Children and Pre-Adolescents’ Moral Disengagement and Cooperation in the Context of Deprived Neighborhoods: An Action Research Project

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine family-level and community-level factors contributing to children and pre-adolescents’ moral disengagement and cooperation in the context of deprived neighborhoods. A set of validated measures has been administered to 374 participants, who were involved in an action research project aimed at reducing cultural disadvantage in a deprived Italian neighborhood. The analysis was conducted through descriptive and correlational analyses. In addition, a model was tested through a path analysis. The findings are consistent with the hypothesized model and allow us to discuss the role of parental rejection, age and socioeconomic status in the examined developmental processes.

1. Introduction

The present study examines some key family-level and community-level factors that might contribute to the development of children and adolescents’ moral disengagement and cooperation in the context of deprived neighborhoods. Moral disengagement is conceptualized as a set of mechanisms that facilitate the engagement in unethical behavior without feelings of distress [1]. The focus on moral disengagement is due to the fact that it has been previously recognized as a predictor of a wide range of morally undesirable behaviors that are common in degraded peripheries, such as criminal behavior, aggression and bullying [1,2]. In addition, the rationale of the investigation is based on previous research that has addressed several factors that might be involved in the development of increased moral disengagement [2] and low levels of cooperative behaviors [3], which are both considered problematic phenomena characterizing urban peripheries. For example, the literature shows that some neighborhood characteristics, such as the socioeconomic status of residents and the quality of family relationships, have been associated with the emergence of juvenile delinquency, behavioral disorders, a reduction in cooperative behaviors and other undesirable phenomena [3,4]. Nevertheless, the literature is still missing a comprehensive understanding of the interconnection between the psychological and socioeconomic factors that are associated with these outcomes among children and adolescents living in degraded peripheries. Further developing our understanding of these social and psychological dynamics is expected to inform both theory development and policy making in these challenging environments, allowing us to consider the impact of these factors when examining social phenomena characterizing urban peripheries and when designing and implementing policies aimed at addressing such problematic phenomena in disadvantaged areas of big cities.

In particular, this investigation involves primary and secondary school students living in Librino, a peripheral neighborhood of Catania in Sicily (South Italy). During recent years, several projects have been conducted to reduce the sociocultural disadvantage of the local community in this neighborhood, focusing especially on the involvement of children, adolescents and their parents in social, educational and art-based activities [5]. However, to better orient future projects, it is important to deepen our understanding of the interaction between the psychological and socioeconomic factors that are associated with cooperation and moral disengagement. The organization of cultural, recreational and physical extracurricular activities provides opportunities to develop emotional regulation, which enhances peer relationships and improves the classroom climate [6,7], and then the sense of community. This occurs both within the school environment and through activities conducted beyond it [8]. Several studies have indeed shown that neighborhood deprivation can reduce children’s cooperation and promote moral disengagement [2,9]. Moral disengagement is a very important psychological construct that could shed light on why people display aggressive, antisocial or criminal behaviors in some contexts, particularly in deprived environments, and a strong association has been shown with antisocial outcomes in children and adolescent populations [2,10,11]. Moral disengagement involves several cognitive mechanisms that dismiss moral standards, preserve a positive view of the self and facilitate the conduct of immoral behavior through greater internalization and less distress [1]. Cooperation is generally defined as a prosocial tendency characterized by collaboration between individuals based on the integration of personal and others’ needs [12]. However, moral disengagement and cooperation have been shown to be complex processes that could be promoted by the combination of parental, neighborhood and social factors [2]. In particular, at the family level, several studies have focused on the role of parents in moral disengagement and cooperation during late childhood and early adolescence, showing that poor parenting practices are an important factor to be considered, even though results are complex and differ between age groups [13,14]. The term parenting refers to a process that allows a child to be raised and educated from birth to adulthood; therefore, it requires a set of parental skills and abilities to satisfy the fundamental physical and psychological needs of one’s child [15,16]. Parenting profoundly influences the course and outcome of child development [15,17], since the parenting care that the children receives lays the foundation for their emotional, interpersonal and social well-being [18,19]. In this regard, particularly interesting for the purposes of our study is the “parental acceptance–rejection theory” (PARTheory) [20], which allows one to examine how the experience of parental acceptance or rejection during childhood plays a role in the development of psychological outcomes, such as moral disengagement and cooperation, which are addressed in our study.

According to this theory, the categories of acceptance and rejection together contribute to the formation of the warmth dimension of parenting, which can be conceptualized as a continuum on which every human being occupies a specific position based on the extent of love experienced during childhood by their caregivers [21]. Therefore, this dimension of warmth refers to the quality of the emotional bond that characterizes the parent–child relationship and to the type of physical and verbal behavior used by the parents to express their feelings. At one end is “parental acceptance” which refers to the support, care, affection, warmth and reassurance felt by the child in the context of their relationship with their caregivers; at the opposite end of the continuum, we find “parental rejection”, which is related to the absence, emotional unavailability and presence of a set of behaviors and emotions that are physically and psychologically harmful to a child.

