Receipt date: 02/05/2022 / Revision date: 02/17/2022 / Acceptance date: 07/14/2022

Introduction

Adolescence is the stage of the life cycle in which the individual goes through a series of biological and psychological changes that lead him/her to face the feeling of misunderstanding by adults and constant changes in his/her character, resulting in a constant search for identity and social acceptance (Robles, 2008). In view of this, authors such as Gaete (2015) and Tur, et al. (2004) highlight the importance of the role of parents at this stage of development through parental supervision, support, communication, and respect, as they consider them to be protective factors in the appearance of disruptive behaviors in adolescents.

Other authors such as Muris and collaborators (2004), Jiménez and Rosser (2013), and Aguilar (2012) mention parenting styles as a risk factor linked to the commission of criminal acts, highlighting coercive or authoritarian, permissive and negligent parenting styles. However, Sanabria and Rodriguez (2009) highlight to a greater extent authoritarian parenting styles, characterized by poor communication, inflexible rules, and little independence, resulting in fearful, irritable, rebellious, and aggressive children.

A study conducted by Ruiz et al. (2014) shows that homes in which individual interests and achievements, little affective support, and little interaction among family members predominate are factors that promote the linkage of adolescents with conflictive peer groups. This is supported by the study conducted by Frachia (2015) on the three factors of dysfunctional interaction present in families of adolescents with delinquent behaviors, where he identifies denial, symmetrical schismogenesis, and rigidity. The first responds to the non-resolution of internal conflicts in the family system, the second refers to the distancing of the members of a system for any personal or behavioral reason, and the last refers to the lack of flexibility in the imposition of rules and distribution of roles in the family group. However, there are other studies that present other family factors associated with the appearance of these behaviors in adolescents, including child abuse, early parenthood and/or motherhood, and the presence of dysfunctions in the family (Antolín, 2009) as well as the constitution of the household.

Regarding this last factor, some authors, such as Torrente and Rodríguez (2004), affirm that family disintegration added to stress factors, and family conflicts are factors that trigger behaviors outside the law, while other authors, such as Estrada et al. (2015), point to single-parent and extended families as contributors to their development. This argument is based on the typification of families presented by Cohen and Peluso (2010), cited by Frachia (2015), in which they identify five types of families: nuclear family, single-parent family, extended family, blended family, and de facto family. The nuclear family corresponds to the traditional system made up of parents and children; the single-parent family is delimited by the absence of one of the parents, either by death, abandonment, divorce, temporary, or intermittent separation; in the extended family there is a group of subjects to which belong uncles/uncles, grandparents, cousins, grandchildren, and other members belonging to nuclear families such as sons-in-law, sisters-in-law, etc. The blended family, on the other hand, refers to the breakup of the couple that formed a nuclear family and both parties decide to form a new nucleus, and the de facto family refers to that family structure which is not composed under any legal union, that is to say, the free union.

However, despite the fact that juvenile delinquency is a social phenomenon that is on the rise in Colombia, in the figures reported by the National Police (Ramirez and Arroyo, 2014; Goleman, 2002), which amounted to 60,186 in 2020 in the period between January and August, in the Caribbean region there have been few studies about juvenile offenders that attempt to find some kind of association between family variables and the appearance of delinquent behaviors. In this sense, the studies that are found in this regard involve some variable, as is the case of Castillo et al. (2015), and Ramírez and Arroyo (2014), but there are no antecedents to date that allow delving into the incident factors in adolescent criminal behavior from the family area, which shows the scarce research approach to this subject not only at the regional level but specifically in the city of Sincelejo, despite the increase in criminal situations presented in this sector of the country, possibly related to the aftermath left by the armed conflict in the department of Sucre. The latter is due to the fact that Sucre has been a department heavily hit by violence since the 1980s, and today, forty years later, the security director of the National Police reports that more and more young people are on the base line of illegal groups, in structures such as the Gulf clan, the ELN and the dissidents of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).

