parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delinquency

International Journal ofOffender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology 1 –22

© The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15584907

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

Parental Low Self-Control, Family Environments, and Juvenile Delinquency

Ryan C. Meldrum1, George M. Connolly2, Jamie Flexon1, and Rob T. Guerette1

AbstractResearch consistently finds that low self-control is significantly correlated with delinquency. Only recently, however, have researchers started to examine associations between parental low self-control, family environments, and child antisocial behavior. Adding to this emerging area of research, the current study examines associations between parental low self-control, aspects of the family environment, and officially recoded juvenile delinquency among a sample (N = 101) of juveniles processed through a juvenile justice assessment facility located in the Southeastern United States. Furthermore, it considers whether aspects of family environments, particularly family cohesion, family conflict, and parental efficacy, mediate the influence of parental low self-control on delinquency. The results of a series of analyses indicate that parental low self-control is correlated with various aspects of family environments and juvenile delinquency, and that the association between parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency is mediated by family environments. Supplementary analyses also suggest that the association between parental low self-control and the family environment may be reciprocal.

Keywordsparental low self-control, parenting practices, family environment, delinquency, intergenerational continuity, official records

1Florida International University, Miami, USA2Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Fort Pierce, USA

Corresponding Author:Ryan C. Meldrum, Department of Criminal Justice, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St., PCA-364B, Miami, FL 33199, USA. Email: [email protected]

584907 IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15584907International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyMeldrum et al.research-article2015

mailto:[email protected]

2 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Introduction

Self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) has garnered significant attention over the last 25 years. Impressively, a large body of research finds that self-control, the ability to override immediate impulses to replace them with responses that adhere to higher-order standards that typically follow from values, social commitments, and interests in long-term well-being (Hay & Meldrum, 2015), is negatively correlated with delinquency, crime, and other forms of deviant behavior (see de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). As a result, researchers have increasingly focused on testing other aspects of the theory, including the stability of self-control (e.g., Coyne & Wright, 2014; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Hay, Meldrum, Forrest, & Ciaravolo, 2009), the factors that interact with self-control (e.g., Agnew, Wright, & Cullen, 2002; Hay & Forrest, 2008; Jones & Lynam, 2009; Wikström & Svensson, 2010), and the varied sources of self-control (e.g., Connolly & Beaver, 2014; Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Meldrum, Young, & Weerman, 2012), particularly the family environment and parenting prac-tices (e.g., Cullen, Unnever, Wright, & Beaver, 2008; Hay, 2001; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004).

Yet, only recently have researchers started to investigate the potential importance of parental self-control for understanding variations in family functioning, parenting practices, and child antisocial behavior (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008; Verhoeven, Junger, Van Aken, Dekovic, & Van Aken, 2007). Although small, this body of research suggests the importance of this area of inquiry. For example, Boutwell and Beaver (2010) found that parents who are higher in self-control are more likely to have children who are higher in self-control and to be more involved with and show affection toward their children. Similarly, Nofziger (2008) found that maternal self-control is positively associated with certain aspects of parental monitoring and disciplinary practices during early adolescence, and that maternal self-control is posi-tively associated with adolescent self-control.

This emerging evidence of the role that parental self-control plays in accounting for variation in family functioning and child behavior is relevant for not only assessing the reach of self-control theory but also discussions pertaining to the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior, a subject that has received significant attention from scholars (e.g., Beaver, 2013; Farrington, Coid, & Murray, 2009; Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003; West & Farrington, 1977). It is possible that this continuity may in part be the result of a process in which parents with low self-control are less effective at fostering warm, nurturing family environments and prop-erly supervising and disciplining adolescent behavior, leading to delinquency. To date, researchers have not adequately assessed this potential, as the studies that have inves-tigated the role of parental self-control have largely focused upon childhood and early adolescence, before the point in time when individuals start to engage in serious delin-quency that would attract the attention of juvenile and criminal justice officials.

To add to this emerging area of research, original data were collected to investigate the associations between parental low self-control, aspects of family environments,

Meldrum et al. 3

and juvenile delinquency. The potential mediating influence of family environments on the association between parental low self-control and delinquency is also investi-gated. The measures available in the data are well suited for investigating these rela-tionships: Parental self-control and the measured aspects of the family environment are based on reports provided by parents of adolescents who have been officially processed through a juvenile justice assessment facility, whereas the measure of delinquency is an official count of the accumulated number of misdemeanor and felony charges of each adolescent. Prior to describing the data and measures and presenting the results of our analysis, we first discuss research on self-control theory pertaining to parenting practices and family functioning in relation to juvenile delin-quency. We then discuss research on the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior and the potential relevance of parental self-control for understanding this process.

Research on Self-Control Theory and Family Environments

In their book A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) emphasize the importance of the role parents play in socializing children to refrain from deviant and antisocial behavior. In explicating their theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi devote particular attention to parental affection (attachment), monitoring, and discipline as key requirements for instilling self-control. In turn, children who are higher in self-control should engage in less delinquency. Informatively, a large number of studies have assessed whether various dimensions of parenting, including attachment, moni-toring, and discipline, are correlated with adolescent delinquency, with many finding significant associations (Hoeve et al., 2009; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). Likewise, a number of studies empirically link these same aspects of parenting to delinquency partially through child and adolescent self-control (e.g., Burt et al., 2006; Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004), supporting the idea that family functioning is impor-tant for understanding why some adolescents become involved in delinquent behavior whereas others do not.

