Parental Socialization and Community Context

http://jrc.sagepub.com/Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/3/219The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260270

2004 41: 219Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyTravis C. Pratt, Michael G. Turner and Alex R. Piquero

Self-ControlParental Socialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Structural Sources of Low

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

can be found at:Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyAdditional services and information for

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/3/219.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on May 7, 2013jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jrc.sagepub.com/

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/3/219

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/rscj/index.shtml

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/3/219.refs.html

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/3/219.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


10.1177/0022427803260270ARTICLEJOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCYPratt et al. / PARENTAL SOCIALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT

PARENTAL SOCIALIZATIONAND COMMUNITY CONTEXT:A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS

OF THE STRUCTURAL SOURCESOF LOW SELF-CONTROL

TRAVIS C. PRATTMICHAEL G. TURNER

ALEX R. PIQUERO

Several empirical studies have attempted to estimate the effect of low self-control oncriminal and “analogous” behaviors. Most of these studies have shown that low self-control is an important feature of the cause(s) of crime. Although research is begin-ning to emerge that targets more specifically the “roots” of self-control via parentalsocialization (the most salient factor in the development of self-control according toHirschi and Gottfredson), researchers have yet to explore the degree to which thestructural characteristics of communities may influence patterns of parental social-ization and, in turn, individual levels of self-control. To address this question, theauthors employ longitudinal data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth(NLSY) to examine community-level influences on parental socialization and self-control. The results indicate (1) self-control was predicted both cross-sectionally andlongitudinally by both parental socialization and adverse neighborhood conditions,(2) the total effect of adverse neighborhood conditions on children’s levels of self-control was just as strong as the total effect for indicators of parental socialization,and (3) important race differences did emerge, particularly with regard to the inter-relationships between our neighborhood-level measures and parental socialization.

Keywords: neighborhood disadvantage; parental socialization; self-control

Since its appearance in 1990, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) A GeneralTheory of Crime has generated a substantial amount of theoretical, method-

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofCriminal Justice Sciences in Anaheim, CA. The authors would like to thank Clay Hartjen and theanonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Please direct all correspondence to Travis C.Pratt, Department of Political Science/Criminal Justice, Washington State University, 801 John-son Tower, Pullman, WA 99164-4880, [email protected].

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, Vol. 41 No. 3, August 2004 219-243DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260270© 2004 Sage Publications

219



ological, and empirical attention (Akers 1991; Geis 2000; Marenin andReisig 1995; Pratt and Cullen 2000; Sampson and Laub 1993; Tittle 1991).Driving much of the academic community’s discussion on the subject is thegeneral theory’s core conceptual proposition that the sole “cause” of crime—and of behaviors “analogous” to crime, such as smoking, excessive drinking,driving too fast, and gambling—is low self-control (Hirschi and Gottfredson1990, 1995).

A lengthy roster of studies has emerged examining the relationship be-tween self-control and crime/deviance. In the process, some studies havecalled into question certain propositions contained in the theory regardingthe predictors of white-collar crime and of the nature of the age-crime curve(Benson and Moore 1992; Burton et al. 1999; Reed and Yeager 1996;Sampson and Laub 1995, Simpson and Piquero, 2002; Steffensmeier 1989;Tittle and Grasmick 1998). Others have questioned the unidimensionality ofself-control (Delisi, Hochstetler, and Murphy 2003; Longshore, Stein, andTurner 1998; Longshore, Turner, and Stein 1996; Piquero and Rosay 1998;Piquero, MacIntosh, and Hickman 2000; Wiebe 2003). Still others haveyielded somewhat inconsistent results in the ability of self-control vari-ables to cause those from competing criminological theories to “wash out”(Brownfield and Sorenson 1993; Gibson, Wright, and Tibbetts 2000;Grasmick et al. 1993; Polakowski 1994; Winfree and Bernat 1998).

Nevertheless, empirical support for an inverse relationship between levelsof self-control and measures of crime and deviance has been fairly consistent(Arneklev et al. 1993; Burton et al. 1994; Cochran et al. 1998; Evans et al.1997; Gibbs and Geiver 1995; Gibbs, Giever, and Martin 1998; Grasmicket al. 1993; Keane, Maxim, and Teevan 1993; Nagin and Paternoster 1993;Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Wood, Pfefferbaum, and Arneklev 1993). Ameta-analysis conducted by Pratt and Cullen (2000) noted that the effect ofself-control on crime across studies is fairly robust, even across methodolog-ical specifications (e.g., different samples and research designs). In addition,a recent study by Vazsonyi et al. (2001) has found that the self-control scaledeveloped by Grasmick et al. (1993) had similar predictive power whenassessed on samples drawn from the United States, Switzerland, Hungary,and Netherlands.

One hypothesis emanating from Gottfredson’s and Hirschi (1990) theorythat is only beginning to be the subject of empirical scrutiny involves the roleof parenting in the development of self-control. One possible reason for thiscurious absence of empirical attention could be that Gottfredson and Hirschiview parental socialization as a distal cause of criminal behavior in that itseffect on crime operates solely through the development of self-control. Thatis, the general theory of crime argues that once levels of self-control are

220 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCY



developed and “set” within individuals (around the ages of 8 to 10), socialcontrol effects should play no role in the genesis of criminal behavior.Accordingly, Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that the principal cause ofself-control is ineffective child rearing. Parents who do not monitor theirchildren’s behavior, recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and thenpunish such deviance are expected to produce children who are low in self-control and thus exhibit more deviant, delinquent, and criminal behaviorsover the life-course.

