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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Furnham, A. , & Henderson, M. (1983). Lay theories of delinquency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 107-120.
2.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
3.
Pfeffer, K. , Cole, B., & Dada, K. (1996). British and Nigerian adolescents’lay theories of youth crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 21-35.
4.
Pfeffer, K. , Cole, B., & Dada, K. (1998). Attributions for youth crime among British and Nigerian primary school children. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 251-253.
5.
Reuterman, M. A. (1978). The public’s views of delinquency causation: A consideration in comprehensive juvenile justice planning. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 29, 39-47.
6.
Roberts, J. V. (1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 16, 99-180). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Suh, E. , Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(2), 482-493.
8.
Tyson, G. A. , & Hubert, C. J. (2000). Australian adolescents’explanations of juvenile delinquency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 119-124.
