According to the Text, Which Are Two of the Aspects of Family Closeness?

Introduction

Antisocial behavior is usually understood to be behavior that violates social norms and harms the rights of others (Peña and Graña, 2006). Many people showroom this kind of behavior at some betoken in their lives. Yet, this is usually infrequent and limited to sure points in time and specific contexts. Adolescence is particularly prone to it, as it is a stage of seeking and experimentation which is fundamental to the formation of personal identity and in which peer acceptance is peculiarly important. Antisocial beliefs is occasionally used by adolescents to be accepted, or to improve their condition within a group. Despite that, in a minor number of cases, antisocial beliefs can be a stable feature that persist into adulthood (Moffitt, 1993).

Antisocial behavior produces significant personal and social harm. A person who engages in this behavior, especially if sustained over time, may accept reduced educational or work opportunities; it may lead to maladjusted behaviors in adulthood (substance abuse, criminal activities), too as mental wellness issues; and it might lead to legal consequences. Those affected by this behavior may endure physical, emotional or economical consequences. The social consequences of this beliefs eat meaning resources in mental wellness, education and juvenile justice systems (Cook et al., 2015; Sawyer et al., 2015).

Antisocial beliefs in adolescence, and its persistence into machismo, has been explained by the interaction betwixt personality traits of vulnerability and ecology factors which strengthen or inhibit these traits. Certain personality traits constitute a vulnerability for the development of antisocial behavior depending on contextual factors. In order to prevent the problem it is necessary to identify these variables, which human activity as protective or risk factors (Álvarez-García et al., 2018). Regarding environmental factors, the near of import contexts of influence and socialization for adolescents are family unit and friends. All the same, in that location is little current inquiry with large samples that looks at how impulsivity and empathy specifically attune the effect of family and friends on antisocial behavior in adolescence.

Parenting practices influence children'south behavior (Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2019). The different parenting styles have traditionally been defined in terms of two dimensions: responsiveness and demandingness (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Close relationships, support and communication on the part of parents, every bit well as setting limits of behavior and supervision of what their children practice or feel, depending on their level of autonomy, are positive for child evolution. Parental warmth and behavioral control are protective factors for externalizing behaviors, aggression, malversation, and consumption of booze or addictive substances (Hoskins, 2014), especially when they occur together. Both overprotection and hostile and intrusive control are risk factors for these problems (Pinquart, 2017).

In adolescence, the influence of family tends to subtract as the influence of friends increases. Hating friendships are a significant hazard factor for both fierce and non-violent hating behavior (Cutrín et al., 2017). The blazon of friendships tin can enhance or diminish the influence of parenting practices (Lansford et al., 2003).

Parents can influence their children's friendships, directly or indirectly. For instance, parent's decisions tin can affect the type of friends their children volition accept (choice of neighborhood, school, activities, etc.); they tin transmit attitudes, values and abilities which mold and influence their children'southward behavior, social reputation, and groups they join (Chocolate-brown et al., 1993). Parental monitoring is a protective factor for deviant peers (Cutrín et al., 2015). In add-on, if parents establish a warm, communicative surround, it is more likely for the adolescents to spontaneously tell them about what is happening in their lives, what they do, and who they do information technology with (Álvarez-García et al., 2016a), which makes it easier for the parents to exercise some control over their children'due south friendships.

These two contexts (family and friends) can not only influence adolescents' antisocial behavior direct, just as well indirectly through their effect on sure personality traits such equally impulsivity and a lack of empathy, which increment the likelihood of behaving in an hating fashion. Impulsivity refers to having difficulties in controlling impulses, acting without considering the consequences of the action for oneself or others (Stahl et al., 2014). Previous research has found higher levels of self-control in children in families with a parenting style characterized by affection and communication (Wills et al., 2004), behavioral control (Li et al., 2015) and authoritative parenting fashion (Burt et al., 2006). The positive effects of parental control occur mainly when it happens in a warm parental context. In addition, there is show that deviant peer relationships are a take chances factor for impulsivity (Burt et al., 2006). Impulsivity is in plough a chance cistron for antisocial behavior (Jones et al., 2011).

