Parenting, Self‐control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self‐control Theory*

Abstract

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...

The Stability of Self-Control Among South Korean Adolescents

“…The low self-control theory has been vigorously tested with regards to the relationship between self-control and criminal and/or analogous behaviors (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993;Longshore & Turner, 1998;Nagin & Paternoster, 1993;Vazsonyi, Pickerinig, Junger, & Hessing, 2001), the association between familial socialization and self-control (Hay, 2001), and the measurement properties of self-control (Longshore et al, 1996;Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004). In a comprehensive meta-analysis of 21 empirical studies, Pratt & Cullen (2000) recently show that low self-control has a mean effect size of .257 across varying operationalizations of self-control and after the inclusion of controls from other prominent criminological theories.…”

Adolescent Motherhood, Depression, and Delinquency

“…The conditioning role of self-esteem, social support, self-efficacy, prior deviant experiences, intelligence, moral beliefs, and affiliation with deviant peers have all been identified as causes of delinquent responses to negative emotions (Agnew, 1992). Delinquency is influenced by factors such as low self-control, impulsivity, and antisocial personality tendencies, which are related to criminal and analogous acts (e.g., smoking, excessive drinking, using drugs, driving too fast, having children out of wedlock, engaging in illicit sex, and gambling) (Chapple, 2005;Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990;Hay, 2001;Mazerolle and Maahs, 2000;Moffitt, 1993;Patterson, DeBaryshe and Ramsey, 1989;Pratt and Cullen, 2000;Pratt, Turner and Piquero, 2004;Schoepfer and Piquero, 2006;Unnever, Cullen and Pratt, 2003;Vazasonyi and Crosswhite, 2004). Individuals with these particular personality traits are seen to be more physical, more impulsive, and easily provoked, and according to general strain theory they are likely to cope with strain through delinquency (Mazerolle and Maahs, 2000).…”

Práticas educativas parentais em famílias de adolescentes em conflito com a lei

“…A família do adolescente em conflito com a lei tem uma forte influência tanto na aquisição e manutenção dos comportamentos infratores como na extinção de tal comportamento ou desenvolvimento de habilidades pró-sociais, como evidencia a literatura (Feldman, 1979;Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992;Putallaz & Heflin, 1995;Sidman, 1995;Conte, 1996;Kazdin & BuelaCasal, 1998;Pacheco, Teixeira & Gomes, 1999;Gomide, 2000;Katsurada & Sugawara, 2000;Eddy, Leve & Fagot, 2001;Hay, 2001;Marcus, Lindahl & Malik, 2001;Wright & Cullen, 2001). Em estudo com pais de adolescentes em conflito com a lei, Carvalho (2003) demonstrou que, apesar de os pais atribuírem a fatores externos a causalidade do comportamento infrator de seus filhos, reconhecem que mudanças na relação pais-filhos poderiam auxiliar o adolescente em situação de conflito com a lei.…”