Comparative Criminology International Journal of Offender Therapy and

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology http://ijo.sagepub.com

Parental Efficacy, Self-Control, and Delinquency: a Test of a General Theory of Crime on a Nationally Representative Sample of Youth Dina Perrone, Christopher J. Sullivan, Travis C. Pratt and Satenik Margaryan Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2004; 48; 298 DOI: 10.1177/0306624X03262513 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/298

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 47 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/48/3/298

Downloaded from http://ijo.sagepub.com by Satenik Margaryan on October 30, 2007 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Parental Efficacy, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of a General Theory of Crime on a Nationally Representative Sample of Youth Dina Perrone Christopher J. Sullivan Travis C. Pratt Satenik Margaryan Abstract: Criminologists have recently begun examining Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) proposition that parenting is the primary influence on children’s levels of self-control. The few existing studies on the subject, however, have typically been based on small, nonrandom samples. The current study examines the relationships between parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquent behavior using data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health). The results indicate that although parental efficacy is an important precursor to self-control, contrary to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s proposition, self-control does not completely mediate the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency. The implications for future research and theoretical development are discussed. Keywords: self-control; general theory of crime; Gottfredson; Hirschi; adolescence; delinquency; parental efficacy; peers

In the relatively short period of time since its publication, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s A General Theory of Crime (1990) has attracted an impressive amount of attention from criminologists (Cohn & Farrington, 1999; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Part of the theory’s popularity—or perhaps its infamy—has been driven by the rather bold assertion that every other criminological theory is wrong where the variation in criminal activity can be explained solely by variation in individuals’ levels of self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) explicitly rejected the NOTE: This research used data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris and funded by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01-HD31921), with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524, www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth/ contract.html. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(3), 2004 298-312 DOI: 10.1177/0306624X03262513  2004 Sage Publications

298


Test of a General Theory of Crime

299

notion that criminal behavior is the result of biological determinism, of differential social reinforcement, of deviant peer associations, of strain or frustration, of economic deprivation, of a deviant subculture, or even of weak bonds to conventional social institutions. It is not surprising, given the provocative nature of how Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory was presented, that critics have not been bashful about calling into question the logic and generality of the self-control-crime relationship (Akers, 1991; Arneklev, Grasmick, & Bursik, 1999; Benson & Moore, 1992; Geis, 2000; Marenin & Reisig, 1995; Miller & Burack, 1993; Reed & Yeager, 1996; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Tittle, 1991; cf. Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1993). Despite such criticism, the body of empirical tests of the general theory of crime has been fairly consistent in revealing a link between self-control and crime (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). This does not, however, mean that empirical support for the theory has been unqualified. Indeed, some studies have called into question certain propositions contained within the theory regarding the predictors of white-collar offending and of the nature of the age-crime relationship (Benson & Moore, 1992; Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Dunaway, 1994; Reed & Yeager, 1996; Sampson & Laub, 1993, 1995; Steffensmeier, 1989; Tittle & Grasmick, 1998). Others have been skeptical of the unidimensionality of self-control (DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy, 2003; Longshore, Stein, & Turner, 1998; Longshore, Turner, & Stein, 1996; Piquero, MacIntosh, & Hickman, 2000; Piquero & Rosay, 1998). Still others have yielded somewhat inconsistent results in the ability of self-control variables to cause those from competing criminological theories to “wash out” (Brownfield & Sorenson, 1993; Gibson, Wright, & Tibbetts, 2000; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursick, & Arneklev, 1993; Paternoster & Brame, 1997, 2000; Polakowski, 1994; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Tibbetts & Whittmore, 2002; Winfree & Bernat, 1998). Nevertheless, studies have shown that measures of self-control have been significantly related to crime/deviance (Burton et al., 1994; Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999; Deng & Zhang, 1998; Gibbs & Giever, 1995; Grasmick et al., 1993; Keane, Maxim, & Tevan, 1993; Longshore, 1998; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996; Polakowski, 1994; Sellers, 1999; Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993) and to a host of behaviors “analogous” to crime (Arneklev, Cochran, & Gainey, 1998; Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursick, 1993; Burton et al., 1999; Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wilkerson, & Chamlin, 1998; Forde & Kennedy, 1997; Junger & Tremblay, 1999; Junger, West, & Timmer, 2001; Lo, 2000; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999; Tremblay, Boulerice, Arsenault, & Niscale, 1995; Wood et al., 1993). In addition, a study by Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing (2001) found that the self-control scale developed by Grasmick et al. (1993) had similar predictive power in cross-national settings when assessed on samples drawn from the United States, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Netherlands (see also Wright, Entner, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva’s 1999) study on a sample from New Zealand). In the end, Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis of the criminologi-