Empathy is usually defined as the capacity to understand and share others' feelings (Oliveira et al., 2018). There is ample evidence that a lack of empathy is a significant risk cistron for antisocial behavior (Van Langen et al., 2014). Information technology is not only a risk factor for antisocial beliefs which harms others. Behavior which harms oneself, such as the consumption of illegal drugs, may be more likely in those with low empathy. They may have difficulties identifying significant others' disapproval (business, anger, fearfulness, etc.) and the negative consequences of their behavior on others (Massey et al., 2018). In a similar way to cocky-control, empathy is positively related to parental warmth (Boele et al., 2019), parental control (Asano et al., 2016) and authoritative parenting style (Mesurado and Richaud, 2017). In that location is likewise evidence of a negative clan between relating with hating friendships and empathy (Padilla-Walker and Bean, 2009).

The aim of this work is to analyze the effect of family (affection and advice, behavioral command) and friends (hating friendships) on adolescent antisocial behavior, and the mediating role of adolescents' impulsivity and empathy, in a large sample of Spanish adolescents. Given the inquiry examined previously, we expect the theoretical model shown in Effigy ane to have a good fit to the empirical information.

Effigy one. Starting theoretical model (AC, affection and communication; BC, behavioral control; I, impulsivity; AF, antisocial friendships; E, empathy; AB, antisocial behavior; +, positive relation; −, negative relation).

Materials and Methods

Participants

We selected 20 schools from all the publicly funded schools providing compulsory secondary education in Asturias (Spain) via stratified random sampling with clusters. The population of schools was divided in two groups according to blazon (public or individual-concerted) and a number of schools in each grouping proportional to the population were randomly selected. The questionnaires were given to all students in the 4 years of compulsory secondary didactics in each school, a total of 3360 students.

Nosotros selected those students for the study who had reported living with one or both parents, and eliminated those with a meaning number of unanswered questions or void responses. The last sample comprised 3199 students, anile betwixt 11 and 18 (1000 = 14.03; SD = 1.39), of which 49.ii% were girls. The concluding sample constitutes the 95.21% of the total of students who responded the questionnaires.

Measures

Amore and Communication

The perceptions of adolescents regarding their parents' support, emotional closeness, and willingness to talk were assessed by the "affection and communication" factor from the Dimensions of Parenting Style Questionnaire (Álvarez-García et al., 2016b), an accommodation of the scale adult by Oliva et al. (2007). Information technology consists of four items ("Cuando hablo con mis padres, muestran interés y atención" ["When I talk to my parents, they show interest and pay attention"], "Mis padres me animan a que les cuente mis problemas y preocupaciones" ["My parents encourage me to tell them my issues and concerns"], "Si tengo algún problema puedo contar con la ayuda de mis padres" ["If I take a trouble, I can count on my parents' assistance"], and "Mis padres muestran interés por mí cuando estoy triste y enfadado/a" ["My parents bear witness involvement in me when I am sorry and angry"]), with four response options (from 1, completely false, to iv, completely true). The full score for each respondent in this factor corresponds to the sum of the scores on each particular (minimum four, maximum 16). High scores bespeak high levels of affection and communication. The internal consistency of this calibration in this study sample is loftier (α = 0.87).

Behavioral Command

To measure out parental control of activities as perceived by adolescents, the "behavioral command" factor from the Dimensions of Parenting Style Questionnaire by Álvarez-García et al. (2016b) was used. It is an adaptation of the scale developed by Oliva et al. (2007). Information technology consists of iv items ("Mis padres intentan saber a dónde voy cuando salgo" ["My parents endeavor to know where I am going when I exit home"], "Si vuelvo tarde a casa, mis padres me preguntan por qué y con quién estuve" ["If I render home late, my parents enquire me why and who I was with"], "Mis padres ponen límites a la hora a la que debo volver a casa" ["My parents set limits on the time that I should return home"], and "Mis padres me preguntan en qué gasto el dinero" ["My parents ask me how I spend coin"]), in which respondents are asked to assess the extent to which each argument is true (from 1, completely false, to 4, completely true). The full score for each respondent in this factor corresponds to the sum of the scores on each particular (minimum iv, maximum 16). Loftier scores betoken high levels of behavioral control. The internal consistency of this calibration with this study sample is adequate (α = 0.75).