In this regard, the director of the Observatorio Javeriano de la Juventud, Marta Lucía Gutierrez Bonilla, points out that due to precarious living conditions young people are recruited by illegal groups, offering them job opportunities; but for psychiatrist Rodrigo Córdoba, it is due more to a phenomenon based on upbringing that may be having failures in the establishment of limits of social construction (El Tiempo, 2020).

In this sense, the present study is carried out taking into account the definition of family dynamics given by Minuchin (2004), cited in Frachia (2015), in which he mentions the role system, bonds of belonging, affection relationships, communication systems, and conflict resolution methods as component factors of family functionality and in the classification of parenting styles, presented by Craig (1997), cited by Aroca and Paz-Cánovas (2013), which is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1

Parenting styles.

Parenting styles	Features
Authoritative	Parents who instill autonomy in their children. Open communication, flexible rules, children with greater personal confidence, self-control, high self-esteem, better school performance.
Authoritarian	Poor communication, inflexible rules, little independence; fearful, irritable, rebellious, and aggressive boys; passive and dependent girls in their adolescence.
Permissive	Non-existent restriction, unconditional love, lots of freedom, little driving, no limits. Aggressive and rebellious children, self-understanding, impulsive, in some cases active, social, and creative.
Negligent/Indifferent	No boundaries and lack of affection. Parents focus on their own lives, sometimes neglectful. Children with delinquent behaviors and destructive impulses.

Retrieved from: Aroca and Paz-Cánovas (2013).

 

Finally, the above demonstrates the importance of studying this phenomenon with emphasis on the family factor and on aspects related not only to parental styles, but also to the family structure and the adolescents' perception of its functionality, in an attempt to approach an answer that could explain the genesis of this social phenomenon.

Method

Results

The results of this research are represented in frequency tables, which correspond to the data collected on the study variables: parental styles, family structure, perception of family functionality, and presence of delinquent behaviors in the population studied. These results are initially presented individually and, subsequently, the correlation between the variables studied is shown. 

With regard to the socio-demographic variables, the characteristics of the population are shown as follows: 

Regarding the sex variable, a relatively homogeneous sample was found between both sexes with a difference of 9.3%, with a prevalence of the female sex; in the same line, regarding the economic level, a predominance of the medium socio-economic level was found (70%), and regarding age, 97.3% of the population is under 18 years of age, with an average of 15 years of age represented in 43% of the population. 

On the other hand, with regard to the level of schooling, it can be observed that most of them belonged to the 9th grade (53.6%), with the 8th grade being the least present in the selected sample. In turn, with regard to the marital status of the participants, 92% were single. In addition, it is important to mention that 23% of the participating population stated that they were victims of displacement, and 11% stated that they had been victims of another victimizing event (See Table 1).

Table 1

Socio-demographic data.

Variable	Categoría	Frecuencia	Porcentaje
Sex	Women Men	96 85	54.1 44.8
Economic level	High Medium Low	8 129 44	4.4 70.5 24.0
Age	13 14 15 16 17 18	10 49 79 29 11 3	5.5 26.8 43.2 15.8 6.8 1.6
Schooling	8 9 10	5 98 78	2.7 53.6 42.6
Marital status	Single Married Free union	170 2 9	92.9 1.1 4.9
Victim displacement	Yes No	42 138	23.3 76.7
Victimizing event	Yes No	21 160	11.6 88.4

1. Parental styles.

In relation to parental styles, it was found that the most used in the homes of these adolescents were Authoritative and Permissive, with 37% and 32%, respectively. This means that the participants perceive to a greater extent a parental style characterized by parents who instill autonomy in their children, open communication, and flexible rules, which corresponds to the Authoritative parenting style, and which forms individuals with greater personal confidence, self-control, and high self-esteem. On the other hand, another percentage of the population perceives an education based on little normative restriction and non-existence of limits, which characterizes the permissive parenting style and tends to form aggressive and impulsive individuals, although they may present other personality traits, such as creativity and sociability, as shown in Table 2. 