To date, only a handful of studies have explored the role of parenting in thedevelopment of self-control (Cochran et al. 1998; Feldman and Weinberger1994; Gibbs et al. 1998; Hay 2001; Polakowski 1994). These efforts haveconcentrated on exploring the direct effect of parental child-rearing on thedevelopment of self-control. Although not unanimous in their results, thesestudies generally indicate that parenting is an important, yet not the soledeterminant of self-control in children. For example, Hay’s (2001) analysisof the effect of multiple dimensions of parenting on self-control (includingmeasures of parental monitoring and discipline) found that childhood anti-sociality was also a significant precursor to levels of self-control independentof parenting effects. This finding is consistent with the emerging body of lit-erature that has begun to assess the link between early childhood problems,such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and crime/delin-quency in that the sources of what Gottfredson and Hirschi call self-controlmay be more complex than parenting alone (see, e.g., Pratt et al. 2002;Unnever et al. 2003).

We believe that an equally important contributing factor to the develop-ment of self-control is the role of collective socialization, or community-level social control. Mimicking what happens in the relationship betweenparental socialization and the development of self-control, the collectivesocialization model of neighborhood development focuses on the impor-tance of how collective monitoring, supervising, and role modeling—notonly in the family but within the larger neighborhood and community con-text—influence children’s development (Chase-Lansdale et al. 1997;Morenoff et al. 2001; Sampson et al. 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls1997; Wilson 1991), in particular, their level of self-control.

In this article, we develop an argument for the importance of exploring therole of community context and collective socialization in the development ofthe parental socialization/self-control relationship. In particular, we theo-retically expand Gottfredson and Hirschi’s position by including collectivesocialization in a larger model of the development of self-control. Then,using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), weempirically assess the effect of community context and parental socialization

Pratt et al. / PARENTAL SOCIALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT 221



on youths’ levels of self-control. A primary aim of the present study is toassess the degree to which community-level factors influence parentingbehavior and, in turn, levels of self-control in children.

In addition, we examine the importance of race effects in community con-texts (see Massey 1995; Sampson and Wilson 1995; Wilson 1987, 1991,1996). Gottfredson and Hirschi dismiss any and all community-level contex-tual effects when they state that “there are differences among racial and eth-nic groups . . . in levels of direct supervision by the family,” and that therefore“research on racial differences should focus on differential child-rearingpractices” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990:153). Toward this end, we includein our analysis an evaluation of our theoretical model on subgroups definedby race. Perhaps more important, our study also represents the first empiricalinvestigation of racial differences in either community-level and/or parentalsocialization processes within Gottfredson and Hirschi’s framework.

GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHI’SGENERAL THEORY OF CRIME

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that individuals will develop self-control at a very early age—between 8 and 10 years old. Consequently,those who fall on the lower end of the self-control continuum will be lessable to control their behavior when faced with criminal opportunities thatmay provide either a perceived immediate reward or a short-term reprievefrom an irritating situation. Gottfredson and Hirschi also view self-controlas a relatively time-stable individual-level characteristic. In other words,once youngsters develop the inability to exercise control over themselves,they will be unable to control such impulses well into adulthood (Gottfredsonand Hirschi 1995; cf. Sampson and Laub 1993). Therefore, although often over-looked and understudied, gaining an understanding of the development—or causes of—self-control becomes a key link to Gottfredson and Hirschi’sgeneral theory.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:94) even concede that they “know betterwhat deficiencies in self-control lead to than where they come from”; and,they confess that “the sources of self-control are complex” (p. 96). Neverthe-less, they do settle on a parenting explanation for the origin of self-control. Inparticular, children who develop low self-control do so as the result of inef-fective parenting, which entails the failure of parents to effectively monitortheir children’s behavior, recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, andpunish the child for misbehaving. In short, crime could be prevented if par-ents would do a better job of raising their kids.




Only recently have researchers directed their attention toward the issue ofparenting in the genesis of self-control. Polakowski’s (1994) analysis of datafrom the Cambridge Youth Study, Feldman and Weinberger’s (1994) assess-ment of 81 sixth-grade boys, the student samples analyzed by Cochran et al.(1998) and by Gibbs et al. (1998), and Hay’s (2001) survey of 197 urban highschoolers have all explored the dynamics of parenting and self-control. Withthe exception of Cochran et al.’s (1998) study of self-control and academicdishonesty, the research conducted thus far generally lends credence to thenotion that, net of statistical controls, parenting is important to the process ofdeveloping self-control.

We certainly see this trend in the research literature as a necessary step forexploring the validity of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) perspective, yeteach of the four studies mentioned above share the similar methodologicalcharacteristic of basing their parental socialization measures on retrospectivereports of parenting practices. Although reassessing the general theory fromthe vantage point of parental socialization should add some necessary“depth” to the body of scholarship in this area, a better understanding of theroots of self-control could start to be reached with a prospective approach forunderstanding the dynamics of parenting practices and the development ofself-control.

To do so, the present study uses a prospective research design that takesinto account the structural characteristics of communities that may conditionparental socialization patterns and, in turn, impact the development of self-control among youth. Put simply, the general theory of crime assumes thatthe social conditions that may affect parents’ability to exert the kinds of con-trols Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) see as necessary for the effective devel-opment of self-control in children are conceptually and empirically irrele-vant. We view this as an empirical question. To that end, the following sectionoutlines how Gottfredson and Hirschi’s framework can be extended to in-corporate community-level influences on parental socialization and, in turn,self-control.

COMMUNITY CONTEXTAND PARENTAL SOCIALIZATION

Collective socialization theories are typically based on the psychologicalliterature on parenting, supervision, and role models, as well as the socio-logical literature on monitoring and isolation (Chase-Lansdale et al. 1997).Neighborhoods experiencing high levels of social isolation, economic depri-vation, and adverse familial circumstances are oftentimes referred to as




“socially disorganized” (Sampson and Groves 1989). In such neighbor-hoods, social isolation is believed to result in family practices that may be lessconducive to the development of skills associated with school and worklife—factors that may be associated with the positive development of self-control.

