SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adli Bilimler ve Suç Araştırmaları / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2026

As the Determinants of Criminal Tendency: The Effects of Family Attachment, Moral Identity, and Witnessing Domestic Violence

Suç Eğiliminin Belirleyicileri Olarak: Aile Bağlılığı, Ahlaki Kimlik ve Aile İçi Şiddete Tanıklık Etmenin Etkileri

Handan Gültekin Aktuğ0000-0001-9063-3888
Pages
53–70
Publication Date
2026-06-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Despite the possibility of being affected by the same dilemma, a significant difference was found between the study group and the control group according to the results of the inventory measuring family attachment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the effects of social and psychological factors; moral identity perception, family attachment, and witnessing paternal violence against mother during childhood, on criminal behavior in young adults.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group consisted of 350 inmates aged 18-24, convicted of serious crimes, with a large majority having multiple criminal records.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Despite the possibility of being affected by the same dilemma, a significant difference was found between the study group and the control group according to the results of the inventory measuring family attachment.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Aile içi şiddet · Aile Bağlılığı · Ahlaki Kimlik

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of social and psychological factors; moral identity perception, family attachment, and witnessing paternal violence against mother during childhood, on criminal behavior in young adults. The study group consisted of 350 inmates aged 18-24, convicted of serious crimes, with a large majority having multiple criminal records. The control group comprised 321 university students with no prior criminal record, studying at various higher education institutions in large and small cities across Türkiye. Three inventories were used for the research: the ‘Moral Identity Scale’, the ‘Family Belonging Scale’, and the ‘Witnessing Paternal Violence Against the Mother During Childhood Scale’. Due to the ordinal structure of the scales used in the study and the asymmetry in their distributions, descriptive statistics, percentage distributions, and chi-square analyses were used to determine the differences between the groups instead of parametric tests. Having analyzed the obtained data statistically, no significant difference was found between the study group and the control group in the measurements of moral identity and witnessing violence perpetrated by the father against the mother; two of the three hypotheses established at the beginning of the study could not be confirmed. Having taken into account the observed behavioral tendencies of the inmates and the nature of the prison, this situation may be partially attributed to ‘social desirability bias,’ which is observed at a higher level, especially in the prison environment. Despite the possibility of being affected by the same dilemma, a significant difference was found between the study group and the control group according to the results of the inventory measuring family attachment. The research results highlight the importance of family attachment, which forms the basis of adherence to society and social norms. This study also highlights the methodological sensitivities and the data reliability challenges in the prison environment.

Özet

Bu çalışmada sosyal ve psikolojik etmenlerden ahlaki kimlik algısı, aile bağlılığı ve çocukluk döneminde babanın anneye şiddetine tanıklık etmenin çocuk ve genç popülasyonda suça yönelmeye etkileri araştırılmıştır. Araştırma çalışma grubu olarak 350 mahkûma ulaşılmıştır. Bu mahkumlar 18-24 yaş aralığında, ağır suçlardan hüküm giymiş, büyük bir çoğunluğunun suç dosyasında birden fazla suçu olduğu tespit edilmiş hükümlülerdir. Kontrol grubu olarak Türkiye'nin büyük ve küçük şehirlerinde bulunan muhtelif yüksek öğrenim kurumlarında okumakta olan 321 suç geçmişi olmayan üniversite öğrencisi ile çalışılmıştır. Araştırma için üç ayrı envanter kullanılmıştır. Bunlar 'Ahlaki Kimlik Ölçeği', 'Aile Aidiyeti Ölçeği' ve ‘Çocukluk Döneminde Babanın Anneye Şiddetine Tanıklık Ölçeği’dir. Çalışmada kullanılan ölçeklerin ordinal yapısı ve dağılımlardaki asimetri nedeniyle parametrik testler yerine, tanımlayıcı istatistikler, yüzdelik dağılımlar ve ki-kare analizleri kullanılarak gruplar arasındaki farklar bulunmuştur. Elde edilen veriler istatistiksel olarak analiz edildiğinde ahlaki kimlik ve babanın anneye uyguladığı şiddete şahitlik etme ölçümlerinde çalışma grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında anlamlı bir fark görülmemiş, çalışmaya başlarken kurulan üç hipotezden ikisi doğrulanamamıştır. Bu durum büyük ölçüde, özellikle hapishane ortamında daha yüksek seviyede görülen 'sosyal beğenirlik/istenilirlik yanlılığı' (social desirability bias) ile açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Aynı ikilemden etkilenmiş olmasına rağmen aile bağlılığını ölçen envanter sonuçlarına göre çalışma grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında belirgin bir fark bulunmuştur. Araştırma sonuçları toplum ve toplumsal normlara bağlılığın temelini oluşturan aile bağlılığının önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca hapishane ortamında veri güvenilirliği ile ilgili hassasiyetleri ortaya koymak açısından katkı sağlamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aktuğ, H. G. (2026). As the Determinants of Criminal Tendency: The Effects of Family Attachment, Moral Identity, and Witnessing Domestic Violence. Adli Bilimler ve Suç Araştırmaları, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2026, 53–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/1643874