300

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

cal literature on self-control and crime concluded that “low self-control must be considered an important predictor of criminal behavior and the general theory warrants a measure of acceptance” (p. 953). Thus, the extant empirical research has clearly demonstrated that indicators of self-control are strongly associated with wayward behavior. This should come as no shock, however, because most scholars have devoted their attention and resources to explicating the proximal cause of criminal behavior: self-control. One hypothesis contained within Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory that is only beginning to be the subject of empirical scrutiny involves the role of parenting in the development of self-control. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), parents who do not monitor their children’s behavior, recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and then punish such deviance are expected to raise children who are low in self-control and thus exhibit more deviant, delinquent, and criminal behaviors over the life-course (see pp. 97-105). One possible reason for scholars’ relative inattention to this parenting component could be that Gottfredson and Hirschi viewed parental socialization as a distal cause of criminal behavior in that its effect on crime should operate solely through self-control; that is, the general theory of crime argues that when levels of self-control are developed and “set” within individuals (around the ages of 8 to 10 years), “parenting effects” should play no role in the explanation of criminal behavior. In our view, the origins of criminality of low self-control are to be found in the first six or eight years of life, during which the child remains under the control and supervision of the family or a familial institution. [Therefore,] policies directed toward the enhancement of familial institutions to socialize children are the only realistic long-term state policies with potential for substantial crime reduction. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, pp. 272-273)

To date, only a handful of studies have explored the dynamics of parenting, self-control, and crime/deviance (Cochran et al., 1998; Feldman & Weinberger, 1994; Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; Hay, 2001; Lynskey, Winfree, Esbensen, & Clason, 2000; Polakowski, 1994). As a result of statements derived from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory, these efforts have concentrated on exploring the effect of parental childrearing on the development of self-control. Although not unanimous in their results, these studies generally indicate that parenting is an important—yet not the sole—determinant of self-control in children (see also Pratt et al., 2002) and that, for the most part, the effect of parenting on crime/deviance is largely mediated by self-control. Although these studies are a good start for developing a more complete understanding of the causes and consequences of low self-control, they are limited in important ways. In particular, these studies are typically conducted on small, nonrandom samples in limited social contexts, such as Feldman and Weinberger’s (1994) analysis of 81 sixth-grade boys and the small student samples used by Cochran et al. (1998), Gibbs et al. (1998), and by Hay (2001), which were also limited to a single urban environment. To address these issues and, in turn, to



301

move toward a more complete understanding of the relationships between parenting, self-control, and criminal/deviant behavior, the current study analyzes data from the first wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) (Bearman, Jones, & Udry, 1997). The Add Health study used a nationally representative sample of adolescents and their parents and included a wealth of information regarding youths’ attitudes and behaviors across various domains. Included within this data set are several items related to parental efficacy, self-control, and self-reported delinquency. Given the limitations of the existing body of research discussed above, we used the Add Health data here to examine two primary research questions. First, our analysis examines whether parental efficacy is a significant precursor to selfcontrol. Similar to the few researchers who have explored this question thus far, we see this question as critical for a broader understanding of the “left side” of the theoretical model set forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Even more important, our second research question concerns whether the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency is mediated by self-control. This second aim of the current study is important because Gottfredson and Hirschi were clear in their assertion that parenting effects on delinquency should be indirect only (i.e., operating through the direct effect of self-control). Thus, a finding of a direct effect of parental efficacy on delinquency after controlling for levels of self-control could not be easily explained within Gottfredson and Hirschi’s framework. The current analysis therefore has important implications for the comparative validity of selfcontrol theory versus social learning and developmental/life-course perspectives— both of which are capable of providing a more convincing explanation of the existence of direct and indirect (through self-control) effects of parental efficacy on delinquent behavior. METHOD SAMPLE The data for this research were drawn from the first wave of the Add Health study, conducted by researchers at the Carolina Population Center (Bearman et al., 1997). The Add Health study used a stratified random sample of all high schools in the United States. Initially, researchers chose 80 high schools from clusters based on several characteristics: region, urbanization, school size and type (public or private), race, and grade span. In addition, a feeder school (generally a middle school) was recruited whenever possible (Resnick et al., 1997). More than 70% of the originally sampled high schools agreed to participate in the study. If a high school refused to participate, it was replaced by another school within the same stratum. Participation in the study entailed provision of a student roster and arrangements for in-class administration of the questionnaire. Student rosters served as a sampling frame for selecting students for in-class and in-home