In socially cohesive neighborhoods, however, parental efficacy is high,and an emphasis is placed on school, work skills, future orientation, and thegeneral development of self-control. Neighbors in these community contextsare more likely to encourage higher-quality parenting techniques and to helpsupervise neighborhood children (Chase-Lansdale et al. 1997; Garbarinoand Sherman 1980; Klebanov et al. 1997). We view this conceptual link withthe self-control framework as particularly important because, according toFurstenburg (1993:255), “[t]he connectedness or embeddedness of the fam-ily in its immediate context shapes the strategies of parenting.” Furstenburg(1993:254) goes on to note that “where parents live affects how parents man-age their children—their means of shielding their children from dangersand exposing them to opportunities” (see also the discussions of family fac-tors and crime/delinquency by Loeber and Farrington 1998; Loeber andStouthamer-Loeber 1986; Hirschi 1995).

Bursik and Grasmick’s (1993) systemic model of neighborhood controlalso indicates that neighborhoods characterized by social disorganization arethe least likely to provide the setting for the types of child-rearing practicesthat Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) believe are the most suitable for thedevelopment of effective self-control. Specifically, research has shown infor-mal control processes and/or collective efficacy to be related to various formsof criminal behavior (Bellair 1997, 2000; Morenoff et al. 2001; Sampsonet al. 1997). To the extent that communities act “as a complex system offriendship and kinship networks and formal and informal associationalties rooted in family life and ongoing socialization processes” (Kasarda andJanowitz 1974:329), it seems particularly important to focus on how differ-ent types of neighborhoods influence parenting behavior.

In a similar vein, Wikstrom and Sampson (2003) recently discussed howcommunity context influences an individual’s motivation to offend. Linkingthe notions of social capital and collective efficacy, they explicitly state that“we would expect to find a community effect, particularly on the early devel-opment of self-control and morality; we specifically expect to find higherrates of children developing low self-control and weak morality among thoseliving in areas with weak community capital and low collective efficacy”(p. 139, emphasis in original).

Thus, informal social controls are compromised in socially disorganizedneighborhoods. Because there is little or no institutional integration at theneighborhood level in such community contexts, there are few intermediate




structures that link primary and secondary institutions to one another. AsElliott et al. (1996:394) note, “In short, persons living in these neighbor-hoods are isolated from mainstream institutions. They are far less able toaccess conventional means to achieve general societal goals, to support fam-ily socialization of conventional values and norms [e.g., develop self-control], and to exert effective control over the behavior of residents.”

CURRENT FOCUS

We have argued that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) thesis, regardingthe development of self-control is underspecified because it does not recog-nize the importance of the relationship between community context andparental socialization efforts. Accordingly, we build off the most recent effortaimed at studying the determinants of self-control by Hay (2001). In analysesof how parenting affects self-control, Hay’s (2001) work is certainly impor-tant, but it is limited in five ways. First, his sample was based on studentsenrolled and participating in a physical education course at one school in thesouthwestern United States. Second, only 60 percent of the students com-pleted and returned the necessary consent forms and took part in the study.Third, the respondents were between the ages of 14 and 18—well beyond theage requirement delineated by Gottfredson and Hirschi for the study of thedevelopment of self-control. Fourth, Hay (2001) did not measure certain keyaspects of parental socialization (e.g., there were no items on whether parentsrecognize deviant behavior when it occurs). Finally, the data were cross-sectional; thus the parenting items did not refer to a specific point in time.

Alternatively, unlike many prior research efforts, our data cover the timeperiod when Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) state that self-control is still in adynamic state (before the age of 10). In addition, we use both cross-sectionaland longitudinal data, which affords us the opportunity to more carefullyconsider the causal ordering limitations that have characterized the recentresearch studying the development of self-control (Gibbs et al. 1998; Hay2001). Most important, we integrate the community socialization perspectiveinto Gottfredson and Hirschi’s presumed relationship between parentalsocialization and the development of self-control in children.

Finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:153) contend that “researchshould focus on differential child-rearing practices” to account for the differ-ences in self-control as well as the differences in criminal behavior observedacross groups defined by race. We believe that this is a useful hypothesis toexplore, but we also add to and extend the Gottfredson and Hirschi race pre-diction in an important way—namely, the addition of neighborhood context.At the core of our view is the observation that non-Whites and Whites live




in different ecological environments (Massey 1995; Sampson and Wilson1995; Shaw and McKay 1942).

METHOD

Data

The data used in this study are from the National Longitudinal Survey ofYouth (NLSY; for a more detailed discussion of the Children of the NLSY,see Chase-Lansdale et al. 1991). The portion of the sample included in thisanalysis consists of all individuals who were age 10 in 1992 (N = 463). Wechose to limit our analysis to these individuals for two reasons. First, mater-nal reports of our key independent and dependent variables, particularly self-control, were available for this age group both cross-sectionally and longitu-dinally. Second, this age cohort is the earliest for which maternal reports ofneighborhood conditions were available. Notably, this is also the age atwhich Hirschi and Gottfredson (2000) assert that an individual’s self-controlbecomes relatively stable (also see Turner and Piquero 2002).1

Measures

Parental supervision. We measure parental supervision with a two-itemscale reflecting maternal reports of their child’s whereabouts and theirknowledge of his/her friends. Specifically, mothers were asked how many oftheir child’s close friends they knew. Response categories ranged from all ofthem (= 1) to none of them (= 5). Mothers were also asked how often theyknow who their child is with. Response categories for this second itemranged from all of the time (= 1) to none of the time (= 4), with factor analysisrevealing the presence of a single underlying factor. Our parental supervisionmeasure was then created by summing the standardized scores on each of thepreceding items (alpha = .44).2 Higher scores on the scale reflect a lowerdegree of parental supervision.

