO D ,QWHUFHSW D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D (UURU 7RWDO &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO rS 7DEOH 0HDQV DFURVV *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU *UDGHV (DUQHG LQ 6FKRRO 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG (UURU 0RVWO\ $fV 0RVWO\ $fV DQG %fV 0RVWO\ %fV 0RVWO\ %fV DQG &fV 0RVWO\ &fV 0RVWO\ &fV DQG 'fV 0RVWO\ 'fV 0RVWO\ 'fV DQG )fV 7DEOH $129$ IRU (WKQLFLWY DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 6RXUFH 7YSH ,,, 66 GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) &RUUHFWHG 0RGHO D ,QWHUFHSW D (WKQLFLW\ D (UURU 7RWDO &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 9 RRR 7DEOH 0HDQV DFURVV (WKQLFLW\ IRU 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU (WKQLFLWY 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG (UURU $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ 1DWLYH $PHULFDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO 2WKHU

PAGE 130

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

PAGE 131

7DEOH +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 8VLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 9DULDEOH 5 &KDQJH )FKDQJH % 6WHS *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D 6WHS $JH D D 6WHS *HQGHU D D 6WHS &DOLIRUQLD D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV 6WHS *UDGH D 6WHS $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ D 0XOWLUDFLDO D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV IRU WKH VL[WK VWHS RI WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ !

PAGE 132

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

PAGE 133

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

PAGE 134

7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV 8VLQJ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOHV (6 12 192 92 $JH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ D +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO *HQGHU *UDGH *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO n &DOLIRUQLD &RQQHFWLFXW )ORULGD O k /$ 7H[DV D D 35 D D D ,D 65 ,D ,D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV IRU WKH VHFRQG VWHS LQ WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ 1RWH (6 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH 12 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS 192 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH JURXS 92 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS DS

PAGE 135

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

PAGE 136

7DEOH +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU 0HGLDWLRQ RI 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO ,QFOXGLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOHV (6 12 192 YR (TXDWLRQ 2QH 35 '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ 2LO (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ D D +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ D 0XOWLUDFLDO *HQGHU D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D D *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7ZR $$ '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ D D (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO D D *HQGHU D D D D *UDGH D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7KUHH $$ '9f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

PAGE 137

7DEOH +LHUDUFKLFDO 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU 0HGLDWLRQ RI 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO ,QFOXGLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOHV (6 12 192 YR (TXDWLRQ 2QH 65 '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ D +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7ZR $$ '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ D D (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO D D *HQGHU D D D *UDGH D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5n D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7KUHH $$ '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ D D (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO D D *HQGHU D D D D *UDGH D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV 65 D D E *3) D D $GMXVWHG 5a D D D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV IRU VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV DFURVV WKH IRXU JURXSV 1RWH (6 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH 12 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS 192 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH JURXS 92 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS 9

PAGE 138

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f§35 D *3)f§65 2LO D *)3f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D DS

PAGE 139

7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $,& 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§12 *URXS )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§12 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§192 *URXS )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§192 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§92 *URXS )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§92 *URXS

PAGE 140

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO RU )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH IRU 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR (QWLUH 6DPSOH 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH *3)f§35 D *3)f§65 D *3)f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D 35RWKHU 65RWKHU D 1R 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH *3)f§35 D *3)f§65 D *3)f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D 35RWKHU 65RWKHU D 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFH *3)f§35 D *3)f§65 D 35f§$$ D 65f§$$ 35RWKHU 65RWKHU D 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 *3)f§35 *3)f§65 35f§$$ 65f§$$ 35RWKHU 65RWKHU DS 7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 0RGHO &KLVDXDUH GI 3 *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ ,QGHSHQGHQFH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ :LWK &RYDULDQFH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ :LWK &RYDULDQFH f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH D D D D

PAGE 141

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH IRU *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 3HUVRQDO 5HVRHFW6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR 35f§*3) D 65f§*3) D *3)f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D 35 65 D D 7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI S *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $,& 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§12 *URXS f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§12 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§192 *URXS f§ f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§192 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§92 *URXS f§ f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ ZLWK &RYDULDQFHf§92 *URXS

PAGE 142

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO RU )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH IRU *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ DQG $QJHU $URXVDO 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR (QWLUH 6DPSOH 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 35f§*3) D 65f§*3) D *3)f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D 35 65 D 1R 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 35f§*3) D 65f§*3) D *3)f§$$ D 35f§$$ 65f§$$ D 35 65 D 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 35f§*3) D 65f§*3) D *3)f§$$ 35f§$$ D 65f§$$ 35 65 D 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH 35f§*3) D 65f§*3) D *3)f§$$ D 35 65 D !

PAGE 143

7DEOH 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 3UHGLFWLQJ 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 8VLQX 9RLFH DQG 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOHV (6 12 192 92 $JH D D D $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ R L} D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ D +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ f D D 0XOWLUDFLDO f *HQGHU f D D *UDGH f D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO f D &DOLIRUQLD f D D &RQQHFWLFXW f )ORULGD 7H[DV D 9RLFH D D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV IRU WKH VHFRQG VWHS LQ WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ 1RWH (6 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH 12 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS 192 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH JURXS 92 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS !

PAGE 144

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VHV IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI 9RLFH RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU ,QFOXGLQJ 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV 9DULDEOHV (6 12 192 94 (TXDWLRQ 2QH 9RLFH '9f $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ D +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ 0XOWLUDFLDO *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7ZR 65'6 '9f $JH D D D $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ D D 0XOWLUDFLDO D *HQGHU D D D *UDGH D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD D D D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV D *3) D D D D $GMXVWHG 5a D D D D (TXDWLRQ 7KUHH 65'6 '9f $JH D D D $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ D D $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ $VLDQ $PHULFDQ n (XURSHDQ $PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF $PHULFDQ D D D 0XOWLUDFLDO D *HQGHU D nD D *UDGH D *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO D D &DOLIRUQLD D D D &RQQHFWLFXW D )ORULGD 7H[DV D 9RLFH D D D *3) D D $GMXVWHG 5 D D D D 1RWH (QWULHV DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG ZHLJKWV IRU VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV DFURVV WKH IRXU JURXSV 1RWH (6 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH 12 FRUUHVSRQGV WR Y DOXHV IRU WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS 192 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH JURXS 92 FRUUHVSRQGV WR YDOXHV IRU WKH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH JURXS fS

PAGE 145

7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ IRU 9RLFH RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI S *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ ,QGHSHQGHQFH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO IRU 9RLFH RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR *3)f§9RLFH D *)3f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO DQG )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHOV IRU 9RLFH RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI S *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $,& 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§12 *URXS f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§12 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§192 *URXS f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§192 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§92 *URXS )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§92 *URXS

PAGE 146

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO RU )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO IRU 9RLFH RQ *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR (QWLUH 6DPSOH 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO *3)f§9RLFH D *3)f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 1R 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO *3)f§9RLFH D *3)f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO *3)f§9RLFH D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO *3)f§9RLFH D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 9RLFH DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI 3 *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ ,QGHSHQGHQFH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ

PAGE 147

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU WKH (QWLUH 6DPSOH IRU WKH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO IRU *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 9RLFH DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR 9RLFHf§*3) D *3)f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 7DEOH 0RGHO *RRGQHVV RI )LW ,QGLFHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 0HGLDWLRQ RI *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 9RLFH DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 0RGHO &KLVTXDUH GI S *), &), 7/, 6505 506($ $,& 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§(QWLUH 6DPSOH 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§12 *URXS )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§12 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§192 *URXS f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§192 *URXS 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQf§92 *URXS f§ )XOO 0HGLDWLRQf§92 *URXS