While attention has been devoted to examining the impact of parenting and family-related processes on adolescent delinquency and the mediating influence of self-con-trol in accounting for these associations, less attention has been directed at investigating the factors that account for variability in family functioning and parenting practices in the first place. To be clear, research provides evidence that parental criminal behavior is correlated with ineffective parenting and adolescent delinquency (e.g., Higgins, 2009; Rowe & Farrington, 1997; Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, & Lin, 2007; Smith & Farrington, 2004; West & Farrington, 1977); parental stress also appears to provide partial explanation for these outcomes as well (Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, & Lovegrove, 2009). Pertinent to the present study, parental self-control may influence how parents socialize their children and family functioning. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) speak to this potential, stating that parents who lack self-control are unlikely to be “particularly adept at instilling self-control in their children” (p. 101). Thus, parents who are low in self-control may be unlikely to engage in effective parenting practices


and foster positive family environments that may serve to reinforce monitoring and disciplinary efforts.

Why might parents who lack self-control fail to effectively monitor and discipline their children or provide them with warm, nurturing family environments? The answer can be found through consideration of the different dimensions of low self-control emphasized by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). First, parenting requires considerable patience and the ability to place the needs of children often ahead of one’s own. Parents who are self-centered may struggle to succeed at these tasks. Second, parents who are short-tempered may create hostile family environments where a lot of shouting and yelling takes place and conflicts are resolved using physical forms of discipline rather than through reasoned discussion. Third, impulsive and short-sighted parents may not recognize deviant behavior in their children when it takes place, and when they do, they may be inconsistent in their disciplinary practices. Fourth, parental low self-con-trol may have a negative impact on other aspects of family functioning. For example, parents who prefer physical over mental tasks may be disinterested in doing such things as reading to their children or assisting them with homework when they are older.

Studies assessing the validity of these arguments, though few, provide compelling evidence that parental self-control has a significant impact on parenting practices and family functioning. For example, among a sample of toddlers from the Netherlands, Verhoeven and colleagues (2007) found that those parents who scored lower on the Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) Self-Control Scale were more likely to use harsh disciplinary practices and to use psychological control more often. In a slightly different manner, Boutwell and Beaver (2010) found that parents of 3-year-olds participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study who were lower in self-control also scored lower on a measure of parental involvement (e.g., reading to children, showing them affection). Furthermore, they found that parental self-con-trol was positively correlated with child self-control during the same time period. Nofziger (2008) also investigated similar issues but during early adolescence by utiliz-ing data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) and the NLSY Child data. Similar to what was revealed in Verhoeven et al. (2007) and Boutwell and Beaver (2010), Nofziger (2008) found evidence of significant associations between a behav-ioral measure of maternal self-control and maternal monitoring and disciplinary prac-tices, as well as one between maternal self-control and adolescent self-control.

More recently, Henschel, de Bruin, and Mohler (2014) investigated whether moth-ers who were lower in self-control were more likely to potentially abuse their pre-school-aged children. To investigate this issue, Henschel et al. (2014) used the 36-item Tangney et al. (2004) Self-Control Scale and examined it in relation to scores on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI; Borrego, Timmer, Urquiza, & Follette, 2004). Consistent with the earlier studies reviewed, Henschel and colleagues found that mothers who were lower in self-control scored significantly higher on the CAPI. Taken together, each of the above studies points to a pattern that suggests that children who have parents who are lower in self-control are more likely to be exposed to more hostile and less nurturing family environments.

Meldrum et al. 5

Parental Self-Control and the Intergenerational Continuity of Antisocial Behavior

As revealing as these studies are, they are limited by the fact that, with the exception of the study by Nofziger (2008), they focus on the relationship between parental self-control, family functioning, and child self-control among very young children. Moreover, because these studies are limited to childhood and early adolescence, deter-mining whether parental low self-control is associated with serious delinquent behav-ior during later adolescence was not considered. This is a particularly important and potentially informative area of inquiry that merits attention, as expanding research into this area enables an assessment of the adequacy of self-control theory as a potential explanation for the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior.

Several studies have investigated and commented on the intergeneration continuity of antisocial behavior (e.g., Beaver, 2013; West & Farrington, 1977) and the mediating process that family environments might play (e.g., Farrington et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003). Two longitudinal investigations into these issues are particularly informa-tive. First, utilizing data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, Farrington and colleagues (2009) found that parental convictions were significantly related to second generation male convictions and that the parenting-related processes of harsh discipline and poor parental supervision accounted for a portion of this asso-ciation. Second, Thornberry et al. (2003) investigated the intergeneration continuity of antisocial behavior by drawing on data collected as part of the Rochester Youth Development Study, finding that paternal antisocial behavior had a significant influ-ence on later child antisocial behavior, and that parenting-related processes also medi-ated part of this relationship.

These and similar studies point to the importance of considering the mediating role that parenting practices and family environments play in perpetuating the intergenera-tional continuity of antisocial behavior. However, the focus of this line of research has been on the continuity of delinquent and criminal behavior. Empirical investigations that consider whether parental self-control is predictive of adolescent delinquency and whether any association between these two constructs is mediated by parenting prac-tices and features of the family environment are yet to be conducted. To be sure, the works of Boutwell and Beaver (2010) and Nofziger (2008) establishing the intergen-erational continuity of self-control inform this discussion, but they do not provide direct insight into the issue of whether a significant association exists between parental self-control and serious delinquency, as well as the potential mediating role of family environments. These observations call for attention to the goals of the current study.

The Current Study

Prior research establishes the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior and the mediating role of parenting and family environments (e.g., Farrington et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003). However, researchers have yet to adequately investigate the role that parental self-control plays in this process, mainly, whether an association


exists between parental self-control and adolescent involvement in serious delin-quency. Likewise, although recent work provides evidence that parental self-control is related to family environments and certain parenting practices (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008), the measured aspects of the family environment have been limited in scope and have focused primarily on family environments during childhood and early adolescence.