Parental monitoring/discipline. We measure parental monitoring/discipline with a two-item scale. Specifically, mothers were asked what theywould do if their child had low grades. The first item questioned whethermothers would “lecture the child” if they received low grades, whereas thesecond item questioned whether mothers would “punish the child” if theyreceived low grades. The response set for both items ranged from “not at alllikely” (= 1) to “very likely” (= 5). Higher scores on this measure are indica-tive of a parent who disciplines the child for receiving poor grades in school.




Factor analysis indicated the presence of a single, underlying factor, and thescale evidenced strong internal consistency (alpha = .68).

Adverse neighborhood conditions. The strategies for measuring neigh-borhood influences such as disorganization or socialization generally fallinto two categories: (1) the use of objective indicators based on census tractsor block groups collected from census data, and (2) the use of perceptualmeasures based on reports of one’s immediate surroundings. Although theobjective measures provide a wealth of information on the structural aspectsof the neighborhood, they fail to adequately measure the informal rela-tionships that occur in and around the household (Taylor 1997). That is,objective measures arguably cannot capture the extent and nature of social-ization influences that might be present within a neighborhood (Bursik andGrasmick 1993; see also Chiricos et al. 2001). As such, efforts to understandneighborhood socialization influences must rely on perceptual measures(Furstenburg 1993).

Our measure of adverse neighborhood conditions is based on the maternalreports of three items characterizing the surrounding neighborhood. Motherswere asked to report whether certain conditions in her neighborhood werenot a problem (= 1), somewhat of a problem (= 2), or a big problem (= 3).Items included (1) people not having enough respect for rules and laws, (2)too many parents not supervising their children, and (3) people keeping tothemselves and not caring about what goes on in the neighborhood (alpha =.77). Factor analysis revealed the presence of a single underlying factor,where higher scores on this scale reflect neighborhoods experiencing greaterproblems associated with informal social control, crime, and disorder.3

Self-control. The measurement of self-control has been a key issue inassessments of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory (see Grasmick et al. 1993;Hirschi and Gottfredson 1993; Piquero et al. 2000; Pratt and Cullen 2000).For example, Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) advise that behavioral, versusattitudinal, measures of self-control are more indicative of an individual’strue self-control. To be sure, studies using both types of measures of self-control have found the behavioral measures to explain a substantially greaterpercentage of variation in delinquency and crime (Evans et al. 1997;Paternoster and Brame 1998; see also Junger, West, and Timman 2001). Thebehavioral measures, however, have also been criticized for being tautologi-cal because many of these measures are delinquent or criminal themselves.We attempt to avoid this criticism by measuring self-control in late childhoodwith behavioral items that are not considered delinquent or criminal.

Our behavioral measures of self-control are based on an individual’s totalscores on the Behavioral Problem Index (BPI) measured when individuals




were at the age of 10 and 12 (Zill and Peterson 1986). The BPI is an index ofmaternal reports of a variety of behavioral problems possessed by individuals(see appendix for a complete listing of the items).4 Many of the items werederived from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist (Achenbach andEdelbrock 1983) and other child behavior scales (Graham and Rutter 1968;Rutter et al. 1970; Kellam et al. 1975). For example, mothers were asked suchquestions relating to how frequent their child “acts without thinking,” “bul-lies or is mean to others,” and “is impulsive and acts without thinking.”Responses were categorized as often true (= 1), sometimes true (= 2), and nottrue (= 3). Items were recoded and dichotomized to reflect the presence (1 =often true and sometimes true) and absence (0 = not true) of the behavior.Thus, higher scores represent a greater level of behavior problems that, inturn, reflect lower self-control. The reliability of this scale has been consis-tently found to be in the high range for both children and adolescents (alpha =.89 for children, alpha = .91 for adolescents) (Mott et al. 1995).

We examined the factor structure of the behavioral self-control scale (forboth 1992 and 1994) and found that the items within the scale conform to aone-factor solution. All factor loadings were well over .4, with two excep-tions where the factor loadings were both over .31. There was a very largedrop between the first and second eigenvalues, with the first factor account-ing for a very large proportion of the variance. Furthermore, the scale evi-denced very good internal consistency (alpha = .90).

Control variables. We control for the sex and race of the individual. Spe-cifically, sex is coded as females (= 0) and males (= 1), and race is coded asWhites (= 0) and non-Whites (= 1). Table 1 contains descriptive statistics forour full sample and race-specific samples (White/non-White). Presenting thedata in such a format allows one to compare the distribution of each of our


TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Variables Included in the Analysis (N = 463)

Full Sample Non-Whites WhitesVariable (Mean/SD) (Mean/SD) (Mean/SD)

Sex .48/.50 .50/.50 .44/.50Non-White .62/.48 — —Parental supervision .02/1.59 .12/1.69 –.21/1.39*Parental monitoring/discipline 6.48/2.45 7.01/2.30 5.62/2.42*Adverse neighborhood conditions 4.73/1.83 4.98/1.93 4.33/1.59*Self-control (1992; age 10) 9.36/6.21 9.23/6.19 9.56/6.27Self-control (1994; age 12) 9.40/6.11 9.14/6.05 9.83/6.20

*Mean for the variable differs across racial categories at p < .05.



variables across categories of race and to illustrate the bivariate relationshipsin preparation for the race-specific analyses presented below.5

Descriptive statistics for the full sample, as well as the sample stratified byrace, may be found in Table 1. Of particular interest are the race differences inthe two parental socialization variables and in the adverse neighborhood con-ditions measure. Compared to Whites, non-Whites are significantly morelikely to be less supervised and to be disciplined more. In addition, non-Whites are more likely to report higher levels of adverse neighborhood con-ditions. This finding is particularly important because Table 1 also indicatesthat there is no significant difference in self-control across racial catego-ries. Thus, these initial results indicate that the purported “race gap” inoffending—at least as discussed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)—may bemore attributable to differential community conditions and/or patterns ofparental supervision and monitoring across racial groups.