302


surveys. Including feeders, a final sample of 132 schools were involved in the study (Bearman et al., 1997). The current study used data from the Wave I in-home sample. The in-home component of this study was used because it includes data for adolescents and their parents. Adolescents from Grades 7 to 12 were selected from the schoolprovided rosters. Thus, students who were not present for the in-class survey were eligible for the in-home interviews. A random sample of 15,243 adolescents was selected for the in-home portion of the Add Health study (Resnick et al., 1997). A total of 12,118 (79.5%) completed the interview. In addition to this core sample, youths from four ethnic groups were oversampled: Blacks whose parents had a college degree, Chinese Americans, Cuban Americans, and Puerto Rican Americans. A total of 13,536 cases were included in the current study. Thus, the sample includes a rather high proportion of minority youths from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. When sampling for the parent interview portion of the study, preference was given to resident mothers or other female caretakers, as previous studies found that mothers were more knowledgeable about their children’s health and behavior than fathers (Bearman et al., 1997). Overall, in 85.6% of the cases a parent of the interviewed adolescent also completed a questionnaire. MEASURES Delinquency Scale. A 6-item scale was created to measure delinquent behavior on the part of adolescents (α = .66, M = 2.76, SD = 1.776). The Delinquency Scale included questions on lifetime use of cigarettes and alcohol, and the number of times the adolescent smoked marijuana. Furthermore, the adolescents were asked the number of times they “lied to their parents,” “engaged in a serious physical fight,” and “behaved disorderly in a public place” within the past year. A score of 1 was given if the individual responded yes to this behavior and a score of 0 was given if he/she did not. The scale is composed of the average response across the six items. Self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) described six dimensions of selfcontrol: impulsivity, a preference for simple tasks, the favoring of physical over mental activities, self-centeredness, and a temper component. Our unidimensional factor contains five items that tap into five of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s six self-control dimensions. Given the potentially tautological nature of behavioral measures of self-control, we combined attitudinal and behavioral measures. For instance, adolescents were asked to respond to the following statements: Have they “had problems keeping their mind on what they were doing,” have they “had trouble getting their homework done,” and have they had difficulty “paying attention in school.” These questions tap into the simple tasks, physical activities, and impulsivity components of self-control. Respondents were also asked whether



303

they had trouble getting along with their teachers, which captures self-control’s temper dimension. Another question tapped the self-centeredness of the respondents by asking them to respond to the following statement: “You feel you are doing everything just about right.” Because a response of “yes” to these items indicated a low level of self-control, higher values on our self-control measure indicate lower levels of self-control. A complete listing of the items constituting this factor and the factor loadings are available on request. Parental efficacy. Our unidimensional parental efficacy factor is made up of four items that address a mother’s attachment to her child (e.g., “Do you get along with your child?”) as well as the mother’s effectiveness in recognizing problematic behavior and responding to this behavior (e.g., “Does the mother discuss child’s wrongs with him or her?”). High scores on this scale indicate higher levels of parental efficacy. Data on the items and factor loadings of parental efficacy are available upon request. Control variables. To isolate the effects of parental efficacy on self-control and the effects of parental efficacy and self-control on delinquency, we controlled for a host of additional demographic and social characteristics for each respondent. In particular, the analyses include standard controls for age (measured as grade in school), race (0 = non-White; 1 = White), sex (0 = male; 1 = female), and family income (estimated from the parents’ surveys) as a proxy for household socioeconomic status. We also included a measure of family disruption (0 = parents are unmarried; 1 = parents are married), and a measure of deviant peers, a 4-item unidimensional factor that includes youths’responses to questions regarding their peers’ substance abuse in the past month and involvement in fights within the past year. Data on these items and the factor analysis are available on request. RESULTS As stated above, the current study had two purposes: to examine (1) whether parental efficacy is a significant predictor of youths’ levels of self-control and (2) whether self-control mediates the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency. Table 1 contains the results of the series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models assessing self-control and delinquency as outcome variables. It is important to note here that diagnostic procedures indicated no statistically significant skewness in either the measures of self-control or delinquency. Furthermore, residual analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between the residuals from the multivariate models and either self-control or delinquency, which would indicate the possibility of nonlinearity (Hanushek & Jackson, 1977). Thus, we are confident in the appropriateness of our use of OLS regression in this context.


