Darragh Scully

2004413

Psy2204

Assignment number 2

Is adolesence typically a time of crisis? A critical construct of adolescent behavior research.

Development can be defined as the sequence of age related changes that occur as a person progresses from conception to death. It includes both biological and behavioral changes that both have affects on the other. G. Stanley Hall (cited in Weiten p 447, 1995) proposed that adolescence was a time of crisis due to “convulsive instability and disturbing inner turmoil” (Weiten, p. 447, 1995). The scope of adolescent development has been increased widely in the past 2 decades. Peterson (1998) critically reviewed the dominant areas of research of adolescent development. More recently though Steinberg and Morris (2001) have accounted for the latest developments and further incorporated those developments along side the already vast field of the psychology of adolescent development. This paper will focus in on two areas of adolescent development causes and correlates of problem behavior in adolescents and the adolescent passage to adulthood and the effects on the parent-adolescent relationship.

The majority of the research is focused on risk factors though parenting style is at large subject to the positive promotion of authoritative parenting. Research has focused on the interconnection of biological, psychological, individual cultural and historical contexts (Lerner & Galambos 1998).  Lerner (et al 1998) has stated that adolescence will most defiantly be stressful however it not necessarily stormy for the majority. Adolescence is a time of stimulating growth physically, mentally and emotionally (Lerner et al 1998). This can be stressful and Lerner (et al) notes Adolescence, is also a time of “anxiety”(Lerner & Galambos, p 2 1998). The anxiety is antagonized by a combination of multiple biological, psychological, cognitive and social change that take place during adolescent development. In effect the mental, physical and emotional stress is conductive of various degrees of negativity or depressions that may lead to a focus on risk factors rather than protective factors of parents, peers, adolescents and researchers alike.

 The optimistic view on the research in the area of parental relationships has promoted the protective factors of authoritative parenting style (Mounts 2001). The research in this paper shows two areas, risk factors and protective factors. That would be inline with the premonition that suggests adolescence is generally not a stormy period for the majority of the adolescent population (Steinberg & Morris 2001), Lerner & Galambos, 1998). For example White & Labvouvie (1994) concluded that problem behavior is specific to a minority group of adolescents. Hayne, Nansel, Eite., Crump, Saylor, Yu and Simmons-Mortens (2001) indicated that bullying a predominant form of deviancy, is a norm of anti social youth. It is believed that adolescent onset delinquency forms the majority of the delinquent group as opposed to the more pathological life course persistent offender (White & Labouvie, 1994, Hayne, Nansel, Eite., Crump, Saylor, Yu and Simmons-Mortens, 2001). The adolescent onset offender will predominantly return to a stable existence joining the majority of adolescence in a productive period of young adult hood (Hayne, Nansel, Eite., Crump, Saylor, Yu and Simmons-Mortens, 2001). This shows two things.

First is that parent peer relationships may be more predominant than psychopathology in the formation of adolescents who find storminess in adolescence. Secondly that research in the area of parent peer relationships in adolescence may be conclusive evidence for strategies that may help broader social problems diminish. For example external factors which pressure parents in ways that cause them to be authoritarian or neglectful may be the focus of attention. A focus on single parents, disabled parents, mentally ill parents or criminal parents whom are likely to suffer from external stress that subsequently may lead to authoritatarian parenting or neglectful parenting. The promotion of a parenting style, which may be the difference between a successful passage into adult hood or a passage plagued by turmoil (Mounts 2001). This is perhaps best appreciated in light of the cost associated to problems in adolescence.  One example is the cost to the state of teenage single mother is estimated fifty thousand dollars over twenty years (Weiten, 1995), which is a risk factor, associated to adolescence. The preventive solution offered was school based sex education valued at one hundred and thirty five dollars per pupil, per year (Weiten, p. 423, 1995).

As mentioned before there is a dominant area of research in adolescent development. The general inference is that the minorities of offenders are responsible for a disproportionate level of delinquent behavior, aggressive crime, and drug related crime and stealing. (Lynham, 1996) . This group is distinct in that they exhibit many antisocial traits in childhood, carrying them into both adolescence and adulthood with the severity of offending also increasing in seriousness and frequency. Moffit would say that they are the life course persistent group. Hare (cited in Lynham, 1996) would say that they are the fledling psychopaths though these are the worst of all in terms of the level of diproporton of criminal deviant behavior.

