Objective 1Results of first series of analyses showed that all the six family dimensions separately were found to be significant predictors of both forms of aggression.

Objective 2However, second series of analyses, which controlled both the other type of direct or indirect aggressive behaviours, and the overlap between family dimensions, exhibited a different results pattern. Only two dimensions on its own, communication and roles, were significant predictors of direct aggression. Additionally, dysfunctional family patterns as a whole, but none of the specific dimensions on their own, predicted significantly indirect aggression.

Dysfunctional Family Environment Explaining Direct and Indirect Aggression in Adolescents

Camen Rodríguez-Naranjo & Antonio CañoUniversity of Málaga, Spain

Overview and Objective

Unhealthy family functioning is considered as a strong predictor of later behavioural problems. The purpose of this study is to find relationships between different dysfunctional dimensions of family functioning, according to the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF; Ryan, Epstein, Keitner, Miller, and Bishop, 2005), and aggressive behaviour patterns in Spanish adolescents. The first aim of the study was to examine the relationship between each dimension of the MMFF with direct and indirect aggression forms, separately. The second purpose of the study was to examine the unique effects of the specific family dimensions, controlling for the overlap between them.

Method

Participants

722 Spanish adolescents (373 girls - 349 boys), aged from 12 to 18 years (M = 14,79; SD= 1,74).

Measures Family functioning: Family Assessment Device (FAD - Epstein, Baldwin y Bishop, 1983).

Aggressive Behaviour: Children’s Social Behavior Scale, Self-report form (CSBS – Crick and Grotpeter, 1995).

Statistical Analyses

For the first aim, twelve regression analyses were conducted, six for direct and six for indirect forms of aggression, respectively. Thus, each type of aggression was regressed on every family dimension separately. For the second aim, two additional regression analyses were conducted, in which the six family dimensions were introduced together to test the unique effect on each type of aggression, thus controlling the overlap between them. In all the equations, gender was introduced in the first step for control purposes.

Figure 1. Overview

Results and Conclusions

General Functioning

Problem Solving

Roles

Behaviour Control

Affective Involvement

Affective Responsiveness

Communication

DysfunctionalFamily

Environment

Indirect Agression

Direct Agression

Equation Predictor Variables1 Problem Solving

2 Roles

3 Behaviour Control

4 Affective Involvement

5 Affective Responsiveness

6 Communication

For further information, please contact Carmen Rodríguez (rodriguez.naranjo@uma.es or Antonio Caño (canyo@uma.es),.

Equation Predictor Variables

1 Problem SolvingRolesBehaviour ControlAffective InvolvementAffective ResponsivenessCommunication

Objective 1 Regression Analyses ananalyses

Objective 2 Regression Analyses

Affective Involvement

Roles

Behaviour Control

Affective Responsiveness

Problem Solving

Communication

Results for Objective 2 (unique contribution)

Affective Involvement

Roles

Behaviour Control

Affective Responsiveness

INDIRECTAGGRESSION

Problem Solving

Communication

DIRECTAGGRESSION

INDIRECTAGGRESSION

DIRECTAGGRESSION

Results for Objective 1 (non controlling overlapping effects)

Conclusions. A dysfunctional family environment as a whole can be considered as a risk factor to develop direct and relational aggression in adolescence. Morover, considered separately, each of the six family dimensions is related to direct and indirect aggression. However, unique effects of individual dimensions were only found for roles and communication in the prediction of direct aggression. Results show the need of controlling the overlap between family dimensions in order both to clarify their contribution to different aggresion forms and to design specific interventions for aggression.