304


TABLE 1 MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS PREDICTING SELF-CONTROL AND DELINQUENCY (N = 13,536) Predictor Variable Age Race Sex Family structure Family incomea Deviant peers Self-control Parental efficacy Constant Model F R2

Model 1 Self-Control

Model 2 Delinquency

Model 3 Delinquency

Model 4 Delinquency

.027/.016*** (.036) .036/.018* (.017) –.105/.016*** (–.053) –.062/.019** (–.028) .219/.000 (.011) —

.140/.024*** .138/.025*** .140/.024*** (.039) (.039) (.039) .084/.026** .053/.027* .048/.025 (.022) (.014) (.013) –.082/.023*** –.140/.024*** –.104/.023*** (–.023) (–.039) (–.029) –.129/.028*** –.132/.029*** –.121/.027*** (–.033) (–.033) (–.031) .157/.000 .176/.000 .043/.000 (.005) (.005) (.001) .911/.012*** .984/.013*** .889/.012*** (.509) (.550) (.497) — 461/.012*** — .421/.012*** (.258) (.235) –.257/.008*** — –.272/.012*** –.180/.012*** (–.258) (–.152) (–.101) .013 2.785*** 2.830*** 2.816*** 174.708* 1355.927*** 1148.960*** 1232.276*** .072 .412 .373 .422

NOTE: Coefficients are displayed as slope estimate/standard error (standardized coefficients in parentheses). a. Slope estimate multiplied by 1000 for ease of presentation. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

PARENTAL EFFICACY AND SELF-CONTROL Model 1 examined the effects of parental efficacy on self-control while controlling for each of the covariates except deviant peers. We excluded deviant peers from Model 1 because Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) stated that levels of selfcontrol should be “fixed” between the ages of 8 and 10 years. Because our measure of deviant peers begins—at the earliest—at seventh grade (around age 13 years), including deviant peers as a predictor of self-control would violate the assumption of causal ordering. Even so, including the measure of deviant peers in the model predicting self-control did not eliminate—or even substantially reduce—the effect of parental efficacy on self-control. Although Model 1 is statistically significant, even with the six independent variables it is still quite weak in terms of predictive ability (R2 = .072). Nevertheless, Model 1 indicates that, net of statistical controls, parental efficacy is a signifi-



305

cant predictor of youths’ levels of self-control. Furthermore, parental efficacy maintains the most robust relationship with self-control (β = –.258), where the inverse relationship indicates that higher levels of parental efficacy are associated with higher levels of self-control (again, because high values on the self-control factor indicate lower levels of self-control)—a finding that is consistent with propositions set forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) regarding the development of self-control in children. Despite the strength of this relationship, other covariates were also significantly related to self-control. In particular, older youths, boys, and youths from homes where their parents were not married all exhibited lower levels of self-control. Also of particular interest, the non-White youths in the sample had significantly higher levels of self-control than their White counterparts—a finding that is generally inconsistent with the bulk of criminological literature (e.g., see the review by Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Given the sampling technique employed during the collection of the Add Health data set, however, where minority youths from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds were oversampled, the findings with regard to the relationship between race and self-control are not terribly surprising. Thus, with regard to the first research question of interest—the precursors of self-control—our findings indicate that parental efficacy is a significant (yet not the sole) predictor of levels of self-control in youths. PARENTAL EFFICACY, SELF-CONTROL, AND DELINQUENCY The next three models in Table 1 explore the relationships between selfcontrol, parental efficacy, and delinquency. In these models we are paying particular attention to the degree to which self-control may mediate the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency. To that end, Model 2 and Model 3 indicate that self-control and parental efficacy maintain significant and robust relationships with delinquency when considered separately. Model 4 places both of these measures into the same OLS regression equation. This model indicates that, when considered together, self-control and parental efficacy are still significantly and independently related to delinquency (self-control β = .235; parental efficacy β = –.101). Furthermore, although the effect of parental efficacy on delinquency is reduced from Model 3 to Model 4, the inclusion of the measure of selfcontrol does not cause the significance of parental efficacy to wash out when predicting delinquency. Thus, with regard to the second research question of interest—the ability of self-control to mediate the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency—our findings indicate that, at best, self-control only partially mediates this relationship. To be sure, the magnitude of the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency drops from β = –.152 in Model 1 to β = –.101 in Model 4. Even so, the parental efficacy-delinquency relationship remains statistically significant (p < .001) in the final model that includes a measure of self-control. This finding is in direct opposition with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) propo-