The perception of being accepted or rejected by one’s caregivers has a direct impact on a child’s psychosocial development and is recognized as a powerful predictor of numerous psychological and behavioral problems [21]. Several cross-cultural studies conducted within this theoretical framework [22] have shown that when this need for acceptance is not met, children everywhere, regardless of differences in culture, gender, age or ethnicity, tend to manifest different forms of psychological maladjustment. Furthermore, individuals who perceive themselves as rejected appear to be more likely to develop mental health problems than those who feel accepted, including behavioral problems [22,23], depression or depressed feelings [24,25] and substance abuse [26].

In this regard, a study [27] has shown that negative family relationships contribute to the development of delinquent behaviors and that the same antisocial manifestations negatively affect the quality of family relationships, generating a chain effect of amplification of the phenomenon. Important factors in interpreting these mutual influences are rejection, parental disengagement, devaluation and increased family stress.

At the community level, instead, we address the potential role played by the social climate within the neighborhood, which is expected to be a predictor of the sense of community perceived by children and adolescents. Indeed, previous research conducted in school settings found a significant connection between sense of community and social climate characteristics [28,29], although to the best of our knowledge, such a connection has not been confirmed among children and adolescents in out-of-school contexts. We also hypothesize that the participants’ sense of community might contribute to a reduction in the emergence of moral disengagement. The rationale for this hypothesis is that according to previous studies, a lack of community social resources can negatively affect several child and adolescent outcomes [30,31]. In addition, some studies have also shown that social climate variables can be important direct predictors of behavioral problems such as aggression [32].

According to the state of the art briefly outlined above, the literature has not explored how the interaction between psychological and socioeconomic variables can affect the emergence of moral disengagement and cooperation among children and adolescents living in deprived suburban environments. A more detailed explanation of the socioeconomic and psychological intervening factors might inform policy makers to enhance the positive effects that educational projects can have for reducing sociocultural gaps in deprived areas. For these reasons, through an action research approach, the aims of this study are (1) to explore the role of sex, socioeconomic status, age of children and school level on parenting, community identification, moral disengagement and cooperation, and (2) to test an integrated model that identifies the associations between the study’s variables (Figure 1).

2. Method

2.1. Context

Librino is a small “city within a city” on the outskirts of Catania (Sicily, South Italy), with a population that has grown rapidly, leading Librino to become one of the most populous districts in the city [33]. It is characterized by high levels of unemployment and poverty and a reputation for a high rate of criminality and socioeconomic marginalization [5]. From the latest ISTAT [34] estimates, Catania is at the top of the list for unlivability, especially considering its high rate of juvenile delinquency. This phenomenon has more weight if we consider the fact that only 17.29% of adolescents and over 40% of young people under thirty out of all young people in Catania live in the 9th municipality [33]. Librino district was designed by the Japanese architect Kenzo Tange in 1970, but it was only partially built, configuring itself as an unfinished and unexpressed work—a dream that never translated into reality [35]. At present, Librino appears to be a neighborhood without an identity, torn apart by important economic, social and cultural problems where the perception of its inhabitants is that of having been abandoned and cut off from the rest of Catania [36]. New prospects for improvement can be glimpsed by leveraging the resources and strengths the neighborhood can count on. An active and central role in the construction of a strong social network and in the diffusion of civic values and civil commitment is entrusted to educational institutions, which remain one of the fundamental pillars trying to respond to the needs of the territory [35,37].

2.2. Project “Librino è Bellezza”

All the participants of the present research have attended a project named “Librino è bellezza” [Librino is beauty], which is an extremely large and complex project, conceived by the Fiumara d’Arte Association, with the aim of promoting the enhancement of the territory through artistic and cultural activities with a strong social impact. The values that inspired the creation of such a moral, cultural and educational initiative have their roots in the broader interest of combining ethics and esthetics with a view to a social policy characterized by participation, sharing and civil commitment. In fact, the general objective of the project is to restore or provide identity and a sense of community in an extremely difficult reality such as that of the Catania district through participatory, inclusive and ethically oriented paths that focus on the theme of “beauty”, understood as a factor that can trigger a personal and social change, as well as a means to acquire the right to citizenship and to determine one’s future.

2.3. Participants

A total of 374 (49% male) children and pre-adolescents with a mean age of 10 and a half years (SD = 1.93) attending a network of schools located in the Librino district of Catania took part in the project “Librino è bellezza”. In the study, two groups were considered according to their school level (Italian school levels: (1) kindergarten (3–5 years); (2) primary (6–10 years); (3) middle school (11–13 years); (4) high school (14–18 years)): the first group consisted of 184 primary school children aged between 6 and 10 (M = 8.94 years; SD = 1.20 years) of which 96 were male (52.17%) and 88 were female; the second group was made up of 190 middle school students aged between 11 and 14 years (M = 12.09 years; SD = 1.05 years) of which 87 were boys (45.78%) and 101 were girls (

Table 1. Distribution of participants by age, gender and school level.