PAGE 148

7DEOH 6WDQGDUGL]HG (VWLPDWHV IRU $OO 6DPSOHV IRU WKH 3DUWLDO RU )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO IRU *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV RQ 9RLFH DQG 'HYLDQW %HKDYLRU 3DUDPHWHU (VWLPDWH 6WDQGDUG (UURU &ULWLFDO 5DWLR (QWLUH 6DPSOH 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO 9RLFHf§*3) D *3)f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 1R 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO 9RLFHf§*3) D *3)f§65'6 D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO 9RLFHf§*3) D 9RLFHf§65'6 D 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH *URXS 1 f 3DUWLDO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO 9RLFHf§*3) D *3)f§65'6 9RLFHf§65'6 D DS

PAGE 149

7DEOH 0XOWLYDULDWH $QDO\VHV IRU 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH ,QGLFHV *URXS 6WDWXV DQG 6HOHFW 'HPRJUDSKLF 9DULDEOHV (IIHFW 9DOXH ) +\SRWKHVLV GI (UURU GI ,QWHUFHSW 3LOODLfV 7UDFH D :LONVf /DPEGD D 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW D $JH 3LOODLfV 7UDFH :LONVf /DPEGD 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW (WKQLFLW\ 3LOODLfV 7UDFH :LONVf /DPEGD 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW *UDGH 3LOODLfV 7UDFH E :LONVf /DPEGD E 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW E *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO 3LOODLfV 7UDFH D :LONVf /DPEGD D 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW D 6WDWH 3LOODLfV 7UDFH :LONVf /DPEGD 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW 2IIHQVH *URXS 6WDWXV 3LOODLfV 7UDFH D :LONVf /DPEGD D 5R\fV /DUJHVW 5RRW D GS K S

PAGE 150

7DEOH 8QLYDULDWH $QDO\VHV IRU 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH ,QGLFHV F ] 6RXUFH 7\SH ,,, 66 GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) &RUUHFWHG 0RGHO 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW D 9RLFH D 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ ,QWHUFHSW D 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW D 9RLFH D 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ $JH D 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW E 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ (WKQLFLW\ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ *UDGH 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW E 9RLFH E 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ E *UDGHV LQ 6FKRRO 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW D 9RLFH D 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ D 6WDWH 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 2IIHQVH *URXS 6WDWXV E 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW D 9RLFH D 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ D (UURU 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7RWDO 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ ES

PAGE 151

7DEOH 0HDQV IRU *URXS 6WDWXV RQ 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW 9RLFH DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ *URXS 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW W 9RLFH 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 0HDQ 6( 0HDQ 6( 0HDQ 6( 1R 2IIHQVH 1RQYLROHQW6WDWXV 2IIHQVH 9LROHQW 2IIHQVH

PAGE 152

&+$37(5 &21&/86,216 7KH IRFXV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR IXUWKHU H[SORUH DQG H[SDQG RQ )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHVf -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR )RQGDFDUR -DFNVRQ DQG /XHVFKHU f ZRUNLQJ PRGHO IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH FDXVHV DQG FRQVHTXHQFHV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW LQ DGROHVFHQFH $ FRQVLGHUDEOH ERG\ RI HYLGHQFH LQ WKH IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW KLJK OHYHOV RI RQJRLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG ORZ OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRKHVLRQ DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHV LQ GHYLDQW DQG H[WHUQDOL]LQJ EHKDYLRU DV ZHOO DV GHFUHDVHG SV\FKRORJLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ HYLGHQFHG E\ LQWHUQDOL]LQJ V\PSWRPV $U\ 'XQFDQ 'XQFDQ t +RSV 'DQLHOV t 0RRV )RUPRVR *RQ]DOHV t $LNHQ )UDVHU *HKULQJ:HQW]HO )HOGPDQ t 0XQVRQ *RUPDQ6PLWK 7RODQ =HOOL t +XHVPDQQ +ROPEHFN t 2f'RQQHOO 0F&RUG 0RIIOWW 0RQWHPD\RU 6KHN :HQW]HO t )HOGPDQ f )RQGDFDUR 'XQNOH DQG 3DWKDN f DQG )RQGDFDUR DQG -DFNVRQ f HVWDEOLVKHG D OLQN EHWZHHQ ROGHU DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH RYHUDOO IDLUQHVV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV DQG ERWK JHQHUDO OHYHOV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW DQG FRKHVLRQ 'LDPRQG /XHVFKHU DQG )RQGDFDUR f UHSOLFDWHG WKHVH ILQGLQJV ZLWK D VDPSOH RI \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHV )RQGDFDUR HW DO -DFNVRQ t )RQGDFDUR f VXJJHVWHG SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DV D OLQN EHWZHHQ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG DGROHVFHQW EHKDYLRU 7KH\ SURSRVHG WKDW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SHUFHLYH WKHLU SDUHQWV WUHDW WKHP XQIDLUO\ HVSHFLDOO\ RQ DQ RQJRLQJ EDVLV DUH OLNHO\ WR H[SHULHQFH DQJHU DURXVDO )RU

PAGE 153

VRPH DGROHVFHQWV XQUHVROYHG DQJU\ IHHOLQJV PD\ WUDQVODWH LQWR LQFUHDVHG GHYLDQW DQG DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRU 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VRXJKW WR IXUWKHU H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DQG WR WHVW DVSHFWV RI )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHVf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f SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKHLU IDPLO\fV JHQHUDO OHYHO RI FORVHQHVV KHOSIXOQHVV DQG VXSSRUWLYHQHVV ZHUH SRVLWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK RYHUDOO OHYHOV RI IDLUQHVV EDVHG RQ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf DSSUDLVDO RI SDUHQWDO IDLUQHVV LQ UHVROYLQJ D VSHFLILF IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW 7KH UHVXOWV DOVR VKRZHG DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW IRFXVLQJ RQ H[SUHVVLRQV RI DQJHU DQG SK\VLFDO DJJUHVVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ ZHUH QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK JOREDO MXVWLFH DSSUDLVDOV DJDLQ EDVHG RQ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf UHSRUWHG IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW VFHQDULR

PAGE 154

7KHVH ILQGLQJV VXJJHVWHG WKDW DGROHVFHQWVf EHOLHIV DERXW WKH IDLUQHVV RU XQIDLUQHVV RI WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ D VSHFLILF IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW PD\ LQIOXHQFH OHYHOV RI FRQIOLFW DQG FRKHVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ ,W PD\ DOVR EH WKDW DGROHVFHQWVf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

PAGE 155

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

PAGE 156

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f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f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

