4.7 Review

The Vicious Cycle: Problematic Family Relations, Substance Abuse, and Crime in Adolescence: A Narrative Review

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.673954

关键词

criminal behavior; family relationships; adolescence; substance abuse; risky behaviors

资金

  1. Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari (Italy)
  2. Department of Human, Social and Health Sciences, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio (Italy)
  3. Institute for the Study of Psychotherapy of Rome (Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that family environment plays a crucial role in influencing adolescents' criminal behavior and substance abuse, with justice-involved parents and lack of family cohesion, support, and communication increasing the likelihood of adolescents engaging in criminal acts and substance abuse.
Despite the copiousness of studies on the risky behaviors of adolescents, we cannot establish with certainty the leading aspects involved in teens' substance abuse and criminal actions. This review aims to explore the interplay among the family system, substance abuse, and criminal behavior. An analysis of the main results of the 61 articles published between 2010 and 2020 shows that adolescents whose parents are justice-involved and often absent from home are more likely to perceive lower cohesion, support, and poor family communication. These factors can involve them in criminal acts and substance abuse. Moreover, these conducts are often linked to a form of uneasiness and a search of autonomy. Indeed, risky behaviors could have more than one meaning. Our findings also suggest that the most diffused drug-related crimes in adolescence are economic crimes, weapon carrying, robberies, dealing, and drug possession. Considering these results, future clinical implications might be based on multidimensional approaches, focusing more on the family context to promote interventions for at-risk adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据