An Investigation of the Relationship between Parenting styles, emotion regulation difficulties and resilience among the young offenders and non-offenders

Introduction
Attention to youth issues always is the most central issues. One of the factors that impact on crime among youths is deficits in emotion regulation that dealing with the development growth environment, otherwise it remains in the first shape.
One of the other components that youth crime deprives them of many positive opportunities is parenting style which has a strong influence on emotion regulation difficulties with resilience in young people to committing crime have been taken into account. Parenting style is methods and specific behaviors that separately or in interact with each other affect the child's development. Authoritative parenting: It's the most appropriate approach of parenting; the authoritative parents demand reasonable requests by setting limits and insisting that children must obey, put into force. Authoritarian parenting: Parents expect their children to obey their orders without questioning them and less talk. Loose style: parents are love and acceptance, but do not expect to have any self-control, permissive parents freeing their children at any age, even though they are not capable of decision-making or can make decision (Papala, 2004; Davood Arab Ghahestani, 2011).
Youth stage generally divided into transient from childhood to adulthood and adolescence and youth stage. However, in current circumstances, we talk to the youth to middle age; but transient and asymmetric development, as well as causes variety social harms; in such situation it is more important to pay attention to youth issues problems. On the other hand, decreasing slightly youth never means taking them out of the spotlight and also doesn't indicative of loss and reduction of problems.For this reason, addressing youth issues should be in a top priority, especially when allocated nearly half the youth population of the study and more than 70% of prisoners in Ilam city.
 
Material & Methods
Participants
The population of this study consisted of all prisoners sentenced to common crimes and all ordinary youth in Ilam city, in which 280 patients (140 in each group) were selected by simple random sampling.
Instrumentation
The Parents authority
The Parents authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (Burri, 1991) was used in the present study. The scale contained 30 items which has a 5 point Likert scale for responses and for the respondents completely disagree 1 score and completely agree 5 score.
Emotion regulation difficulty
This scale was developed by Gratzv Roemer (2004). This scale is composed of 36 items grading items; it uses a Likert-type rating scale.
Resiliency Scale
In this study, resilience was measured using the resiliency scale (CD-RIS) (Connor-Davidson, 2003). It includes 25 items; a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4 is used to measure the strength against pressure and threats. A minimum and maximum score of resiliency are zero and 100 .
Descriptive findings, that is, mean, standard deviation, and frequency. As well as to measure the hypothesis the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used.
Research hypothesis:

There is difference between parenting styles, emotion regulation difficulties and resilience in young offenders and non-offenders.
There is difference between authoritative parenting style with difficulty in emotion regulation and resiliency in young offenders and non-offenders there.
There is difference between authoritarian parenting style with youth offenders and non-offenders, in control of emotion regulation difficulties.
There is difference between permissiveness style with youth offenders and non-offenders, in
control of emotion regulation.

 
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
Descriptive statistics
Table 1.1The mean and SD of the two groups of offenders and non-offenders




Group


Statistics index


Authoritarian


permissive


Arbitrary


Emotion regulation


Resiliency




 
offender


mean


25.38


27.05


37.33


95.87


47.62




SD


4.56


4.85


4.54


16.82


19.69




N


140


139


139


140


139




 
non-offender


mean


33.49


36.51


24.18


85.72


58.78




SD


5.21


6.25


7.57


18.05


15.11




N


140


139


139


140


139




 
As is seen in Table 1.1, the descriptive statistics showed the mean and standard deviation for offender and non-offender groups.
Inference statistics:
Table 2.1 MANOVA on dependent variable in offender and non-offender groups




 Trace
 


numerator
 


degrees of
freedom hypothesis
 


degree of freedom error


F
 


P
 




Wilk's lambda trace
Hotelling-Lawley's trace
Roy's largest root
 


0.082
0.918
0.089


5
5
5


273
273
273


4.854
4.854
4.854
 
 


0.001
0.001
0.001
 
 




 
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOA) was computed to assess the differences between offender and non-offender groups on independent variables. As shown in Table 2.1, difference between offender and non-offenders in one of the independent variables0.05) p<0.01) is significant. It can be concluded that the effect of guilty or not guilty on research linear combination variables is significant.
 
 
 
 
Table 3.1 Analysis of variance on the dependent variable scores in the of offenders and non-offenders groups




Variable


Sums of
Squares
 


Degrees of
Freedom
 


Mean
Squares
 


F


P


effect Size


Statistical power




Authoritarian
Permissive
Arbitrary
Emotion regulation
Resiliency


38.809
82.234
120.086
1220.586
 
7171.74


1
1
1
1
 
1


38.809
82.234
120.086
1220.586
 
7171.74


3.95
4.02
4.14
4.013
 
23.280


0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
 
0.001


0.069
0.071
0.075
0.073
 
0.078


0.92
0.95
0. 98
0. 97
 
0. 99




 
As in Table 3.1 reveal, difference between offender and non-offender groups is significance in authoritarian, arbitrary, emotion regulation, and resiliency parenting style. The results indicated that there was significant positive relationship between offender and non-offender groups according to parenting style.
The results showed a significant differencebetween parenting style, difficulty regulating emotions and resilience in young offenders and non-offenders. It can be stated that due to the complex interactions, relationships, and experiences of the family members, with mental space of the family determined reactions space in accordance with this atmosphere. The findings of this study is accordance with the findings of Abolqasemi (1389) in regard to emotion regulation and tendency toward crime, the results showed that differences between the reactivity of the top and negative emotion regulation is significant. Zaree (2004) showed that strict parents indirectly cause the tendency of youths to crime. Also the finding of this study is accordance with findings of Alden (2009), Dowlatabadi et al., (2013).