Impulsivity

The degree of the respondents' impulsivity was assessed using a self-reported scale previously used past the research team (Álvarez-García et al., 2016a). The scale was created using part of the impulsivity criteria proposed by the DSM-5 for the diagnosis of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It consists of five items: "En clase o en juegos, a menudo me cuesta esperar turno, por lo que me cuelo o interrumpo" ["In course or when playing games, it is often difficult for me to wait my turn, and then I jump in or interrupt"], "A menudo contesto antes de que se haya completado la pregunta" ["I often respond before the question has finished"], "A menudo digo lo que me viene a la cabeza, sin pensar primero sus consecuencias o si es oportuno para la conversación" ["I often say what comes to mind without sparse-king first of the consequences or whether it is appropriate for the chat"], "A menudo hago cosas sin pensar en las consecuencias" ["I ofttimes do things without thinking of the consequences"] and "Habitualmente me resulta difícil esperar turno, por lo que me adelanto a hablar cuando no me corresponde o interrumpo a quien está hablando" ["Ordinarily, I find it difficult to look my turn, so I spring into speak when information technology is non my plough or I interrupt the person talking"] The response is a Likert-type scale with iv options (from i, completely faux, to 4, completely true). The full score for each respondent in this factor corresponds to the sum of the scores on each item (minimum v, maximum 20). High scores indicate high levels of impulsivity. The internal consistency of the scores obtained with the scale in this study sample is adequate (α = 0.76).

Empathy

The caste of empathy in the adolescents evaluated was measured by a self-reported scale previously used past the enquiry team (Álvarez-García et al., 2016a). It is composed of v items that refer to the extent to which a respondent believes that he/she is capable of identifying with others and sharing his/her feelings: "Siento las desgracias de los demás" ["I feel the misfortunes of others"], "Si se burlan de un compañero, me siento mal pensando en lo mal que lo está pasando" ["If a classmate is teased, I feel bad thinking about what is happening to him/her"], "Soy paciente con las personas que hacen las cosas peor que yo" ["I am patient with people who practise things worse than I practise"], "Cuando veo que united nations/a amigo/a está triste, yo también me entristezco" ["When I see that a friend is sorry, I too become sad"] and "Me alegro cuando le pasa algo bueno a un conocido" ["I am happywhen something adept happens to someone I know"]. The response is a Likert-type scale with iv options (from i, completely faux, to four, completely true). The total score for each respondent in this factor corresponds to the sum of the scores on each item (minimum 5, maximum twenty). High scores indicate high levels of empathy. The internal consistency of the scores obtained with the scale in this study sample is acceptable (α = 0.67).

Hating Friendships

To assess the extent to which respondents chronicle to antisocial friendships, a calibration previously used past the research squad was used (Álvarez-García et al., 2016b). Information technology comprises four items, in which the respondents point whether the situation described has occurred during the past year: "Alguno/a de mis mejores amigos/as ha ensuciado, dañado o destruido conscientemente mobiliario público (por ej., una pared, una papelera, una farola, asientos del autobús)" ["I or some of my best friends have soiled, damaged, or destroyed public furniture (eastward.g., a wall, a trashcan, a lamppost, seats on the bus)"], "Alguno/a de mis mejores amigos/equally ha robado algo de una tienda, del colegio o de casa" ["1 or some of my all-time friends have stolen something from a shop, school, or a private home"], "Alguno/a de mis mejores amigos/as se ha peleado físicamente en serio con otro/a chico/a" ["One or some of my best friends have had a real physical fight with some other young person"], and "Alguno/a de mis mejores amigos/as ha consumido drogas ilegales" ["I or some of my best friends have consumed illegal drugs"]. The response requested from the respondent is dichotomous (1 = true, 0 = faux). The total score for each respondent in this cistron corresponds to the sum of the scores on each item (minimum 0, maximum iv). High scores indicate high levels of antisocial friendships. The internal consistency of the scale in this sample is adequate (KR20 = =0.710.71).