RESULTS

We begin with an examination of the correlates of our two key measuresof parental socialization: parental supervision and parental monitoring/discipline. The results for these analyses are found in Table 2. Parental super-vision is predicted by both sex and non-White, indicating that being non-White is related to poorer parental supervision (p < .05), as is being male(again, because higher scores on the dependent variable indicate lower levelsof parental supervision). Our measure of adverse neighborhood conditions isalso positively and significantly related to parental supervision suggestingthat in neighborhoods experiencing more problems related to informal socialcontrol, parents are less likely to supervise their children.


TABLE 2: Ordinary Least Squares Regression Estimates Predicting Two Measures ofParental Socialization (N = 463)

Parental ParentalSupervision Monitoring/Discipline

Variable B SE B SE

Non-White .299* .159 1.225* .240Sex .396* .153 .094 .232Adverse neighborhood conditions .070* .042 .159* .065Constant –.699* .230 4.925* .349R 2 .033 .084

*p < .05.



In the second column of Table 2, it can be observed that sex is not signifi-cantly related to parental monitoring/discipline; however, being non-Whiteis related to parental monitoring-discipline in the sense that mothers of non-White subjects are more likely to discipline their child if they receive lowgrades in school. As was the case for parental supervision, the measure ofadverse neighborhood conditions is positively and significantly related toparental monitoring/discipline suggesting that in neighborhoods experienc-ing more problems related to informal social control, mothers are more likelyto discipline their child if they receive low grades in school.

Next, we turn our attention to the predictors of self-control. In Table 3 wepresent these results in both cross-sectional and longitudinal formats. Thefirst column of Table 3 shows that being non-White is associated with bet-ter self-control, but that sex does not significantly predict self-control. Ashypothesized by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), poor parental supervisionis associated with lower self-control. Contrary to Gottfredson and Hirschi’sposition, however, is our finding that high levels of parental monitoring/discipline are associated with lower self-control. Finally, our measure ofadverse neighborhood conditions is positively associated with self-control,indicating that to the extent that mothers report that their neighborhoodsexperience extensive problems related to informal social control, their chil-dren are significantly more likely to exhibit lower self-control. The secondcolumn of Table 3 repeats these analyses in a longitudinal fashion, where theindependent variables are from age 10 and the dependent variable is mea-sured at age 12. The cross-sectional findings are reproduced without fail inthe longitudinal analysis.


TABLE 3: Ordinary Least Squares Regression Estimates Predicting Self-Control at Age 10and at Age 12 (N = 463)

Variable Self-Control (Age 10) Self-Control (Age 12)

Non-White –1.389* (.626) –1.689* (.662)Sex .727 (.595) .576 (.626)Parental supervision .580* (.184) .505* (.194)Parental monitoring/discipline .521* (.123) .337* (.134)Adverse neighborhood conditions .571* (.166) .452* (.175)Constant 3.798* (1.095) 5.746* (1.183)R 2 .115 .069

NOTE: All coefficients are in their metric form. Standard errors are in parentheses.*p < .05.



Investigating Race Differences

Next, we turn our attention to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) expecta-tions regarding race.6 Bivariate results indicated that non-Whites experiencelower levels of parental supervision and higher levels of parental monitoring/discipline. In addition, difference-of-means tests indicate that non-Whitesare more likely to live in dysfunctional neighborhoods. As a result of thesemean differences, we next turn to a multivariate analysis that estimates theeffects of parental socialization and adverse neighborhood conditions onself-control across groups defined by race (White/non-White). The results ofthis analysis may be found in Table 4.

We estimated a series of models predicting self-control, both in a cross-sectional and longitudinal fashion, for both Whites and non-Whites. Thecross-sectional analysis yields very similar conclusions for both Whites andnon-Whites, where poor parental supervision and high parental monitoring/discipline are associated with lower self-control, whereas adverse neighbor-hood conditions lead to lower self-control at age 10. The only differenceacross race concerned the effect of sex, which was not significant amongnon-Whites, and only marginally significant for Whites (p < .10).

Longitudinally, among Whites, poor parental supervision and high par-ental monitoring/discipline are positively and significantly associated with


TABLE 4: Ordinary Least Squares Regression Estimates Predicting Self-Control (ages 10and 12) by Race

Self-Control, Age 10 Self-Control, Age 12

Variable Whites Non-Whites Whites Non-Whites

Sex 1.480* .231 .702 .495(.964) (.763) (1.046) (.787)

Parental supervision .620** .557** .607** .466**(.345) (.219) (.387) (.226)

Parental monitoring/discipline .519** .512** .390** .296**(.194) (.162) (.215) (.173)

Adverse neighborhood conditions .523** .605** .464 .457**(.293) (.204) (.317) (.213)

Constant 3.709** 2.558** 5.352** 4.360**(1.711) (1.519) (1.930) (1.585)

R 2 .118 .117 .065 .066

NOTE:All coefficients are in their metric form.Standard errors are in parentheses.Sam-ple sizes for split-race analyses are White (n = 174) and non-White (n = 289).*p < .10. **p < .05.



lower self-control, although neither sex or adverse neighborhood condi-tions are significant predictors of self-control at age 12. Among non-Whites,however, poor parental supervision, poor parental monitoring/discipline,and adverse neighborhood conditions all maintain significant and positiveeffects on self-control at age 12, where only the effect of sex is not statistic-ally significant.