 As mentioned before this group accounts for both a minority of the offender group and a disproportionate level of delinquent behavior. It may be therefore that the other larger group of offenders such as who fit the DSM IV antisocial personality disorder critera (Hare, Hart & Harpur 1991) and  an even greater group of stable adolescents and adults are affected by the influences of life course persistent offenders. Life course persistent offenders are affected by minor or severe abnormalities of the mind to the extent that the parent –peer relationship in adolescence is generally not a great influence on the behavior. It is hypothesised in other research that this type of offender is not conductive of behavior modification techniques as they are not fully aware of there behavior regardless of the perceived awards associated to them (Lynham, 1996).

The adolescent limited offender makes up the largest portion of adolescent problem behavior. The adolescent offender does not generally have problems in childhood and the offending ceases in most cases by the transition into adulthood. These are generally affected by a number of emotional, mental, and physical factors, which combine with broader social forces. Research has also suggested to that an authoritarian or neglectful parenting style (Mounts, 1991) will be extremely influenceial on delinquent behavior that is limited to adolescence though that is discussed latter in this paper. There is a huge amount of research for the theories mentioned above however the following analysis will suggest the general understanding of some of the dominant problems.

Scott and Grusso (1997) have taken a development approach to explaining the problems of adolescent delinquency behaviors. Scott and Grusso (1997) have reported that the cognitive process in young adolescents interferes with decision-making abilities that older adolescents are not susceptible to. Therefore adolescent onset behavior was characterized by high levels of impulsiveness that is associated to more serious offenders (Scott and Grusso, 1997). Non-offending young adolescents who do not abuse substances are just as equally affected by decision-making abilities of an underdeveloped mind. At mid adolescence the cognitive capacity peaks in all adolescents though the higher order conditioning and experience variables are what distinguishes the mid adolescent from the adult (Scott and Grusso, 1997). Moffit (cited in Scott and Grusso, 1997) has testified that the adolescent is prone to conflict with parents due to independence responsibilities that begin to emerge as salient features of the future. The wider social forces such as law that prohibits adolescents from adult status until 18 years of age serves as an opportunity blocking function that may lead to hostility and resistance to social norms (Scott and Grusso, 1997). Another factor that is salient is that peer influence has a greater impact on decision making than parental guidance as the future holds a break from parental control to independent living. Peer association may only be accountable for negative lifestyle choices when a particular parent styles are considered (Mounts, 2001).

Social conformity is still relatively dominant as the comparison of an adolescent to his peer’s forms adaptations to peer attitudes (Scott and Grusso 1997). The younger that the peer adaptation to attitudes takes place the greater the risk. This is due to the cognitive factor of “temporal perspective: a focus on short terms rather those long-term consequences”( Scott and Grusso p. , 1997) that can also be perceived as impulsiveness. This decreases with age as experience and higher order conditioning combine with a full cognitive capacity”( Scott and Grusso, 1997.

Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber (1999) took a longitudinal study of 2550 1^st, 4^th and 9th grade school boys. They believed that persistent substance use in child hood and adolescence may cause substance abuse. The data was derived from the Pittsburgh youth study Persistent substance depended on frequency, and the number of occasion’s substance abuse occurred. The independent variable was drug uses, delinquency and persistent internalized problems. This was dependant upon the extent to which association between problems behavior improved when persistence was taken into account compared with the occurrence factor. Substance use and delinquency was substantial stronger when persistent was taken into account. Ollendick & King (cited in Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber 1999) claimed that the stability of delinquency is best observed when it is stable. Therefore there is a need to study it longitudinally. The conclusion was that persistent drug use had the strongest relationship with persistent delinquency.  Persistent internalizing problems occurred in persistent substance users though it most commonly occurred with persistent delinquency. This is therefore a strong indication that comorbity in not a great manifestation of problem behavior in the majority of adolesance and that other influences more salient such as parenting style would need to be compared in a study to show valid and consisting relationships if any to the adolescent community in general. 