PAGE 157

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f SURYLGHV VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH VDPSOH VL]H RI WKH DQDO\VHV IRU WKH QRQYLROHQW DQG YLROHQW RIIHQGLQJ JURXSV LPSDFWHG WKH DELOLW\ WR DFKLHYH D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 3HUVRQDO 5HVSHFW DQG 6WDWXV 5HFRJQLWLRQ 7KH WKLUG JRDO RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR H[SORUH WZR SRVVLEOH SDWKZD\V IURP SHUFHSWLRQV RI LQMXVWLFH WR DQJHU DURXVDO 2QH SDWKZD\ IRFXVHV RQ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ ZKLFK LV EDVHG RQ 7\OHUfV LGHQWLW\EDVHG UHODWLRQDO PRGHO 7\OHU 7\OHU t %ODGHU 7\OHU t /LQG 7\OHU %RHNPDQQ 6PLWK t +XR 7\OHU t 6PLWK f 7\OHUf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t )RQGDFDUR )RQGDFDUR HW DO f VXJJHVW D VHFRQG SDWK EHWZHHQ MXVWLFH DSSUDLVDOV DQG DQJHU SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW ZKLFK IRFXVHV PRUH RQ KXPDQ GLJQLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ VRFLDO VWDWXV DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHU )RU VRPH DGROHVFHQWV WKH IDPLO\ PD\ EH DQ LPSRUWDQW UHIHUHQFH JURXS WKHVH DGROHVFHQWV PD\

PAGE 158

IRFXV PRUH RQ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ )RU RWKHUV EHLQJ WUHDWHG ZLWK GLJQLW\ DV XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDOV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH IDPLO\ UHIHUHQFH JURXS PD\ EH PRUH LPSRUWDQW 7KHVH DGROHVFHQWV PD\ IRFXV PRUH RQ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW /XHVFKHU )RQGDFDUR DQG 0F1DWW f HVWDEOLVKHG UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG DQJHU DURXVDO LQ D VDPSOH RI ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV -DFNVRQ DQG )RQGDFDUR f IRXQG WKDW SHUFHSWLRQV RI ERWK SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU LQ D VDPSOH RI ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV 'LDPRQG HW DO f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

PAGE 159

7KH PHGLDWLRQDO DQDO\VHV ZHUH DOVR DVVHVVHG XVLQJ 6WUXFWXUDO (TXDWLRQ 0RGHOLQJ 6(0f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

PAGE 160

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f WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG IDPLO\ OHYHO SHUFHSWLRQV RI UHVSHFW ZKHQ FRPELQHG LQKLELWHG WKH HIIHFW RI WKH RWKHU ,Q SUHYLRXV DQDO\VHV WKDW GLG QRW LQFOXGH WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV IRU WKLV JURXS LQ 6WXG\ 7ZRf WKHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH QRW UHYHDOHG ,W DSSHDUV WKDW IRU WKH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV SDUWLFXODUO\ JHQGHU DQG WKH VWDWH LQ ZKLFK WKH DGROHVFHQW UHVLGHVf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

PAGE 161

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f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

PAGE 162

SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ RU EHWZHHQ WKH HUURU WHUPV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH YDULDEOHV 7KH WKLUG GLPHQVLRQ YDULHG DV ZKHWKHU WKH PRGHO SUHGLFWHG IXOO RU SDUWLDO PHGLDWLRQ 7KH 6(0 DQDO\VHV QHFHVVLWDWHG D GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKLFK RI WKH WZR VHWV RI PRGHOV EHVW ILW WKH GDWD 7KH WZR VHWV RI PRGHOV YDULHG DV WR ZKLFK YDULDEOHVf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f SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO QR ORQJHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQJHU DURXVDO DQG JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV KRZHYHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ GLG PHGLDWH WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS

PAGE 163

)RU ERWK WKH QRQYLROHQW DQG YLROHQW RIIHQGHUV WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH SURYLGHG WKH EHVW ILW WR WKH GDWD 7KH SDWK HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH QRQYLROHQW JURXS VXJJHVWHG SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW FRPSOHWHO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG DQJU\ DQG LUULWDEOH IHHOLQJV 7KLV ZDV FRQVLVWHG ZLWK WKH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV )RU WKH YLROHQW JURXS WKH SDWK HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH )XOO 0HGLDWLRQ 0RGHO ZLWK &RYDULDQFH VXJJHVWHG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ FRPSOHWHO\ PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQJHU DURXVDO DQG JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VHV IRU +\SRWKHVLV DUH LQWHUHVWLQJ LQ WKDW RYHUDOO WKH LPSDFW RI WKH SHUVRQDO DQG IDPLOLDO UHVSHFW YDULDEOHV RQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV ZHUH LQ WKH RSSRVLWH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFW RI WKRVH VDPH YDULDEOHV RQ DQJHU DURXVDO )RU H[DPSOH IRU WKH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQJHU DURXVDO 6LPLODU \HW FRQWUDGLFWRU\ UHVXOWV ZHUH UHYHDOHG IRU WKH RWKHU JURXSV 2QH SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKHVH ILQGLQJV LV WKDW SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDLUQHVV DQG DQJHU DURXVDO DUH RFFXUULQJ DW WZR VHSDUDWH SRLQWV LQ WLPH DQG WKHUHIRUH DUH LPSDFWHG GLIIHUHQWO\ E\ WKH SHUVRQDO DQG IDPLOLDO UHVSHFW YDULDEOHV ,Q 6WXGLHV 2QH DQG 7ZR DGROHVFHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR GHVFULEH D UHFHQW FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWVJXDUGLDQV DQG WR DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV VSHFLILF WR WKDW FRQIOLFW ([SORULQJ WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ QHFHVVLWDWHV WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW VWXGHQWV GLG RQO\ FRQVLGHU WKH VSHFLILF FRQIOLFW LQ DQVZHULQJ TXHVWLRQV $OWKRXJK WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV DVN WKHP WR GR VR DGROHVFHQWV PD\ KDYH DQVZHUHG TXHVWLRQV EDVHG RQ WKHLU FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKHLU IDPLO\fV JHQHUDO SUDFWLFHV RI FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ WKDW KDYH GHYHORSHG RYHU D SHULRG RI WLPH ,W LV OLNHO\ WKDW DGROHVFHQWVf DQVZHUV ZHUH EDVHG RQ ERWK WKH VSHFLILF FRQIOLFW

PAGE 164

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fPXVW QRW EH LPSRUWDQWf +RZHYHU RYHU WLPH LI DGROHVFHQWV FRQWLQXH WR IHHO WKH\ DUH UHFHLYLQJ SRRU WUHDWPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ WKH\ PD\ SHUFHLYH WKHLU SDUHQWV GR QRW YDOXH WKHP DV IDPLO\ PHPEHUV 7KH DGROHVFHQW PD\ EHJLQ WR EHOLHYH fP\ SDUHQW NHHSV WUHDWLQJ PH XQIDLUO\ PXVW QRW EH LPSRUWDQW WR WKLV IDPLO\f 7KHVH EHOLHIV LQ WXUQ PLJKW IXHO DQJU\ IHHOLQJV 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\fV FURVVVHFWLRQDO VXUYH\ GHVLJQ FDQQRW DVVHVV WKHVH LVVXHV 7KHUH LV QR ZD\ WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH DGROHVFHQWV FRPSOHWHO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRQIOLFW VFHQDULR WKH\ UHSRUWHG /RQJLWXGLQDO GHVLJQV HVSHFLDOO\ WKRVH LQFOXGLQJ LQWHUYLHZV REVHUYDWLRQV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV DQG TXDOLWDWLYH DQDO\VHV PD\ SURYLGH D EHWWHU IUDPHZRUN IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ DQ\ WLPH HIIHFWV RQ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf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