In an effort to advance the literature, the current study draws on original data col-lected to investigate the association between parental self-control and (a) aspects of family environments (family cohesion, family conflict, parenting practices) and (b) officially recorded juvenile delinquency. In addition, it considers whether any associa-tion between parental low self-control and delinquency is mediated by various aspects of the family environment. Based on the prior literature reviewed and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theoretical arguments, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Parental low self-control will be positively associated with family conflict and negatively associated with family cohesion and effective parenting practices.Hypothesis 2: Parental low self-control will be positively associated with officially recorded juvenile delinquency.Hypothesis 3: The association between parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency will be indirect; it will be mediated by the various aspects of the family environment.

These arguments are summarized in the causal diagram depicted in Figure 1.

Data

Data for this study came from two sources. First, survey data were collected from parents of juveniles processed through a juvenile justice assessment facility in a rural county located in the Southeastern United States from September, 2013, to July, 2014. Second, it draws on official records pertaining to the juveniles whose parents com-pleted the survey questionnaires. On obtaining appropriate institutional review board (IRB) approval and support from administrators at the facility to conduct the study, one of the research team members, who works at the facility as a senior juvenile

Figure 1. Hypothesized causal model.

Meldrum et al. 7

probation officer, invited parents to participate in a study focused on understanding the factors that contribute to delinquent behavior by their children. Invitation to partici-pate took place when parents came to pick up their kids from the facility after being processed for one or more law violations (prior to being prosecuted), or during confer-ences that are periodically held with parents once their children have officially been placed on probation.1 When more than one parent came to the facility, it was specified that only one parent needed to complete the survey questionnaire, which was typically done by mothers. Parents were told that participation was voluntary, that in no way would choosing or refusing to participate have an impact on the treatment and disposi-tion of their child’s current charges, and that participation required (a) the completion of a 15 to 20 min survey questionnaire, and (b) for the research team member who worked at the facility to access their child’s information from a juvenile justice system (JJS) database to obtain demographic data on their children and information on the number and type of charges their child had accumulated.2

It should be noted that the research team member who worked at the facility and invited parents to participate in the study is only one of several staff members who regularly hold conferences with parents or who process juveniles out of the facility when parents come to pick them up. Thus, the sample is one of convenience, and invi-tations for parents to participate only took place as time allowed or when the research team member was present in the facility at the time that conferences took place or kids were picked up. With these caveats in mind, of the 174 parents who were invited to complete the survey and asked to consent to having the research team member access the official records of their children, 103 completed the survey and consented, produc-ing a participation rate of 59%. An outlier analysis led to the exclusion of 2 cases, making the analytic sample size 101 cases. We recognize that the small and non-rep-resentative nature of the sample limits the generalizability of findings stemming from the analysis to be presented, and comment on this issue in greater detail in later por-tions of the article.

Measures

Parental low self-control. Parents were asked to respond to 9 items from the Grasmick et al. (1993) Self-Control Scale. These items were “ I sometimes act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think,” “ I sometimes do what brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal,” “ I am more concerned with what hap-pens to me in the short run than in the long run,” “ Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it,” “ I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which I might get in trouble,” “ Excitement and adventure are more important to me than security,” “ I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people,” “ I am not very sympathetic to other people when they are having problems,” and “ I will try to get things I want when I know it is causing problems for other people.” For each of the items, responses ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). For the analysis, the items were averaged together, with higher values representing lower parental self-control (α = .92).


Family environment measures. Four different measures tapping into the family envi-ronment were included in the analysis and came from the parent surveys: family cohesion, family conflict, parental efficacy, and a global measure of the family environment that combined information on each of the three aforementioned mea-sures. Family cohesion was measured by having parents respond to six items after reading, “Please indicate how often each of the following things take place within your family:” “We sit down and eat dinner together,” “We do fun things on week nights together (watch movies, play games, etc.),” “We do fun things on the week-end as a family (attend sporting events, going to amusement parks, etc.),” “We work with the kids to help them complete their homework,” “We make important decisions together as a family,” and “We take trips together as a family.” For each of the items, possible responses ranged from never (1) to often (4). For the analysis, the six items were averaged together, with higher values representing greater fam-ily cohesion (α = .85). Items similar to these have been used in prior work (e.g., Barr et al., 2011).

Family conflict was measured by having parents respond to four items after read-ing, “Please indicate how often each of the following things take place within your family”: “We get into serious fights,” “We get so angry at each other we sometimes stop talking to one another,” “We shout or yell at one another,” and “We use foul lan-guage toward one another.” For each of the items, possible responses ranged from never (1) to often (4). For the analysis, the four items were averaged together, with higher values indicative of greater family conflict (α = .89). Items similar to these have been used in prior work (e.g., Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987).

Parental efficacy, which taps into aspects of parental attachment, monitoring, and discipline, was measured by having parents respond to five items after reading, “Please indicate how much each of the following are true of your relationship with your child”: “I know where my child is when he or she is not at home,” “I feel strongly attached to my child,” “I know the names of my child’s closest friends,” “I am consistent with my enforcement of the rules in our house,” and “I set and enforce a curfew for my child on week nights and weekends.” For each of the items, pos-sible responses ranged from completely false (1) to completely true (4). For the analysis, the five items were averaged together, with higher values representing more efficacious parenting (α = .88). Items similar to these have been used in prior work (e.g., Hay, 2001).

In addition to these three separate measures of the family environment, we also cre-ated a global measure of the family environment to better determine the extent to which it is related to parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency. To create the total positive family environment measure, we first reverse-coded the 4 items used to measure family conflict so that each of the 15 items used to measure the various aspects of the family environment (6 family cohesion items, 4 family conflict items, and 5 parental efficacy items) could be combined together. As all items were measured on a 4-point scale, we averaged together the scores for the 15 items to create the total positive family environment measure, with higher values reflecting more positive family environments (α = .93).