Structural Equation Model

In an exploratory fashion, we present a series of cross-sectional (age 10)structural equation models that are estimated for the full sample, as well asgroups defined by race. These models were estimated with two questions inmind: (1) Does the model regarding the determinants of self-control providea reasonable fit to the data? (2) What are the direct, indirect, and total effectsof all forms of socialization on self-control?

The full sample model estimated in Table 5 contains the following vari-ables: non-White, sex, adverse neighborhood conditions, parental supervi-sion, parental monitoring/discipline, and self-control. The structural equa-tion model results generally replicate those observed earlier. Self-control issignificantly predicted by non-White, parental supervision, parental moni-toring/discipline, and adverse neighborhood conditions. The measure ofadverse neighborhood conditions exhibits direct effects on both measures ofparental socialization, and the effect of adverse neighborhood conditions onparental monitoring/discipline is stronger than the effect on parental super-vision. Several fit statistics indicate that the model provides a good fit to thedata.

Table 6 presents the total effects calculated in the structural equationmodel, where high parental monitoring/discipline and adverse


TABLE 5: Structural Equation Modeling Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Parental ParentalIndependent Variable Supervision Monitoring-Discipline Self-Control

Non-White .10** (.05) .24** (.05) –.11* (.05)Sex .15** (.05) .01 (.05) .06 (.05)Adverse neighborhood conditions .08* (.05) .11** (.05) .17** (.05)Parental supervision — — .16** (.05)Parental monitoring/discipline — — .21** (.05)

NOTE:Coefficients are maximum likelihood estimates.Standard errors are in parenthe-ses. Chi-square/df = 1.03/1. GFI = 1.00. RMSEA < .01.*p < .10. **p < .05.



neighborhood conditions exert the largest effects on self-control, followedclosely by the effect of parental supervision. Table 6 also indicates that a veryimportant part of the genesis of self-control arises from adverseneighborhood conditions.

Next, we estimated the same model as presented in Table 5 across groupsdefined by race. Bollen (1989) has referred to this as the “test of model form.”In the test for model form, separate path coefficients are estimated for bothgroups (Whites and non-Whites) and then tests for the equality of thecovariance/correlation matrix of the observed variables are undertaken. Twomodels have the same form (i.e., baseline) if the model for each group has thesame parameter matrices with the same dimensions and the same location offixed, free, and constrained parameters. There is only one chi-square forthe two groups in the model form estimation. The null hypothesis is that the(same) constraints of the model in both groups are correct. On the basis of


TABLE 6: Total Effects of Exogenous Variables on Self-Control (based on estimates fromTable 5)

Adverse ParentalNeighborhood Parental Monitoring-

Non-White Sex Conditions Supervision Discipline

Total effects –.05 .08 .20 .17 .21

TABLE 7: Structural Equation Modeling Maximum Likelihood Estimates for Split-RaceAnalysis

ParentalParental Monitoring-

Supervision Discipline Self-Control

Independent Variable W NW W NW W NW

Sex .19** .13** .06 –.02 .12* .02(.08) (.06) (.08) (.07) (.08) (.06)

Adverse neighborhood conditions –.02 .12** .11 .11** .14** .19**(.08) (.06) (.08) (.07) (.08) (.06)

Parental supervision — — — — .14** .16**(.08) (.06)

Parental monitoring-discipline — — — — .21** .20**(.08) (.06)

NOTE: W = Whites, NW = non-Whites. Coefficients are maximum likelihood estimates.Standard errors are in parentheses. Sample sizes for split-race analyses are White (n =174) and non-White (n = 289). Chi-square/df = 3.01/5. GFI = 1.00. RMSEA < .01.*p < .10. **p < .05.



the chi-square test, rejection of the null hypothesis indicates that there aresignificant differences in form between Whites and non-Whites. If we fail toreject the null hypothesis, then the same model form appears appropriate forWhites and non-Whites. The results of the split-race analysis may be found inTable 7.

Table 7 indicates that the model provides a good fit to the data, which sug-gests the same model form holds among Whites and non-Whites. Indeed,similar factors predict self-control across race, including adverse neighbor-hood conditions and both measures of parental socialization. The effect ofsex on self-control, however, varies across race, with the coefficient exertinga significant effect among Whites but not for non-Whites. Finally, we notethat sex is not significantly related to parental monitoring/discipline foreither Whites or non-Whites.

At the same time, there appears to be an important race difference withregard to two specific relationships. First, the effect of adverse neighborhoodconditions on parental supervision varies across race, as the coefficient is sig-nificant and positive among non-Whites, but negative and insignificant forWhites (z = 1.4, p > .05). This result suggests that in neighborhoods charac-terized by a lack of informal social control, non-White children are less likelyto be supervised by their parents. Nevertheless, the indicator of adverseneighborhood conditions exerts virtually equal effects on parental monitor-ing/discipline. In sum, these results indicate that although the model testedprovided a good fit among Whites and non-Whites, there was an importantrace difference in the interrelationship between neighborhood context andparental supervision.

DISCUSSION

Since its inception, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory ofcrime has been subject to intense empirical scrutiny. At the same time schol-ars have paid little attention to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s thesis concerningthe development and determinants of self-control. The purpose of this articlewas to examine this particular issue but with an eye toward extending theframework to include the influence of neighborhood context. In addition,guided by the extant sociological literature on race and neighborhood social-ization, we also explored how the determinants of self-control varied amongWhites and non-Whites.