White & Labouvie (1994) defined deviancy as a coping reaction to stressful situations. A general description was given that suggested the two types of offenders described by Moffit, life course persistent or adolescent limited. There was a suggestion that there is considerable links between both substance use and pathological problems, and delinquency and mental health. . Therefore the study attempted to test the relation ship of deviancy in adolescence and psychological factors such as personality traits and how they differ in adolescents. Adolescents high on both drug use and delinquency should be most likely to develop drug abuse in adult hood. Drug use may be a general function in some individuals though it is also a specialist function on others. Therefore more than one behavior needs to be specified in the formation of drug use in adolescence and other deviant behaviors. Expectancies as determinants of behavior accounted for coping functions. Though less was said about the impact of deviant parental behavior as an influence on children’s coping skills.

 White & Labouvie (1994) conducted a longitudinal analysis of 12-24 year olds and tested the cumulative levels of delinquency and drug use over a 9-year period. The participants consisted of 1270 predominantly white male adolescents. The measures consisted of a random sample with a self-report questionare and a follow up report. The question looked closely at substance abuse, delinquent, violent and sexual behavior over three spanning periods in a school year. Once again the stability of behaviors was tested longitudinally for reliabity of results. The results indicated a number of things. Firstly smoking was highest in the female section whereas males were prone to minor criminal or antisocial behavior. The trend in the males of the group was that from 12-18 there was a steady increase whereas from 18 to 24 there was a steady decline of deviant behavior. There fore it was concluded that drug usage and delinquency represent distinct variables as a considerable number of individual’s specialist in the manifestation of narrow repetition of problem behavior. It was held that the results may or may not indicate long-term involvement in problem behavior during adolescence and young adulthood.

Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens (2001) focused there efforts on a study of victimization and bullying in adolescents. These behaviors are outlined as dependant upon another and the results suggested that half of the bullies’ victims were guilty of both behaviors from self-reports. Butch and Knoff (Cited in Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens (2001) defined bullying as a “form of peer pressure that includes acts of aggression in which one or more students physically or psychologically harassed a weaker victim”(Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens, p.  2001). Inline with the lifecourse persistent category offenders (Scott & Grusso, 1997) it was suggested that bullies suffer from less that optimal cognitive and emotional arousal. Bullies were also physically more capable that other adolescents though they tended to be less charismatic than normal adolescent though were more popular than there victims.  Victims tended to be insecure, confidence broken and generally unhappy. This may create an illusion of unattractiveness’ that may affect interpersonal relationships among those peers who perceived them as lacking charisma (Moghadam, 1998). The major difference between victims and bullies is that bullies externalized behavior and victims internalize. Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens (2001) suggested a link to the Eysnecian itrovert extrovert scale respectively. Those who were bully victims were predominantly characterized as bullies though it is likely that when bully victims were victims they were either less intimidating or physically weaker than another bully, though it was not determined in this study.

The participants consisted of a random sample of 4263,  6 th 7 th and 8^th grade boys from Maryland USA. 49.1 % whom were boys and 50.9 were girls. The independent variable was the prevalence of victimization or bullying before adolescence and the dependant variable was the extent to which bullies, victims and controls reported bullying and victimization behaviors.  The study was cross sectional though this may have impacted on the reliability, as correlation directions are not drawn in cross sectional samples (Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens, 2001). The results are summarized as follows, in the last year 978 were bullied once, 1815 were victimized once and reported bullying 558 were bullied 3 or more times and 30.9% were victimized 3 or more times. From that Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens (2001) the conclusion was drawn that children exhibit a norm or bully aggression though it was dependant on peer influence.  Some of the observations that can be drawn from the results are that bully victims may be impulsive due to emotional arousal reducing hemisphere cognitions that in effect causes a depressed nervous system caused by stress from being bullied. Kumpulainess (cited in Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens, 2001). Depressive symptoms correlated negatively and significantly consistent the tenant that bullies externalizes behavior, victims internalize behavior. Another assumption may be that bullies are not good classical conditioners. This is due to the statement by Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simmons-Mortens (2001) that bullies tended to not to suffer from any anxiety for what they had done. Further more as the bullying is associated to simulating seeking and it is relatively associated to high stimulation it may also be true that bullies are psychotic by reference to the Eysnec scale. That covers the area of problematic behavior.