PAGE 165

MXGJHPHQWV UHJDUGLQJ IDLUQHVV DQG IHHOLQJV RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW LQ VRPH UHVSHFWV WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV WKRVH LQ WKH QR RIIHQVH JURXS DQG WKRVH LQ WKH YLROHQW RIIHQVH JURXS DSSHDUHG WR EH UHVSRQGLQJ VLPLODUO\ DQG LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVH JURXS ,W LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKH VLPLODULW\ LQ UHVXOWV EHWZHHQ WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH JURXS RI DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG QHYHU HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZDV GXH WR H[WHQVLYH RYHUODS EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR VDPSOHV WKH QRQRIIHQGLQJ JURXS PDGH XS DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WKUHHIRXUWKV RI WKH HQWLUH VDPSOHf 7KHRULHV RI WKH FDXVHV DQG W\SHV RI GHOLQTXHQF\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DGROHVFHQW RIIHQGLQJ PD\ SURYLGH VRPH JXLGDQFH ZLWK UHJDUG WR H[SODLQLQJ WKH FRQWUDVWLQJ UHVXOWV UHYHDOHG ZKHQ FRPSDULQJ WKH QRQRIIHQGLQJ DGROHVFHQWV ZLWK WKRVH UHSRUWLQJ QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV 0RIILWW f GHVFULEHV WZR WUDMHFWRULHV RI GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU 7KH ILUVW LV UHIHUUHG WR DV OLIHFRXUVH SHUVLVWHQW 7KHVH DGROHVFHQWV EHJLQ HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW DQG DJJUHVVLYH EHKDYLRUV DW HDUOLHU DJHV DQG WHQG WR FRQWLQXH WKHLU RIIHQGLQJ WKURXJKRXW DGROHVFHQFH DQG LQWR DGXOWKRRG 7KH VHFRQG DQG PXFK ODUJHU JURXS RI DGROHVFHQWV 0RIILWW f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f DV KDYLQJ JUHDWHU VWDWXV SULYLOHJH DQG SRZHU DVVRFLDWHG

PAGE 166

ZLWK WKHLU GHYLDQW OLIHVW\OH 7KH DGROHVFHQWOLPLWHG JURXS WKHQ EHJLQV PLPLFNLQJ WKHVH EHKDYLRUV 0RIILWWfV f WKHRU\ WKDW DGROHVFHQWVf HQJDJH LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU RXW RI GHVLUH IRU SRZHU DQG WR EH YLHZHG DV LQGHSHQGHQW PD\ KHOS H[SODLQ WKH GLIIHUHQFHV UHYHDOHG DFURVV WKH QRQRIIHQGLQJ DQG QRQYLROHQW DGROHVFHQWV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR 7KRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR HQJDJH LQ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV DUH DOVR OLNHO\ WR EH PRUH LQYROYHG ZLWK WKHLU SHHUV 5HVHDUFK KDV HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU LV OLNHO\ WR RFFXU ZLWKLQ JURXSV DQG WKDW RQH ULVN IDFWRU IRU GHOLQTXHQW EHKDYLRU LV WKH SUHVHQFH RI GHYLDQW SHHUV HJ $U\ HW DO /DKH\ :DOGPDQQ t 0F%XPHWW 6HG\OLW] t -HQNLQV f 5HVHDUFK KDV DOVR VKRZQ WKDW DV FKLOGUHQ PRYH WKURXJK DGROHVFHQFH SHHU UHODWLRQVKLSV EHJLQ WR ULYDO IDPLOLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ WHUPV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKH\ KDYH LQ DQG WKH LPSDFW WKH\ KDYH RQ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf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

PAGE 167

VHHQ DV LPSRUWDQW LQGLYLGXDOV 7KLV FRXOG DOVR H[SODLQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG DQJHU DURXVDO IRU WKLV JURXS $QRWKHU SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH JUHDWHU IRFXV RI PRVW DGROHVFHQWV RQ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ ZLWK UHJDUG WR DQJHU DURXVDO DV ZHOO DV WKH GLIIHUHQW SDWWHUQ RI UHVXOWV IRU WKH QRQYLROHQW RIIHQGLQJ JURXS LV WKH FRQFHSW RI LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ +\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG WKDW DQ DGROHVFHQWf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f DWWHPSWV WR EH PRUH LQGHSHQGHQW DQG PDWXUH /LWWOH UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH FRQFHSW RI LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ ,W LV OLNHO\ KRZHYHU WKDW \RXQJHU FKLOGUHQ DUH PRUH IRFXVHG RQ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ LQ WKDW WKHLU VWDWXV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ DV ZHOO DV RWKHU VRFLRORJLFDO DQG FRPPXQDO

PAGE 168

DVSHFWV RI LGHQWLW\ ZRXOG EH PRUH LPSRUWDQW WR WKHLU VHOIFRQFHSW ,W FRXOG EH WKDW DV FKLOGUHQ HQWHU DQG PRYH WKURXJK DGROHVFHQFH WKH\ EHFRPH PRUH IRFXVHG RQ LQGLYLGXDO DVSHFWV RI LGHQWLW\ LQFOXGLQJ VHHLQJ WKHPVHOYHV DV LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK WKHLU RZQ XQLTXH TXDOLWLHV DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV $FFRUGLQJ WR 0RIILWW PDQ\ DGROHVFHQWV HQJDJH LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WR DFFHOHUDWH WKH SURFHVV RI JURZLQJ XS DQG VHSDUDWLQJ WKHPVHOYHV IURP WKHLU SDUHQWV 7KHLU LQYROYHPHQW LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU PD\ DVVLVW LQ WKH WUDQVLWLRQ WR D IRFXV RQ LQGLYLGXDO LGHQWLW\ IURP D FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ ,QFOXGLQJ PHDVXUHV RI LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV ZKLFK GLIIHUHQWLDWH DGROHVFHQWV ZLWK UHJDUG WR GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZRXOG DVVHVV ZKHWKHU LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ PD\ EH SOD\LQJ D UROH LQ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VXJJHVW D PHWKRG IRU LPSURYLQJ DGROHVFHQWVf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fV DQJU\ IHHOLQJV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 7KH ILQGLQJV IURP +\SRWKHVLV VXJJHVW WKDW SDUHQWV VKRXOG PDNH GLOLJHQW HIIRUWV WR H[SUHVV WR WKHLU FKLOGUHQ WKDW WKH\ YDOXH DQG UHVSHFW WKHP ERWK DV LPSRUWDQW PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ DQG LPSRUWDQW LQGLYLGXDOV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKHLU VWDWXV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\f 7KH UHVXOWV DOVR VXJJHVW WKDW IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR DUH HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW RIIHQVHV SDUHQWVf H[SUHVVLRQ RI UHVSHFW IRU WKHLU FKLOG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO PD\ EH