Children	School	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Primary (6–10)	96	9.00	1.23	6	10
	Middle (11–14)	87	12.20	1.05	11	14
Female	Primary (6–10)	88	8.88	1.17	6	10
	Middle (11–14)	101	12.02	1.04	11	14
Sub-total	Primary (6–10)	184	8.94	1.20	6	10
	Middle (11–14)	190	12.09	1.05	11	14
Total		374	10.54	1.93	6	14

).

Furthermore, the relative families of the students were involved in the assessment: 349 fathers aged between 20 and 60 years with a mean age of 39 years (SD = 6.21 years) and 373 mothers aged between 24 and 53 years with a mean age of 35 and a half years (SD = 5.11 years) were divided into parents of primary school children, including 169 fathers and 184 mothers, and parents of middle school students, including 180 fathers and 189 mothers.

Households had an average socioeconomic level (SES) in the lower limits (N = 360; M = 30.14; SD = 9.84; range: 8–64) [38] but with a very wide variance ranging from very low (<20) to very high (>40) (

Table 2. Age of fathers and mothers and family socioeconomic level divided by gender of the child and by school level.

Children	Parents/SES	School	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Fathers	Primary (6–10)	90	38.69	6.17	27.0	60
	Mothers		96	35.65	5.01	26.0	52
	SES		90	29.58	9.11	11.0	58
	Fathers	Middle (11–14)	82	39.70	5.70	27.0	54
	Mothers		87	36.83	4.88	26.0	48
	SES		84	30.99	9.45	16.0	58
Female	Fathers	Primary (6–10)	79	37.90	7.14	27.0	60
	Mothers		88	34.84	5.57	25.0	53
	SES		88	29.34	10.09	8.0	58
	Fathers	Middle (11–14)	97	39.34	5.84	20.0	55
	Mothers		101	35.82	4.91	24.0	50
	SES		96	30.79	10.49	11.0	64
Sub-total	Fathers	Primary (6–10)	169	38.32	6.63	27.0	60
	Mothers		184	35.26	5.28	25.0	53
	SES		178	29.46	9.58	8.0	58
	Fathers	Middle (11–14)	180	39.48	5.75	20.0	55
	Mothers		189	36.27	4.90	24.0	50
	SES		182	30.80	10.07	9.5	64
Total	Fathers		349	38.92	6.21	20.0	60
	Mothers		373	35.77	5.11	24.0	53

Note. SES: <19.5 low; 20–29.5 medium–low; 30–39.5 medium; 40–54.5 medium–high; >55 high.

).

2.4. Procedure

The participants in the research were chosen according to a sampling method for availability among the students engaged in the activities of the “Librino è bellezza” project, which involved numerous schools present in the territory of the city of Catania; the entire sample of subjects evaluated, therefore, is made up of children and pre-adolescents with typical development within an age range between 6 and 14 years.

The recruitment and testing of participants were carried out in conformance with the local Ethics Committee requirements and with the Declaration of Helsinki, 2008.

According to the study’s aims, throughout the different phases of the project “Librino è bellezza”, following an action research approach, the selected measuring instruments were administered to the students after informed consent was received from their parents, respecting their anonymity and within a setting decided upon by the class group. The administration of the questionnaires, which were conducted by psychologists or experts, was carried out in the presence of the teachers and/or tutors. Furthermore, all the questionnaires were taken individually but administered collectively during the activities foreseen within the project, except for the Demographic Questionnaire, which was given to the children with the request to have it filled out at home by the relevant parent and to return it within the following week.

2.5. Measures

In order to obtain an objective, valid and reliable measure of the variables under investigation, a range of questionnaires was used, including different tools:

• An Italian and modified version of the Moral Disengagement Scale [39] was used to explore the mechanisms of moral disengagement. It is a questionnaire that provides information on the quality of moral development and, in particular, on the social skills of each participant regarding their respect for others and for the environment in which they find themself.
  The instrument is made up of 32 items, all related to the construct under investigation (Cronbach’s α = 0.94). Each statement, therefore, describes a possible amoral behavior to which the subject responds using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Some examples of items contained in the questionnaire are “Some people deserve to be treated like animals”; “Beating annoying classmates is just teaching them a lesson”; and “If people leave their things around, it’s their fault if someone steals them”.
  The scoring is given by the average of the scores of all items; this means that the higher the value, the greater the degree of moral disengagement expressed by the subject.
• Through the administration of the child version of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire [PARQ] [40], the perception of acceptance and rejection of each participant was evaluated. The questionnaire consists of two forms, one addressed to the father and one to the mother; this makes it possible to obtain information on the parental model perceived by the child/young adult, while at the same time allowing for a comparison between the mother and father’s perceptions. The two versions of the instrument, referring to the two different parental figures, are identical. Each single form is made up of 29 items, which can be assessed on a 4-point Likert scale (from 4 = almost always true to 1 = almost never true), which describe various ways in which parents behave with their children by investigating acceptance (examples of items: “My mother/father speaks highly of me” and “My mother/father is really interested in what I do”) and rejection (“My mother/father doesn’t pay attention to me” and “My mother/father makes me feel unwanted”). With reference to the mother’s form, the reliability analyses return excellent indices for the categories of acceptance (Cronbach’s α = 0.76) and rejection (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Similarly, in the form for the father, the reliability coefficient for the acceptance category is excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.83), as well as for the rejection category (Cronbach’s α = 0.89). The scoring was performed by calculating the average of the scores of the items that make up each of the three dimensions.
• A tool, administered in a modified form, which has proved to be very useful in obtaining a measure of students’ cooperative skills with friends is the Classroom Climate Questionnaire [CC] [41]. It refers to a specific group of people with whom one is collaborating and aims to evaluate the skills of cooperation, mutual aid and teamwork to achieve a common goal in a climate of sharing and respect for others. The questionnaire is made up of 10 items, all in a positive direction with respect to the measured variable, which concern the way in which the subject behaves with their peers. For each statement, they must record the frequency with which they engage in a specific behavior on a 4-point Likert scale (from 1 = never to 4 = always) (Cronbach’s α = 0.78). Examples of items that make up the questionnaire are “I respect the ideas of my friends” and “Between us we help each other”. The scoring is given by the average of the scores of all items: the higher the value, the greater the collaboration skills of the subject.
• A reduced and modified version of the Italian Scale of the Sense of Community [ISCS] [42] was used to estimate the sense of belonging to one’s own community, that is, in this specific case, to one’s neighborhood. The scale consists of a total of 15 items on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree) (Cronbach’s α = 0.84). Some items in the questionnaire include “I feel I belong to this neighborhood”; “This place offers me the opportunity to do many things”; and “Here I feel safe”. Scoring is performed by calculating the average of the scores of all the items: the higher the score, the higher the sense of community.
• Finally, a Demographic Questionnaire was administered to the parents of the children and young people participating in the project to learn about the characteristics of the sample of families involved in the study. The questionnaire consists of a series of questions aimed at obtaining information on marital status, age, level of schooling, level of employment and composition of the family nucleus. More specifically, it is made up of two parts: a first part, compiled by the mother, is useful for gathering information related to herself; and a second part, also filled in by the mother, includes questions that refer to the father of her child. The subject is asked to indicate his current marital status by choosing from six response alternatives (single, married, divorced, remarried and widowed), his age, his level of schooling by choosing from eight response alternatives (1. primary; 2. middle school; 3. high school not completed; 4. high school; 5. bachelor’s degree; 6. master degree; 7. postgraduate not completed; and 8. postgraduate), his work and to provide a brief description of his main job tasks. In the “composition of the family” section, she is also asked to list all the family members who live permanently in her home, indicating gender, kinship relationship (father, brother, sister, grandmother) and age. Finally, the last three questions of the questionnaire concern the age, level of education and current job of the father of her child. The socioeconomic status (SES; [38]) is composed by the product of the educational (EL) and work (WORK) level of the father (F) and mother (M): ($SES={\displaystyle \frac{\left(3\ast FEL+5\ast FWORK\right)+\left(3\ast MEL+5\ast MWORK\right)}{2}}$).

2.6. Data Analysis

The statistical software STATISTICA version 10 (© StatSoft Inc. 1984–2011, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA) and IBM SPSS were used to compute minimum value, maximum value, mean, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, ANOVAs and Pearson correlations for all the study variables. Furthermore, a path analysis was also conducted with the “lavaan” package of R and the implementation of R Studio. Two different models were tested with the path analysis: the first model included only the children’s perception of maternal parenting (maternal acceptance and maternal rejection), while the second model only included the children’s perceptions of paternal parenting (paternal acceptance and paternal rejection). In both of the models, the age of the children, gender of the children and SES of the family were included as the first line of variables that were directly associated with the second line of variables (community identification, parental acceptance and parental rejection) and with cooperation and moral disengagement (third line of variables). Furthermore, community identification, parental acceptance and parental rejection (the second line of variables) were directly associated with the third line of variables (cooperation and moral disengagement). Finally, the correlation between the age of children, gender of children and SES of the family was fixed to zero, while community identification, parental acceptance and parental rejection were allowed to correlate with each other, and cooperation and moral disengagement were allowed to correlate.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive and Inferential Analysis

3.1.1. Moral Development [MD]

The results that emerged from the evaluation of the quality of the participants’ moral development, the central objective of our study, are decidedly comforting. With regard to the descriptive analyses carried out with respect to the possible implementation of behaviors of moral disengagement by the participants, it is important to underline that the entire sample obtained low average scores (N = 374; M = 2.13; SD = 0.70, where values between 1 and 2.5 return good moral development, while values between 3.5 and 5 are indicative of high moral disengagement). Therefore, all the children involved in the project demonstrate adequate moral development, supporting respect for places, people and things (

Table 3. Moral disengagement [MD], described by gender and school level.

Children	School	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Primary (6–10)	96	2.20	0.75	1.00	4.41
	Middle (11–14)	87	2.21	0.59	1.00	4.00
Female	Primary (6–10)	88	2.12	0.74	1.00	3.91
	Middle (11–14)	101	1.99	0.67	1.00	4.28
Sub-total	Primary (6–10)	184	2.16	0.75	1.00	4.41
	Middle (11–14)	190	2.10	0.65	1.00	4.28
Total		374	2.13	0.70	1.00	4.41

).

Subsequent more in-depth inferential analyses (ANOVAs) suggest a significant gender difference with respect to the investigated construct (F_(1,370) = 4.753; p < 0.05). More specifically, the female subgroup seems to have better moral development than the males, although the male subgroup has also never exceeded the critical threshold (>3.5).

Furthermore, a further inferential analysis was conducted which concerned the chronological age of the participants; for this purpose, the entire sample was divided into two subgroups according to school level: (1) children aged between 6 and 11 (primary school) and (2) pre-adolescents between the ages of 11 and 14 (middle school). The results of the analyses carried out did not highlight any significant differences between the two school levels (F_(1,372) = 0.809; n.s.), indicating that, regardless of age, we found satisfactory scores with respect to the measured variable. In addition, no interaction effect was found between the two independent variables of gender and age (F_(1,370) = 0.833; n.s.). Subsequent post hoc analyses (LSD) highlight that the gender effect is mainly due to the subgroup related to the second level of education where females detect significantly lower scores of moral disengagement (Table 3).

3.1.2. Parental Acceptance—Rejection [PARQ]

Subsequently, the perception of parental acceptance–rejection of the study participants was evaluated through the administration of the Child Parental Acceptance–Rejection/Control [PARQ].

The descriptive statistics underline a high perception of parental acceptance and a low perception of parental rejection. The children, in fact, feel on average more accepted than rejected by both the father and the mother, reporting in both cases average acceptance values above 3 (M_{mother acceptance} = 3.25; M_{father acceptance} = 3.17; M_{mother and father rejection} = 1.82) (

Table 4. PARQ acceptance and rejection for mother and father, described by gender and school level.

Children	School	Style	Parents	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Primary (6–10)	Acceptance	Mothers	96	3.19	0.49	2.00	4.00
			Fathers	92	2.99	0.51	2.00	4.00
	Middle (11–14)		Mothers	87	3.28	0.56	1.78	4.00
			Fathers	85	3.28	0.58	1.00	4.11
	Primary (6–10)	Rejection	Mothers	96	1.94	0.54	1.00	3.57
			Fathers	92	2.00	0.56	1.00	3.43
	Middle (11–14)		Mothers	87	1.78	0.59	1.00	3.21
			Fathers	85	1.74	0.60	1.00	3.21
Female	Primary (6–10)	Acceptance	Mothers	88	3.19	0.53	2.00	4.00
			Fathers	81	3.09	0.63	1.00	4.00
	Middle (11–14)		Mothers	101	3.35	0.49	2.22	4.00
			Fathers	98	3.31	0.60	1.44	4.00
	Primary (6–10)	Rejection	Mothers	88	1.92	0.56	1.00	3.50
			Fathers	81	1.97	0.61	1.00	3.57
	Middle (11–14)		Mothers	101	1.65	0.55	1.00	3.36
			Fathers	98	1.61	0.60	1.00	3.14
Sub-total	Primary (6–10)	Acceptance	Mothers	184	3.19	0.51	2.00	4.00
			Fathers	173	3.04	0.57	1.00	4.00
		Rejection	Mothers	184	1.93	0.55	1.00	3.57
			Fathers	173	1.98	0.58	1.00	3.57
	Middle (11–14)	Acceptance	Mothers	190	3.31	0.53	1.78	4.00
			Fathers	185	3.29	0.62	1.00	4.11
		Rejection	Mothers	190	1.71	0.57	1.00	3.36
			Fathers	185	167	0.60	1.00	3.21
Total		Acceptance	Mothers	374	3.25	0.52	1.78	4.00
			Fathers	358	3.17	0.61	1.00	4.11
		Rejection	Mothers	374	1.82	0.57	1.00	3.57
			Fathers	358	1.82	0.61	1.00	3.57

and Figure 2).

With regard to the dimension related to maternal acceptance, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the independent variable being the school grade in order to verify any statistically significant differences. The results indicate a significant difference in the perception of maternal acceptance as a function of age, where older children register higher acceptance scores than children attending primary school (F_(1,372) = 5.569; p < 0.05). A further analysis did not reveal significant differences between males and females (F_(1,370) = 0.479; n.s.); this means that, regardless of gender, all participants agree in feeling a high degree of maternal acceptance. Finally, no interaction effect was recorded between the age and gender variables (F_(1,368) = 0.422; n.s.); however, the data show that the effect related to school grade is mainly linked to the scores of females who register a greater growth.

Similarly to maternal acceptance, paternal acceptance also increases significantly as the age of the participants increases (F_(1,356) = 16.598; p < 0.001): it is interesting to note that boys between 11 and 14 feel more accepted by the father when compared with children of primary school age. Also in this case, there are no significant differences with respect to gender (F_(1,354) = 1.579; n.s.), nor was there an interaction effect between the two independent variables of gender and age (F_(1,352) = 0.454; n.s.); however, the age-related effect is generated by children (males) under the age of 10 who report an average paternal acceptance value of less than 3 on a scale from 1 to 4.

With reference to the perception of parental rejection, a very interesting fact is that as the age of the children increases, the perception of rejection by both the mother (F_(1,372) = 14.121; p < 0.001) and the father (F_(1,356) = 25.373; p < 0.001) decreases. From further analyses, no significant differences emerged between males and females, either with regard to maternal (F_(1,370) = 2.154; n.s.) or paternal rejection (F_(1,354) = 2.347; n.s.); therefore, all participants, regardless of gender, generally report a low degree of parental rejection.

No interaction effect was found between the variables of gender and age (F_(1,368) = 1.023; n.s.); however, also in this case, it is important to underline that the age-related effect is mainly due to the subgroup of older girls (females) who record significantly lower maternal rejection scores than their male peers. Finally, perfectly in line with the previous results, also with regard to paternal rejection, boys aged between 11 and 14, and, in particular, the subgroup of girls, obtain lower scores than younger primary school children (F_(1,352) = 0.669; n.s.).

Finally, confirming what has already been seen above, the analyses of variance on repeated measures carried out (ANOVAs) show that both with regard to the mother (F_(1,373) = 782.86; p < 0.001) and with regard to the father (F_(1,357) = 521.85; p < 0.001), children feel significantly more accepted than rejected; moreover, maternal acceptance is significantly greater than paternal acceptance (F_(1,357) = 12.568; p < 0.001), while rejection is equivalent between mother and father (F_(1,357) = 0.026; n.s.).

3.1.3. Cooperation

Subsequently, some descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted on the cooperation skills of the students, detected through the administration of the questionnaire on classroom climate [CC].

The descriptive analyses highlight a very positive trend and a general climate of cooperation: in fact, the entire group of participants recorded average scores higher than 3 (on a scale from 1 to 4), demonstrating a willingness to collaborate and to mutually help, as well as the ability to work in a group in the context of sharing and mutual respect (

Table 5. Collaborative climate, described by gender and school level.

Children	School	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Primary (6–10)	96	3.33	0.48	1.70	4.00
	Middle (11–14)	87	3.28	0.46	2.00	4.00
Female	Primary (6–10)	88	3.31	0.51	1.60	4.00
	Middle (11–14)	101	3.34	0.40	2.20	4.00
Sub-total	Primary (6–10)	184	3.32	0.50	1.60	4.00
	Middle (11–14)	190	3.32	0.43	2.00	4.00
Total		374	3.32	0.46	1.60	4.00

).

The analyses of variance carried out (ANOVAs) did not detect statistically significant differences with respect to school level (F_(1,372) = 0.008; n.s.) or with respect to gender (F_(1,370) = 0.200; n.s.), confirming once again a climate mainly characterized by cooperation and respect without any distinction whatsoever between the participants.

Overall, these results are even more appreciable considering the previous non-significance: during the performance of the activities envisaged by the project, all students, regardless of age and gender, activated group processes aimed at mutual support and prosociality.

3.1.4. Sense of Community

A further analysis concerned the verification of a fundamental variable in our study, namely the sense of community. In this regard, the results that emerged from the administration of the Italian Sense of Community Scale [ISCS] are very encouraging, indicating how participation in the project had a positive impact on the participants’ sense of community (N = 374; M = 3.02; SD = 0.50) (

Table 6. Sense of community, described by gender and school level.

Children	School	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Male	Primary (6–10)	96	3.03	0.51	1.87	5.27
	Middle (11–14)	87	3.04	0.46	1.73	4.00
Female	Primary (6–10)	88	2.98	0.54	1.87	3.93
	Middle (11–14)	101	3.03	0.51	1.00	4.00
Sub-total	Primary (6–10)	184	3.01	0.53	1.87	5.27
	Middle (11–14)	190	3.03	0.48	1.00	4.00
Total		374	3.02	0.50	1.00	5.27

). In confirmation of this, and in line with the results of the previous analyses, the inferential analyses (ANOVAs) did not detect any difference in gender (F_(1,370) = 0.353; n.s.) and age (F_(1,372) = 0.242; n.s.), nor was an obvious interaction effect found between these two variables (F_(1,368) = 0.152; n.s.).

3.2. Correlational Analysis

Correlational analysis has shown positive associations of SES with paternal acceptance and cooperation and a negative association with paternal rejection (

Table 7. Correlational analysis.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. SES
2. Age of Children	0.07
3. Maternal Acceptance	0.06	0.10
4. Maternal Rejection	−0.06	−0.14 **	−0.65 **
5. Paternal Acceptance	0.14 **	0.14 **	0.63 **	−0.53 **
6. Paternal Rejection	−0.13 *	−0.16 **	−0.60 **	0.80 **	−0.67 **
7. Community Identification	0.00	−0.02	0.08	−0.18 **	0.21 **	−0.22 **
8. Cooperation	0.13 *	−0.01	0.06	−0.21 **	0.14 **	−0.26 **	0.31 **
9. Moral Disengagement	−0.10	−0.02	−0.49 **	0.53 **	−0.39 **	0.53 **	−0.05	−0.10

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

). Maternal and paternal acceptance have shown a negative association with moral disengagement, while paternal acceptance has also shown a positive correlation with community identification and cooperation. Maternal and paternal rejection negatively correlated with community identification and cooperation, while both are positively correlated with moral disengagement. Finally, community identification is positively associated with cooperation.

3.3. Path Analysis

3.3.1. Maternal Model

The estimation of the maternal model has been shown to fit the data well: χ²₍₄₎ = 5.00, p = 0.29, R-CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.02 and R-RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.03 (0.00, 0.09). As shown in Figure 2, the results revealed that the school level was negatively associated with maternal rejection (β = −0.23, p < 0.01), while the socioeconomic status was positively associated with cooperation (β = 0.13, p < 0.01). Furthermore, maternal acceptance was negatively associated with moral disengagement (β = −0.25, p < 0.001), while maternal rejection was positively associated with moral disengagement (β =0.38, p < 0.001). Maternal rejection was also negatively associated with cooperation (β = −0.23, p < 0.01), while community identification was positively associated with cooperation (β = 0.28, p < 0.001).

3.3.2. Paternal Model

The estimation of the paternal model has been shown to fit the data well: χ²₍₄₎ = 4.97, p = 0.29, R-CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.02 and R-RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.03 (0.00, 0.09). As shown in Figure 3, the results revealed that the school level of children was positively associated with paternal acceptance (β = 0.27, p < 0.01) and negatively associated with paternal rejection (β = −0.36, p < 0.01), while socioeconomic status was negatively associated with paternal rejection (β = −0.12, p = 0.04) and positively associated with paternal acceptance (β = 0.13, p = 0.02) and cooperation (β = 0.12, p = 0.02). Furthermore, paternal rejection was positively associated with moral disengagement (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) and negatively associated with cooperation (β = −0.25, p < 0.001), while community identification was positively associated with cooperation (β = 0.27, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

The present study was based on an action research project that actively involved a wide network of students and families residing in deprived areas (Librino, Sicily) with the intention of promoting identity development and a sense of belonging to the neighborhood. As already known in the literature, in uninspiring social environments deprived of beauty, there is a high risk of enacting actions marked by low ethicality and little respect for others and the surrounding area [1,2]. In particular, this action research leverages the concepts of “beauty” and “knowledge” and entrusts art with a central role in the educational process and social change. In this way, it had an ameliorative impact in the application context, promoting growth and social empowerment.

All participants in the research took part in a teaching path that promoted educational experiences of active and supportive citizenship aimed at triggering the value of sharing and participation in the consciences of those living in the suburbs and sowing a new collective consciousness of respect for the territory. In this ecological context, our study provided a contribution to understanding the interactions between psychological and socioeconomic factors that might play a role in the development of moral disengagement and cooperative behavior in children and adolescents living in contexts characterized by poverty and social disadvantage. Several family-level and community-level key factors were assumed to be associated with the main psychological outcomes of our interest. From the family perspective, the effect of experiences of parental acceptance and rejection [20] on the emergence of moral disengagement or, conversely, cooperation was investigated, while at the community level, it was hypothesized that a sense of community may be an aspect that can increase the likelihood of cooperative behaviors occurring. The results of the path analysis confirmed the hypothesized pattern of association between variables (e.g., children’s gender, age, school level and socioeconomic status on parenting, sense of community, cooperation and moral disengagement): the perception of parental rejection by both mothers and fathers yielded positive correlations with moral disengagement and negative correlations with cooperation. In line with the PARTheory [20], this finding was consistent with the claim that perceived rejection by one’s caregivers results in numerous negative psychological outcomes, behavioral problems and low social competence among children and adolescents [21,43,44]. Conversely, when parents are perceived as supportive and warm, those who felt accepted show better psychological adjustment [22]. Our results are in line with previous research showing that moral disengagement is the outcome of the interrelationship between personal characteristics and social variables that characterize children’s school and family context, peer group and community [45,46]. Indeed, numerous studies in the Italian context have pointed out that poor parenting practices characterized by lack of support, warmth, communication and promotion of autonomy favor the enactment of antisocial behaviors in children and adolescents, suggesting that family functioning is associated with aggressive behaviors and bullying [47,48,49].

Regarding moral disengagement, there is evidence to support the association between early parental rejection in childhood and later antisocial outcomes in youth, especially in impoverished environments such as the one we considered [2]. In this study, comparing maternal and paternal patterns, a negative association was found between perceived maternal acceptance and moral disengagement. This finding could be interpreted in light of previous research indicating that the behavior of each parent has differential effects on the psychological adjustment of children [50]. Similarly, a prerequisite for the achievement of adequate social development and good cooperative skills is having had experiences of acceptance within the parent–child relationship. The family context is recognized as a key environment for acquiring social skills, such as the development of prosocial behaviors [51]. Consistent with our findings, there are numerous studies on parenting that have shown that the authoritative parenting style, based on appropriate responsiveness, is the most effective in promoting self-regulation, as children appear more confident in their abilities, more socially responsible and more likely to cooperate, both with peers and adults [52].

Furthermore, our results highlighted that a child’s age was negatively associated with both maternal and paternal rejection and positively with paternal acceptance. The results of the inferential analyses confirmed this trend by showing significant differences according to the school level: children attending Italian middle school showed a higher degree of acceptance by both parents than Italian primary school children. This can be explained in light of research on the developmental trajectory of parent–child relationships that suggests the existence of closer parent–child relationships when children are young and more distant relationships in adolescence, when teenagers preferentially view their peers as major sources of emotional support [53,54]. From this perspective, perceived parental rejection seems to have a stronger effect on younger children than on older children [55]. In addition, the perception of paternal acceptance could increase with age due to the higher involvement of mothers in the early period of their child’s life. Accordingly, young children may be more vulnerable to maternal rejection, unlike fathers who are likely to spend approximately the same amount of time with their children across all the developmental stages [56].

With reference to socioeconomic status (SES), our study found that higher family SES was associated with higher perception of parental acceptance, and conversely. The literature confirms how parents of different socioeconomic levels educate their children differently, partly in response to the different circumstances in which they live and partly because they have different ways of conceiving parenting and interacting with the world [57]. The SES is certainly an important predictor of children’s social development [58]: children living in families with a higher SES showed greater social competence and more effective abilities in social interactions, such as assertiveness, self-control and cooperation [59]. Concerning this, our results highlight how higher socioeconomic status is related to a more cooperative approach to parenting toward children. Although in the context of our study the socioeconomic status of the families was medium–low, the participants showed a high willingness to cooperate and help each other, as well as an ability to work in groups. This could be because the recording of the cooperative skills of our student sample took place after the project had already started.

In conclusion, the study confirmed both of our hypotheses. Specifically, the results highlighted the role of gender, socioeconomic status (SES), age and school level in relation to variables such as parental acceptance–rejection, sense of community, moral disengagement and cooperation (aim #1). Furthermore, they revealed associations among these variables and their impact on moral disengagement and cooperation (aim #2). In fact, parental rejection correlated positively with moral disengagement and negatively with cooperation, consistent with PARTheory, which links perceived rejection to psychological challenges. Conversely, perceived parental warmth fostered social competence and cooperative skills. The study also found age-related trends in parental acceptance, with younger children more vulnerable to maternal rejection. Additionally, higher SES was associated with greater parental support, which enhanced cooperation. Despite generally medium–low SES among families, students demonstrated strong cooperative abilities, likely supported by the ongoing project’s positive environment. This study is a cross-sectional study; future research might involve a longitudinal study and the presence of a control group to test the effectiveness of projects based on the importance of all working together to achieve a common goal in order to increase the sense of community and improve the lives of people in struggling neighborhoods.

From an applied perspective, it is crucial to highlight the relevant practical and social implications of this study. It included an initiative with a high ethical value that resulted in the collective realization of a colossal monumental work called “Porta delle farfalle” [Butterfly door] with a consequent positive impact on the entire community. What we wanted to deliver to the people of Librino, who experienced this project as part of their own redemption, was a new perspective: the transformation of what is ugly into a manifestation of beauty, or in the words of Dostoevsky, “Mir spasët krasotà” [Beauty will save the world] [60]. Making one’s living environment “beautiful” leads people to preserve beauty and to engage in actions characterized by high ethicality and proactive collaboration [61,62]. More generally, the understanding of the relationship between the variables considered in this research could be very useful to guide the implementation of future projects in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Our data, together with those of the broader literature, suggest the importance of the implementation of collective works based on the principle of cooperation and social solidarity marked by beauty and redevelopment of the area to counteract problematic phenomena and discourage morally undesirable behavior very common in many other deprived suburbs.