Protocol for a systematic review: School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review

Valdebenito, Sara; Eisner, Manuel; Farrington, David P.; Ttofi, Maria M.; Sutherland, Alex

doi:10.1002/cl2.137

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experimental studies also regularly fail to support deterrence theory assumptions, finding that punishment may encourage rather than discourage offending (e.g., Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000). Furthermore, several studies have shown that school sanctioning either has no effect or even a positive effect on subsequent delinquency (Hemphill, Toumbourou, Herrenkohl, McMorris, & Catalano, 2006;Kaplan & Damphousse, 1997;Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012;Valdebenito, Eisner, Farrington, Ttofi, & Sutherland, 2015).…”

Section: Specific Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Sanctions, short‐term mindsets, and delinquency: Reverse causality in a sample of high school youth

Gelder

Averdijk

Ribeaud

et al. 2020

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. We question the commonly assumed view of a fixed causal ordering between self-control, delinquency, and sanctions and test the hypothesis that experiencing sanctions may reduce levels of self-control, thereby increasing the risk of future delinquent behaviour. As a subsidiary goal, we argue for a parsimonious view of selfcontrol that is limited to its key components, risk-taking, and impulsivity.Methods. We use three waves of data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood into Adulthood (z-proso), an ongoing prospective longitudinal study of Swiss urban youth (N = 1,197), and include police contacts and school sanctions as predictors of delinquency. We test our hypothesis using path analysis and control for a series of potential confounders, including prior levels of self-control and earlier delinquency.Results. In line with our hypothesis, the results indicate that sanctioning reduces levels of self-control, net of prior levels of self-control, and earlier delinquency and that selfcontrol mediates the relation between sanctioning and subsequent delinquency.Conclusions. We conclude that the relation between self-control and crime may be birather than unidirectional with sanctions reducing levels of self-control, which in turn contributes to criminal behaviour. Implications for theory are discussed.Short-sightedness, or the lack of consideration of delayed consequences, pervades thinking about crime and criminal justice. It is reflected by several dispositions related to crime, including its most established individual-level correlate, self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and is also implied in the principal theory of punishment, deterrence. Both self-control and deterrence theory are premised on the belief that crime results from a failure to consider its costs, which tend to be delayed compared with its benefits (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2004). Whereas self-control theory views this failure as a relatively stable individual propensity, deterrence theory assumes that punishment can motivate offenders to abstain from crime. Both perspectives dictate a fixed causal ordering ofThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Specific Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Sanctions, short‐term mindsets, and delinquency: Reverse causality in a sample of high school youth

Gelder

Averdijk

Ribeaud

et al. 2020

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This review only considered evaluations which measured bullying or aggression towards peers but did not consider wider social and emotional skills. A review of self‐control programmes for reducing delinquency and problem behaviours (Piquero, Jennings, Farrington, & Jennings, 2010). This review did not have an explicit focus on universal, school‐based programmes (79% of included studies were school‐based, and only a third were universal). A protocol for a review of school‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion (Valdebenito, Eisner, Farrington, Ttofi, & Sutherland, 2015). This review focuses on school exclusions and thus does not include a wider range of social emotional learning measures. A protocol for a review of school‐based executive functioning interventions (Steenbergen‐Hu, Olszewski‐Kubilius, & Calvert, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This review did not have an explicit focus on universal, school‐based programmes (79% of included studies were school‐based, and only a third were universal). A protocol for a review of school‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion ( Valdebenito, Eisner, Farrington, Ttofi, & Sutherland, 2015 ). This review focuses on school exclusions and thus does not include a wider range of social emotional learning measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protocol for a systematic review: Universal school‐based programmes for improving social and emotional outcomes in children aged 3–11 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Connolly¹,

Miller²,

Hanratty³

et al. 2018

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protocol for a systematic review: School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review

Cited by 2 publications

References 78 publications

Sanctions, short‐term mindsets, and delinquency: Reverse causality in a sample of high school youth

Sanctions, short‐term mindsets, and delinquency: Reverse causality in a sample of high school youth

Protocol for a systematic review: Universal school‐based programmes for improving social and emotional outcomes in children aged 3–11 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About