Meldrum et al. 9

Juvenile delinquency. One strength of the current study is that rather than relying on reports of juvenile delinquency provided by either parents or juveniles, it is instead based on official records, reducing the potential inflation of regression coefficients that may stem from issues surrounding same source bias if delinquency were to be reported on by parents in concert with reports of parental self-control and family envi-ronments. For the analysis, official records were consulted to ascertain the total num-ber of felony and misdemeanor charges that each juvenile had accumulated in his or her lifetime. The research team member who accessed the JJS database to obtain this information has knowledge of the types of adolescents who are processed through the facility and, important for the analysis, a wide variety of juveniles pass through the facility, from those who have been brought in for first-time misdemeanor offenses (e.g., getting into a fight at school), to those who have rather extensive histories of delinquency (i.e., repeat felony charges). As shown in Table 1, there was sufficient variability in the total combined count of misdemeanor and felony charges, ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 22 (M = 4.36, SD = 3.92). In supplemental analyses noted at the end of the “Results” section, we comment on alternative operationalizations to this measure, which reinforce the conclusions gleaned from the analysis presented in the article.

Demographic measures. Information on the age, race, and sex of each parent who par-ticipated was collected through the survey questionnaire. Age was self-reported in whole years. Overwhelmingly, mothers are the ones who come to the facility to pick up their kids or attend conferences, and the data reflect this fact. For the analysis, fathers were coded as 0, whereas mothers were coded as 1. Approximately 50% of the parents were African American, with less than 10% indicating they were a member of another minority group. Thus, for the analysis, parental race was dichotomized (White = 0; Non-White = 1). Information on the age, race, and sex of the juveniles was obtained

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 101).

Variable M SD Minimum Maximum

Adolescent age 15.67 1.63 11.11 17.9Adolescent race (Non-White = 1) 0.53 0.50 0 1Adolescent sex (Male = 1) 0.78 0.41 0 1Parent age 41.03 8.75 28 70Parent race (Non-White = 1) 0.56 0.50 0 1Parent sex (Female =1) 0.84 0.37 0 1Parental low self-control 1.63 0.65 1.00 3.44Family cohesion 2.88 0.67 1.16 4.00Family conflict 2.15 0.86 1.00 4.00Parental efficacy 3.21 0.68 1.60 4.00Total positive family environment 2.98 0.63 1.40 4.00Juvenile delinquency (charge count) 4.36 3.92 1 22


from the same JJS database as the information on delinquency. Age was computed to the hundredths of a year. Race was coded in the same manner as parental race (White = 0; Non-White = 1). Sex was coded such that females were assigned a value of 0, whereas males, who comprised the majority of the sample, were assigned a value of 1. The descriptive statistics for all measures are presented in Table 1, while the correla-tion matrix can be found in Appendix A.

Analytic Plan

The first step in the analysis was to examine bivariate correlations between parental low self-control and each of the items used to measure the different aspects of the fam-ily environment and juvenile delinquency. Although only preliminary, this information is quite revealing and speaks of the strength of the relationships between parental low self-control, family environments, and delinquency. Following this, we present the main analysis to test our hypothesized model of mediation presented earlier in Figure 1. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a number of conditions must be met to estab-lish that a given variable mediates the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. First, the independent variable (i.e., parental low self-control) must be asso-ciated with the dependent variable (i.e., juvenile delinquency). Second, the indepen-dent variable must be associated with the mediating variable (i.e., the family environment). Third, the mediating variable must be associated with both the indepen-dent variable and dependent variable. Fourth, the mediating variable must at least partially account for the relationship between the independent and dependent vari-able—Controlling for the mediator should reduce the effect of the independent variable.

We determine the validity of our theoretical model by first investigating whether parental low self-control is a significant predictor of each of the four measures of the family environment using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Following this, a series of negative binomial regressions are presented to determine whether parental low self-control and each of the measured aspects of the family environment are sig-nificantly related to the official count of misdemeanor and felony charges.3 Furthermore, this portion of the analysis also considers whether the association between parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency is mediated by the family environment. The analysis concludes by presenting and discussing a supplementary structural equation model (SEM) that further specifies the nature of the associations between parental low self-control, the family environment, and juvenile delinquency.

Results

Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between parental low self-control and each of the 15 items measuring different aspects of the family environment, the total posi-tive family environment measure, and juvenile delinquency. Correlations between parental low self-control and the scaled measures for the family environment are also presented. As can be seen, parental low self-control is significantly, and in many cases

Meldrum et al. 11

substantively, correlated with each one of these items; correlations exceed .40 across a majority of the items. The weakest correlation between parental low self-control and any one item is −.28 for the item about “helping with homework,” but even here the correlation is still statistically significant. Significant correlations are also found between parental low self-control and each of the scaled measures of the family envi-ronment, which range from an absolute value of .60 for parental efficacy to .70 for the total positive family environment measure. Finally, a substantive association between parental low self-control and the total count of juvenile charges is found in the data (r = .45, p < .001).

Having established at the bivariate level that the correlations between parental low self-control and each of the primary analysis variables are statistically significant, the next step was to assess the association between parental low self-control and each of the scaled measures of the family environment in multivariate models. Table 3 pres-ents four separate OLS regression models (one for each measure of the family envi-ronment). For each equation, parental age, sex, and race were included as covariates, but the primary variable of interest was the measure of parental low self-control. In support of the first portion of our hypothesized model, parental low self-control is significantly associated with each of the measures of the family environment

Table 2. Correlates of Parental Low Self-Control (N = 101).

Item r

Family cohesion −.62*** Family sits down and eats dinner together −.50*** Family does fun things on week nights together −.52*** Family does fun things on weekends together −.50*** We work with the kids to help them complete homework −.28** We make important family decisions together −.47*** We take trips together as a family −.53***Family conflict .63*** We get into serious fights .46*** We get so angry at each other we stop talking .62*** We shout or yell at one another .47*** We use foul language toward one another .65***Parental efficacy −.60*** I know where my child is when not at home −.57*** I feel strongly attached to my child −.62*** I know the names of my child’s closest friends −.52*** I am consistent with my enforcement of house rules −.37*** I set and enforce a curfew for my child −.34***Total positive family environment −.70***Juvenile delinquency .45***

**p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).


Table 4. Negative Binomial Regressions of Delinquency on Parental Low Self-Control and the Family Environment (N = 101).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Predictors IRR SE IRR SE IRR SE IRR SE IRR SE

Age of child 1.09 .05 1.04 .05 1.06 .05 1.06 .05 1.03 .05Sex of child (Male = 1) 1.12 .20 1.15 .19 1.08 .18 1.30 .21 1.18 .18Race of child

(Non-White = 1)1.50** .23 1.63** .23 1.51** .21 1.31 .18 1.44** .19

Family cohesion 0.53*** .06 Family conflict 1.58*** .12 Parental efficacy 0.51*** .05 Total positive family

environment0.45*** .07

Parental low self-control 1.60*** .17 0.96 .12Pseudo R2 .06 .09 .09 .11 .12AIC 483 472 472 462 459

Note. IRR = incidence rate ratio; AIC = Akaike information criterion.**p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

(βs ranging from an absolute value of .64 in Model 3 to .76 in Model 4), net of parental age, race, and sex. In addition, in models (not shown) where the parental low self-control was entered as the only predictor variable, it accounted for more than a third of the variability in the three separate measures of the family environment, and accounted for nearly half of the variation in the measure for the overall family environment.4

We next determined whether parental low self-control was significantly associated with the hypothesized dependent variable (juvenile delinquency). Model 1 of Table 4 presents the results of the first negative binomial regression equation. As the outcome

Table 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regressions of Family Environment Variables on Parental Low Self-Control (N = 101).

Model 1: Family cohesion

Model 2: Family conflict

Model 3: Parental efficacy

Model 4: Total positive family environment

Predictors (parental) b SE B b SE B b SE B b SE B

Age −.01 .01 −.15 .01 .01 .10 −.01 .01 −.15 −.01 .01 −.15Female .04 .15 .02 .44* .18 .19 .05 .15 .03 −.09 .13 −.05Non-White .17 .11 .13 −.16 .14 −.09 −.16 .11 −.12 .05 .09 .04Parental low

self-control−.70*** .08 −.68 .88*** .11 .67 −.67*** .09 −.64 −.74*** .07 −.76

Adjusted R2 .40 .42 .36 .50

Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient; B = standardized regression coefficient.*p < .05. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Meldrum et al. 13

has shifted to adolescent behavior, the variables for age, sex, and race now reflect adolescent characteristics rather than the characteristics of parents. Furthermore, to simplify the interpretation of the results, they are discussed with regard to the inci-dence rate ratio (IRR), where an IRR larger than 1.00 indicates that a variable is asso-ciated with an increase in the occurrence of adolescent charges, and an IRR lower than 1.00 indicates a decrease. As shown in Model 1, net of adolescent age, sex, and race, parental low self-control is positively associated with adolescent delinquency (IRR = 1.60, p < .001), establishing that the key independent variable is related to the key dependent variable, as hypothesized.

The next step was to determine whether the measured aspects of the family envi-ronment (the hypothesized mediator) are associated with juvenile delinquency. Models 2 to 4 reveal support for what was hypothesized: net of age, sex, and race, family cohesion (IRR = 0.53, p < .001, Model 2) and parental efficacy (IRR = 0.51, p < .001, Model 4) are negatively associated with juvenile delinquency, whereas family conflict (IRR = 1.58, p < .001, Model 3) is positively associated with juvenile delinquency.

The final step was to determine whether the association between parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency reported in Model 1 (IRR = 1.60) is reduced to non-significance when accounting for the family environment. To assess this, we estimated a final model (Model 5) in which the measure for parental low self-control and the measure capturing the overall family environment were simultaneously entered as predictor variables. In support of the hypothesized model of mediation, the effect of parental low self-control on juvenile delinquency is reduced to non-significance (IRR = 0.96, p = .73) when controlling for the family environment, which itself remains a statistically significant predictor of delinquency (IRR = 0.45, p < .001).5 In addition, in models presented in Appendix B, we investigated whether the association between parental low self-control and juvenile delinquency was eliminated when controlling for each of the three individual aspects of the family environment rather than the global measure for the family environment. Informatively, these supplementary models provided results that are substantively identical to those presented in Model 5.6

Supplementary Analyses

To further probe the relationships of interest, we estimated a non-recursive SEM with instrumental variables using AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle, 2009).7 Three endogenous vari-ables were specified: parental low self-control, positive family environment, and total number of adolescent charges. Parental low self-control and the measure for adoles-cent charges were modeled as observed variables, whereas the measure for the positive family environment was measured as a latent variable, with the observed variables for the three aspects of the family environment as its indicators. Parental age served as the instrumental variable for parental low self-control, child age served as the instrumen-tal variable for the family environment, and parental race served as the instrumental variable for adolescent charges.


Figure 2. Supplementary structural equation model.Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

As a starting point, reciprocal effects were modeled between (a) parental low self-control and the family environment, (b) parental low self-control and adolescent charges, and (c) the family environment and adolescent charges. Three non-signifi-cant paths were then removed through model trimming: (a) the path running from adolescent charges to the family environment, (b) the path running from parental low self-control to adolescent charges, and (c) the path running from adolescent charges to parental low self-control. As the insignificant paths were removed, model fit improved as the chi-square transitioned from significance to insignificance when the final insignificant path was removed. From that point, the removal of any addi-tional paths impaired model fit. The trimmed model is shown in Figure 2. As can be seen, the results of the SEM are quite consistent with the results of the OLS and negative binomial regressions discussed above: parental low self-control is nega-tively associated with positive family environments (β = −.35), positive family envi-ronments are negatively associated with total adolescent charges (β = −.62), and there is no direct association between parental low self-control and adolescent charges. The one difference between the SEM and the results discussed above is that the SEM revealed a significant path running from positive family environments to parental low self-control (β = −.55).

Meldrum et al. 15

Discussion

The intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior and the salience of self-control as a predictor of delinquent and criminal behavior are two well-established empirical facts. Yet, it is only recently that scholars have started to discuss and uncover connec-tions between the two (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008). The current study added to this literature by assessing whether parental low self-control was associ-ated with various aspects of the family environment and juvenile delinquency and, moreover, whether the family environment mediated the association between parental low self-control and delinquency. To explore this, official data were collected on a sample of juveniles who had been processed through a juvenile justice assessment facil-ity and combined with survey data collected from their parents. Five main findings emerged from the analysis. In the following paragraphs, we discuss these findings and the implications they hold for understanding the intergenerational continuity of antiso-cial behavior and policy considerations. Following this, we address the limitations of the study, alternative ways in which the associations revealed could be interpreted, and directions for future research. We end our discussion with concluding remarks.

The first main finding of this study is that parental low self-control is substantively associated with the quality of the family environment in which adolescents are raised and the parenting practices to which they are exposed; statistically significant associa-tions between parental low self-control and family cohesion, family conflict, and parental efficacy were observed in both bivariate and multivariate models. This is consistent with the small body of research that has linked parental self-control to fam-ily environment variables (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Henschel et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2007), but goes beyond what these studies have revealed by consid-ering these associations during later periods of adolescent development and by focus-ing on a wide array of family environment indicators.

The second main finding is that parental low self-control is significantly associated with juvenile delinquency. To our knowledge, this is the first study to document an asso-ciation between parental low self-control and officially recorded juvenile delinquency, though past studies have linked parental criminal behavior to the delinquency of children (e.g., Higgins, 2009; Simons et al., 2007; West & Farrington, 1977). Thus, this finding is particularly novel and speaks about the potential importance of considering self-control as a key factor underlying the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior, a sub-ject to which we return to shortly. The third main finding of this study is that the mea-sured aspects of the family environment were also significantly associated with juvenile delinquency. As hypothesized, family cohesion and parental efficacy were negatively related to delinquency, whereas family conflict was positively related to delinquency. This finding is consistent with a large body of research linking parenting practices to both official delinquency and measures of delinquency provided by parents and adoles-cents themselves (Hoeve et al., 2009; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).

The fourth finding of this study is that the association between parental low self-con-trol and juvenile delinquency is indirect and operates through the family environment. This was found while using the global measure for the family environment (Table 4,


Model 5; Figure 2), as well as each of the three separate indicators of family cohesion, family conflict, and parental efficacy (Appendix A). Thus, in these data, family factors explain why the antisocial tendencies of one generation translate into delinquent behavior of subsequent generations, something that is supported by closely related research linking parental criminal behavior to adolescent delinquency via the family environment (e.g., Farrington et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003).

The fifth finding stemming from this study pertains to the potential reciprocal nature of the association between parental low self-control and the family environment revealed through the SEM. Although there exists ambiguity in establishing causal order when esti-mating non-recursive SEMs with cross-sectional data (see Wong & Law, 1999), the results of our supplementary analysis suggest there may be merit in further examining the poten-tial bidirectional relationship between the family environment and parental levels of self-control, something that future researchers could explore by collecting longitudinal data.

Taken together, these findings have important implications for advancing knowledge on the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior and the potential utility of hav-ing self-control theory serve as a theoretical framework for understanding this process. As discussed, there is compelling evidence that criminal behavior is transmitted across gen-erations (e.g., West & Farrington, 1977), and early studies indicate that a similar process takes places with regard to self-control (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010). If Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) are correct, and self-control is the primary cause of all antisocial behavior, then it follows that the key causal explanation underlying the intergenerational continuity of delinquency and crime is self-control. We may therefore anticipate that cor-relations linking the criminal behavior of one generation to the next would be reduced to non-significance when controlling for the self-control of first generation individuals.

The utility of having self-control theory serve as an explanation of the intergenera-tional continuity of antisocial behavior is bolstered by the fact that it emphasizes the role of family environments. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) highlighted the role of the family environment with regard to its influence on child and adolescent self-control, but without much consideration given to it serving as a mediator of across-generation antisocial behavior. Yet, if, as the current study and other studies suggest (Farrington et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003), the family environment is a key mediating process accounting for the consistency in antisocial behavior across generations, then such find-ings are consistent with and can be subsumed by self-control theory.

What would be particularly useful and informative would be for researchers to col-lect longitudinal data on the self-control and criminal behavior of parents and their adult children, and to also collect data on the family environment linking the two generations together. Such an effort would allow for a series of analyses that would help to better determine whether self-control underlies the intergenerational continuity of criminal behavior, and the extent to which the family environment mediates this process. We are not aware of any currently available data sets that contain each of these measures required to conduct such an analysis, but it certainly is something for researchers to consider moving forward.

