Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cccp20

Download by: [University of Malaya] Date: 12 October 2015, At: 03:55

Child Care in Practice

ISSN: 1357-5279 (Print) 1476-489X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cccp20

Parental attachment for at-risk children'santisocial behaviour: A case of Malaysia

Siti Hajar Abu Bakar, Haris Abd. Wahab & M. Rezaul Islam

To cite this article: Siti Hajar Abu Bakar, Haris Abd. Wahab & M. Rezaul Islam (2015): Parentalattachment for at-risk children's antisocial behaviour: A case of Malaysia, Child Care in Practice

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2015.1074541

Published online: 12 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Parental attachment for at-risk children’s antisocial behaviour:A case of MalaysiaSiti Hajar Abu Bakara , Haris Abd. Wahabb and M. Rezaul Islamc

aAssociate Professor at the Department of Social Administration & Justice, University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, Malaysia; bAssociate Professor at the Department of Social Administration & Justice, University ofMalaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; cProfessor at the Institute of Social Welfare & Research, University of Dhaka,Dhaka, Bangladesh and Visiting Senior Lecturer at the Department of Social Administration & Justice,University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was twofold: to explore the influential factorsof parents’ attachment for at-risk children’s antisocial behaviour, andto know the types of children’s antisocial behaviour caused by beinga single-parent family. The sample comprised 1,434 secondaryschool children from the state of Johore, Malaysia. Results fromthe structured questionnaire showed that the children were at riskof involvement in antisocial behaviour when their parentalcontrols were either absent or ineffective owing to three riskfactors: the absence of parents at home, the number of childrenin the family, and single-parent family households. The finding ofthe study has significant policy implications for improvement ofparental care to develop child care services in Malaysia.

KEYWORDSAt-risk children; anti-socialbehaviour; parentalattachment; Malaysia

Introduction

Children who are identified as at risk are involved in different antisocial behaviours. Theparents’ role is significant for these children. There has been considerable media coveragewhich has explicitly highlighted not only alleged extreme types of antisocial behaviour, butalso the difficulties faced when parents want to resolve problems caused by antisocialbehaviour. However, despite the widespread debate in the media, and in academic andpractitioner communities, much of the discussion has been based on subjective evidence.However, children’s risk is central in contemporary social policy, and risk assessment hasbecome a critical component in warranting justifiable action in social care (Firkins &Candlin, 2006). Nowadays, the aggressive and violent behaviour of children and adoles-cents at home has received scant attention in practice, policy, and research literature(Coogan, 2011). The expansion of at-risk children in the last decades was due to three cat-egories of risk: risky families and parents; behavioural and developmental risks of children;and, finally, risky genotypes (Dekker, 2009). According to Nelson, Stage, Duppong-Hurley, Synhorst, and Epstein (2007), the study of risk factors is part of a relativelynew discipline of developmental psychopathology and is based on the belief that signifi-cant exposure to key risk factors is associated with negative, long-term life outcomes.

© 2015 The Child Care in Practice Group

CONTACT M. Rezaul Islam rezaul@um.edu.my

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2015.1074541

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Research shows that parents and other caretakers, including child care providers, whohave resources and support, are more likely to provide safe and healthy environmentsfor children. Indeed, when children are surrounded by secure relationships and stimulat-ing experiences, they can draw from that environment to become confident and caringadults (Karageorge & Kendall, 2008).

Malaysia has made notable progress in a number of areas of economic and social devel-opment. The country enjoys a relatively high standard of living and an atmosphere of socialharmony in a multi-racial society. Nevertheless, there are many social problems outstand-ing, one of which is the involvement of young people’s antisocial activities. The total popu-lation in Malaysia was last recorded at 30.4 million in 2014 (Department of StatisticsMalaysia, 2015). Sixty-five per cent of the population’s age group was 15–59 years, 29%was younger than 14 years, and 73% (2011) lived in urban areas. The populationdistributionisMalay 50.01%,Chinese 22.6%, indigenous 11.8%, IndianTamil 6.7%, and other 0.7%. Thelabour force participation rate in Malaysia is 67% (February 2015) and 55% of women arenow economically active in the labour force. The average number of familymembers is 5.22.According to the National Population and Family Development Board Malaysia (2014),70% families were nuclear and 8% were single. Malaysia adopted the National FamilyPolicy in 2010 which prioritises family perspective in all development efforts to ensurequality generations. It aims to develop prosperous, healthy, and resilient families toensure social stability. This policy mentioned that a work–life balance deserves more atten-tion andmoremen should be involved in child-rearing and household responsibilities. Stat-istics indicated that divorce cases are gradually increasing inMalaysia. There were a total of38,273 divorce cases reported in 2012; an increase by 3,159 cases from 2011 (Department ofStatistics Malaysia, 2013). The main objective of this study was to determine the influentialfactors of at-risk children’s involvement in antisocial behaviour because of parental attach-ment in terms of their absence at home, the number of siblings in the family, and single-parent families. The research was based on the assumption that children’s involvementin antisocial behaviour was always instigated by a prior exposure to risk factors whichhave become more dominant than protective factors in their social environments.

Key themes

At-risk children

The term “children” refers to persons under the age of 18 years as stated in the MalaysiaChild Act 2001 (Child Act, 2001). The phrase “children are at risk” is often used vaguely torefer to poor life outcomes in general (Moore, 2006, p. 1). The outcomes tend to refer tovery general, long-term deficits, such as school failure, death of parents, economic depen-dency, or incarceration. In the context of child protection, we have defined risk as thespace between harm and safety delineated with reference to the interaction of an ensembleof contextual factors each signifying some form of riskiness (Firkins & Candlin, 2006).Risk factors can be defined as those factors associated with a higher likelihood of negativeoutcomes and have mainly been studied in relationship to the development of problembehaviour. In order to accurately identify support strategies for parents whose childrenexhibit behavioural problems, it is essential to have an understanding of the factors thatplace children at risk of, or contribute to the development of, such behaviour in the

2 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

first place (Bradley & Hayes, 2007). Research suggests that in isolation risk factors maymake relatively little contribution to the development of behavioural problems, whereassuch factors in combination may be powerful determinants of negative outcomes (Klein& Forehand, 2000). Research also suggests that a lack of involvement, as well as poormonitoring and supervision of children’s activities, strongly predicts antisocial behaviour.Parents of children with antisocial behaviour are likely to be less positive, more permissiveand inconsistent, and use more violent and critical discipline (Reid, Webster-Stratton, &Baydar, 2004). A major risk factor is parenting style, in particular harsh and inconsistentparenting, which research has shown is associated with child behaviour problems (Finzi-Dottan, Bilu, & Golubchik, 2011; Scott, 2008). Other factors that feed into this directly andindirectly include domestic violence, parental drug abuse, maternal depression, familypoverty, parents with low education, stressed families, and single-parent status (Bloom-quist & Schnell, 2005; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2008).