Table 2

Parental Styles

Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Parental style
Authoritarian	40	21.9
Authoritative	69	37.7
Permissive	59	32.2
Negligent	12	6.6

2. Perception of family functionality.

According to the perception of family functionality, it was found that the level of functionality of the evaluated population indicates some degree of family dysfunctionality (39.4%); which translates into little or no capacity to use family resources to resolve conflicts, low participation of family members in decision-making, little family cohesion, and lack of attention to the emotional and physical needs of other family members, as shown in Table 3. 

On the other hand, it is pertinent to point out that, in spite of the above, the majority reported adequate visualization of the role systems, parental authority, and differentiated limits, which are characterized by the presence of rules that determine the participation of the members of the subsystem, flexibility, and precision, generating effective contact, autonomy, and capacity to resolve internal conflicts. However, 12% of the population scored with severe dysfunctionality. 

Table 3

Perception of family functionality.

Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Perception of family functionality.
Severe dysfunction	23	12.6
Moderate dysfunction	49	26.8
Normal	108	59.0

3. Criminal conduct.

As for the criminal behaviors present in the study sample, there is evidence of a greater inclination towards physical transgression of people, expressed in a mean of 4.74, which translates into behaviors that go beyond the violation of the law; therefore, they are considered antisocial rather than criminal, which presented a mean of 1.01. This information can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4

Criminal conduct. 

	N	Media	Standard deviation
Antisocial	181	4,74	3,766
Criminal	181	1,01	2,243

4. Family structure.

Regarding the family composition of the participants, the most representative family type in the sample was nuclear (51%), which responds to the traditional family type composed of parents and children, and the least prevalent was the reconstructed family type with a percentage of 4%, which is characterized by the breakup of the couple that formed a nuclear family and both parties decide to form a new nucleus, as shown in Table 5. 

Table 5

Family structure.

Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Family structure.
Nuclear	95	51.9
Single parent	45	24.6
Extensive	33	18.0
Rebuilt	8	4.4

1. Association between parenting styles, family function, family structure, and delinquent behavior.

Finally, with regard to the correlation of the variables of this research, it was found that the greater the favorable perception of family functionality, the less the presence of illegal behaviors. Likewise, the results show that the favorable perception of the family is related to the presence of parental styles, where good family communication, cohesion among the members, responsibility in attending to the needs of the members of the system, and affective demonstrations, present in authoritative styles, prevail. On the other hand, it is shown that results associated with a poor perception of family dynamics are associated with parental styles, where rigid and inflexible rules, unidirectional communication, little affective involvement on the part of the parents, and scarce motivation prevail, corresponding to negligent and authoritarian parenting styles; therefore, they are more prone to commit antisocial acts, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Association between parenting styles, family function, family structure and delinquent behavior.

	Criminal and antisocial behavior		Parenting styles
	Criminal	Antisocial	Authoritarian	Authoritative	Permissive	Negligent
Family structure	,104	,083	,059	-,059	-,037	,037
APGAR	-,047	-,308**	-,448**	,448**	,360**	-,376**

Discussion and conclusions

The present research has made it possible to carry out the main objective of this study, which was focused on determining the existing association of parental styles, family structure, and the perception of family functionality in the appearance of delinquent behaviors of adolescents belonging to the Social Service of the city of Sincelejo. 

The results of the study showed significant links between the variables studied, showing, for example, that parental styles that present rigid and meticulous rules, unidirectional communication, little family cohesion, and assertions of power typical of authoritarian parenting styles are related to the presence of delinquent and even antisocial behaviors among the fraternal agents of the system, i.e., the children. In view of this, Minuchin and Fishman (2004) mention that those parenting styles that are under total control, little communication and peripheral parental roles will result in the appearance of disruptive behaviors. Therefore, as suggested by Frachia (2015), this parenting style would not generate protective factors to the family system, but on the contrary, promotes the risk of juvenile delinquency. 

Taking this into account, it could be said that authoritarian and negligent styles would be associated with the development of disruptive behaviors, since it is possible to appreciate the indifference on the part of parents to the behaviors of children in the case of negligent styles and the presence of reiterative punishments, absence of praise, and inflexible rules in authoritarian styles. In this regard, the results of Estrada, Rodríguez, Cerros, and Solano (2017) show affinity with the above, highlighting that the appearance of disruptive behaviors is mostly evidenced in negligent parenting styles, since the indifference expressed in the reinforcement of negative and positive attitudes generates confusion in the child about what is right or wrong, resulting in the failure to differentiate between punishments and reinforcements in behaviors. Similarly, Aguilar (2012) agrees with the above, indicating that disciplinary inconsistency and lack of supervision typical of negligent parental styles as well as constant punishment and coercion among members of the system, typical of authoritarian styles, are risk factors for violent behaviors in adolescents. 

Contrary to this, Bravo, Sierra, and Del Valle (2009) indicate that the relationship with parental practices in which the permissive parenting style prevails are those associated with disruptive behaviors, since it is characterized by the non-assertion of authority and the restriction of rules by parents and the tolerance of the child's impulses by agreeing to their impositions.

On the other hand, parenting styles that showed clear rules, manifestations of affection, directed discipline, and assertive communication, where the needs of the minors were attended to, promote the capacity to resolve conflicts effectively, permeating self-control, competencies, and pro-social behaviors that allow the development of better positions in the face of conflicts. In this regard, some authors, such as Tur et al. (2004), affirm that good parenting habits, where autonomy, support, discipline, and satisfaction of adolescents are instilled, promote the emergence of socially accepted behaviors.

Regarding family composition, expressed by Salazar et al. (2011) and Estrada et al. (2017) as an incident factor in the development of delinquent behaviors in adolescents, no significant associations were found that could evidence that the way in which the family is conformed is an influential factor in the commission of criminal acts, since the results of this study show that the highest percentage of subjects are found in nuclear households (51%) and these, in turn, showed the presence of antisocial behaviors (M=4.74), which does not allow establishing with certainty that a structured family is considered a protective factor for the development of this type of behavior. This is supported by Velazco, Galicia, and Ojeda (2018), and Torrente and Ruíz (2005), who state that they have not established a significant relationship between a specific type of family and the appearance of delinquent behaviors, which is why they believe that other types of family factors could be associated with this social problem, such as the family climate under which adolescents develop. 

Based on the above, it is conceivable that from the adolescent's perspective, nuclear-type families may present family dysfunctions, bearing in mind that family functionality is not only based on the shared distribution of roles and the establishment of hierarchies in a system but also on factors such as support, emotional support, problem-solving, decision-making system, maturity of the system's participants, and the attention paid to the needs of other members (Minuchin et al. 2004), which is not guaranteed by belonging to a specific type of family. Therefore, this fact would reflect the need for more research studies on this topic in the department. 

On the other hand, the results of this research disagree with Valenzuela et al. (2013), who state that single-parent families are more likely to generate violent behaviors in children since they are characterized by frivolous relationships, insecure attachments, poor parental supervision, and constant parental conflicts, which promote family dysfunction. Likewise, several authors affirm that this type of single-parent families, where the maternal figure prevails, are criminogenic type homes since there is little emotional support, less mother-child interaction, and several father figures at the same time, imposing themselves on the minor such as, for example, grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc., which leads to the mother being repeatedly disavowed by them (Estrada et al. 2017 and Torrente et al. 2004). 

Along the same lines, Frachia (2015) outlines that extended and reconstructed families, where there are children from two or more different family nuclei, are a risk factor for adolescents as they generate early unions, teenage pregnancies, bad jobs, and disintegration of family nuclei, which are factors favorable to crime. 

Finally, one of the family-type factors most frequently implicated in the development of delinquent behavior is the way in which adolescents perceive their family environment, i.e., how they appreciate the education imparted by their parents and/or other family members within the system. This is considered of great importance since it is common knowledge that there are often discrepancies between the way in which parents believe they act in a corrective manner towards their children and the way in which the latter receive and assume this type of corrections. 

Thus, the results of this research show that family systems where greater interest in the needs of the adolescent, fluid communication, clarity of roles and authority, precise limits, conflict resolution capacity, and the active participation of agents in family decision-making, present in 59% of the population, favored to a certain extent the adolescent's view of the education provided by parents; this is in line with Ruiz et al. (2014), who found that greater family cohesion, organization, and autonomy among members promises greater generation of pro-social behaviors in adolescents. This, taking into account that the developmental phase faced by the subject in adolescence is influenced by the need for both family and social recognition, in addition to personal motivations and interests, so that parental supervision, support, and constant communication often play an important role in modeling behaviors in this evolutionary stage.

In this sense, Frachia (2015) mentions that the lack of tolerance to conflict, avoiding responsibility for acts, little family interaction, ignorance of the other within the system in which behaviors are adopted, where only one's own well-being, arguments, shouting, threats, emotional distance, and detachment are important risk factors in the development of not only criminal but also antisocial behaviors. Consequently, other studies suggest that low levels of emotional warmth, coupled with high levels of rejection, control, and inconsistencies in perceived support and family dysfunction are factors that generate hostile behaviors in adolescents (Muris et al. 2004; Salazar et al. 2011).

It should be noted that there are other social factors that could promote the commission of criminal acts and that emerged secondarily in the study, such is the case of the variables "victims of armed conflict" and "having suffered from some victimizing event," to which 34.9% of the sample belong. Faced with this, Morales (2018) states that the armed conflict in Colombia has left sequelae in the mental health of the victims, ranging from psychological trauma, anguish, and depression to the development of violent behaviors. Considering the number of adolescent victims of the armed conflict in Colombia, it is to be expected that violent and aggressive behaviors will increase in this segment of the population as an expression of negative emotions such as resentment, guilt, and anger. Thus, for Aristizábal and collaborators (2012), the violent behavior of adolescent victims of the conflict arises as compensation for the defenselessness and mistreatment to which they were subjected, assuming a role opposite to that of victim, reflecting in criminal behavior the feelings of resentment, resentment and anger that they vent through aggression, which could explain the high percentage of adolescents with criminal behavior shown in this study, related to the high prevalence of adolescents who have been victims of the armed conflict or of some victimizing event. However, it would be necessary to verify this in future research since it is not conclusive in this study due to lack of data; as a result, this variable was not included as a research objective. 

In general terms, it can be concluded that delinquent behavior in adolescents is closely related to the family component, since it is the first system to which the individual belongs and which is responsible for effective development in all areas that make up the human being. This is why the relationship established by parents with their children in terms of the organization of the system is an essential point in their moral development, since a system of clear rules and norms, established limits, levels of support and constant interaction, and the generation of autonomy are usually protective factors against the appearance of disruptive behavior.

Likewise, the way in which the family system is constituted does not reflect a direct relationship with the occurrence of illegal behavior; Thus, nuclear, single-parent, extended, or de facto family structures have the same risk of harboring adolescent children who commit this type of behavior since, although it has been shown that family dynamics are important in the moral development and criminal behavior of adolescents, no type of family structure ensures its good functionality, due to the fact that there are various personal and relational factors that have a significant impact on the construction of the dynamics in the parental-fraternal systems. 

Finally, parental style is related both to the way in which the adolescent perceives the functionality of his or her family environment and to the development of disruptive behaviors. Thus, authoritarian and negligent parental styles are conducive to the emergence of violent and antisocial behavior. Therefore, it can be affirmed that the presence of rigid, inflexible rules, the proportion of punishments greater than that of flattery, authority assertions based on power, poor family cohesion, and the absence of communication are usually a risk factor not only for the development of criminal behavior but also of antisocial behavior in adolescents. However, it should be borne in mind that parenting styles where limits are usually flexible and the child has exclusive decision making in aspects such as conflict resolution and global decision making can also be considered risk factors for adolescents.

¹ Social service is a formative mechanism whose main purpose is to integrate students into community life in order to contribute to their social and cultural formation (Law 115, 1994).

Referencias

Aguilar, M. (2012). La influencia del contexto familiar en el desarrollo de las conductas violentas durante la adolescencia: factores de riesgo y protección; Universidad de Murcia, Murcia – España, 2012. Disponible en http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/crim/v54n2/v54n2a03.pdf 

Antolín, L., Oliva, A., Arranz, E. (2009). Contexto familiar y conducta antisocial infantil. Anuario de Psicología, 40 (3); 313-327. Disponible en https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/970/97020869001.pdf 

Aristizábal, E., Palacio, J., Madariaga, C., Osman, H., Parra, L. H., Rodríguez, J., & López, G. (2012). Síntomas y traumatismo psíquico en víctimas y victimarios del conflicto armado en el caribe colombiano. Psicología desde el Caribe, 29(1), 123-152. Recuperado de: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=s0123417x2012000100008&lng=en&tlng. 

Aroca, M. y Paz-Cánovas, L. (2012) Los estilos educativos parentales desde los modelos interactivos y de construcción conjunta: revisión de las investigaciones. Biblid 24 (2), 149-176. Disponible en https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4115348 

Castillo, S., Carpintero, L., Sibaja, D., y Romero-Acosta, K. (2015). Estilos de crianza y su relación con sintomatología internalizante en estudiantes de 8 a 16 años. Revista de Psicología GEPU, 6 (2), 53 – 65, ISSN 2145 – 6569. Disponible en https://revistadepsicologiagepu.es.tl/Estilos-de-Crianza-y-su-relaci%F3n-con-Sintomatolog%EDa-Internalizante-en-Estudiantes-de-8-a-16-a%F1os.htm 

Estrada, C., Rodríguez, F., Cerros, E., y Solano, C. (2015). Implicaciones parentales en las conductas delictivas de adolescentes: tendencias y narrativas. Papeles de población, 21 (84); 107 – 132, ISSN: 1405-7425. Disponible en http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1405-74252015000200005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es 

Frachia, P. (2015) “Análisis de la dinámica familiar en adolescentes en conflicto con la ley desde un enfoque sistémico” (Trabajo final de grado). Universidad de la República Montevideo – Uruguay. Disponible en https://sifp.psico.edu.uy/sites/default/files/Trabajos%20finales/%20Archivos/trabajo_final_de_grado_analisis_de_la_dinamica._1._version_pdf.pdf 

Gaete, V. (2015). Desarrollo psicosocial del adolescente. Revista chilena de pediatría, 86 (6), 436-443. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rchipe.2015.07.005

Goleman, D. (48ª edición). (2002). Inteligencia Emocional. Editorial Kairós

Jiménez, R., y Rosser, A. (febrero, 2013). Delincuencia juvenil y estilos educativos parentales. XIV Congreso Virtual de Psiquiatría, Interpsiquis. 

Lempers, J. D., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. (1989). Economic Hardship, Parenting, and Distress in Adolescence. Child Development, 60, 25-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131068 

Mendez, A. (12 de septiembre de 2020). Cada día se captura, en promedio, 248 jóvenes de entre 19 y 29 años. El Tiempo. Recuperado de Delincuencia juvenil | Cada día capturan 248 jóvenes en Colombia - Delitos - Justicia - ELTIEMPO.COM 

Minuchin, S. y Fishman, Ch. (2004). Técnicas de terapia familiar. Paidós. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Morales, J. (2018). Diferencias en los tipos y niveles de agresividad en adolescentes víctimas y no víctimas del conflicto armado en Colombia (Tesis de pregrado). Institución Universitaria de Envigado, Antioquia. iue_rep_pre_psi_morales_2017_diferencias.pdf

Muris, P., Meesters, C., Morren, M y Moorman, L. (2004). Anger and hostility in adolescents: Relationships with self-reported attachment style and perceived parental rearing styles. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57 (3), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00616-0 

Ramírez, A., y Arroyo-Alvis, K. (2014). Características neuropsicológicas en adolescentes infractores de la ciudad de Sincelejo-Sucre. Psicogente, 17 (32), 421-430; ISSN 0124-0137. Disponible en http://publicaciones.unisimonbolivar.edu.co/rdigital/psicogente/index.php/psicogente 

Ruíz, A., Hernández, M., Mayrén, P., y Vargas, M. (2014). Family functioning of consumers of addictive substances with and without criminal behavior. Liberabit, 20(1); 109-117, ISSN 1729-4827. Disponible en http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?pid=S1729-48272014000100010&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en 

Robles, B. (2008). La infancia y la niñez en el sentido de la identidad. Comentarios entorno a las etapas de la vida de Erik Erikson. Revista Mexicana de Pediatría, 75 (1); 29 – 34. Disponible en https://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/pediat/sp-2008/sp081g.pdf 

Rodríguez, A., y Cortés, M. (2017) Prácticas de crianza y trastornos psicológicos en adolescentes colombianos. Behavioral Psychology, 25 (3); 599 – 621, ISSN 1132-9483. Disponible en https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/ibc-169769 

Salazar, J., Torres, T., Quinteros, C., Figueroa, N., y Araiza, A. (2011). Factores asociados a la delincuencia en adolescentes de Guadalajara Jalisco. Papeles de población, 17 (68); 103 – 116, ISSN 2448-7147. Disponible en http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-74252011000200005 

Sampieri, R. (5ª edición). (2010). Metodología de la investigación. México. Interamericana Editores, S.A. de C.V 

Sanabria, A., y Uribe, A. (2009). Conductas antisociales y delictivas en adolescentes infractores y no infractores. Pensamiento psicológico, 6 (13); 203-218. Disponible en Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=80112469014 

Suarez, M., y Alcalá, M. (2014). Apgar Familiar: Una Herramienta Para Detectar Disfunción Familiar. Revista Médica La Paz, 20 (1), 53-57. ISSN 1726-8958. Disponible en http://www.scielo.org.bo/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-89582014000100010 

Torrente, G., y Rodríguez, A. (2004). Características sociales y familiares vinculadas al desarrollo de la conducta delictiva en pre-adolescentes y adolescentes. Cuadernos de trabajo social, 17, 99 – 115. ISSN: 0214-0314. Disponible en https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1155765 

Torrente, G., y Ruiz, J. (2005). Procesos familiares relacionados con la conducta antisocial de adolescentes en familias intactas y desestructuradas. Apuntes de Psicología, 23 (1); 41-52, ISSN 0213-3334. Disponible en https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2217822 

Tur, A., Maestre, M., y Del Barrio, V. (2004). Los problemas de conducta exteriorizados e interiorizados en la adolescencia: relaciones con los hábitos de crianza y el temperamento. Acción psicológica, 3 (3), 207 – 221. Disponible en http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=bibliuned:AccionPsicologica2004-numero3-0005&dsID=Documento.pdf 

Valenzuela, M., Ibarra, A., Tamara, Z., y Correa, M. (2013). Prevención de conductas de riesgo en el Adolescente: rol de familia. Index de Enfermería, 22 (1-2), 50-54. Disponible en: https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S1132-12962013000100011

Velazco, A., Galicia, I., y Ojeda, F. (2018). Conductas antisociales – delictivas en adolescentes: relación con el género, la estructura familiar y el rendimiento académico. Alternativas en psicología, 38, 80 – 98. Disponible en https://alternativas.me/27-numero-38-agosto-2017-enero-2018/158-conductas-antisociales-delictivas-en-adolescentes-relacion-con-el-genero-la-estructura-familiar-y-el-rendimiento-academico