PAGE 169

HYHQ PRUH OLNHO\ WR GHFUHDVH RU SUHYHQW DQJU\ IHHOLQJV DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK H[SUHVVLRQV RI UHVSHFWLQJ WKH FKLOG DV D IDPLO\ PHPEHUf ,GHQWLW\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ 7KH IRXUWK JRDO RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR LQFRUSRUDWH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LQWR )RQGDFDUR DQG FROOHDJXHVf ZRUNLQJ PRGHO RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDFHWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DQJHU DURXVDO DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU &KHHN DQG FROOHDJXHV &KHHN &KHHN t %ULJJV &KHHN 7URS &KHQ t 8QGHUZRRG f FRQFHSWXDOL]HG WZR LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV EHOLHYHG WR EH UHOHYDQW WR WKH SUHVHQW WKHRU\ SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ DQG FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ 3HUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ LV D IRFXV RQ SULYDWH LGHDV DERXW VHOIKRRG DQG VXEMHFWLYH IHHOLQJV RI XQLTXHQHVV DQG FRQWLQXLW\ ZKLOH FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ VRFLRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV DQG IHHOLQJV RI FRPPLWPHQW WR RQHfV FRPPXQLW\ )RU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ +\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG DQ DGROHVFHQWfV SUHGRPLQDQW LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ ZKHWKHU SHUVRQDO RU FROOHFWLYH ZRXOG GLFWDWH ZKLFK RI WKH WZR SDWKV WR DQJHU DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU HLWKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI ORZ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW RU ORZ VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQf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

PAGE 170

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f ,Q FRQWUDVW IRU WKRVH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR VHOIGHVFULEHG DV IRFXVLQJ D JUHDW GHDO RQ FROOHFWLYH LGHQWLW\ KLJKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI GLVUHVSHFW DW WKH IDPLOLDO OHYHO ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ,W PD\ EH WKDW WKHVH XQH[SHFWHG UHVXOWV DUH LGLRV\QFUDWLF WR WKLV VPDOO GDWD VHW )XWXUH

PAGE 171

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t 0F1DWW f 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VHV RI 6WXG\ 7ZR UHYHDOHG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ YRLFH DQG ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DV ZHOO D PHGLDWLQJ HIIHFW RI YRLFH RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH PHGLDWLRQDO DQDO\VHV ZHUH DOVR UHYHDOHG DFURVV WKH RIIHQVHW\SH JURXSV 7KHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH DVVHVVHG LQ ERWK 6WXG\ 2QH DQG 6WXG\ 7ZR KRZHYHU WKH UHVXOWV IRU 6WXG\ 2QH ZHUH QRQVLJQLILFDQW ,Q 6WXG\ 7ZR WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH DVVHVVHG XWLOL]LQJ UHJUHVVLRQ WHFKQLTXHV ZKLFK FRQWUROOHG IRU WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 7KH DQDO\VHV RI D PHGLDWLQJ PHFKDQLVP ZHUH DOVR DQDO\]HG XVLQJ 6(0 WHFKQLTXHV 6LPLODU WR WKH DQDO\VHV IRU +\SRWKHVLV PXOWLSOH YHUVLRQV RI WKH VWUXFWXUDO HTXDWLRQ PRGHOV ZHUH WHVWHG 7KH PRGHOV YDULHG DV WR ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH\ ZHUH EDVHG RQ WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ WKH YDULDEOHV RU DQ DOWHUQDWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH K\SRWKHVL]HG UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV WKDW YRLFH PHGLDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JOREDO SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ,Q WKH DOWHUQDWLYH VHW RI PRGHOV JOREDO

PAGE 172

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

PAGE 173

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f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

PAGE 174

0XFK RI WKH UHVHDUFK RQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQFHSWXDOL]HV YRLFH DV RQH DVSHFW RI WKLV FRQVWUXFW 7KLV DSSURDFK VXJJHVWV WKDW YRLFH DIIHFWV DQ RXWFRPH LQ WKLV FDVH GHYLDQW EHKDYLRUf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f EHKDYLRU DV XQIDLU WKH\ DWWHPSW WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW PD\ KDYH FRQWULEXWHG WR WKLV XQIDLUQHVV DQG IRFXV RQ ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH\ KDG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW EHIRUH WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV PDGH 3RVWKRF DQDO\VHV IRU WKH GDWD LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR VXJJHVWHG SDUWLDO VXSSRUW IRU WKLV H[SODQDWLRQ +ROPEHFN f GHVFULEHG D UHJUHVVLRQ PHWKRG IRU WHVWLQJ IRU OLQHDU PRGHUDWLRQ HIIHFWV ,Q WKLV DSSURDFK DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP FDOFXODWHG E\ WKH PXOWLSOLFDWLYH SURGXFW RI WKH SUHGLFWRU DQG WKH PRGHUDWRUf LV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ,Q 6WXG\ 7ZR WKH SURGXFW RI PXOWLSO\LQJ WKH 9RLFH DQG RQHLWHP *OREDO 3URFHGXUDO )DLUQHVV VFDOH VFRUHV ZDV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP 9RLFH DQG *3) ZHUH HQWHUHG LQ WKH ILUVW VWHS RI D KLHUDUFKLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ IROORZHG E\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP RQ WKH VHFRQG VWHS 7KLV ZDV WHVWHG IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH WKUHH VXEJURXSV 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP ZDV VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH DQDO\VHV IRU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH DQG WKH JURXS RI QRQRIIHQGLQJ

PAGE 175

DGROHVFHQWV LQGLFDWLQJ D PRGHUDWRU HIIHFW )XWXUH VWXGLHV ZLOO EH QHHGHG WR IXUWKHU DVVHVV ZKHWKHU YRLFH DFWV DV D PRGHUDWRU RU PHGLDWRU DQG ZKHWKHU WKHUH LV DQ\ GLIIHUHQFH LQ LWV HIIHFW DFURVV WKH RIIHQVHW\SH JURXSV $OWKRXJK WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ GR QRW GHILQLWLYHO\ GHWHUPLQH WKH PHFKDQLVPV RI WKH HIIHFW RI YRLFH RQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WKH\ GR UHYHDO WKDW WKHUH LV D UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW SDUHQWV PD\ LPSURYH WKHLU FKLOGUHQfV SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH IDLUQHVV RI IDPLO\ GHFLVLRQ SURFHGXUHV DQG SRVVLEO\ GHFUHDVH GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU E\ DOORZLQJ DGROHVFHQWV WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SUHVHQW WKHLU YHUVLRQ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ EHIRUH WKH SDUHQWV PDNH D GHFLVLRQ DQG DSSO\ DQ\ FRQVHTXHQFHV WR WKH DGROHVFHQWV 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3URFHGXUDO -XVWLFH ,QGLFHV DFURVV 2IIHQVH *URXSV 7KH VL[WK DQG ILQDO JRDO RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR PDNH FRPSDULVRQV RQ VSHFLILF DVSHFWV RI WKH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQVWUXFW LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFHf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f 7KHVH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ WKH WKUHH VSHFLILF DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH +\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG WKDW ORZHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZRXOG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFH 7KH ILQGLQJV IRU 6WXG\ 7ZR ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKLV K\SRWKHVLV IRU DOO WKUHH SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH FRQVWUXFWV 7KHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH DVVHVVHG YLD D 0$1&29$ WKDW FRQWUROOHG

