No abstract

Research on adolescent-to-parent violence (APV) associates specific psychosocial characteristics with adolescents who assault their parents, whether they are within or outside the juvenile justice system, or whether these characteristics are shared by other adolescents convicted of other crimes. The aim of this paper is to compare three groups of adolescents. Those who have been sentenced for APV are compared with adolescents who have committed other crimes, and with a group who have not been involved in the justice system. The sample used consists of 148 male participants between the ages of 14 and 21. A comparison is made regarding type of self-reported behavior, frequency of drug use, academic performance, exposure to violence, self-concept, and parents’ conflict resolution tactics. The results obtained indicate that adolescents with judicial measures, regardless of the crime committed, differ from those who have not been in trouble with the justice system in terms of them having suffered violence in the street, the frequency with which they use drugs and in their academic achievement. Likewise, adolescents convicted of APV differ from the other two groups in the frequency with which they are victims of violence at home, in that their mothers use the tactic of asking somebody else for help as a way of solving marital conflicts, and in having a more negative family self-concept. The results are discussed highlighting the importance of taking into account whether a sample is judicial, clinical, or community, and the specific APV behaviors which are measured.

The main objective of this study was to establish the psychosocial profile of adolescents and adults who have admitted to committing child-to-parent violence (CPV) and were serving a judicial sanction or prison sentence, respectively. Two groups of participants took part in this study. The first group was made up of 89 male youths who were serving judicial sanctions, and the second group was made up of 70 men serving a prison sentence. A cross-sectional retrospective design with concurrent measurements was used in this study. Group differences in the exposure-to-violence variables were conducted. Automatic regression models were used to estimate a self-reported CPV. In relation to the variables of indirect exposure to violence, statistically significant differences between those who admitted having committed CPV and those who did not, irrespective of being adults or adolescents, were found for seeing violence in class and at home but not for seeing violence on the street or on television. Regarding the variables related to experiencing violence, the results showed statistically significant differences in experiencing violence at home but not in class or on the street. The best predictive model of CPV includes some of the dimensions of self-concept, specifically academic and family self-concept, as well as the avoidant and rational problem-solving styles and the negative orientation toward problems. The results have shown the existence of a CPV offender profile that is common to minors and adults.

Purpose. The aim of this study is to propose and test a comprehensive model of compliance with environmental law (EL). The legal and psychosocial peculiarities of environmental transgressions suggest that the nature and relative impact of the determinants of ordinary people's compliance with EL may differ from those involved in compliance with ordinary laws. Method.A total of 439 university students of Law, Psychology, Pedagogy, and Speech Therapy majors, aged between 18 and 58, took part in the study. Participants answered a questionnaire assessing illegal anti-ecological behaviour (IAEB), legal-sanction-related variables, injunctive and prescriptive social norms, personal norms, and sustainability attitudes. The data from all participants were processed using structural equation analysis to test the hypothesized model. Results.The main antecedents of IAEB are personal norms and, to a lesser extent, sustainability attitudes and descriptive social norms. Personal norms on IAEB are influenced by injunctive social norms and also by sustainability attitudes. Legal-sanctionrelated variables affect personal norms and IAEB, but only by indirectly influencing social norms. Conclusions.Although legal-sanction-related variables and norms have been traditionally used to explain illegal behaviour, the legal and psychosocial peculiarities of IAEB are reflected in the process of compliance with environmental protection laws. Results allow for a refinement of the relationship between personal and social norms, showing that the main determinants of IAEB is personal norm, but that descriptive social norms also directly affect behaviour, and that sustainability attitudes play an unquestionable role in compliance with ELs.

Decision making groups, including European juries, often contain factions differing in status. Mock juries composed of trained and layperson status factions decided guilt and punishment for realistic cases of university code violations. Cases presented predominantly intellective or judgmental issues, and juries had to justify verdicts according to facts alone, or facts and values. Compared to laypersons, trained factions influenced group decisions more, but only in judgmental cases, or when having to include values in justification. They more actively discussed the judgmental cases, and engaged more than laypersons in normative influence. Trained jurors appear to wield social/normative power, impacting judgmental issues more. Consistent with their minority status, laypersons engage in more informational than normative influence. The fact that laypersons are as active in discussing intellective cases as are trained members, and are equally informational in their style of influence, enhances their impact when deciding issues that revolve around gathering facts to reach a correct decision.