Some would argue that all children are at risk in some way or another, while othersemphasise that some children face much higher risks than do other children. Some alsoargued that children can be at risk due to a lack of environmental factors, such aspoverty, single parenthood, and low parental education levels. A number of authorsargued that the risk factors are related with the community, neighbourhood, or schoolcontext as an at-risk environment. For example, a low-income community with a highcrime rate and a low high school graduation rate might be viewed as a place that putschildren and adolescents at risk of poor outcomes (Moore, 2006, p. 2). One of the mostdominant factors that we considered in our study is related to children’s antisocial beha-viours, when parental controls are either absent or ineffective because of three risk factors:the absence of parents at home, a large number of children in the family, and single-parentfamily households (Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, & Kennedy, 2003). Where parents are livingalone, they may find the constant pressure of looking after a child, along with domesticand work-related issues, difficult to manage, which can result in inconsistent disciplinedue to emotional exhaustion and lack of social support networks to help with the children.

Antisocial behaviour

The definition of the term “antisocial behaviour” is problematic because it is “more discre-tionary, subjective and less definitive” (Thomas, 2005, p. 6) and the nature of the term issubject to interpretation (Bland & Read, 2000; Moore & Lawrence, 2000). One of thedifficulties with this approach is the lack of clarity in defining exactly what antisocialbehaviour is. It is described as “a vague term, with a broad definition, which in the lastfew years has become a rallying call for some onerous and intrusive measures against indi-viduals” (Ashworth, 2004, p. 263). Brown (2004, p. 205) mentioned that it is considered“so vague that almost anything could break it”. In many cases, antisocial behaviour isreferred to as an indifferent attitude towards other people which violates the rights ofone human being (Alloy, Riskind, & Manos, 2005). Sometimes antisocial behaviourrefers to actions that harm others, violate societal norms, and/or violate the personal orproperty rights of others (Burt & Donnellan, 2009). Farrington (2005) defined antisocialbehaviour as a set of behaviours which are against any established rules or normal beha-viours; during childhood and adolescence, antisocial behaviour included impulsiveness,behavioural disorders, stealing, vandalism, physical and psychological aggression,

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

bullying, and running away from home. From a psychological point of view, an antisocialpersonality disorder emerges when there is a chronic pattern of irresponsible behaviourwith little or no concern for the rights of others, society norms, law, and conscience(Canada Mental Health Association, 2006). Examples of antisocial behaviour include: nui-sance neighbours, vandalism, graffiti, fly-posting, dealing and buying illegal drugs, crackhouses, begging, antisocial drinking, dumping and abandoning cars, rowdy and nuisancebehaviour, yobbish and intimidating behaviour, trespassers, and misuse of fireworks.

Johnston and Mash (2001) called antisocial behaviour ‘disruptive behaviour’. Theymentioned that there are multiple risk factors related to heredity, and family environmenthas been linked to each as portrayed by children. Research showed that dysfunctionalparenting, parent depression (Querido, Eyberg, & Boggs, 2001), marital distress (Bearss& Eyberg, 1998), and parenting stress (Leung, Leung, Chan, Tso, & Ip, 2005) arerelated to children’s antisocial behaviour. These parent factors were often thought to influ-ence child behaviour through their effect on parenting. Leung et al. (2005) mentioned thatparent’s interactions with their children are the most proximal influence on their chil-dren’s development and parenting practices continue to play a critical role in the mainten-ance of disruptive behaviour throughout child development. Steinberg (2000) found thatthese behavioural problems can be seen at home and/or at school for a variety of reasons.They may be the result of bad parenting and social problems beyond the child’s control ormay result from frustration caused by other learning difficulties, and may also be symp-toms of a particular disorder. At the present time, most children are unattended athome due to the parents’, especially mothers’, involvement in jobs because many areliving in nuclear and single-parent families. This is also true in Malaysia. There is ageneral lack of transparency with government data; these are often not made publiclyavailable and/or are usually not disaggregated enough to be useful (Child Rights CoalitionMalaysia, 2012). Ting (2011) reported that in Malaysia there was an increase of juvenilecases from 5,114 cases in 2007 to 6,048 juvenile cases in 2009. This accounts for anaverage of 497 cases per month and 16 cases per day. Offences that related to propertylosses were ranked the highest with 6,234 cases (63%). This included house breaking,theft of a motor vehicle, snatch theft, dealing in stolen property, and more. Zakaria(2012) conducted a pilot study which investigated the behaviour problems amongspecial children in Sabah, Malaysia. His results indicated that special education teachersranked the problems as more severe disobedience, impertinence, tattling, and overcritical.On the other hand, counsellors noted the problems as more severe dishonesty, depression,hyperactivity, easily discouraged, enuresis, shyness, dependency, and dreaminess.

Parental attachment

Parental attachment refers to parent–child relationships which provide a secure base foradolescents to independently discover and master new environments. It is believed thatadolescents who have secure attachment with parents are less likely to engage in antisocialbehaviour. Insecure attachment was associated with parental negativity and rejection. Wehave seen that parental attachment to control at-risk children’s antisocial behaviour comesin the literature in a variety of ways. A body of theoretical literature and research hasemphasised the importance of parental control or over-involvement considered as thepressure parents put on their children to behave in desired ways in relation to child

4 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

anxiety. Of all parenting behaviours, parental control is considered most central to thedevelopment of anxiety in children (der Bruggen, Bögels & van Zeilst, 2010). Parentalattachment stimulates a number of adjustments, including the creation of a psychicspace for the child, the elaboration of traumas and conflicts with important figures ofthe past, a revision of the couple’s relationship, the elaboration of the parents’ mourningthe loss of old-fashioned family values, greater openness to the social environment, and asearch for creative and original solutions to the problem that had triggered the crisis(Piovano, 2004). In more modern terms, Green (2000) considers parenthood as a parentalreflective function: a process of refinement and revision of the parents’ theories of mindabout their children that evolve appropriately with and in response to the child’s levelof development—a phenomenon similar to the development of theories of mind in thechild. Budd, Clark, and Connell (2011) identified elements of minimally adequate parent-ing. These elements include meeting the physical needs of the child, providing for cogni-tive and developmental needs, and addressing and responding to emotional needs. Choateand Engstrom (2014) mentioned that parenting is about the bidirectional relationshipbetween the parent and the child.