306


sition that self-control should fully mediate the parental efficacy-delinquency relationship. Perhaps just as important, the relationship between our measure of deviant peers and delinquency is consistently the strongest relationship across all three models predicting delinquency, with a beta weight (standardized β) typically around .500. Indeed, neither the presence nor the absence of a measure of selfcontrol in a particular statistical model significantly influences the relationship between deviant peers and delinquency. This relationship however, may not be far from what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) expected. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended “that self-control is a major factor in determining membership in adolescent peer groups” (p. 157). They theorized that those with low self-control tend to gravitate toward peers with low self-control. Thus, when viewed in their entirety, our results indicate: (a) that parental efficacy is a powerful, yet not the only, predictor of self-control; (b) that self-control does not fully mediate the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency; and (c) that parental efficacy and deviant peers significantly predict youths’ delinquent behavior independently from self-control. DISCUSSION After an immediate rush of research examining the relationship between selfcontrol and crime/delinquency in the 1990s (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000), researchers have begun the task of examining the potential precursors to self-control. Although still in its infancy, a general pattern that is emerging is that parenting practices are an important determinant of self-control in youths. Although such research is certainly theoretically relevant, existing studies on the subject are typically based on small, nonrandom samples with retrospective accounts of parenting practices (e.g., Cochran et al., 1998; Feldman & Weinberger, 1994; Gibbs et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Lynskey et al., 2000; Polakowski, 1994). Accordingly, the central purpose of the current study was to reassess the dynamics of parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency using a large, nationally representative sample of youths with more temporally proximate measures of parenting. In doing so, the results of our analysis yield four major conclusions. First, consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) framework, parental efficacy is a major precondition for self-control in youngsters. This finding is also consistent with the bulk of empirical literature that has assessed this relationship thus far. Nevertheless, the fact that our analyses are based on the responses of more than 13,000 participants may inspire more confidence in the validity of this relationship than the current body of existing studies. Second, although the parental efficacy-self-control link was quite robust, our measures of race and family structure (along with age and sex) were significantly related to self-control. These findings highlight two important issues relevant to criminological theory and research. First, this analysis indicates the importance



307

of family context, not simply patterns of parental monitoring and supervision, to the explanation of delinquency (see also Chase-Lansdale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, Chase-Lansdale, & Gordon, 1997; Sampson, 1986). To be sure, structural and multilevel theories of crime explicitly note how families are situated in particular community contexts that may either enhance or inhibit parental control processes (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). The findings reported here may be treated as further evidence that an integrated theoretical approach—one that views self-control in conjunction with family functioning and family context—is more likely to yield a complete understanding of the purported causes of crime and delinquency. Third, and related, our results indicate that the dynamics of race and selfcontrol may be more complex than indicated by previous research. Specifically, the oversampled middle- and upper-middle-class Blacks in the sample exhibited relatively high levels of self-control. At minimum, although beyond the scope of the current investigation, this finding indicates the need for future research assessing race-class interactions with self-control. Indeed, the typical finding in the research literature minority youths exhibit lower levels of self-control—which, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), should explain the “race gap” in criminal offending—was not revealed here. This further suggests the need to understand how contextual factors such as condition of economic deprivation (in which minority youths are often situated) impacts a family’s ability to parent effectively. Finally, our fourth major conclusion is that the ability of self-control to mediate the relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency was, at best, limited. Even after controlling for self-control, our measure of parental efficacy continued to maintain a strong and stable relationship with delinquency. Furthermore, our measure of deviant peers was also a strong and stable predictor of delinquent behavior—a finding that was consistently revealed across the multivariate analyses whether or not self-control was included in the model. Thus, when taken together it appears that parental efficacy affects delinquency in ways that are not easily explained by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory. These findings also have important implications for continued theoretical development and integration in criminology. For example, the existence of a strong “parenting effect” on delinquency challenges Harris’s (1998) notion that “parents don’t matter” when it comes to the explanation of delinquent behavior. According to Harris (1998), parenting does little to influence kids’ wayward behavior when “peer effects” have been taken into consideration. Although our measure of deviant peers did have a rather robust effect on delinquency, it did not fully mediate the parental efficacy-delinquency relationship. Thus, although Harris’s (1998) argument may provide parents with a certain measure of psychological absolution for the misbehavior of their offspring, the empirical reality is that parenting still “matters” when it comes to delinquent behavior (see also Akers, 1998; Currie, 1985; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Wright & Cullen, 2001).


308


Nevertheless, the measure of deviant peers was consistently the strongest predictor of delinquency in our analysis, a finding that has been supported in previous research. Keenan, Loeber, Zhang, Stouthamer-Loeber, and Van Kammen’s (1995) study of young, adolescent boys also found deviant peers to be the strongest predictor of delinquency. As a result, they concluded that regardless of personality characteristics and the type of supervision youths received, if friendships with antisocial peers are maintained, the youths are more likely to become delinquent (Keenan et al., 1995). Thus, future research in this area should conduct a path analysis to determine the appropriate temporal order of this complex relationship. Nonetheless, it appears as though elements of social bond/social control (parental efficacy) and differential association/social learning (deviant peers) theories specify variables that are theoretically plausible and empirically defensible correlates of deviant behavior. The problem is that neither perspective—by itself—is capable of providing a complete explanation of the coexistence of these relationships. Therefore, it appears that there is now an explicit need for criminologists to specify how these perspectives may be integrated to accommodate these dual effects on delinquency. We certainly recognize, however, that this is likely to be a rather arduous task. To be sure, the “control” and “learning” traditions have typically been viewed as competitors in the arena of criminological theory (e.g., see Akers, 1998; Cullen, Wright, & Chamlin, 1999; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Nevertheless, recent work on the relationship between parenting and delinquency indicates that elements of control can exist in conjunction with social learning/support processes (see, e.g., Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; McCord, 1979; Wright & Cullen, 2001). Furthermore, the emerging empirical and theoretical literature addressing the concepts of “social capital” and “collective efficacy” explicitly relies on the notions of informal social control and mutually trusting/cohesive relationships where positive learning and socialization can take place (Coleman, 1990; Sampson et al., 1997). Thus, the groundwork for further theoretical integration already exists—the next step is to construct a coherent integrated theory capable of more fully explaining the dynamics of parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency. REFERENCES Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201-211. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Arneklev, B. J., Cochran, J. K., & Gainey, R. R. (1998). Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s ‘low selfcontrol’stability hypothesis: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 107127.



309

Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., & Bursick, R. J. (1999). Evaluating the dimensionality and invariance of “low self-control.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 307-331. Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursick, R. J. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225-247. Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (1997). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Available at www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth Benson, M. L., & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 251-273. Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. M. (1993). Self-control and juvenile delinquency: Theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243-264. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Macmillan. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 213-239. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123-147. Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M., & Dunaway, R. G. (1999). Age, self-control, and adults’ offending behaviors: A research note assessing a general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45-53. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Gordo, R. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Neighborhood and family influences on the intellectual and behavioral competence of preschool and early schoolaged children. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Volume 1. Context and consequences for children (pp. 79-119). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., Sellers, C. S., Wilkerson, W., & Chamlin, M. B. (1998). Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 19, 227-255. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345-359. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Chamlin, M. B. (1999). Social support and social reform: A progressive crime control agenda. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 188-207. Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. New York: Pantheon. DeLisi, M., Hochstetler, A., & Murphy, D. S. (2003). Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale. Justice Quarterly, 20, 241-265. Deng, X., & Zhang, L. (1998). Correlates of self-control: An empirical test of self-control theory. Journal of Crime and Justice, 21, 89-110. Feldman, S. S., & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on boys’ delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 195-212. Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 265-294. Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: A critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 35-53. Gibbs, J. J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231-255. Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 40-70.


310


Gibson, C. L., Wright, J. P., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2000). An empirical assessment of the generality of the general theory of crime: The effects of low self-control on social development. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 109-134. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursick, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29. Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press. Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707-736. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30, 47-54. Junger, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Self-control, accidents, and crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 485-501. Junger, M., West, R., & Timmer, R. (2001). Crime and risky behavior in traffic: An example of crosssituational consistency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 439-459. Keane, C., Maxim, P., & Teevan, J. J. (1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30-46. Keenan, K., Loeber, R., Zhang, Q., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. (1995). The influence of deviant peers on the development of boys’ disruptive and delinquent behavior: A temporal analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 715-726. Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Gordon, R. A. (1997). Are neighborhood effects on young children mediated by features of home environment? In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Volume 1. Context and consequences for children (pp.119-146). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lo, C. C. (2000). Timing of drinking initiation: A trend study predicting drug use among high school seniors. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 525-554. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (vol. 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Longshore, D. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general theory of crime. Social Problems, 45, 102-113. Longshore, D., Stein, J. A., & Turner, S. (1998). Reliability and validity of a self-control measure: Rejoinder. Criminology, 36, 175-182. Longshore, D., Turner, S., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34, 209-228. Lynskey, D. P., Winfree, T. L., Esbensen, F. A., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Linking gender, minority group status and family matter to self-control theory: A multivariate analysis of key self-control concepts in a youth-gang context. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 51, 1-19. Marenin, O., & Reisig, M. D. (1995). “A general theory of crime” and patterns of crime in Nigeria: An exploration of methodological assumptions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 501-518. McCord, J. (1979). Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1477-1486. Miller, S., & Burack, C. (1993). A critique of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power positions. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134.



311

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 3, 467-496. Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (1997). Multiple routes to delinquency? A test of developmental and general theories of crime. Criminology, 35, 49-84. Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (2000). On the association among self-control, crime, and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 38, 971-982. Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s selfcontrol scale. Criminology, 38, 897-929. Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. B. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173. Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in decision-making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 1, 481-510. Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41-78. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L., Wright, J. P., & Unnever, J. D. (2002). The relationship of ADHD to crime and misconduct: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 344-360. Reed, G. E., & Yeager, P. C. (1996). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology, 34, 357-382. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823-832. Sampson, R. J. (1986). Neighborhood family structure and the risk of personal victimization. In J. M. Byrne & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The social ecology of crime (pp. 25-46). New York: SpringerVerlag. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Understanding variability in lives through time: Contributions of life-course criminology. Studies in Crime Prevention, 4, 143-158. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 916-924. Sellers, C. (1999). Self-control and intimate violence: An examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology, 37, 375-404. Steffensmeier, D. J. (1989). On the causes of “white-collar” crime: An assessment of Hirschi and Gottfredson’s claims. Criminology, 27, 325-358. Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179-200. Tibbetts, S. G., & Whittimore, J. N. (2002). The interactive effects of low self-control and commitment to school on substance abuse among college students. Psychological Reports, 90, 327-337. Tittle, C. R. (1991). A general theory of crime: A book review. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1609-1611. Tittle, C. R., & Grasmick, H. G. (1998). Criminal behavior and age: A test of three provocative hypotheses. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 309-342.


312


Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Arsenault, L., & Niscale, M. J. (1995). Does low self-control during childhood explain the association between delinquency and accidents in early adolescence? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 5, 439-451. Vazsonyi, A. T., Pickering, L. E., Junger, M., & Hessing, D. (2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 91-131. Winfree, L. T., & Bernat, F. P. (1998). Social learning, self-control, and substance abuse by eighth grade students: A tale of two cities. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 539-558. Wood, P. B., Pfefferbaum, B., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Risk-taking and self-control: Social psychological correlates of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 111-130. Wright, B., Entner, R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1999). Low self-control, social bonds, and crime: Social causation, social selection, or both? Criminology, 37, 479-514. Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquent behavior: Do control and support matter? Criminology, 39, 677-706.

Dina Perrone, M.A. School of Criminal Justice Rutgers University-Newark Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Christopher J. Sullivan, M.A. School of Criminal Justice Rutgers University-Newark Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Travis C. Pratt, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Political Science/Criminal Justice Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99164-4880 USA Satenik Margaryan, M.P.A., M.A. School of Criminal Justice Rutgers University-Newark Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA
