The Sibling Effect for Delinquency: Mediation by Proactive Criminal Thinking and Moderation by Age

Abstract

This study tested whether the sibling delinquency effect, like the peer influence effect, is mediated by proactive (planned, calculated, and amoral) criminal thinking. Youth who completed the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS) and had a sibling living at home were divided into an early adolescent subsample ( n = 795) and a mid-adolescent subsample ( n = 532) after it was determined that age moderated the effect of sibling delinquency on proactive criminal thinking and serious offending. The results of a causal mediation analysis revealed a significant pathway running from sibling delinquency at Wave 1, to proactive criminal thinking at Wave 2, to serious offending at Wave 3, but only in the early adolescent subsample. These results suggest that the sibling delinquency effect may be the result of learning proactive criminal thinking in association with a delinquent sibling while still an early adolescent.

Cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity as mediators of bullying continuity: Extending the psychological inertia construct to bullying behavior.

“…Exploring the etiology of these two dimensions of thought process may help explain these results. Research has indicated that whereas reactive−impulsive thinking originates from low self-control, prior offending, and behavioral deviance (Walters, 2017b), proactive−insensitive cognition is learned in differential association with those already involved in crime and deviant behavior, peers and siblings in particular (Walters, 2016b, 2017c). From a theoretical perspective, this would seem to support a two-dimensional cognitive model of bullying perpetration composed of a proactive or differential association component and a reactive or impulsive component.…”

Parental Control as a Stimulus for Youth Control: Mediating the Parental Knowledge–Child Delinquency Relationship With Cognitive Impulsivity

“…Whereas fearlessness can increase a child’s propensity for PCT and sensitivity to criminogenic social influences, PCT is learned in association with those already involved in antisocial behavior (Walters, 2017). Whether it be crime-involved peers (Walters, 2016), siblings (Walters, 2020), or fellow gang members (Walters, 2019) with whom one interacts, the outcome is essentially the same: the acquisition of attitudes (PCT, primarily) and actions (delinquent skills) necessary for crime through exposure, modeling, and reinforcement of antisocial beliefs and behaviors. This premise comes directly from social learning theory (Akers, 1998; Bandura, 1986; Sutherland, 1947).…”

Positive and negative social influences and crime acceleration during the transition from childhood to adolescence: The interplay of risk and protective factors

“…In closing, there are potentially important theoretical, research, and clinical lessons to be learned from the current results. From a theoretical/research standpoint, we need to know the extent to which the influence of parents, siblings, and peers is mediated by changes in attitude as suggested by Ardelt and Day () and observed subsequently in both siblings (Walters, ) and peers (Walters, ). From a clinical/practical standpoint, a formal assessment instrument that incorporates both protective and risk factors into its framework—like the differential assessment model proposed by Zara and Farrington ()—would be particularly helpful.…”

“…If the principal risk factors are dynamic or changeable, then the individual may be amenable to direct intervention. Proactive criminal thinking, for instance, has been found to mediate the relationship between peer and sibling influences, on the one hand, and subsequent delinquency, on the other hand (Walters, , ). Challenging the schemas, excuses, and neutralisations that give rise to proactive criminal thinking, it may be possible to reduce the risk associated with this thinking style.…”

“…By dividing the sample at interview Wave 1 into younger (9–12 years) and older (13–17 years) participants, I also showed that sibling delinquency predicted delinquency in the older but not in the younger subsample. A similarity between sibling delinquency and peer delinquency is that both appear to be mediated by proactive criminal thinking (Walters, , ). In other words, one way an adolescent apparently acquires the skills and motives for crime is by assimilating the controlled and calculated features of proactive criminal thinking encountered as a result of their interactions with individuals already leading a delinquent lifestyle.…”