A good number of studies pointed out how parents would treat and attach with theirat-risk children. For example, Hoghughi and Speight (1998) suggested that good enoughparenting consisted of love, care, and commitment; control and consistent limit setting;and facilitation of development. Absence of these three elements tended to lead to poor out-comes in adult life. Pezzot-Pearce and Pearce (2004, p. 9) ask what is the goodness of fitbetween this parent and this child? Once we understand the nature of the relationship,we can then ask how the parent performs within that relationship. What does the parentdo to support the relationship or, in the alternative, to diminish it? As an example, aparent may see the child as very important and worthy of encouragement, but have anactive addiction that precludes the parent from behaving in a way that supports thedesired relationship. Research proves that divorce affected the trust between parents andadolescents (Glatz, 2006) and led to insecure parent–child relationships (Fraley & Heffer-man, 2013). A poor mother–adolescent relationship contributes to a higher delinquencyproblem among adolescents from divorced families (Nooshin, Siti Nor, & Rumaya,2013). The quality of the parent–adolescent relationship was found to be positivelyrelated to adolescents’ self-esteem (Nakisa, Siti Nor, Ma’rof, Parisa, & Nooshin, 2014;Nooshin & Siti Nor, 2012), which in turn might contribute to aggressive behaviour(Simon, Paternite, & Shore, 2001). Parental conceptions, involving attitudes, expectations,and feelings, act as interpretive filters that help to understand and predict the social trans-actions with the child. At the high-reciprocal pole, parents and children are seen as activeagents in the process of mutual influence and mutual understanding (Bugental & Grusec,2006; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). Some studies proved that adolescents who lack secureattachment with their parents tend to bemore anxious and depressed, have lower self-regu-lation, and exhibit social withdrawal (Lee, Abdullah, Elias,&Uli, 2010). Rodríguez, Rodrigo,Janssens, and Triana (2011) focused on parenting in a mostly deprived at-risk populationand investigated howmothers’ conceptions of the parenting rolemay affect their interactionwith a pre-adolescent son or daughter. Results showed that high power conception had anegative influence onmother and child’s collaborative efforts, whereas reciprocity and par-ental support conceptions had a positive influence. Reciprocity, low power, and parentalsupport schemes consistently predicted experts’ view on maternal practices.

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Cullen and Barlow (2002) conducted a study inwhich they explored parents’ experiencesof caring for children with autism and examined whether attending a touch therapy pro-gramme was of value. Results showed that autism dominated the lives of parents andtheir family. Family functioning was disturbed and marital relationships became strainedfor some parents. Parents felt isolated, frustrated, and bewildered. Ogbu, Brady, andKinlen (2014) took experiences of parenting in direct provision from the perspective of16 people living in direct provision centres in the West of Ireland. The themes thatemerged include challenges related to moral guidance and protection of children, basiccare and nurturing, education and social development, financial stress, and psychologicalwell-being. Respondents also identified a range of formal, semi-formal, and informal sup-ports as critical to their ability to cope. From a Singapore perspective, Ooi, Ang, Fung,Wong, and Cai (2006) examined that higher quality of parent–child attachment was associ-ated with lower levels of parent-rated aggression, lower levels of social stress, and higherlevels of self-esteem. Tu, Lee, Chen, and Kao (2014) observed that adolescent depressionplays amore significant role vis-à-vis adolescent depression than the parental psychologicalcontrol on Taiwan adolescent antisocial behaviour.

In the Malaysian context, there are very few studies which covered the parental attach-ment for controlling children’s antisocial behaviour. For example, Yaacob, Idris, and Wan(2015) investigated the relationships between parental attachment, coping efficacy, andantisocial behaviour among adolescents from divorced families. Findings indicated thatwhen adolescents are highly attached to their parents, they have lower tendency toinvolve themselves in antisocial behaviour. Yahaya, Ghaffar, and Baharom (2010)conducted a study at identifying correlations between family atmosphere and deviantbehaviour among secondary school adolescents in the Pontian District of Johor inMalaysia. Their results showed a significant relation between parent’s behaviour traitsand juvenile deviant behaviour. To review the studies from different countries we cansee that parent’s role and attachment for at-risk children depends on the provision ofthe laws and policies of the country where parent’s responsibilities are written clearly(Ogbu et al., 2014). A number of documents such as the Malaysia Child Act 2001, theNational Child Policy, the Child Care Centre Act 1984, the Child Care Act 1993, andthe Child Protection Policy 2009 delineate children’s rights and parental responsibilities.Here parental rights are parental responsibilities owed to the child, as opposed to a right toexercise power over the child as a possession. A child is recognised as the product of par-ental influence and any manifested deficiencies, as evident in offending behaviour, are pre-sumed to justify parental liability (Kahar & Zin, 2011). UNICEF (2008) providedguidelines according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that children every-where are entitled to basic human rights which include: the right to survival; the rightto develop to the fullest; the right to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploi-tation; and the right to participate fully in family, cultural, and social life.

Research objective and methodology

Research objective

The main objective of this study was to determine the causal factors of at-risk children’sinvolvement in antisocial behaviour in terms of their parent’s absence at home, number of

6 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

siblings in the family, and single-parent families in Malaysia. The research was based onthe assumption that children’s involvement in antisocial behaviour was always instigatedby a prior exposure to risk factors which have become more dominant than protectivefactors in their social environments.

Methodology

Research approachA self-report survey (Cantor & Lynch, 2000) was conducted to gather data on risk factors.This survey design was chosen because this study involved a large number ofhomogeneous respondents. It is an appropriate technique to determine individualopinions, attitudes, behaviours, or characteristics about social issues, policy issues, and/or social phenomena (Creswell, 2008). In addition, this is a proper means to get“honest” feedback from respondents (McLaughlin & Muncie, 2001).

Data collection methods and instrumentsWe used a direct interview method for data collection. We developed a structured ques-tionnaire with close-ended questions for data collection. The questionnaire was in BahsaMalaya. The language of the instrument was very simple and self-explanatory so that thechildren could read and understand the questions easily for answering. After data editing,we translated all information into English.

Sampling and respondentsWe collected data from 1,434 secondary school children using structured questionnairesfrom eight districts of Johor, Malaysia whose age were between 13 and 18 years.In sample size selection, we considered all types of children who were studying andpresent in the schools. Here we did not consider the socio-economic category or familystructure of the children. This study was commissioned by the Johor Family DevelopmentFoundation, Malaysia under the State of Johor. We selected a total of 4,392 school childrenthrough simple random sampling, but only 1,434 children returned their questionnaires.We assumed that the children who did not return the questionnaire either did not recog-nise themselves as at-risk children or did not want to disclose about their parents’ attach-ment towards their antisocial behaviour. Their fears and their lack of reliability andconfidentiality towards the possibility of data misuse may be active in this refusal pro-cedure. The entire process of sampling was done in a single step with each subject selectedindependently of the other members of the population. We used a lottery, which is themost primitive and mechanical system. A simple random sample is one of the best prob-able sampling techniques, and is considered a fair way of selecting a sample from a givenpopulation since every member is given equal opportunity to be selected. The gender ratiowas male 57%: female 43%. We considered these numbers of children as 1% from the totalof 439,237 children in eight districts of Johor. We also set up inclusive criteria forsampling, including the following:

. selected secondary schools, which were regular, not a students’ hostel;

. selected schools where co-education was running;

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

. selected schools where the three ethnic groups (i.e. Malay, Chinese, and Indian Tamil)in Malaysia are available;

. selected school children from both age groups whose age was between 13 and 18 years(level VI to O level); and

. selected only one child from a specific family who has at least one parent.

Ethical issuesThe Social Welfare Department of Malaysia, The Ministry of Education, and the JohorFamily Development Foundation, Malaysia did not have institutional review boards orcommittees who could approve the study. It is also noted that the University of Malayadid not have any ethical guidelines while the study was conducted. However, theauthors followed the ethical guidelines given by Miles and Huberman (1994). We tookpermission from the Johor Family Development Foundation. A guarantee of confidenti-ality and anonymity of sources was given to the local authority and all of the participants.The study team obtained verbal consent from all participants and the study followed con-ventional processes in terms of consent, duty of care, and protection of confidentiality inthe way the fieldwork was carried out.

Data analysis techniquesAll data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version9.0). In order to facilitate the data analysis, the frequencies and chi-square analysisprocedures were employed to compute counts, compute basic statistics for the variables,and test the relationship between the variables.

Limitations of the studyThis study had a large sample of children and we could not justify how the influentialfactors such as absence of parents at home, numbers of siblings in the family, andsingle-parent family were interrelated and varied among the low-income groups, minorityethnics, and lone parenthood. First, it should be noted that since this was a self-reportedstudy some causal effects cannot be assumed. Thus from this study, for example, wecannot conclude that negative parenting caused the children to behave antisocially.Secondly, the strengths of the associations found may be limited by the fact that therewere no families with children who did not display antisocial behaviour; had they beenincluded, the results found in this study might have been still stronger. Thirdly, thestudy relied on the opinions of children, who might not understand the importance ofsuch a study and in some cases might not state their opinions seriously.

Results

The absence of parents at home

As regards the relationship between the presence of parents at home and their children’sinvolvement in antisocial behaviour, we identified two major elements. The first was theparents’ employment status, and the second was the nature of the parents’ occupation. Onthe parents’ employment status, we found that there was a difference in the effects of thefathers’ or mothers’ employment on their children’s involvement in antisocial behaviour.

8 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

As shown in Table 1, children’s antisocial behaviour did not correlate with the fathers’employment status, but it did with that of the mother’s (p ≤ 0.001). An unemployedfather may impair the family’s capacity to generate income, but his presence at homemay contribute towards better supervision of and control over the behaviour of children.

A total of 949 mothers were reported to be unemployed; most of them, however,were engaged in part-time jobs such as catering, baby-sitting, telemarketing, anddirect-selling. This means that most of these mothers were not full-time mothers,who could exercise full supervision of and control over their children. The effect ofthis absence gave greater freedom to their children to engage in antisocial behaviour,suggesting that insofar as that behaviour is concerned, a mother’s presence is morepivotal than a father’s absence.

The nature of the occupation held by the children’s parents was found inconsequentialto the former’s antisocial behaviour, but not the amount of time the parents spent at theirworkplace. Thus, our study indicated that children were likely to be involved in antisocial

Table 1. Parent’s Employment Status and Children’s Involvement in Antisocial Behaviour .Group A: do not involve with

antisocial behaviourGroup B: involved withantisocial behaviour

Employment status n (%) n (%)

Fathera

Unemployed 20 1.6 61 5.0Employed 337 27.5 805 65.9Total 357 29.1 866 70.9

Motherb

Unemployed 296 23.5 653 51.8Employed 67 5.3 245 19.4Total 363 28.8 898 71.2

Notes: p ≤ 0.05. aN = 1,223; χ2 = 0.850; degrees of freedom (df) = 1; p ≥ 0.357; Cramer’s V = 0.26. bN = 1,261; χ2 = 10.813;df = 1; p ≤ 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.093.

Table 2. Parents’ Occupation and Children’s Involvement in Antisocial Behaviour.Group A: do not involvewith antisocial behaviour

Group B: involved withantisocial behaviour

Parents’ occupation n % n %

Fathera

Professional 18 1.6 54 4.7Self-employment 129 11.3 276 24.2Manager 11 1.0 38 3.3Executive/officer 11 1.0 69 6.0Clerical job 27 2.4 75 6.6Labourer 141 12.3 293 25.7Total 357 29.5 805 70.5

Motherb

Full-time housewife 8 0.6 30 2.4Housewife (with part-time job) 310 24.6 694 55.0Professional 10 0.8 48 3.8Self-employment 23 1.8 64 5.1Manager 0 0 6 0.5Secretary 0 0 2 0.2Executive/officer 1 0.1 14 1.1Clerical job 11 0.9 40 3.2Total 363 28.8 898 71.2

Notes: p ≤ 0.05. aN = 1,142; χ2 = 14.802; df = 5; p ≤ 0.011; Cramer’s V = 0.114. bN = 1,261; χ2 = 15.364; df = 7; p ≤ 0.032;Cramer’s V = 0.110.

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

behaviour if their parents spent long hours at their workplace. These parents includedthose who hold low-skilled jobs such as labourers, or are engaged in insecure self-employ-ment, all of whom need to spend more time at work in order to generate a higher income(Table 2). Likewise, parents who hold highly-skilled jobs or who hold managerial positionsneeded to spend long hours at work to satisfy the demand of their jobs (Table 2). Theparents in both categories may find it difficult to juggle work and family. Consequently,they had limited time to spend supervising and controlling their children.

Numbers of children (siblings)

We asked the children to report the number of their siblings. As shown in Table 3,we found a significant relationship between our respondents’ involvement in antisocialbehaviour. The most at-risk children were found to have four to seven siblings (49%). Sur-prisingly, we found that children who had more than 12 siblings were in the lower riskgroup. This might be due to age difference among siblings, where the children hadmature elder brothers/sisters. The more mature older siblings act as surrogate parents,taking care of and controlling their younger siblings when parents go out for work. Forthe young ones, they had elder siblings to take care of their needs. For the elder siblings,this experience gave them a sense of responsibility towards their family members, which inthe long run could prevent them from involving in antisocial behaviour. This favourablerelationship between siblings acts as a protective factor for the children.

Single-parent Families

In contrast with the theory, our findings showed that the respondents’ antisocial beha-viours did not correlate with their family structure (p ≤ 0.059). As shown in Table 4,only 7% of children who were involved in antisocial behaviour came from single-parentfamilies. In contrast, 62% of children were from intact families.

However, the ways in which a family became a single-parent family had a major impacton children’s antisocial behaviour. As shown in Table 5, a single family which resultedfrom a divorce or separation had a stronger negative effect on a child’s behaviour.Parents’ divorce or separation brought along lots of problems, conflicts, and tensions,such as custody over children, quarrels over family possessions, and adjustments of newfamily structure. A child may be depressed over this situation. He/she might keepblaming himself/herself, keep feeling guilty, insecure, worried, and angry with his/herparents. This type of child was at high risk of getting involved in antisocial activities.

Table 3. Number of Siblings and Children’s Involvement in Antisocial Behaviour.Group A:do not involvewith antisocial behaviour

Group B: involved withantisocial behaviour

Number of siblings (persons) n (%) n (%)

1–3 9 0.6 45 3.14–7 293 20.5 698 48.78–11 125 8.7 217 15.212–15 11 0.8 30 2.1More than 15 0 0 4 0.3Total 438 30.6 994 69.4

Notes: p ≤ 0.05. N = 1,432; χ2 = 13.177; df = 4; p ≤ 0.010: Cramer’s V = 0.096.

10 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to determine the influential factors of at-riskchildren’s antisocial behaviour because of their parents’ absence at home, number of sib-lings in the family, and single-parent families in Malaysia. The findings were based on aself-report survey with 1,434 secondary school children from the state of Johore, Malaysia.This study had a number of limitations. There was a large sample of children from whichwe could not justify how those three factors were interrelated and varied among the low-income groups, minority ethnics, and lone parenthood. Through a self-reported study,some causal effects—such as negative parenting causing children’s antisocial behaviour—cannot be assumed. In addition, the study relied on the opinions of children, whomight not understand the importance of such a study and in some cases might notstate their opinions seriously.

Table 4. Family Structure and Children’s Involvement with Antisocial Behaviour.Group A: do not involvewith antisocial behaviour

Group B: involved withantisocial behaviour

Family structure n (%) n (%)

Intact familya 406 28.4 888 62.1Single family 32 2.2 104 7.3Total 438 30.6 992 69.4

Cause of being a single familyb

Separation 4 3.1 12 8.9Divorce 4 3.1 31 23.0Death 19 14.5 47 34.8Staying apart 5 3.8 13 9.6Total 32 24.4 103 76.3

Notes: p≤ 0.05. aN = 1,430; χ2 = 3.566; df = 1; p≤ 0.059; Cramer’s V = 0.050. bN = 131; χ2 = 4.409; df = 3; p≥ 0.221; Cramer’sV = 0.183.

Table 5. Children’s Antisocial Behaviour and Causes of Being a Single Family.A family becomes a single family because of…

Antisocial behaviourSeparation(n = 13) (%)

Divorce(n = 35) (%)

Death(n = 65) (%)

Othercauses

(n = 18) (%) Total χ2Cramer’s

V p

1. Drug addiction 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1 100 4.532 0.186 0.2092. Smoking 12.0 28.0 40.0 20.0 100 1.610 0.111 0.6573. Alcoholic 13.3 33.3 40.0 13.3 100 0.794 0.078 0.8514. Ecstasy 0.0 80.0 0.0 20.0 100 8.767 0.259 0.0335. Gangsterism 18.8 37.5 25.0 18.8 100 4.783 0.191 0.1886. Organised crime group 28.6 28.6 14.3 28.6 100 5.645 0.208 0.1307. Extortion 18.8 31.3 31.3 18.8 100 3.143 0.155 0.3708. Quarrel 9.5 29.7 48.6 12.2 100 0.955 0.085 0.8129. Fist fight 12.8 35.9 33.3 17.9 100 5.905 0.212 0.11610. Vandalism 13.3 23.3 33.3 30.0 100 10.189 0.279 0.01711. Impropriety / promiscuity /adultery

8.3 58.3 16.7 16.7 100 7.949 0.246 0.047

12. Premarital sex 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 100 2.979 0.151 0.39513. Prostitution 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 100 2.131 0.128 0.54614. Pregnant out of wedlock andchild abortion

0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 5.571 0.206 0.134

15. Read and watchpornography materials

8.3 41.7 35.4 14.6 100 9.648 0.271 0.022

16. Runaway 28.6 42.9 14.3 14.3 100 5.175 0.199 0.15917. Loafing 9.1 35.1 42.9 13.0 100 6.800 0.228 0.079

Note: N = 131; p ≤ 0.05.

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

The findings showed that the children were at risk of involvement in antisocial behav-iour when their parental controls were either absent or ineffective. We found that most ofthe mothers were engaged in part-time jobs such as catering, baby-sitting, telemarketing,and direct-selling. The effect of this absence gave greater freedom to their children toengage in antisocial behaviour. The results indicated that the children were likely to par-ticipate in antisocial behaviour if their parents spent long hours at their workplace. Thisfinding is consistent with a number of past studies, such as Lim, Muslihah, Sa’odah,and Wu (2013), Gallarin and Alonso-Arbiol (2012), Nooshin et al. (2013), Steinberg(2000), Cullen and Barlow (2002), and Yaacob, Idris, and Wan (2015), which foundthat adolescents are less likely to engage in delinquent and aggressive behaviour whenthey are attached to their parents. In this perspective, Cullen and Barlow’s (2002) studyshowed that parents’ descriptions of their children’s behaviour illustrated the barrage ofdemands and the types of challenges that they face day and night. These include children’slack of communication and social interaction, the constant demands, the absence ofunderstanding of others’ needs and emotions, tantrums, and the lack of independence.

Our study showed that antisocial behaviour was higher among the children whosefamily size was bigger (four to seven siblings). This finding is supported by a largenumber of studies, for instance Farrington (2010), Prior and Paris (2005), Farringtonand Coid (2003), Wallace, Crown, Berger, and Cox (1997), Smith (2007), and so forth.They proved that the large family size (a large number of children in the family) is a rela-tively strong and highly replicable predictor of delinquency. Farrington (2010) determinedthat large family size predicted self-reported delinquency as well as convictions. Fraley andHeffernan (2013) show that the outcome of a larger family is the insecure parental–childrelation which gives a serious challenge to parents to give equal and enough care andattention to all children. A number of authors such as Nooshin et al. (2013) and Nakisaet al. (2014) found larger families had poor mother–adolescent relations. This disruptsthe interaction and caring relationship between parents and their grown up children.Any of these children who fail to adapt to this situation were badly affected andbecame depressed, frustrated, unsatisfied, felt angry, and had a hostile attitude towardstheir parents. These negative psychology conditions could provoke them to be involvedin antisocial behaviours.

