Self-control theory has received extensive empirical attention in the past decade, but most studies have not tested its arguments about the effects of parenting on self-control and delinquency. Using data collected from a sample of urban high school students, this study addresses this void by examining two parenting-related hypotheses derived from the theory. For one of the hypotheses, the results with self-control theory are contrasted with those obtained with Baumrind's theory of authoritative parenting, a theory that also is concerned with the link between parenting and self-control. Results generally support self-control theory's two hypotheses, but also point to empirical limitations of the theory.Although put forth only slightly more than a decade ago, Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self-control theory already has received an impressive amount of empirical scrutiny (e.g., Arneklev et al.Wright et al., 1999). The attention paid to the theory is likely due to a number of factors: its ambitious claim to have identified the explanation of all forms of crime and deviance across all stages of the life course; its parsimony; the visibility within criminology of its creators; and its emphasis on low selfcontrol, a concept that is both familiar to criminologists (see Reiss's [1951] "personal controls" and Nye's [ 19581 "internalized control") and compatible with the control theory assumptions that were advocated so successfully in Causes of Delinquency (Hirschi, 1969). Regardless of the reason, it is clear that self-control theory has engaged the attention of criminologists like few other issues.Just as impressive as the number of tests is the consistency of their findings. With few exceptions, these studies indicate that low self-control, whether measured attitudinally or behaviorally, positively affects deviant and criminal behavior, including drunken driving (Keane et al., 1993; ), self-reported and projected crime or deviance among college students (Gibbs and Giever, 1995;Gibbs et al., 1998;Nagin and Paternoster, 1994), and criminal behavior and analogous acts among adults Burton et al., 1998; Evans et al., 1997;Grasmick et al., 1993b;Longshore et al., 1996).In their recent meta-analysis, Pratt and Cullen (2000) have empirically summarized the results of this research. They find that across 21 empirical tests, low self-control has a mean effect size of around .27-an effect size that qualifies it as "one of the strongest known correlates of crime" (p. 952). Admittedly, Pratt and Cullen's analysis calls into question the claim that low self-control is the sole cause of crime and deviance. They find that even when low self-control is held constant, two social learning variables (differential association and delinquent definitions) have significant mean effects on crime. Nevertheless, Pratt and Cullen's (2000) meta-analysis points to one unmistakable conclusion: Low self-control is significantly and positively related to involvement in crime and deviance.Despite the strength of this conclusion, much is sti...

Research on self‐control theory consistently supports its central prediction that low self‐control significantly affects crime. The theory includes other predictions, however, that have received far less scrutiny. Among these is the argument that self‐control is developed early in childhood and that individual differences emerging then persist over time. The purpose of this study is to provide a rigorous test of the stability thesis. First, we examine the extent of stability and change in self‐control for a national sample of U.S. children age 7 to age 15. Second, we consider whether parenting continues to affect self‐control during adolescence—a period after the point at which self‐control differences should be fixed. The analysis revealed strong absolute and relative stability of self‐control for more than 80 percent of the sample, and this stability emerged in large part as early as age 7. Contradicting the theory was a smaller portion of respondents (roughly 16 percent) who experienced substantial absolute and relative changes in self‐control even after the age of 10. Moreover, parental socialization continued to affect self‐control during adolescence, even after accounting for both prior self‐control and exposure to parental socialization.

In the last decade, Robert Agnew's general strain theory (GST) of delinquency has received considerable empirical attention, with most studies yielding favorable evidence. One aspect of GST neglected by researchers, however, concerns its ability to explain why certain demographic variables are related to delinquency. This article reports such a test of GST with respect to the gender-delinquency relationship in particular—one of the strongest relationships in delinquency research. The focus is on family-related strain faced by adolescents and how it may account for the gender gap in delinquency. Building on the work of Broidy and Agnew, and using questionnaire data collected from a sample of urban adolescents, this study tests three GST explanations for males' higher involvement in delinquency. The results of the analysis suggest that the gender gap in delinquency may be closely linked to gender differences in both the experience of and response to family-related strain.

The purpose of this study is to advance the idea that low self-control-one of the strongest known predictors of crime-likely has effects that are conditional on the supply of criminal opportunities. Some scholars initially interpreted the theory to make this exact prediction, but Gottfredson and Hirschi (2003) have rejected this interpretation. They have insisted that the simplistic nature of most crimes ensures that opportunities are limitless and that variation in opportunity simply reflects variation in self-control. We trace the history of this uncertain position of opportunity in self-control theory and argue that it should play a significant role in the theory, even if Gottfredson and Hirschi did not originally envision this. Next, we draw on routine activities theory and applications of it to individual offending to offer a theoretical statement of how opportunity should be incorporated into self-control theory. Last, using data from a national sample of juveniles, we test the arguments that have been made. The analysis suggests that the effects of low self-control on delinquency partially depend on the availability of criminal opportunities, as indicated by the time juveniles spend with their friends or away from the supervision of their parents.

Despite the marked increase in incarceration over

Agnew’s general strain theory (GST) has received significant empirical attention, but important issues remain unresolved. This study addresses three such issues. First, the authors examine the effects of bullying—a source of strain that may be consequential, but that has been neglected in GST research to date. Second, drawing from recent research on deliberate self-harm among adolescents, the authors examine the effects of bullying not just on externalizing deviance (aggressive acts committed against others and their property) but also on internalizing deviance directed against the self. Third, the authors examine these relationships separately for males and females to assess sex differences in responses to strain. These three issues are examined with self-report data collected from a sample of middle and high school students in a Southeastern state. The analysis reveals that bullying is consequential for both externalizing and internalizing forms of deviance and that these relationships are in some instances moderated by sex.

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research.Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.

No abstract