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
  2. Aktuğ, H. G. (2024). Kardeşler arasında sapma ve suça yönelme davranışında farklılığa etki eden faktörler. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
  3. Arditti, J. A. (2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. NYU Press.
  4. Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., ve Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015409
  5. Aydın, B., Bekir, N., ve Çiçek, N. (2015). Çocukluk döneminde babanın anneye yönelik şiddetine tanıklık ölçeği. In I. Norley, A. Icbay, ve S. Arslan (Eds.), Contemporary approaches in education (ss. 413–420).
  6. Bales, W. D., ve Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 287–321.
  7. Benedict, L. W., ve Lanyon, R. I. (1992). An analysis of deceptiveness: Incarcerated prisoners. Journal of Addictions ve Offender Counseling, 13(1), 23–31. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ451140
  8. Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1
  9. Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
  10. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
  11. Crowne, D. P., ve Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0047358
  12. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., ve Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741
  13. Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press.
  14. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
  15. Glueck, S., ve Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Harvard University Press.
  16. Graham, J. R. (1978). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). In Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook (ss. 311–331). Springer US.
  17. Hardy, S. A., ve Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48(4), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086859
  18. Hart, K. J. (1995). The assessment of malingering in neuropsychological evaluations: Research based concepts and methods for consultants. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.47.4.246
  19. Hildebrand, M., Wibbelink, C. J. M., ve Verschuere, B. (2018). Do impression management and self-deception distort self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors in offender samples? A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 58, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.03.001
  20. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
  21. Hofstee, W. K. B. (2003). Structures of personality traits. In T. Millon ve M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Cilt 5, ss. 231–254). Wiley.
  22. Kürüm, B., ve Ekşi, H. (2022). Kimlik kavramına ahlaki bir bakış: Ahlaki kimlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 43, 189–214.
  23. Mavili, A., Kesen, N. F., ve Daşbaş, S. (2014). Aile aidiyeti ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 33, 53–78.
  24. Mowen, T. J., Boman, J. H., ve Mowen, C. A. (2019). Moving beyond “if” family support matters to “why” it matters: Assessing the relative influence of individual attitudes, social supports, and neighborhood context on reentry outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818820902
  25. Murray, J., ve Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(12), 1269–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01433.x
  26. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
  27. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, ve L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (ss. 17–59). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X
  28. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, ve D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (ss. 49–69). Erlbaum.
  29. Rogers, R., ve Bender, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of malingering and deception. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Cilt 11, ss. 109–130). Wiley.
  30. Rogers, R. (2008). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3. baskı, ss. 3–13). Guilford Press.
  31. Sampson, R. J., ve Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.
  32. Tan, L., ve Grace, R. C. (2008). Social desirability and sexual offenders: A review. Sexual Abuse, 20(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063207308300
  33. Tierney, D. W., ve McCabe, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of self-report measures of cognitive distortions and empathy among Australian sex offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010268612683
  34. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.2704995