Antisocial Behavior

To appraise the extent to which respondents recognize engaging in different types of antisocial beliefs, a cocky reported scale was used. It consists of four items, referred to the same iv types of hating beliefs equally the antisocial friendships questionnaire: "He ensuciado, dañado o destruido conscientemente mobiliario público (por ej., una pared, una papelera, una farola, asientos del autobús)" ["I consciously soiled, damaged, or destroyed public furniture (e.g., a wall, a trashcan, a lamppost, seats on the coach)"], "He robado algo de una tienda, del colegio o de una casa" ["I stole something from a store, school, or a private home"], "He golpeado o me he peleado con un desconocido hasta dañarle" ["I accept hit or fought with a stranger to the point of harming him/her"], and "He consumido drogas ilegales" ["I used illegal drugs"]. The response requested from respondents is dichotomous (1 = truthful, 0 = simulated), indicating whether they have performed these activities at least one time in the concluding year. The total score for each respondent in this factor corresponds to the sum of the scores on each particular (minimum 0, maximum 4). Loftier scores signal high levels of antisocial behavior. The internal consistency of the scale in this sample is acceptable (KR20 = 0.65).

Procedure

Permission to administer the questionnaires was requested from the caput teacher in each selected school. Each schoolhouse obtained family unit consent for the participation of the students in the written report because they were underage. The questionnaires were completed by the students at the school during school hours. At the fourth dimension of the application of the questionnaires, participants were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the test likewise as the confidential handling of the data obtained.

Data Analysis

The commencement step was to perform a descriptive analysis of the variables in the starting theoretical model (mean, standard divergence, response range, skewness and kurtosis). Post-obit that, nosotros calculated the correlation coefficients between each pair of variables. Given that the distribution of each variable was relatively shut to normality (Kline, 2011), we used the Pearson correlation coefficient for that purpose. These preliminary analyses were performed using the statistical software SPSS 24 (IBM Corp, 2016b).

Following that, using AMOS 24 (IBM Corp, 2016a) statistical software, nosotros used path assay to assess how well the starting theoretical model fit the empirical data, as well every bit the magnitude of the direct and indirect effects of each variable. The method of estimation was the Maximum Likelihood method. To determine the caste of fit of the tested model, nosotros used the Chi-square (χ^two)/degrees of freedom (df) ratio, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Hateful Foursquare Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Mistake of Approximation (RMSEA). The fit is unremarkably considered adept when CFI ≥ 0.95, SRMR ≤ 0.08, and RMSEA ≤ 0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999), and χ²/df < 3 (Ruiz et al., 2010).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Although there was variation between the participants, the majority of they tended to report that their parents demonstrated affection and communication with them and controlled their behavior (setting limits and showing business about what happened to them). They tended to describe themselves as empathic and having little impulsivity, little hating behavior and few antisocial friendships (Table 1). The distribution of scores in each variable was relatively shut to normality.

Table i. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients between the starting theoretical model variables.

Antisocial behavior was statistically significantly related to the other variables included in the starting model every bit predictor variables. The relationship is positive with antisocial friendships and impulsivity; and negative with affection and communication, parental control, and the adolescents' empathy. All of the predictor variables were statistically significantly correlated with each other, except for behavioral control and impulsivity (Table 1).

Path Analysis

The predictive model of antisocial behavior tested (Figure 1) demonstrated an adequate fit to the empirical data [χ² = 12.820; df = ane; χ²/df = 12.820; CFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.061 (CI90.034-0.092); SRMR = 0.014]. Its explanatory power is moderate. The other variables in the model explicate 36.4% of the variability of the scores in hating behavior.

As Figure two and Table two prove, all of the furnishings were statistically meaning, and were positive and negative in accordance with our hypothesis (Figure i), except for the effect of behavioral command on impulsivity. Having hating friendships was positively related with engaging in antisocial behaviors. The effect of antisocial friendships is direct, and also indirect through its negative relationship with empathy, and positive relationship with impulsivity. The 2 analyzed dimensions of parenting style (amore and communication, and behavioral command) were positively correlated with each other. Both were negatively related to hating behavior. This effect is direct, and indirect through the positive relationship with empathy and the negative relationship with antisocial friendships. Impulsivity has a dissimilar mediating role with each of the two analyzed dimensions of parenting style. Affection and communication is negatively related to impulsivity, reducing the likelihood of antisocial beliefs. In dissimilarity, behavioral control is positively related to impulsivity, increasing the likelihood of antisocial behavior. The effect sizes are small or very minor, except for the effect of antisocial friendships on impulsivity and on adolescent antisocial beliefs, which is moderate.

Figure 2. Result of path assay (Ac, affection and communication; BC, behavioral control; I, impulsivity; AF, antisocial friendships; E, empathy; AB, antisocial behavior). ^∗ p < 0.05; ^∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Table 2. Regression weights of the model.

