Research suggests that lay people invoke a multiplicity of causes to explain crime and juvenile offending. The extent to which the different explanations are endorsed appears to be partly a function of demographic characteristics. Abrams, Simpson, and Hogg (1987) suggested that those who are in psychological proximity to delinquency are more likely to invoke situational type explanations for juvenile offending rather than dispositional ones. This study tests this proximity hypothesis and provides information on Australian adolescents' explanations of juvenile delinquency. A total of 3,171 secondary school pupils from 25 state high schools in New South Wales rated 39 explanations for juvenile offending on a Likert scale. Principal component analysis and a varimax rotation of the responses identified six factors: home environment, emotional adjustment, social control, impulsivity, innate, and social alienation. Analysis of the scores on these factors showed that there was some support for the proximity hypothesis.

Lay explanations for juvenile delinquency given by Australian adolescents from either collectivist or individualist cultural backgrounds were examined. After controlling for socioeconomic and demographic variables, differences were found between the groups, with the individualistic group tending to emphasize more individual-oriented explanations. These results are consistent with previous work on culture and attributional style.

No abstract

No abstract