Our findings show that the ways in which a family became a single-parent family had amajor impact on children’s antisocial behaviour. The study indicated that a single familywhich resulted from a divorce or separation had a stronger negative effect on a child’sbehaviour. The study findings can be compared with a number of previous studies suchas Budd et al. (2011), Ogbu et al. (2014), Hoghugni and Speight (1998), Sufean andZainon (2002), and so forth. Glatz (2006) found that divorce affected the trust betweenparents and adolescents. Nooshin et al. (2013) found that a poor mother–adolescentrelationship contributes to a higher delinquency problem among adolescents from adivorced family. They found that a family’s capability in the care and control of achild’s behaviour can be more challenging if that family is headed by a single parent,either a mother or a father. A single-parent family has been identified as less effectivethan a complete family in socialising and controlling their children’s behaviour.A single father or a single mother is not likely to be able to perform his/her social andeconomic functions and roles effectively (Sufean & Zainon, 2002; Zayas, Kaplan,Turner, Romano, & Gonzales-Ramos, 2000). A single-parent family has a crucial

12 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

impact on the child’s personal or self-development. According to the matriarchy pathol-ogy hypothesis, a mother and a father have specific gender roles in their children’s self-development. An absence of a mother or a father figure in a family has a critical impacton children, especially boys (Sufean & Zainon, 2002).

Finally, this study showed that the children were involved in a number of serious anti-social activities such as drug addiction, smoking, alcoholic, ecstasy, gangsterism, organisedcrime groups, extortion, quarrelling, vandalism, impropriety, premarital sex, abortion,prostitution, read and watch pornography materials, running away, loafing, and soforth. This finding is likened with a number of studies such as Farrington (2005), Ogbuet al. (2014), Zakaria (2012), Piovano (2004), Ting (2011), and so forth. For example,Ogbu et al. (2014) and Piovano (2004) showed that at-risk children become riveted tothe greater openness to the social environment. Ting (2011) investigated whether at-risk children are involved in house breaking, theft of a motor vehicle, snatch theft,dealing in stolen property, and other kinds of antisocial activities in Malaysia. Zakaria(2012) also found that these children were disobedient, impertinent, tattling, overcritical,dishonest, depressive, hyperactive, easily discouraged, and suffered enuresis, shyness,dependency, and dreaminess. Farrington (2005) mentioned that these children attemptto establish a set of behaviours which is against any established rules or normal behaviours.Their antisocial behaviour included impulsiveness, behavioural disorders, stealing, vand-alism, physical and psychological aggression, bullying, and running away from home.

Conclusions and suggestions

The findings from this research raise further concerns on a number of issues aroundparents’ attachment with at-risk children in Malaysia. We mentioned earlier that this isa self-report opinion from a representative number of at-risk school children, whichwas narrowly focused on their parents’ attachment. However, we think that furtherstudy should cover a number of areas. For instance, a study should be proposed specificallyon the gender, ethnic, and socio-economic categories which will clarify the contextual andcountry perspectives of parental attachment for at-risk children in Malaysia. This wouldprovide more value for international readers and other Asian countries. A case studywould be more important to focus on the psychosocial and economical barriers athome and school for the children. This would give detailed information about thechildren’s experience from their parents at home and children at school.

Despite some limitations, the present study addressed a relatively unexplored researchquestion and provided preliminary findings in Malaysia that have important policy impli-cations. The findings of the study presented a number of important points regardingparents’ attachment with at-risk children who were involved in antisocial behaviour.Results of the study showed that there are a number of areas in parental involvementsuch as absence of parents, especially mothers, due to employment, higher number offamily members and single-parent families in which the tendency of children’s antisocialbehaviour was positive. The findings indicate that parenting programmes can have a posi-tive impact on a range of outcomes, including improved child behaviour, increasedmaternal self-esteem and relationship adjustment, improved mother–child interactionand knowledge, and decreased maternal depression and stress (Bunting, 2004). Fromour findings we would believe that children whose families are struggling with poverty,

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

and the housing, health, safety, and other concerns that often go with it, cannot focus onlearning unless their non-academic needs are met (D’Angelo, Rich, & Kwiatt, 2013).

Malaysia unfortunately does not have a professional institutionalised child care systemfor at-risk children. UNICEF (2013) reported that due to the absence of guidelines, chil-dren’s views in decision-making and placement are problematic. A number of interim carealternatives to institutions, such as temporary shelter or fostering, provide an opportunityfor welfare workers from a range of agencies to work to make the home environment safe.The government has various small programmes, mostly cash transfers, awarded throughbasic means testing based on families’ registration and home visits by social workers.There is limited non-cash assistance, such as parental education and counselling. Thealternative care system is a patchwork of government and private facilities. Parents mayput their children into care for many reasons, including financial, family conflict, anddisciplinary problems. Government facilities include homes for abused, abandoned, orpoor children; children under provisional probation by the court; children who commitcrimes but are not sentenced to jail; and teenage girls accused of “vice” activities.Private facilities mostly care for abused, neglected, or abandoned children, orphans, andfor children with disabilities, and many are faith-based. Approved School or ProbationHostel provision is recommended for children committing status offences such asrunning away from home, engaging in sexual behaviour, engaging in substance abuse,being repeatedly disobedient to parents, and/or involvement in motorbike racing (ChildRights Coalition Malaysia, 2012).

The current idea of supporting children and their development is to provide support tothe caregivers so that the child’s living environment gets better. The other way to supportyoung people is to build free-time centres and after-school programmes where educatedprofessionals would be available and work with the young people when adults areworking. These professionals can also contact caregivers if necessary. But this idea isnot working properly in Malaysia due to the lack of professional commitment towardssocial care work, lack of institutionalisation, and shortages of care workers (ChildRights Coalition Malaysia, 2012; UNICEF, 2013). Child Rights Coalition Malaysia(2012) further noted that, due to insufficient numbers of Child Protectors, their caseloadshave been too high to allow for effective case management and proper review of a child’splacement; this has sometimes resulted in children being returned to their families, whereabuse may still continue. In this point, mothers’ empowerment with an appropriateparenting skills programme will be effective in order to establish a close and meaningfulrelationship with their adolescent child, and consequently nurture their adolescent child’scoping efficacy. Adolescent children who do not feel deprived and able to cope with chal-lenges tend to avoid various forms of antisocial behaviour.

To consider the overall findings of the study, this article suggests five major interven-tions in order to improve the child care system in Malaysia, where parents may interveneand help to control antisocial behaviour of their at-risk children.

First, an individual-attention care programme would be more important for at-riskchildren. Supportive and “needs-led” physical accommodations or infrastructures whichfacilitate proactive recreational needs will be an added attraction for at-risk children toattend the centres. Individual-attention centres that offer a variety of structured andsemi-structured social programmes or social activities could fill the children’s time withmeaningful and beneficial activities. This underlines the fact that there is the opportunity

14 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

to improve children’s life chances through directly intervening with programmes of effec-tive parenting as well as in changing parenting styles.

Second, two alternative support services such as a “free-time centre” and an “after-school programme” can be suggested for the children whose parents are working. The pro-fessional care workers can be engaged in both care services. The parents can contact thecare workers if they feel it necessary.

Third, either the mother or father should spend more quality time giving face-to-faceindividual remedial attention to the child. This is consistent with at-risk children’s needs;to have at least one significant responsible adult whom they can trust and respect, and whocan be their role model. The attachment relationship will attract the child to go to the sig-nificant adult; especially when they need help, support, or guidance. The child will be morecomfortable to voice out and share their problems with their parents. This will preventthem from getting help, support, or guidance from irresponsible individuals, which maylead them to negative resolutions or wrong-doing.

Fourth, the parent should properly treat and remedy problems or the needs deficit facedby an at-risk child. In this sense, a mother or father separately or jointly should takeresponsibility in terms of their caring, supervising, and controlling. Good attachmentbetween the parents and the children may permit an “outflow” of good values and proso-cial behaviour from the parents to the children.

Fifth, after giving effective “treatment” and remedies to the problems or needs deficitfaced by at-risk children, the next task for the parent is to develop and empower whateverdevelopmental assets the child may possess. Developing and empowering developmentalassets owned by at-risk children is very important because it determines the child’s copingabilities and resilience, especially if he/she lives in an economically and physically chal-lenged environment, or when agents of social control are absent. This not only preventstheir involvement in antisocial activities that may jeopardise their community well-being, but more importantly would also instil good values and social rules in them.

Funding

This study was funded by the University of Malaya and the Johor Family Development Foundation,Malaysia.

ORCID

Siti Hajar Abu Bakar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0808-833X

References

Alloy, L. B., Riskind, J. H., & Manos, M. J. (2005). Abnormal psychology (9th ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill Companies.

Ashworth, A. (2004). Social control and “anti-social behaviour”: The subversion of human rights?Law Quarterly Review, 120(April), 263–291.

Bearss, K., & Eyberg, S. M. (1998). A test of the parenting alliance theory. Early Education andDevelopment, 9, 179–185.

Bland, N., & Read, T. (2000). Policing anti-social behaviour. London: Home Office.

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Bloomquist, M., & Schnell, S. (2005). Helping children with aggression and antisocial behaviour.New York: The Guildford Press.

Bradley, S., & Hayes, N. (2007). Literature review on the supports need of parents of children withbehavioural problems. Barnandos: Dublin.

Brown, A. P. (2004). Anti-social behaviour, crime control and social control. Howard Journal ofCriminal Justice, 43(2), 203–211.

Budd, K. S., Clark, J. R., & Connell, M. A. (2011). Parenting capacity assessment in child protection.New York: Oxford.

Bugental, D. B., & Grusec, J. (2006). Socialization processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (SeriesEds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personalitydevelopment (pp. 366–428). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Bunting, L. (2004). Parenting programmes: The best available evidence. Child Care in Practice, 10(4), 327–343.

Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the subtypes of antisocialbehavior questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 376–398.

Canada Mental Health Association. (2006). Personality disorders: Antisocial personality disorder.Retrieved April 6, 2010, from http://download.cmha.ab.ca/Edmonton/Personality%20Disorder%20-%20Antisocial.pdf

Cantor, D., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimiza-tion. In D. Duffee (Series Ed.), Criminal justice, Vol. 4. Measurement and analysis of crime andjustice (pp. 85–138). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Child Act. (2001). Laws of Malaysia Act 611. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf

Child Rights Coalition Malaysia. (2012). Status report of children’s rights in Malaysia. RetrievedMay 23, 2015, from http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Report_on_Childrens_Rights_.pdf

Choate, P. W., & Engstrom, S. (2014) The “good enough” parent: Implications for child protection.Child Care in Practice, 20(4), 368–382.

Coogan, D. (2011). Child-to-parent violence: Challenging perspectives on family violence. ChildCare in Practice, 17(4), 347–358.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative andqualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cullen, L., & Barlow, J. (2002). Parents’ experiences of caring for children with autism and attendinga touch therapy programme. Child Care in Practice, 8(1), 35–45.

D’Angelo, A. V., Rich, L., & Kwiatt, J. (2013). Integrating family support services into schools: Lessonsfrom the Elev8 Initiative (Chapin Hall Issue Brief). Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University ofChicago. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/publications/01_22_13_Integrating20Family20Support_IB.pdf

Dekker, J. H. (2009). Children at risk in history: A story of expansion, paedagogica historica.International Journal of the History of Education, 45(1–2), 17–36.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2013). State/district social statistics. Retrieved April 25, 2015,from http://statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Labour/files/PSND/Perangkaan_Sosial_Negeri-Daer ah_Malaysia2013.pdf

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2015). Monthly Statistics Bulletin Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:Department of Statistics Malaysia.

der Bruggen, C. O., Bögels, S. M., & van Zeilst, N. (2010). What influences parental controllingbehaviour? The role of parent and child trait anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 24(1), 141–149.

Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology andPsychotherapy, 12, 177–190.

Farrington, D. P. (2010). Family influences on delinquency. In D. W. Springer & A. R. Roberts(Eds.), Juvenile justice and delinquency (pp. 203–222). Sudbury: Mass, Jones and Bartlett.

Farrington, D. P., & Coid, J. W. (2003). Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

16 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Finzi-Dottan, R., Bilu, R., & Golubchik, P. (2011). Aggression and conduct disorder in formerSoviet Union immigrant adolescents: The role of parenting style and ego identity. Childrenand Youth Services Review, 33(6), 918–926.

Firkins, A., & Candlin, C. N. (2006). Framing the child at risk.Health, Risk & Society, 8(3), 273–291.Fraley, R. C., & Hefferman, M. E. (2013). Attachment and parental divorce: A test of the diffusion

and sensitive period hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 1199–1213.Gallarin, M., & Alonso-Arbiol, I. (2012). Parenting practices, parental attachment and aggressive-

ness in adolescence: A predictive model. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1601–1610.Glatz, T. (2006). Parent–adolescent relationships after a divorce. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:136991Goldman, J., Salus, M. K., Wolcott, D., & Kennedy, K. Y. (2003). A coordinated response to child

abuse and neglect: The foundation for practice. Washington, DC: US Department.Green V. (2000). Therapeutic space for recreating the child in the mind of the parents. In J. Tsiantis

(Ed.), Work with parents: Psychoanalytic psychotherapy with children and adolescents (pp. 25–45). London: Karnac Books.

Hoghughi, M., & Speight, A. N. P. (1998). Good enough parenting for all children—A strategy for ahealthier society. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 78, 293–300.

Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (2001). Families of children with attention- deficit/hyperactivity dis-order: Review and recommendations for future research. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 4, 183–207.

Kahar, R., & and Zin, N. M. (2011). Child related policy and legislative reforms in Malaysia.International Journal of Social Policy and Society, 8, 6–36.

Karageorge, K., & Kendall, R. (2008). The role of professional child care providers in preventing andresponding to child abuse and neglect. Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC: USDepartment of Health and Human Services.

Klein, K., & Forehand, R. (2000). Family processes as resources for African American childrenexposed to a constellation of sociodemographic risk factors. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 29(1), 53–65.

Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, C. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings,Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). New York: Guilford Press.

Lee, P. G., Abdullah, M. C., Elias, H., & Uli, J. (2010). Development of antisocial behavior. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C), 383–388.

Leung, C., Leung, S., Chan, R., Tso, K., & Ip, F. (2005). Child behaviour and parenting stress inHong Kong families. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 11, 373–380.

Lim, J. C., Muslihah, H., Sa’odah, A., &Wu, S. L. (2013). Parental attachment, peer attachment, anddelinquency among adolescents in Selangor. Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(15), 214–219.

McLaughlin, E. & Muncie, J. (Eds.) (2001). Controlling crime. London: Sage.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Moore, K. A. (2006). Defining the term at-risk. Brief Research-to-Results, 12, 1–3.Moore, T., & Lawrence, B. (2000) The concept of anti-social behaviour. In P. Squires & D. Stephens,

Rougher justice: Anti-social behaviour and young people (pp. 1–62). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Nakisa, P., Siti Nor, Y., Ma’rof, R., Parisa, P., & Nooshin, S. E. (2014). Parental attachment, inter-

parental conflict and late adolescent’s self-efficacy. Asian Social Science, 10(8), 123–131.National Population and Family Development Board Malaysia. (2014). Population and family

policies in Malaysia. Putrajaya: National Population and Family Development Board Malaysia.Nelson, J. R., Stage, S., Duppong-Hurley., Synhorst, L., & Epstein, M. H. (2007). Risk factors pre-

dictive of the problem behavior of children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders.Exceptional Children, 73(3), 367–379.

Nooshin, S. E., & Siti Nor, Y. (2012). Correlates of self-esteem among adolescents of divorcedfamilies. Archives of Design Sciences, 65(8), 52–59.

Nooshin, S. E., Siti Nor, Y., & Rumaya, J. (2013). Predictors of delinquency among adolescents ofdivorced families. Asian Social Science, 9(11), 41–49.

CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ogbu, H. U., Brady, B., & Kinlen, L. (2014). Parenting in direct provision: Parents’ perspectivesregarding stresses and supports. Child Care in Practice, 20(3), 256–269.

Ooi, Y. P., Ang, R. P., Fung, D. S. S., Wong, G., & Cai, Y. (2006). The impact of parent–child attach-ment on aggression, social stress and self-esteem. School Psychology International, 27(5), 552–566.

Pezzot-Pearce, T. D., & Pearce, J. (2004). Parenting assessments in child welfare cases: A practicalguide. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Piovano, B. (2004). Parenthood and parental functions as a result of the experience of parallel psy-chotherapy with children and parents. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 13(3), 187–200.

Prior, D., & Paris, A. (2005). Preventing children’s involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour:A literature review. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Querido, J., Eyberg, S. M., & Boggs, S. (2001). Revisiting the accuracy hypothesis in families ofyoung children with conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 253–261.

Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Baydar, N. (2004). Halting the development of conduct pro-blems in head start children: The effects of parent training. Journal of Clinical Child andAdolescent Psychology, 33(2), 279–291.

Rodríguez, G., Rodrigo, M. J., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Triana, G. (2011). Maternal conceptions ofthe parenting role and mother–child collaborative behaviours in at-risk context. EuropeanJournal of Developmental Psychology, 8(4), 389–402.

Scott, S. (2008). Parenting programmes for attachment and antisocial behaviour. Psychiatry, 7, 367–370.

Simon, K. J., Paternite, C. E., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment andaggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 182–203.

Smith, D. J. (2007). Crime and the life course. In M. Maquire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), TheOxford handbook of criminiology (pp. 641–683). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2000). Youth violence: Do parents and families make a difference? National Instituteof Justice Journal, April, 30–38.

Sufean, H., & Zainon, O. Che. (2002) Masalah remaja daripada keluarga ibu tunggal [Teenproblems of single parent families]. Shah Alam: Karisma Publications.

Thomas, T. (2005) The continuing story of the ASBO. Youth and Policy, 87(spring), 5–14.Ting, T. S. (2011). Anti social behaviour among Malaysian adolescent. Kuala Lumpur: University

Tunku Abdul Rahman.Tu, Y. C., Lee, H. C., Chen, H. Y., & Kao, T. F. (2014). A study on the relationships among psycho-

logical control, adolescent depression and antisocial behavior in Taiwan. Procedia—Social andBehavioral Sciences, 122, 335–343.

UNICEF. (2008). Promoting children’s rights through the law in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF.UNICEF. (2013). Child protection system in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Women Family

and Community Development and UNICEF Malaysia.Wallace, S. A., Crown, J. M., Berger, M., & Cox, A. D. (1997). Child and adolescent metal health.

In A. Stevens & J. Raftery (Eds.), Health care needs assessment (pp. 55–128). Abingdon: RadcliffeMedical Press.

Webster Stratton, C., & Reid, J. (2008). A school–family partnership. Addressing multiple risk factorsto improve school readiness and prevent antisocial behaviour in young children. Seattle: Universityof Washington.

Yaacob, S. N., Idris, F. A., & Wan, G. S. (2015). Parental attachment, coping efficacy and antisocialbehavior among adolescents from divorced family in Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of ManagementResearch, 7(2), 364–374.

Yahaya, A., Ghaffar, M. N. A., & Baharom, B. (2010). Family atmosphere and its effects on theadolescents deviant behavior. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Zakaria, M. S. A. S. (2012). Behaviour problems among special children in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah:Some preliminary findings. Southeast Asia Psychology Journal, 1, 38–45,

Zayas, L. H., Kaplan, C., Turner, S., Romano, K., & Gonzales-Ramos, G. (2000). Understandingsuicide attempts by adolescent Hispanic females. Social Work, 45(1), 53–63.

18 A.B.S. HAJAR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

alay

a] a

t 03:

55 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

015