The values in Effigy 2 and Table two refer to the directly effects between the model variables. Table iii shows the direct, indirect and total effects of each predictor variable on antisocial beliefs. The overall effect of affection and communication on antisocial behavior is small, negative, and mainly indirect via empathy, antisocial friendships, and impulsivity, in order of magnitude. The overall upshot of parental behavioral control on adolescent hating behavior is pocket-size, negative and mediated by empathy, antisocial friendships and impulsivity, in guild of magnitude. In this case one-half of the overall event is directly, and half indirect. The overall consequence of antisocial friendships on adolescent antisocial behavior is moderate, positive and mainly direct. The indirect effect of antisocial friendships, mediated past impulsivity and empathy, is very small.

Table three. Summary of standardized direct, indirect and total effects on antisocial behavior.

Give-and-take

The objective of this study was to clarify the effect of family (affection and advice, behavioral control) and friends (antisocial friendships) on antisocial beliefs in adolescence, looking at both direct and indirect effects via adolescents' impulsivity and empathy. The results are in line with the starting model (Figure 1), with the exception of the outcome of behavioral command on impulsivity, which was the opposite of what we expected.

Parental amore and communication with their children accept a protective effect, albeit modest, on adolescent hating beliefs. In line with previous research, affection and advice accept a straight issue on antisocial behavior, but mostly the effect is indirect through the protective event on hating friendships, and the boyish'due south impulsivity and low empathy (Brown et al., 1993; Wills et al., 2004; Hoskins, 2014; Boele et al., 2019).

Parental behavioral control of children by and large has a protective effect, albeit pocket-sized, on adolescent antisocial behavior. Again, in line with previous research, behavioral command has both direct and indirect furnishings on hating behavior through its protective outcome on hating friendships and low empathy (Hoskins, 2014; Cutrín et al., 2015; Asano et al., 2016). However, reverse to our expectations, in this study we found that behavioral control can be a gamble factor for antisocial behavior through its relationship with adolescent impulsivity.

Previous studies have found parental behavioral control to be positively related to self-command in their children (Li et al., 2015) and therefore negatively related to impulsivity. I possible caption for that is that parental restrictions and monitoring may increase their children'south awareness of appropriate behavior, which may contribute to them learning to control their own beliefs (Villanueva and Serrano, 2019). In our study, nevertheless, parental control was positively related to impulsivity in adolescent children, and thus with antisocial behavior. 1 explanation for this result may be that impulsive adolescents nowadays more behavioral problems (Maneiro et al., 2017), and so may be subject to more control from their parents. In turn, these impulsive adolescents may respond negatively to behavioral control, and increase their impulsive, antisocial behavior. Another possible explanation is that in our written report we examined the result of each parenting manner dimension separately (affection and advice; and behavioral command) rather than the combined effect of the two dimensions. Previous research has indicated that parental behavioral control has a positive event on the prevention of antisocial behavior mainly when it occurs in a context of parental amore and advice, whereas hostile and intrusive control is a risk factor (Pinquart, 2017). Previous studies have also found an authoritarian parenting style, characterized past piffling amore and high control, to be a gamble cistron for impulsivity in adolescence (Li et al., 2018). This may be because disciplinarian parents tend to exist impulsive (Cox et al., 2018) and impulsivity is transmitted from parents to children (Higgins, 2009). Some researchers underline the importance of genetics in this manual (Beaver et al., 2010), whereas others place more importance on education. Parents' behavior is a model for their children. In addition, impulsive parents may generate an ineffective educational pattern which provokes feet and impulsivity in their children. They may be impatient with their children, less talkative and more inconsistent; they may generate hostile family environments; they may even consider sure inappropriate behavior in their children normal and advisable (Meldrum et al., 2015).

Hating friendships are a risk gene for hating beliefs in adolescence, with a moderate effect size. The effect is mainly direct, although every bit previous studies have indicated, there is also an indirect effect due to it existence a risk cistron for impulsivity and low empathy in adolescents (Burt et al., 2006; Padilla-Walker and Bean, 2009).

The results of this study have various practical implications. Firstly, all of the variables in the model are pregnant predictors of antisocial beliefs in boyhood. This means that they should exist borne in mind for the prevention and treatment of hating beliefs in people of this age. Secondly, the upshot of antisocial friendships in adolescence is greater than and contrary to the effects of the ii analyzed parenting style dimensions (affection and communication, and behavioral control). Friendships may enhance or weaken parenting practices. The peer group tin oftentimes encourage or approve of risky behaviors more than families (Sasson and Mesch, 2014; Shin and Ismail, 2014). Despite parents placing advisable restrictions, occasionally peer pressure tin lead adolescents to ignore them and engage in inappropriate behaviors. It is therefore important to teach adolescents to deal with peer and grouping pressure. Thirdly, ane cardinal variable in the prevention of adolescent antisocial behavior is the influence of the family on their children'due south friendships. Although adolescents take increasing autonomy in choosing their friends, information technology depends to a large extent on the values transmitted by their parents. These values are largely communicated through the rules and limits on behavior set past parents and by the 24-hour interval-to-day family temper, which serves as a model for behavior. Finally, impulsivity and depression empathy are hazard factors for antisocial behavior in boyhood. In the family and school context, therefore, social skills such equally self-command and empathy should be encouraged (Díaz-Lopez et al., 2019).

This inquiry contributes to the field of report, with significant applied implications. All the same, it is not without limitations. Firstly, the written report was performed with a broad, random sample of adolescents, but constrained to some ages and a specific geographical location. Previous research has shown that exposure to the risk factors we examined, and their impact on the person, vary co-ordinate to age and civilization, which could also change their predictive ability (Dekovic et al., 2004; Van der Put et al., 2011). For that reason, any generalization from these results to other ages or contexts should be made with caution. In the time to come, it would be interesting to replicate this research with other ages and in other contexts. Secondly, this report was specifically centered on the outcome of family and friends on adolescent hating behavior, and the mediating role of adolescents' impulsivity and empathy. Nevertheless, previous research suggests that some of these associations are bidirectional (Salihovic et al., 2012; Pinquart, 2017). Time to come inquiry should enhance the starting theoretical model in order to amend its predictive chapters. Thirdly, the conclusions are limited by the variables included in the model. Although the variables we included were relevant, there are other variables that might interact with those included in this report and influence the likelihood of an adolescent engaging in antisocial behavior (Assink et al., 2015). Fourth and lastly, this was a cross-sectional study. It would be interesting to test whether the hypothesized causal relationships would exist confirmed in a longitudinal study. Despite these limitations, this report is a contribution to clarifying the causal mechanisms of boyish antisocial beliefs, as a ground for its prevention and treatment.

Data Availability

The datasets generated for this written report are available on request to the corresponding authors.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Deontology Commission of the General Counsel of Psychology of Espana, with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Announcement of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the research and ideals commission at the University of Oviedo.

Writer Contributions

DA-G and JN designed the written report, analyzed the information and drafted the manuscript. PG-C, CR, and RC critically reviewed the typhoon and made meaning contributions to the terminal version.

Funding

This work was supported by the Government of the Principality of Asturias (Espana) (Plan of Science, Technology and Innovation 2018–2022), the European Wedlock (European Regional Evolution Fund - ERDF) (Ref. FCGRUPINIDI/2018/000199), and the Castilian Ministry building of Science, Innovation and Universities (Ref. PGC2018-097739-B-I00).

Conflict of Involvement Argument

The authors declare that the inquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential disharmonize of involvement.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all pupils, teachers, and principals of the corresponding schools for their participation in this written report.

References

Álvarez-García, D., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Núñez, J. C., and Dobarro, A. (2016a). Validity and reliability of the cyber-assailment questionnaire for adolescents (CYBA). Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Context 8, 69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.003

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez-García, D., García, T., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Dobarro, A., and Antúnez, A. (2016b). Parenting style dimensions every bit predictors of adolescent hating behavior. Forepart. Psychol. 7:1383. doi: x.3389/fpsyg.2016.01383

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez-García, D., Núñez, J. C., García, T., and Barreiro-Collazo, A. (2018). Individual, family, and customs predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Context x, 79–88. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Google Scholar

Asano, R., Yoshizawa, H., Yoshida, T., Harada, C., Tamai, R., and Yoshida, T. (2016). Effects of parental parenting attitudes on adolescents' socialization via adolescents' perceived parenting. Jpn. J. Psychol. 87, 284–293. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.87.15013