PAGE 176

IRU DJH HWKQLFLW\ JUDGH JUDGHV LQ VFKRRO DQG VWDWH 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKH 1R 2IIHQVH JURXS UHSRUWHG WKH KLJKHVW VFRUHV RQ WKHVH FRQVWUXFWV IROORZHG E\ DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW HQJDJLQJ LQ QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQVHV $GROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV UHSRUWHG WKH ORZHVW VFRUHV RQ WKHVH FRQVWUXFWV 7KH UHVXOWV RI +\SRWKHVLV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK RQ WKH LPSDFW RI SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV RQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU 0RQWHPD\RU f UHSRUWHG WKDW GHILFLWV LQ SDUHQWLQJ VNLOOV LQFOXGLQJ PRQLWRULQJ HIIHFWLYH GLVFLSOLQH DQG UHLQIRUFHPHQW RI SRVLWLYH EHKDYLRUf LQFUHDVH FRHUFLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ SDUHQWV DQG DGROHVFHQWV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG DJJUHVVLYHQHVV DQG UXOHEUHDNLQJ EHKDYLRUV E\ WKH DGROHVFHQW 3DWWHUVRQ f IRXQG WKDW PRUH FRHUFLYH SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU %DXPULQG f DOVR GHVFULEHG SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV DXWKRULWDULDQ DXWKRULWDWLYH DQG SHUPLVVLYHf DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DGROHVFHQW EHKDYLRU 3DWWHUVRQfV FRHUFLYH DQG %DXPULQGf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fV DELOLW\ WR KDYH LQSXW LQ WKH IDPLO\ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV

PAGE 177

%RWK %DXPULQG f DQG 3DWWHUVRQfV f SDUHQWLQJ VW\OHV DSSHDU WR FRQVLGHU WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH FKLOG KDYLQJ LQSXW LQWR WKH GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV LH YRLFHf 7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VXJJHVW DGGLWLRQDO FRQVWUXFWV IRU SDUHQWV WR FRQVLGHU ZKHQ UHVROYLQJ FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU DGROHVFHQWV LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ $OWKRXJK 6WXG\ 7ZR ZDV QRW ORQJLWXGLQDO DQG FDXVDWLRQ FDQQRW EH LQIHUUHG WKH UHVXOWV GR VXJJHVW SDUHQWLQJ SUDFWLFHV WKDW PD\ LQFUHDVH DGROHVFHQWVf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f SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKHLU SDUHQWVf WUHDWPHQW GXULQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ DUH UHODWHG WR DGROHVFHQW DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV DQG EHKDYLRUV 3RVVLEOH LQWHUYHQWLRQV IRU GHFUHDVLQJ DGROHVFHQW DQJHU DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZRXOG LQFOXGH WKRVH WKDW UHGXFH DFWXDO RU SHUFHLYHG XQIDLUQHVV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UHVROYLQJ IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW 3DUHQWV DQG DGROHVFHQWV FRXOG EH WDXJKW WKURXJK ERWK SDUHQWWUDLQLQJ DQG IDPLO\ WKHUDS\ FRQIOLFWUHVROXWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV WKDW DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO IDLUQHVV 7KHVH ZRXOG LQFOXGH VWUDWHJLHV WKDW DOORZ DOO SDUWLHV WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH LQSXW LQ GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVVHV DV ZHOO DV EHLQJ DEOH WR VDIHO\ SURYLGH IHHGEDFN DERXW IHHOLQJV UHJDUGLQJ FRQIOLFW RXWFRPHV )DPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ

PAGE 178

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f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

PAGE 179

FRQWULEXWLRQ LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ PD\ KDYH RQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU $ WKLUG OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV WKH JHQHUDO PHDVXUH RI DQJHU DQG LUULWDELOLW\ XVHG DV D SUR[\ PHDVXUH RI DQJHU DURXVDO LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR 6WXG\ 2QH XVHG DQ LWHP PHDVXULQJ WKH DGROHVFHQWVf DQJHU DV D VSHFLILF UHVSRQVH WR WKH VHOIUHSRUWHG FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWV 7KLV PRUH VSHFLILF PHDVXUH DOORZHG IRU WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI DQJHU DV D UHVSRQVH WR SHUFHLYHG IDLUQHVV RU XQIDLUQHVV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI DQJHU DV D W\SLFDO DIIHFWLYH VW\OH RI WKH DGROHVFHQW 7KH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV
PAGE 180

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f WR GLYLGH WKH DGROHVFHQWV LQWR WKUHH JURXSV PRVW RI WKH DGROHVFHQWVf 65'6 WRWDO VFRUHV ZHUH RQ WKH ORZHU HQG RI WKH VFDOH 65'6 WRWDO VFRUHV UDQJH IURP WR IRU DGROHVFHQW GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW \HDU ZLWK VFRUHV RI FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR 1HYHU VFRUHV RI FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR 6RPHWLPHV DQG VFRUHV RI ILYH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR 2IWHQ )RU WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR WRWDO VFRUHV UDQJHG IURP WR KRZHYHU b RI WKH VFRUHV ZHUH OHVV WKDQ )RU WKH DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ YLROHQW RIIHQVHV WKHUH ZDV JUHDWHU YDULDELOLW\ LQ VFRUHV ZLWK b RI VFRUHV EHORZ DQG b RI VFRUHV EHWZHHQ DQG +RZHYHU RYHUDOO WKH QXPEHU RI DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG HQJDJLQJ LQ GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU LQ WKH UDQJH RI 6RPHWLPHV WR 2IWHQ ZDV VPDOO 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\

PAGE 181

QHHG WR EH UHSOLFDWHG LQ VDPSOHV RI DGROHVFHQWV ZKR UHSRUW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH DQG GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU DUH WKH VDPH DW WKH KLJKHU OHYHO RI GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU ERWK IRU DGROHVFHQWV ZKR DUH DQG DUH QRW LQYROYHG LQ WKH MXYHQLOH MXVWLFH V\VWHPf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f UHVSRQVHV ZHUH PRUH VLPLODU WR WKH QRQRIIHQGLQJ JURXS WKDQ WKRVH RI WKH QRQYLROHQW RIIHQGHUV ,I WKLV ILQGLQJ LV UHSOLFDWHG LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV DVSHFWV VSHFLILF WR QRQYLROHQW DQG VWDWXV RIIHQGHUV ZLOO QHHG WR EH H[SORUHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW FDXVHV WKLV JURXS WR UHVSRQG GLIIHUHQWO\ IURP ERWK QRQRIIHQGHUV DQG YLROHQW RIIHQGHUV 7KH VXUYH\ GHVLJQ RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ GRHV QRW DOORZ D GHHSHU DQDO\VLV RI WKH DGROHVFHQWVf XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI RU MXVWLILFDWLRQV IRU WKHLU RIIHQGLQJ DQG KRZ SHUFHSWLRQV RI IDPLO\ FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV LPSDFW WKHLU RIIHQGLQJ 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG DOORZ D GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKH SURIIHUHG H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH SDWWHUQ RI ILQGLQJV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR LV DFFXUDWH )XWXUH UHVHDUFK WKDW LQFOXGHV LQWHUYLHZ IRUPDWV DQG TXDOLWDWLYH DQDO\VHV ZRXOG SURYLGH EHWWHU LQVLJKW LQWR WKH DGROHVFHQWVf XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKHLU RZQ H[SHULHQFHV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH IDPLO\ ,Q WKH 6(0 DQDO\VHV IRU +\SRWKHVLV DQG WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG YHUVLRQV RI WKH PRGHOV LQ ZKLFK SHUVRQDO UHVSHFWVWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFH ZHUH WKH PHGLDWRUV ZHUH