There are also important policy implications stemming from the findings of this study. For example, the finding that parental low self-control is associated with the

Meldrum et al. 17

quality of the family environment and parenting practices speaks about the importance of parent and family training programs, many of which have demonstrated beneficial effects on family functioning and child behavior (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009). Although such programs may not be able to directly alter parental low self-control, they may serve to diminish the harmful effects that parental low self-control has on the family environment.8 In a similar vein, Dong and Krohn (2015) recently found that the effect of parental criminal behavior on adoles-cent delinquency is moderated by positive parenting, reinforcing the potential utility of parental training and family intervention programming for parents who have a his-tory of criminal behavior.

With these considerations in mind, it is important to discuss potential limita-tions of the study. The first pertains to the small, non-representative nature of the sample. Recruitment of participants was based on convenience and only took place at a single juvenile justice processing facility. Thus, it is possible that different results could emerge with larger samples based on a random selection of juvenile delinquents and their families. Still, the strength of the associations found in the data suggest these associations are meaningful and not an artifact of a small sam-ple or a biased sampling methodology. Furthermore, the associations between parental low self-control and the family environment measures found in this study are consistent with past research (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008; Verhoeven et al., 2007).

Second, the non-experimental and cross-sectional nature of the data hinders any firm conclusions regarding causality, and although we examined potential reciprocal effects between the primary constructs of interest in the supplemental SEM analysis, longitudinal data would be required to fully understand the precise nature of the rela-tionships between parental low self-control, family environments, and juvenile delin-quency. We should also point out that this study is unable to rule out the potential for genetic confounding, which, generally speaking, requires the analysis of data collected on samples of twins or siblings. Recent research suggests that associations between parenting practices and delinquency are significantly reduced when genetic contribu-tions are accounted for (e.g., Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008). Thus, it is possible that the effects of the family environment on juvenile delinquency found in the current study could be an artifact of the inability to account for heritability. Similar concerns could also extend to the effects of parental self-control on the family environ-ment and juvenile delinquency—these associations might stem from underlying genetic predispositions that are passed down from parents to children. Having said this, we are unaware of any studies that have explicitly modeled associations between (a) parental low self-control and the family environment or (b) parental low self-con-trol and juvenile delinquency using a genetically sensitive methodology. Until such research is conducted and indicates otherwise, the current study, coupled with past research (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008; Verhoeven et al., 2007), points to a meaningful influence of parental low self-control.

It is also important to consider what future research should explore. We earlier provided some suggestions, but there are other important things that still need to be


addressed. For example, although this study examined parental self-control and vari-ous aspects of the family environment in relation to delinquency, it was unable to consider the role of adolescent self-control emphasized by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). There certainly is merit in investigating effects of parental self-control and the family environment on juvenile delinquency, but in reality, there are likely several variables that mediate this process, including adolescent self-control, the internaliza-tion of deviant values, and having hostile views of relationships with others (Simons et al., 2007). It would therefore be ideal if, within a single study, data could be col-lected on parental self-control, aspects of the family environment, juvenile delin-quency, and variables that might mediate the effect of the family environment on delinquency, including the aforementioned factors studied by Simons and colleagues (2007). In addition, it would be particularly informative to examine whether gender differences exist with regard to these processes. Because of the rather homogeneous nature of the sample with regard to the sex of the juveniles, we were unable to consider this; but that need not be the case moving forward.

In conclusion, this study adds to an emerging but important area of inquiry into the salience of parental self-control for elucidating the intergenerational continuity of anti-social behavior. While the study perhaps raises as many questions as it answers, con-tinued attention to this subject, particularly within a longitudinal framework, should help to lead to a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which antisocial behavior is transmitted across generations, the various underlying and mediating factors that account for this empirical association, and the relevance of self-control theory for both.

Appendix A

Correlation Matrix (N = 101).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Child age 2. Child race

(Non-White = 1)−.12

3. Child sex (Male = 1) −.05 .08 4. Parent age .24* −.15 −.10 5. Parent race

(Non-White = 1)−.15 .94*** .12 −.15

6. Parent sex (Male = 1) −.02 .19 −.03 −.18 .22* 7. Parental low self-

control.14 .14 −.02 −.34*** .10 .03

8. Family cohesion −.30** .02 .05 .06 .09 .06 −.62*** 9. Family conflict .24* .05 −.03 −.15 .00 .17 .63*** −.67*** 10. Parental efficacy −.20 −.20* .12 .08 −.15 .01 −.60*** .71*** −.56*** 11. Total positive family

environment−.28** −.08 .08 .11 −.02 −.03 −.70*** .92*** −.84*** .86***

12. Delinquency (Charge count)

12 .26** .05 −.11 .29** .16 .45*** −.47*** .52*** −.59*** −.60***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Meldrum et al. 19

Appendix BSupplementary Negative Binomial Regressions of Delinquency on Parental Low Self-Control and Individual Family Environment Variables (N = 101).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Predictors IRR SE IRR SE IRR SE

Age of child 1.04 .05 1.06 .05 1.06 .05Sex of child (Male = 1) 1.15 .19 1.08 .18 1.28 .21Race of child (Non-White = 1) 1.57** .17 1.47** .16 1.29 .18Family cohesion 0.59*** .08 Family conflict 1.45*** .15 Parental efficacy 0.55*** .07Parental low self-control 1.17 .15 1.17 .15 1.14 .13Pseudo R2 .09 .09 .11AIC 472 473 462

Note. IRR = incidence rate ratio; AIC = Akaike information criterion.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. The parents who were invited were not necessarily parents whose children were under the direct supervision of the research team member; some of the participating parents had chil-dren who were under the supervision of other probation officers at the facility. Simply put, whenever the research team member was at the facility, and as time allowed, parents who were at the facility to pick up their children after processing, or who were there for a regu-larly scheduled conference with their child’s probation officer, were invited to participate.