Mounts (2001) directed their efforts on beseeching the effects of parent adolescents’ perception on parent monitoring and controlling behavior. The participants were 33 boys an 38 girls totaling 71 who had qualified from a broader sample on the bases that they named 3 friends one of whom was present at the begging of the research. The sample consisted of 3 African Americans 1 Asian American and 3 Hispanic American and 64 European American. $5 of the children’s parents’ marital relationships was still intact, 10 had only one parent and 14 had stepparents. The fathers education in the sample consisted of 1 father who only attended high school, 24 whom graduated, 22 did trade school 16 went to college and 9 had graduate degrees. The results indicated that perceptions of parental monitoring for adolescents at the beginning of study related negatively to adolescents reports of drug use in relation to high monitoring and low drug use, and the relation ship was a direct linear one or high significance. High prohibiting behavior of parents on adolescents correlated significantly with excessive levels of drug use. Moderate levels of prohibiting were significantly associated with low levels drug use. High / low prohibiting respectively had a higher lever of drug use. This can be describe s both linear and curve linear effect on adolescents perception of parental prohibiting.

The findings were consistent with the premise that friendship and parent control inverse in adolescence. In adolescence individuals will naturally strive for independence though this leads to separation conflict due to societal norms such as laws that state that adolescents are not adults until the age of 18 though they do mature earlier in many areas. The conflict can be seen in terms of independence as a new and salient interest in adolescents, and the paerental protective role losses it value and a conflict of interest occurs in adolescents and parent interrelationships. Restrictive domineering parenting styles will creates a propensity to follow a deviant course as peer relationships become more valuable that social norms such as the norm of self care (Akers, 1991), or the norms of advancement though academic achievement. Therefore moderate prohibiting and high monitoring has a good impact on healthy development through adolescent in terms of development of interpersonal freedom and other responsibility promoting behavior (Mounts 2001).  

In conclusion the research supports Baumrinds (1978) theory. Authoritative warm and firm parenting as opposed to permissive authoritarian or indifferent was conductive of children whom developed competently with; psychosocial maturity (Steinberg and  Morris (2001). Parental repsonsivness and demanding ness is relate to adolescent adjustment school performance and psychosocial maturity. (Steinberg & Morris 2001). The fact is that for the majority of adolescence there is no crisis in adolescence. Though traumatic experience may be the result of nuisance life course persistent psychotic or psychopathic individual whom set the pace for deviance. Normal children who have normal families may be subject to imitational learning factors, bullying, negative peer association and peer pressure, that can contribute to delinquency problems in adolescence such as drug taking, aggressiveness and sexual offences. The parenting style of the majority of adolescent can be seen as the dominant and salient variable that will determine if adolescents will resist negative lifestyle behaviors and resist any influence towards that inclination. Authoritative parenting and strong monitoring by parents will lead to a safe transition into adulthood for the majority of the adolescent population.

References

 

Akers, R. L., (1991) Drug abuse. Journal of drug issues 2, 777

 

Hare R. D., & Hart, S. D., and Harpur, T. J., Psychopathy and the DSM-IV Criterial for Antisocial Personality Disorder Journal of Abnormal Psychopathology 100, 3 p 391-398.

 

Hayne, D. L Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump,. H. D., saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simmons-Mortens, S., (2001): Bullies, Victims, and Bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth, Journal of early adolesence 21- 1 29-50

 

Lerner, R. M, & Galambos, N. L. (1998) adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and polices. Annual Review of Psychology 49-1, p. 413-447.

 

Loeber, R., & Stouthammer- Loeber, Magda., (1999) Development aspects of Delinquincy and internalizing problems and their association with persistent Juvenile substance use between 7 and 18. Journal of clinical child psychology 28-3, p322-333.

 

Lynham, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling psychopath? Psycholoagical Bulletin, 120, 209-234.

 

Moghadamm, F.B., (1998) Social Psychology: Exploring Universals Across Cultures NY: W.H. Freeman and Company

 

Mounts, N. S., (2001): Young adolescents perceptions of parental management of peer relationships Journal of Early Adolescence, Journal of early adolesence 21, 1, p. 92-122

 Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997)  . The evolution of adolesence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal law & criminology 88, 1 p 137-190

 

Steinberg, L.,  Sheffield Morris, A., (2001): Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 83-110

 

Stiff, J.B., (1994) Persuasive Communication NY: The Guildford Press.

 

Weiten, W. (1995) Psychology: themes and Variations. USA: Brooks/Cole.

 

Schedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: alongtitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 4, 612-630.

 

White, H. K., & Labouvie, E. W. (1994): Generality versus specivcity of problem behavior: Psycholological and functional differences  Journal of drug issues 24  p 55-75.