PAGE 182

VHOHFWHG DV WKH EHVW ILWWLQJ PRGHOV IRU WKH GDWD +RZHYHU WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKHVH PRGHOV ZDV EDVHG RQ GDWDGULYH PRGLILFDWLRQV WR WKH +\SRWKHVLV PRGHOV WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI WKH FRYDULDQFHVf DQG WKH ILW LQGLFHV %HFDXVH JURXSVSHFLILF PRGHOV ZHUH XVHG HDFK PRGHO ZDV RQO\ WHVWHG ZLWK RQH VDPSOH RI DGROHVFHQWV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH PRGHOV LQ 6WXG\ 7ZR ZHUH DOVR IDLUO\ VLPSOLVWLF LQ WKDW WKH\ RQO\ PHDVXUHG WKH HIIHFWV RI RQH RU WZR DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW DQG VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ RU YRLFHf ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKHVH PRGHOV ZLOO QRW JHQHUDOL]H WR RWKHU VDPSOHV )XWXUH VWXGLHV ZLOO EH QHHGHG WR UHSOLFDWH WKH SUHVHQW UHVXOWV DQG YDOLGDWH WKH PRGHOV 0RUH FRPSOH[ PRGHOV WKDW WDNH WKH PXOWLSOH SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH MXGJHPHQWV LQWR DFFRXQW ZKLFK PD\ EH RFFXUULQJ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ RU VHULDOO\ ZLOO DOVR EH QHHGHG WR IXOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKH FRPSOH[ QDWXUH E\ ZKLFK MXVWLFH DSSUDLVDOV LPSDFW IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ DQG DGROHVFHQWVf HPRWLRQV DQG EHKDYLRUV 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ EHFDXVH RI LWV FURVVVHFWLRQDO QDWXUH GRHV QRW SURYLGH JXLGDQFH ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKHRUHWLFDO UDWKHU WKDQ GDWD GULYHQ WHVWV RI ZKHWKHU WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG RU DOWHUQDWLYH PRGHOV LQ +\SRWKHVHV SURYLGH WKH EHWWHU ILW WR WKH GDWD :LWKLQ WKH SURSRVHG WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DVVHVVHG E\ +\SRWKHVLV ERWK VHWV RI PRGHOV ZRXOG EH SODXVLEOH ,W PD\ EH WKDW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR SHUFHLYH WKHLU SDUHQWVf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

PAGE 183

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f 7KHVH PRGHOV ZRXOG LQFOXGH WKH IDPLO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ YDULDEOHV LGHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ YDULRXV DVSHFWV RI SURFHGXUDO MXVWLFH LQFOXGLQJ DQ RYHUDOO PHDVXUH SHUVRQDO UHVSHFW VWDWXV UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG YRLFHf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

PAGE 184

FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV GHFUHDVH QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV E\ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV UHODWHG WR FRQIOLFW UHVROXWLRQ SURFHGXUHV DQG GHFUHDVH DGROHVFHQW GHYLDQW EHKDYLRU

PAGE 185

$33(1',; $ 3$5(17$/ ,1)250(' &216(17 $1' 3$57,&,3$17 $66(17 )250 5(6($5&+ &216(17 )250 )25 3$5(17$/*8$5',$1 ,1)250(' &216(17 $66(17 67$7(0(17 $'2/(6&(17 3(563(&7,9(6 21 352&('85$/ -867,&( ,1 5(62/ 9,12 )$0,/ < &21)/,&7 3ULQFLSDO ,QYHVWLJDWRU 0LFKDHO 3 &DUH\ 3K' &R,QYHVWLJDWRUVf -HQQLIHU /XHVFKHU 06 3KRQH QXPEHUVf :KDW \RX VKRXOG NQRZ DERXW WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ f :H JLYH \RX WKLV FRQVHQW IRUP VR WKDW \RX PD\ UHDG DERXW WKH SXUSRVH ULVNV DQG EHQHILWV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ $OO LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKLV IRQQ ZLOO EH FRPPXQLFDWHG WR \RX YHUEDOO\ E\ WKH UHVHDUFK VWDII DV ZHOO f 7KH PDLQ JRDO RI UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV LV WR JDLQ NQRZOHGJH WKDW PD\ KHOS IXWXUH FKLOGUHQ f :H FDQQRW SURPLVH WKDW WKLV UHVHDUFK ZLOO EHQHILW \RXU FKLOG -XVW OLNH UHJXODU FDUH WKLV UHVHDUFK FDQ KDYH VLGH HIIHFWV WKDW FDQ EH VHULRXV RU PLQRU f
PAGE 186

352&('85(6 $1' '85$7,21 ,I \RX GHFLGH WR DOORZ \RXU FKLOG WR SDUWLFLSDWH \RXU FKLOG ZLOO ILOO RXW VHYHUDO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV
PAGE 187

VWXG\ XQOHVV \RX JLYH XV \RXU SHUPLVVLRQ WR XVH RU GLVFORVH \RXU FKLOGfV SHUVRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ E\ VLJQLQJ WKLV GRFXPHQW
PAGE 188

$87+25,=$7,21 <28 $5( 0$.,1* $ '(&,6,21 :+(7+(5 25 127 72 $//2: <285 &+,/' 72 3$57,&,3$7( ,1 7+,6 5(6($5&+ 678'< <285 6,*1$785( ,1',&$7(6 7+$7 <28 +$9( 5($' $1' 81'(56722' 7+( ,1)250$7,21 3529,'(' $%29( +$9( +$' $// <285 48(67,216 $16:(5(' $1' +$9( '(&,'(' 72 $//2: <285 &+,/' 72 3$57,&,3$7( %< 6,*1,1* 7+,6 '2&80(17 <28 $87+25,=( 86 72 86( 25 ',6&/26( <285 &+,/'f6 3(5621$/ ,1)250$7,21 $6 '(6&5,%(' ,1 7+,6 )250

PAGE 189

7KH GDWH \RX VLJQ WKLV GRFXPHQW WR HQUROO LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKDW LV WRGD\fV GDWH 0867 IDOO EHWZHHQ WKH GDWHV LQGLFDWHG RQ WKH DSSURYDO VWDPS DIIL[HG WR WKH ERWWRP RI HDFK SDJH 7KHVH GDWHV LQGLFDWH WKDW WKLV IRUP LV YDOLG :KHQ \RX HQUROO LQ WKH VWXG\ EXW GR QRW UHIOHFW +RZ ORQJ \RX PD\ SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ (DFK SDJH RI WKLV ,QIRUPHG &RQVHQW )RUP LV 6WDPSHG WR LQGLFDWH WKH IRUPfV YDOLGLW\ DV DSSURYHG E\ WKH 0&2 ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG ,5%f 1DPH RI 6XEMHFW SOHDVH SULQWf 6LJQDWXUH RI 6XEMHFW RU /HJDOO\ $XWKRUL]HG 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 'DWH 5HODWLRQVKLS WR 6XEMHFW DP 7LPH SP 1DPH RI 3HUVRQ 2EWDLQLQJ ,QIRUPHG &RQVHQW SOHDVH SULQWf 6LJQDWXUH RI 3HUVRQ 2EWDLQLQJ ,QIRUPHG &RQVHQW DV UHTXLUHG E\ ,&+ JXLGHOLQHVf 6LJQDWXUH RI :LWQHVV WR &RQVHQW 3URFHVV DV UHTXLUHG E\ ,&+ JXLGHOLQHVf <28 :,// %( *,9(1 $ 6,*1(' &23< 2) 7+,6 )250 72 .((3 ,I \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKLV VWXG\ RU FRQVHQW IRUP EH\RQG WKRVH DQVZHUHG E\ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU LQFOXGLQJ TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH UHVHDUFK \RXU ULJKWV DV D UHVHDUFK VXEMHFW RU UHVHDUFKUHODWHG LQMXULHV SOHDVH IHHO IUHH WR FRQWDFW 5 'RXJODV :LONHUVRQ 3K' $VVRFLDWH 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW IRU 5HVHDUFK 0HGLFDO &ROOHJH RI 2KLR DW f