2. The research team member had regular access to this information given his position at the facility, and the administrators authorized allowing this individual to access the juvenile justice system (JJS) database to obtain the demographic information on the juveniles and information on the number of misdemeanor and felony charges for each juvenile to con-duct the study. After accessing the JJS database, this information was added to the data file containing the survey data collected from the parents. At this point, no unique identifiers (the juvenile’s name, JJS number, address, etc.) were included in the data file to ensure confidentiality.

3. Negative binomial regression is used for this portion of the analysis given the count nature of the measure for delinquency and that the data are over dispersed (the variance is greater


than the mean). The negative binomial model is similar to a Poisson model in that it consid-ers the expected count of events as a function of the rate at which an outcome occurs but takes into account over dispersion. Extensive discussion of the negative binomial can be found in Long (1997).

4. As indicated by the adjusted R2 values.5. This also indicates the association between the family environment and juvenile delin-

quency is not a spurious artifact of parental low self-control.6. We also considered three alternative operationalizations of the measure for juvenile delin-

quency to check the robustness of the results: (a) a weighted measure that assigned a value of 2 points to each felony charge and 1 point to every misdemeanor charge, (b) a measure for which only felony charges were included in the count measure of delinquency (36% of the sample had only misdemeanor charges and were assigned a value of 0), and (c) an ordered logistic regression to consider the most serious charge for each juvenile using the following coding scheme: third degree misdemeanors (1), second degree misdemeanors (2), first degree misdemeanors (3), third degree felonies (4), second degree felonies (5), first degree felonies (6). The results of the analysis using these three alternative operationalizations were substan-tively identical to the results based on the simple count measure of adolescent charges.

7. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this estimation method.8. Put differently, parent training programs may moderate the effect of parental low self-

control on family functioning and/or child behavior.

References

Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43-72.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos (Version 18.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator−mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barr, S. C., Hanson, R., Begle, A. M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B., Resnick, H., & Amstadter, A. (2011). Examining the moderating role of family cohesion on the relationship between witnessed community violence and delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 239-262.

Beaver, K. M. (2013). The familial concentration and transmission of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 139-155.

Borrego, J., Timmer, S. G., Urquiza, A. J., & Follette, W. C. (2004). Physically abusive moth-ers’ responses following episodes of child noncompliance and compliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 897-903.

Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). The intergenerational transmission of low self- control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47, 174-209.

Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Simons, L. G. (2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of par-enting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44, 353-396.

Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295-319.

Connolly, E. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2014). Examining the genetic and environmental influences on self-control and delinquency: Results from a genetically informative analysis of sibling pairs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 707-735.

Meldrum et al. 21

Coyne, M. A., & Wright, J. P. (2014). The stability of self-control across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 144-149.

Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Wright, J. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2008). Parenting and self- control. In E. Goode (Ed.) Out of control: Assessing the general theory of crime (pp. 61-74). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.

de Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control a meta-analysis of How trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76-99.

Dong, B., & Krohn, M. D. (2015). Exploring intergenerational discontinuity in problem behav-ior: Bad parents with good children. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,13, 99-122.

Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 259-268.

Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., & Murray, J. (2009). Family factors in the intergenerational trans-mission of offending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 109-124.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707-736.

Hay, C., & Forrest, W. (2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theo-ry’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739-774.

Hay, C., & Forrest, W. (2008). Self-control and the concept of opportunity: The case for a more systematic union. Criminology, 46, 1039-1072.

Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. C. (2015). Self-control and crime over the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hay, C., Meldrum, R. C., Forrest, W., & Ciaravolo, E. (2009). Stability and change in risk seeking: Investigating the effects of an intervention program. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 91-106.

Henschel, S., de Bruin, M., & Möhler, E. (2014). Self-control and child abuse potential in moth-ers with an abuse history and their preschool children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 824-836.

Higgins, G. E. (2009). Parental criminality and low self-control: An examination of delin-quency. Criminal Justice Studies, 22, 141-152.

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749-775.

Jones, S., & Lynam, D. R. (2009). In the eye of the impulsive beholder The interaction between impulsivity and perceived informal social control on offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 307-321.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime & Justice, 7, 29-149.

Long, S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Meldrum, R. C., Young, J. T. N., & Weerman, F. M. (2012). Changes in self-control during ado-lescence: Investigating the influence of the adolescent peer network. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 452-462.


Nofziger, S. (2008). The “cause” of low self-control—The influence of maternal self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 191-224.

Perrone, D., Sullivan, C. J., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83-120.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

Rowe, D. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1997). The familial transmission of criminal convictions. Criminology, 35, 177-202.

Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Chen, Y. F., Brody, G. H., & Lin, K. H. (2007). Identifying the psychological factors that mediate the association between parenting practices and delin-quency. Criminology, 45, 481-517.

Smith, C. A., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Continuities in antisocial behavior and parenting across three generations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 230-247.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of personality, 72, 271-324.

Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., & Smith, C. A. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171-184.

Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2009). The impact of parental stressors on the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 312-322.

Verhoeven, M., Junger, M., Van Aken, C., Deković, M., & Van Aken, M. A. (2007). Parenting during toddlerhood: Contributions of parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 1663-1691.

West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life: Third report of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. London, England: Heinemann Educational Books.

Wikström, P. O. H., & Svensson, R. (2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 395-410.

Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (1999). Testing reciprocal relations by nonrecursive structural equa-tion models using cross-sectional data. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 69-87.

Wright, J., Beaver, K., Delisi, M., & Vaughn, M. (2008). Evidence of negligible parenting influences on self-control, delinquent peers, and delinquency in a sample of twins. Justice Quarterly, 25, 544-569.