Studying the Effects of Family and Friends on the Students’ Violence

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

• Hassan Chavoshian ¹
• Alireza Azizi ¹
• Nader Sanati ²

¹ University of Guilan, Guilan, Iran

² Payame Noor University, Mashhad Branch, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jss.v12i1.31583

Abstract

Extended Abstract

1- Introduction
Youth violence is a major problem that endangers public health in every society. Violence has a significant impact on the mortality of adolescents and young people in each country. Adolescents and young people are exposed to violence more than other age groups. Expansion of the scope of violence, outbreak, and aggression in the Iranian society, especially in recent years, is the most serious social harm. Family and friends play a great role in increasing or decreasing violence because they have more interaction with youth. The present study aims to investigate the students’ violence and answer the following questions: 1. How (what) is the rate of violence of high school students in Tehran? 2. What is the influence of such factors as family and friends on the violence of young people?

2- Theoretical Framework
Several scholars have discussed the problem of violence, each studying this phenomenon from a different angle. Social learning theorists believe that crime, like other behaviors, is learned through acquiring the norms, values, and behaviors associated with criminal activity. In this perspective, it is assumed that children learn different behaviors through observation and imitation of behaviors that are observed or seen. The control theories assume that people's behavior is anti-social and people naturally tend to show deviance of behavior unless they are under control. This means that the absence or weakness of social control is the main cause of deviance. Pressure theories claim that crime is a function of conflict between the goals and tools that can use a legitimate way to achieve those goals.

3- Methodology
Due to the nature of the study and the statistical population, cross-sectional survey method was used. The statistical population includes all secondary school students in Tehran's nineteen regions. Based on the variance of the dependent variable estimated from the preliminary test and the Cochran formula with a probability of error of 4%, the sample size was estimated to be 600 people. To measure the level of students’ violence in the study, Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was used.

4- Results & Discussion
The results of the study showed that mistreatment of parents with children, conflicting parents, lack of parental control over children's behavior, lack of parents’ attachment to children, parents’ low socio-economic status, and delinquent friends had significant relationship with violence. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the variables of parents’ mistreatment with children, having a delinquent peer, lack of parental control, and parents’ low social-economic status had a positive effect on the students’ violence. The strongest predicting variable was having delinquent friends (ß= 0.475) and the weakest predictor was parents’ low social-economic status (ß= 0.093).

5- Conclusions & Suggestions
According to the survey results family and friends are the two main factors in the students’ violence. Providing a healthy family environment and close relationships between family members alongside the control of circle of students’ friends can reduce the likelihood of violence.

Keywords

• Youth violence
• Peer
• Supervision
• Attachment
• Parental mistreatment and conflict

References

1. ادیب، م؛ صلصالی، م. (١٣٨٦). روش‏های تحقیق کیفی. تهران: نشر بشری.

2. پوینتون، ک؛ پوینتون، آ. (١٣٨٨). فرهنگ و متن: گفتمان و روش‌شناسی پژوهش اجتماعی و مطالعات فرهنگی، ترجمۀ حسن چاوشیان. تهران: پژوهشکدۀ مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی و دانشگاه امام صادق.

3. جهاندیده، ا. (١٣٧٨). نقد مناسبات قدرت، دانش و حقیقت در گفت‌و‌گو با افشین جهاندیده. تهران: صبح امروز.

4. حریری، ن. (١٣٨٥). اصول و روش‏های پژوهش کیفی. تهران: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. واحد علوم و تحقیقات.

5. سیدمن، ا. (١٣٨٨). کشاکش آرا در جامعه‏شناسی. (ه. جلیلی، مترجم). چاپ سوم. تهران: نشر نی.

6. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses in Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London, England: New Left Books.

7. Baker, C. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorization in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (Eds.), Culture and text: Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies (pp. 99-113). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

8. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, London: Harvester Press.

9. Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Appelbaum, R. (2005). Introduction to sociology (5th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

10.Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.

11. Harland, R. (1987). Super structuralism: The philosophy of structuralism and post-structuralism. London, England: Methuen.

12. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America.

13. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462–482.