PAGE 190

$66(17 67$7(0(17 0\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ LV YROXQWDU\ KDYH UHDG DQG XQGHUVWRRG WKH DERYH LQIRUPDWLRQ DVNHG DQ\ TXHVWLRQV ZKLFK PD\ KDYH DQG KDYH DJUHHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH ZLOO EH JLYHQ D VLJQHG FRS\ RI WKLV IRUP WR NHHS 1DPH RI 6XEMHFW 6LJQDWXUH RI 6XEMHFW

PAGE 191

$33(1',; % 0($685(6 'HPRJUDSKLF 6KHHW 3OHDVH FLUFOH RU PDUN RQH UHVSRQVH IRU HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV *HQGHU )HPDOH 0DOH *UDGH 6FKRRO DWWHQGLQJ 3OHDVH LQGLFDWH \RXU DJH LQ \HDUV (WKQLF RULJLQ $IULFDQ$PHULFDQ $VLDQ$PHULFDQ (XURSHDQ$PHULFDQ +LVSDQLF$PHULFDQ 1DWLYH $PHULFDQ %LUDFLDO SOHDVH OLVWf 2WKHU SOHDVH OLVWf 0DULWDO VWDWXV RI \RXU ELRORJLFDO SDUHQWV 0DUULHG :LGRZHG 'LYRUFHG 6HSDUDWHG 1HYHU PDUULHG +RZ IDU GLG \RXU IDWKHU RU JXDUGLDQf JR LQ VFKRRO" /HVV WKDQ WK JUDGH WK JUDGH RU OHVV 6RPH KLJK VFKRRO )LQLVKHG KLJK VFKRRO 6RPH FROOHJH RU RWKHU VFKRROLQJ DIWHU KLJK VFKRRO )LQLVKHG FROOHJH *UDGXDWH RU SURIHVVLRQDO VFKRRO IRU H[DPSOH GRFWRU RU ODZ\HUf 'RQfW NQRZ

PAGE 192

+RZ IDU GLG \RXU PRWKHU RU JXDUGLDQf JR LQ VFKRRO" /HVV WKDQ WK JUDGH OK JUDGH RU OHVV 6RPH KLJK VFKRRO )LQLVKHG KLJK VFKRRO 6RPH FROOHJH RU RWKHU VFKRROLQJ DIWHU KLJK VFKRRO )LQLVKHG FROOHJH *UDGXDWH RU SURIHVVLRQDO VFKRRO IRU H[DPSOH GRFWRU RU ODZ\HUf 'RQfW NQRZ ,I \RXU IDWKHU RU JXDUGLDQf ZRUNV SOHDVH ZULWH ZKDW KH GRHV IRU KLV MRE ,I \RXU PRWKHU RU JXDUGLDQf ZRUNV SOHDVH ZULWH ZKDW VKH GRHV IRU D MRE :KR DUH \RX OLYLQJ ZLWK" &LUFOH D+ WKDW DSSO\ %LRORJLFDO PRWKHU $GRSWLYH PRWKHU 6WHSPRWKHU %LRORJLFDO IDWKHU $GRSWLYH IDWKHU 6WHSIDWKHU 6LEOLQJV LI VR QXPEHU RI VLEOLQJV 2WKHU SOHDVH OLVWf +DYH \RX HYHU EHHQ DUUHVWHG"
PAGE 193

)DPLO\ 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 3OHDVH WKLQN DERXW DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQIOLFW RU GLVDJUHHPHQW \RX KDYH KDG ZLWK RQH RU ERWK RI \RXU SDUHQWV RU JXDUGLDQV RYHU WKH ODVW WZHOYH PRQWKV IRU H[DPSOH DERXW KHOSLQJ DURXQG WKH KRXVH FOHDQLQJ \RXU URRP KRPHZRUN ORZ JUDGHV HWFf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f 'LG RQH RU PRUH RI \RXU VLEOLQJV JHW LQYROYHG LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ"
PAGE 194

6HFWLRQ % 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VHFWLRQ LV WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG WKH FRQIOLFW RU GLVDJUHHPHQW \RX MXVW GHVFULEHG )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH WHUP fSDUHQWVff UHIHUV WR \RXU SDUHQWVf DQGRU JXDUGLDQVf 5HDG HDFK LWHP FDUHIXOO\ )RU WKH IROORZLQJ LWHPV FLUFOH D QXPEHU IURP f IRU 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH WR f 6WURQJO\ $JUHH WKDW EHVW GHVFULEHV \RXU OHYHO RI DJUHHPHQW UHODWHG WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ \RX GHVFULEHG ([DPSOHV 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH 6WURQJO\ $JUHH
PAGE 195

6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH
PAGE 196

7KH RXWFRPH RI WKLV VLWXDWLRQ ZDV YHU\ IDYRUDEOH IRU \RX 7KH RXWFRPH RI WKLV VLWXDWLRQ ZDV YHU\ IDLU 6WURQJO\ 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH $JUHH
PAGE 197

IULHQGO\ 6WURQJO\ 'LVDHUHH 6WURQJO\ $HUHH ZDUP ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR PH WR EH UHVSHFWHG DV D XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDO UHVSHFWHG DV D SHUVRQ ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR PH WR EH SHUFHLYHG DV EHLQJ D YDOXHG VRQGDXJKWHU D YDOXHG PHPEHU RI WKH IDPLO\ ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR PH WR EH SHUFHLYHG DV EHLQJ LQWHOOLJHQW FRPSHWHQW PDWXUH UHVSRQVLEOH FRQVFLHQWLRXV VWURQJ SRZHUIXO VWDEOH IULHQGO\ ZDUP 7KH ZD\ P\ SDUHQWV WUHDWHG PH PDGH PH IHHO EHWWHU DERXW P\VHOI DV D SHUVRQ

PAGE 198

6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH EHWWHU DERXW P\VHOI DV D XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDO PRUH YDOXHG DV D VRQGDXJKWHU PRUH YDOXHG DV D PHPEHU RI WKH IDPLO\ 7KH ZD\ P\ SDUHQWV WUHDWHG PH PDGH PH IHHO ZRUVH DERXW P\VHOI DV D SHUVRQ ZRUVH DERXW P\VHOI DV D XQLTXH LQGLYLGXDO OHVV YDOXHG DV D VRQGDXJKWHU OHVV YDOXHG DV D PHPEHU RI WKH IDPLO\ 7KH ZD\ P\ SDUHQWV WUHDWHG PH PDGH PH IHHO DQJU\ VDG HPEDUUDVVHG DVKDPHG GHSUHVVHG SOHDVHG SURXG 6WURQJO\ $JUHH

PAGE 199

)DPLO\ (QYLURQPHQW 6FDOH 7KHUH DUH VWDWHPHQWV EHORZ 7KH\ DUH VWDWHPHQWV DERXW IDPLOLHV
PAGE 200

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fW HYHU JHW DQ\ZKHUH E\ UDLVLQJ \RXU YRLFH 4XHVWLRQV $ERXW WKH .LQG RI 3HUVRQ

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJKGPLBVB_IWGTLW INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T00:49:34Z PACKAGE AA00025746_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES