Disentangling Self-Control from Its Elements: A Bifactor Analysis

Ward, Jeffrey T.; Nobles, Matt R.; Fox, Kathleen A.

doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9241-6

Cited by 34 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ward et al. (, p. 595) showed that, similar to risk‐seeking and impulsivity, these elements are independent constructs that “exist above and beyond the general factor of self‐control.” New insights therefore could come from studying the developmental patterns of these qualities. Similarly, Wolfe and Hoffmann () revealed a variety of latent behavioral indicators of self‐control, including life difficulties and noncriminal behavioral problems related to lying, anger, and cruelty—these also may be marked by unique developmental patterns that coincide with or counter the growth of other self‐control elements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, although findings from longitudinal studies reveal much self‐control stability, change is evident also, especially in longer term studies (Burt, Sweeten, & Simons, ; Hay & Forrest, ; Roberts & Mroczek, ). On dimensionality, although in many studies, researchers have identified a core self‐control factor, they also often have revealed multidimensionality—elements of low self‐control do not overlap entirely with the core self‐control factor, and independent effects on crime of lower order constructs sometimes exceed those for global self‐control measures (Longshore, Rand, & Stein, ; Ward, Nobles, & Fox, ; Wolfe & Hoffman, ). Thus, taken as a whole, self‐control does not seem entirely stable after childhood and a global self‐control construct includes independent dimensions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of impulsivity and risk‐seeking: Implications for the dimensionality and stability of self‐control*

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Gottfredson and Hirschi's self‐control theory, introduced in 1990, they contend that self‐control is a unidimensional construct that develops early in childhood and remains stable throughout the life span. According to findings reported in recent research, however, these arguments are now being challenged, with scholars pointing to ways in which self‐control may be multidimensional in nature and may change beyond the period of alleged stabilization. In this study, we draw on Steinberg's dual systems model, introduced in 2008, to consider this issue further. We examine that model's two key elements of low self‐control—risk‐seeking and impulsivity—to determine whether they are empirically distinguishable from one another and have differing developmental trajectories from childhood to early adulthood. We also consider the consequences of changes in risk‐seeking and impulsivity for within‐individual changes in crime. We examine these issues with data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) for individuals from 10 to 30 years old. The results of our analyses show support for a multidimensional and dynamic conception of self‐control—from age 10 to age 30, risk‐seeking and impulsivity are empirically distinct and develop in divergent ways that are consistent with the dual systems model. Changes in risk‐seeking and impulsivity also affect changes in crime, but their effects vary with age and changes in the other element. We discuss these findings and their implications for self‐control and the development of life‐course criminology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of impulsivity and risk‐seeking: Implications for the dimensionality and stability of self‐control*

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the three-factor bi-factor model better fit the data than four-factor bi-factor model considering the model conciseness, and three-factor bi-factor model was chosen in the follow research. The bi-factor model consists of a general factor (General BSI) that accounted for covariation among all indicators of the comprehensive mental health level and three specific factors (somatizaton, depression, and anxiety) accounting for variance beyond the general factor in covariation among specific factor indicators ( Ward et al, 2015 ). The current results for the bi-factor model supported the bi-factor structure of psychiatric symptoms, providing general and specific areas of composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 Among Chinese Insurance Employees

Wang

Shou

et al. 2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties and factorial invariance of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed to verify the BSI-18’s factor structure in a large sample of Chinese insurance professionals (N = 2363, 62.7% women; age range = 19–70). Multigroup CFA were performed to test the measurement invariance of the model with the best fit across genders. In addition, structural equation modeling was conducted to test the correlations between the BSI-18 and two covariates – social support perception and grit trait. Results indicated that the bi-factor model best fit the data and was also equivalent across genders. The BSI-18’s general factor, and somatization and depression dimensions were significantly related to social support perception and grit trait, whereas the anxiety dimension was not. Overall, our findings suggested that the BSI-18’s can be a promising tool in assessing general psychological distress in Chinese employees.

show abstract

“…Empirical work has consistently supported their claims. The low self-control syndrome has been linked to an array of criminal and imprudent behaviors among diverse samples of participants including jail inmates (Malouf et al, 2014;Ward, Nobles, & Fox, 2015), parolees (DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy, 2003), probationers (Taylor, Hiller, & Taylor, 2013), institutionalized delinquents Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005), and sex offenders (Ha & Beauregard, 2016) among correctional or clinical samples and children (Coyne & Wright, 2014;Houts, Caspi, Pianta, Arseneault, & Moffitt, 2010), adolescents and emerging adults (Beaver, DeLisi, Mears, & Stewart, 2009;Nedelec & Beaver, 2014), adults (Diamond, 2016;Moffitt, Poulton, & Caspi, 2013), and elderly adults (Wolfe, Reisig, & Holtfreter, 2016) from general population or community samples. 1 In addition to the relevance of self-control to conduct problems among disparate samples, there is impressive empirical support for its relation to disparate forms of crime, including violent offending, property offending, delinquency, severe delinquency, and victimization.…”

Section: Self-controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Control Versus Psychopathy

DeLisi

Tostlebe

Burgason

et al. 2016

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-control and psychopathy are prominent general theories of antisociality that, although present a very similar type of individual, have not often been studied in tandem, and few studies have conducted a head-to-head test of their association with serious delinquency and youth violence. Using a near census of institutionalized delinquents from Missouri, the current study found that both low self-control and psychopathy were significantly associated with various forms of delinquency and severe/chronic delinquency as measured by 90th percentile on the distribution. However, low selfcontrol was associated with more forms of delinquency, and victimization and youth with the lowest levels of self-control were at greatest risk for pathological delinquency relative to those with the most psychopathic personality. Both self-control and psychopathy are essential for understanding the most severe variants of delinquency, and more head-to-head tests are encouraged to assess the strength of criminological theories.

show abstract

Disentangling Self-Control from Its Elements: A Bifactor Analysis

Cited by 34 publications

References 57 publications

Development of impulsivity and risk‐seeking: Implications for the dimensionality and stability of self‐control*

Development of impulsivity and risk‐seeking: Implications for the dimensionality and stability of self‐control*

Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 Among Chinese Insurance Employees

Self-Control Versus Psychopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About