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Assink, M., Van der Put, C. E., Hoeve, M., De Vries, S. Fifty. A., Stams, G. J. J. M., and Oort, F. J. (2015). Adventure factors for persistent delinquent behavior among juveniles: a meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 42, 47–61. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.08.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beaver, K. One thousand., Ferguson, C. J., and Lynn-Whaley, J. (2010). The association between parenting and levels of self-control: a genetically informative analysis. Crim. Justice Behav. 37, 1045–1065. doi: 10.1177/0093854810374919

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boele, Due south., Van der Graaff, J., De Wied, 1000., Van der Valk, I. Due east., Crocetti, East., and Branje, Due south. (2019). Linking parent–kid and peer relationship quality to empathy in adolescence: a multilevel meta-analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 48, 1033–1055. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown, B. B., Mounts, North., Lamborn, S. D., and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer grouping affiliation in boyhood. Child Dev. 64, 467–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02922.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., and Simons, L. M. (2006). A longitudinal examination of the effects of parenting and the stability of cocky-control: negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology 44, 353–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00052.x

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Cook, East. C., Pflieger, J. C., Connell, A. M., and Connell, C. M. (2015). Exercise specific transitional patterns of antisocial behavior during adolescence increment run a risk for bug in immature adulthood? J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 43, 95–106. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9880-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cox, J., Kopkin, 1000. R., Rankin, J. A., Tomeny, T. S., and Coffey, C. A. (2018). The relationship between parental psychopathic traits and parenting style. J. Child Family Stud. 27, 2305–2314. doi: ten.1007/s10826-018-1057-9

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutrín, O., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., and Luengo, M. A. (2015). Peer-group mediation in the relationship between family and juvenile hating behavior. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Context 7, 59–65. doi: ten.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cutrín, O., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Maneiro, Fifty., and Sobral, J. (2017). Effects of parenting practices through deviant peers on nonviolentand tearing hating behaviours in middle- and late-adolescence. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Contex ix, 75–82. doi: ten.1016/j.ejpal.2017.02.001

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Dekovic, Grand., Wissink, I. B., and Meijer, A. Grand. (2004). The office of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: comparing of 4 ethnic groups. J. Adolesc. 27, 497–514. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Díaz-Lopez, A., Rubio-Hernández, F. J., and Carbonell-Bernal, Northward. (2019). Efectos de la aplicación de un programa de inteligencia emocional en la dinámica de bullying. un estudio piloto. Revista De Psicol. Educ. 14, 124–135. doi: 10.23923/rpye2019.02.177

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, G. E. (2009). Parental criminality and low cocky-command: an test of malversation. Crim. Justice Stud. 22, 141–152. doi: 10.1080/14786010902975416

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hu, 50., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 6, one–55. doi: x.1080/10705519909540118

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

IBM Corp (2016a). IBM SPSS Amos Customer 24.0 Microsoft Windows Multilingual, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Google Scholar

IBM Corp (2016b). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Google Scholar

Jones, South. E., Miller, J. D., and Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, hating behavior, and aggression: a meta-analytic review. J. Crim. Justice 39, 329–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.03.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Lansford, J. E., Criss, K. 1000., Pettit, Thou. Due south., Dodge, K. A., and Bates, J. Due east. (2003). Friendship quality, peer group affiliation, and peer hating beliefs as moderators of the link between negative parenting and boyish externalizing behavior. J. Res. Adolesc. 13, 161–184. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.1302002

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, D., Zhang, W., and Wang, Y. (2015). Parental behavioral control, psychological control and chinese adolescents' peer victimization: the mediating role of self-command. J. Child Family Stud. 24, 628–637. doi: ten.1007/s10826-013-9873-four

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J. B., Willems, Y., Stok, F. Thou., Deković, M., Bartels, M., and Finkenauer, C. (2018). Parenting and Self-Control: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis. Bachelor at: osf.io/d7a4g (accessed January 22, 2019).

Google Scholar

Maccoby, E. E., and Martin, J. A. (1983). "Socialization in the context of the family: parent-kid interaction," in Handbook of Kid Psychology: Socialization, Personality and Social Development, eds E. E. M. Hetherington and P. H. Mussen (New York, NY: Wiley).

Google Scholar

Maneiro, L., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Cutrín, O., and Romero, Due east. (2017). Impulsivity traits as correlates of antisocial behaviour in adolescents. Pers. Individ. Dif. 104, 417–422. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Massey, South. H., Newmark, R. Fifty., and Wakschlag, L. Due south. (2018). Explicating the role of empathic processes in substance apply disorders: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Drug Alcohol Rev. 37, 316–332. doi: 10.1111/dar.12548

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meldrum, R. C., Young, J. T. N., and Lehmann, P. S. (2015). Parental low self-control, parental socialization, young adult depression self-control, and offending. a retrospective study. Crim. Justice Behav. 42, 1183–1199. doi: x.1177/0093854815595662

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mesurado, B., and Richaud, Grand. C. (2017). The human relationship between parental variables, empathy and prosocial-flow with prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. J. Happiness Stud. 18, 843–860. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9748-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliva, A., Parra, A., Sánchez-Queija, I., and López, F. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles: cess and relationship with adolescent adjustment. Anales de Psicol. 23, 49–56.

Google Scholar

Oliveira, P., Maia, L., Coutinho, J., Frank, B., Soares, J. M., Sampaio, A., et al. (2018). Empathy past default: correlates in the brain at rest. Psicothema xxx, 97–103. doi: ten.7334/psicothema2016.366

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Padilla-Walker, Fifty. Yard., and Bean, R. A. (2009). Negative and positive peer influence: relations to positive and negative behaviors for african american, european american, and hispanic adolescents. J. Adolesc. 32, 323–337. doi: 10.1016/j.boyhood.2008.02.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peña, Chiliad. E., and Graña, J. L. (2006). Agresión y conducta antisocial en la adolescencia: una integración conceptual. Psicopatología Clínica Legal Y Forense half-dozen, 9–23.

Google Scholar

Pinquart, Thou. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: an updated meta-analysis. Dev. Psychol. 53, 873–932. doi: x.1037/dev0000295

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruiz, Thousand. A., Pardo, A., and San Martín, R. (2010). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Papeles Del Psicólogo 31, 34–45.

Google Scholar

Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Moral-Zafra, E., Llor-Esteban, B., and Jiménez-Barbero, J. A. (2019). Influence of parental styles and other psychosocial variables on the development of externalizing behaviors in adolescents: A sytematic review. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Context 11, 9–21. doi: x.5093/ejpalc2018a11

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salihovic, S., Kerr, M., Özdemir, M., and Pakalniskiene, 5. (2012). Directions of effects between adolescent psychopathic traits and parental behavior. J. Abnorm. Kid Psychol. 40, 957–969. doi: ten.1007/s10802-012-9623-x

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Sasson, H., and Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Comput. Human Behav. 33, 32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sawyer, A. M., Borduin, C. K., and Dopp, A. R. (2015). Long-term effects of prevention and treatment on youth hating behavior: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev 42, 130–144. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.009

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shin, W., and Ismail, N. (2014). Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents' chance taking on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 17, 578–583. doi: x.1089/cyber.2014.0095

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stahl, C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., Nuszbaum, M., Tüscher, O., Lieb, K., et al. (2014). Behavioral components of impulsivity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 850–886. doi: ten.1037/a0033981

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Van der Put, C. E., Deković, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van der Laan, P. H., Hoeve, M., and Van Amelsfort, L. (2011). Changes in risk factors during adolescence. Implications for risk assessment. Crim. Justice Behav. 38, 248–262. doi: 10.1177/0093854810391757

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Van Langen, K. A. M., Wissink, I. B., Van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T., and Stams, G. J. J. M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: a meta-analysis. Beset. Fierce Behav. 19, 179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Villanueva, V. J., and Serrano, S. (2019). Patrón de uso de internet y control parental de redes sociales como predictor de sexting en adolescentes: una perspectiva de género. Revista De Psicol. Educ. xiv, 16–26. doi: ten.23923/rpye2019.01.168

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wills, T. A., Resko, J. A., Ainette, Chiliad. G., and Mendoza, D. (2004). Office of parent back up and peer support in adolescent substance apply: a test of mediated effects. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 18, 122–134. doi: ten.1037/0893-164X.18.ii.122

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

fostergavempurneth.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02071/full

Share this post