Accordingly, three key findings emerge from our effort. First, self-controlwas predicted both cross-sectionally and longitudinally by several measuresof parental supervision and neighborhood conditions. Second, the totaleffect of our measure of adverse neighborhood conditions on self-control




was among the strongest of all effects, including those emanating from mea-sures of parental socialization. Third, although the hypothesized (andextended) theoretical model provided a good fit to the data, an importantrace difference did emerge, particularly with regard to the interrelationshipbetween neighborhood conditions and parental supervision. More specifi-cally, we found that adverse neighborhood conditions were associated withless parental supervision among non-White but not White children.

As this study presented the first empirical foray into expandingGottfredson and Hirschi’s framework to (1) include the effect of neighbor-hood context, and to (2) examine potential race differences, we must cautionreaders on several issues. First, although the cross-sectional and longitudinaldata yielded similar substantive conclusions, participants’ assessments ofself-control were only obtained at ages 10 and 12. Although Hirschi andGottfredson (2000; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) contend that this agerange is appropriate for study, it does not capture the full age-range of self-control development. Although our study builds upon the extant research ofboth Gibbs et al. (1998) and Hay (2001), whose measures of self-controlwere obtained in adolescence (age 14 and above), future efforts shouldattempt to collect similar kinds of data as early in life as possible and to trackindividuals over long periods of time. Second, we employed a single, behav-ioral measure of self-control. As such, different types of self-control mea-sures may yield a different (or similar) pattern of findings.

Third, our neighborhood measures were perceptually based. Although webelieve that such measures are consistent with extant research, important rep-lications of this study with both objective and perceptual measures are neces-sary. Fourth, although our analysis explored how the determinants of self-control varied across race, we did not explore how the pattern of relationshipsvaried among Whites, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities. This would bean appropriate direction for future research.

A fifth potential concern has to do with the fact that our measures of paren-tal supervision and parental monitoring/discipline come from maternal re-ports only. In particular, the positive relationship between our measures ofparental monitoring/discipline and low self-control may be the result of theitems contained in the monitoring/discipline scale tapping into a behavioraldimension of self-control (i.e., kids who are punished for receiving badgrades—which would result in higher values on the parental monitoring/discipline scale—may also engage in other behaviors that may lead to highervalues on the BPI). Thus, alternative measures of parental monitoring/discipline may be in order for studies addressing these questions in the future.

Finally, as we only explored parental socialization efforts, other forms ofsocialization—such as schools—may be important in determining one’sself-control. As is the case with other socializing institutions, the school




imposes restraints on child behavior (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Forexample, the school in general—and teachers in particular—are likely to (1)monitor the behavior of numerous students simultaneously, (2) recognizedeviant and/or disruptive behavior, and (3) espouse a clear interest in main-taining order and discipline. The school, therefore, “has the authority and themeans to punish lapses in self-control” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990:105).Still, Gottfredson and Hirschi leave little room for the school to aid much inthe development of self-control once parental socialization efforts havematerialized. Indeed, they state that “self-control differences seem primarilyattributable to family socialization practices. It is difficult for subsequentinstitutions to make up for deficiencies, but socialization is a task that, oncesuccessfully accomplished, appears to be largely irreversible” (Gottfredsonand Hirschi 1990:107). Future research efforts should attempt to examinethe effect of the school as a potentially important contributor to child self-control, above and beyond parental and neighborhood influences (seeGottfredson 2001).

As discussed above, we believe that our analysis yields important impli-cations for continued empirical research designed to assess Gottfredson andHirschi’s (1990) framework regarding the determinants of self-control. Inaddition, and perhaps more important, the analysis also provides importanttheoretical extensions and insights into Gottfredson and Hirschi’s frameworkthat have been largely ignored by criminologists thus far, including the influ-ence of neighborhood context and race into the determinants of self-control.Gottfredson and Hirschi did not incorporate neighborhoods into their theory,and we believe that our analysis forces their theory to incorporate the impor-tance of these effects. In short, neighborhoods matter (Bursik and Grasmick1993; Sampson et al. 1997); they matter for the development of self-control,and they appear to matter in somewhat different ways across race. We believethat these two understudied aspects of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory offercriminologists several new directions for theoretical and empirical work thatmove beyond simply assessing whether self-control influences crime. Wehope that our research offers an initial roadmap for future efforts.

APPENDIX

Items used in the self-control measure.

1. Child has sudden changes in mood or feeling.2. Child complains no one loves him/her.3. Child is rather high-strung, tense, and nervous.4. Child cheats or tells lies.




5. Child is too fearful or anxious.6. Child argues too much.7. Child has difficulty concentrating.8. Child is easily confused, seems in a fog.9. Child bullies or is cruel/mean to others.

10. Child is disobedient at home.11. Child does not seem to feel sorry after misbehaving.12. Child has trouble getting along with other children.13. Child is impulsive or acts without thinking.14. Child feels worthless or inferior.15. Child is not liked by other children.16. Child has trouble getting mind off certain thoughts.17. Child is restless, overly active, cannot sit still.18. Child is stubborn, sullen, or irritable.19. Child has strong temper and loses it easily.20. Child is unhappy, sad, or depressed.21. Child is withdrawn, does not get involved with others.22. Child breaks own or another’s things deliberately.23. Child clings to adults.24. Child cries too much.25. Child demands a lot of attention.26. Child is too dependent on others.27. Child feels others are out to get him/her.28. Child hangs around with kids who get into trouble.29. Child is secretive, keeps things to self.30. Child worries too much.31. Child is disobedient at school.32. Child has trouble getting along with teacher.

NOTES

1. There were 2.6 percent (n = 12) of the sample of individuals who came from families pro-ducing more than one child in the sample. To investigate whether family effects on levels of self-control existed (see Huesmann et al. 1984), a dummy variable was created where a value of onewas assigned to individuals without a sibling in the sample, and an examination was made as towhether differences existed across each of the behavioral measures of self-control. No signifi-cant differences were found. As such, the full sample was included in each of the subsequentanalyses.

2. We acknowledge that our measure of parental supervision is somewhat less reliable thantraditional alpha coefficient cutoffs (see Carmines and Zeller 1979). We felt, however, that thismeasure adequately captured Gottfredson and Hirschi’s conceptualization of parental super-vision. To be sure, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 99) point out that low self-control results when“some parents allow the child to do pretty much as he pleases without interference.” Our measureappears to capture the essence of whether mothers know of their child’s whereabouts. Moreover,




this is the exact measure used in previous research examining the effects of parenting on delin-quent behavior (see Wright and Cullen 2001; see also Wright, Cullen, and Miller 2001).

3. We should also note that many of the items in our measure of adverse neighborhood condi-tions closely resemble those included in research measuring neighborhood incivilities (seeRoundtree et al. 1994; see also Bursik and Grasmick 1993 for a discussion of incivilities). Ourmeasure of adverse neighborhood conditions is unique, however, because of the inclusion ofitems measuring forms of informal social control manifested within the neighborhood. As a sup-plementary analysis, we also estimated our statistical models with two other neighborhood mea-sures. The first is a larger neighborhood measure that includes items related to crime and vio-lence, abandoned buildings, police protection, and so forth. The results of these models with thissecond neighborhood measure were, for the most part, substantively similar to those presented inthe body of the text. The second, an alternative measure of adverse neighborhood conditions isperceptual in nature and asks the mother, when children were age 10, to “Rate the neighborhoodin which you live as a place to raise children.” We reverse coded the response options to conformto the same direction as the primary adverse neighborhood conditions scale. Response optionsranged from (1) excellent to (2) very good to (3) good to (4) fair to (5) poor. The results for thismeasure were substantively similar to those reported using the primary adverse neighborhoodconditions measure in the text. This is not surprising because the primary adverse neighborhoodconditions measure and the mother’s perceptual measure were correlated at r = .615, p < .05.

4. The overall BPI measure is a composite of six subscales (i.e., Antisocial, Anxious/Depressed, Headstrong, Hyperactive, Dependent, and Peer Conflicts). In supplementary analy-sis, we also analyzed the BPI using only the Antisocial, Headstrong, Hyperactive, and Peer Con-flicts subscales because these appear to contribute measures that are more consistent withGottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) conceptualization of behavioral self-control. With one excep-tion (i.e., the effect of maternal supervision was significantly related to the four-subscale BPI inthe non-White longitudinal analysis), the results were substantively the same in terms of coeffi-cient, size, and strength. In the analyses that follow, we concentrate on the overall BPI measuregiven its ability to capture a wider range of problem behaviors that are not only external mani-festations of self-control, but also internal (i.e., anxious/depressed, dependent) ones as well.Although not the focus of the current research, we believe that both internalized and externalizedself-control manifestations are worthy of continued investigation.

5. The data contained few missing cases. Supplemental analyses using dummy-coded miss-ing variables failed to indicate any missing-value bias in predicting any of the dependent vari-ables. In addition, difference-of-means tests for self-control (missing vs. not missing) failed toindicate any significant difference across any of the independent variables.

6. Although the sample size is not large, we believe that our investigation is importantbecause we could not locate any published paper that dealt with both race and Gottfredson andHirschi’s theory in any manner. Given the saliency we attribute to the role of adverse neighbor-hood conditions in the Gottfredson and Hirschi framework, the simultaneous role of race cannotbe ignored.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, Thomas M. and Craig S. Edelbrock. 1983. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklistand Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department ofPsychology.

Akers, Ronald L. 1991. “Self-Control: A General Theory of Crime.” Journal of QuantitativeCriminology 7:201-11.




Arneklev, Bruce J., Harold G. Grasmick, Charles R. Tittle, and Robert J. Bursik. 1993. “LowSelf-Control and Imprudent Behavior.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:225-47.

Bellair, Paul E. 1997. “Social Interaction and Community Crime: Explaining the Importance ofNeighbor Networks.” Criminology 35:677-703.

. 2000. “Informal Surveillance and Street Crime: A Complex Relationship.” Criminology38:137-70.

Benson, Michael L. and Elizabeth Moore. 1992. “Are White-Collar and Common Offenders theSame?” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:251-72.

Bollen, Kenneth. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.Bursik, Robert J. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of

Effective Community Control. New York: Macmillan.Burton, Velmer S., Francis T. Cullen, T. David Evans, and R. Gregory Dunaway. 1994. “Recon-

sidering Strain Theory: Operationalization, Rival Theories, and Adult Criminality.” Journalof Quantitative Criminology 10:213-39.

Burton, Velmer S., T. David Evans, Francis T. Cullen, Kathleen M. Olivares, and R. GregoryDunaway. 1999. “Age, Self-Control, and Adults’ Offending Behaviors: A Research NoteAssessing a General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Criminal Justice 27:45-54.

Brownfield, David and Ann Marie Sorenson. 1993. “Self-Control and Juvenile Delinquency:Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Assessment of Selected Elements of a General Theoryof Crime.” Deviant Behavior 4:243-64.

Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay, Rachel A. Gordon, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela K. Klebanov.1997. “Neighborhood and Family Influences on the Intellectual and Behavioral Competenceof Preschool and Early School-Aged Children.” Pp. 79-118 in Neighborhood Poverty: Vol-ume 1. Context and Consequences for Children, edited by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J.Duncan, and J. Larence Aber. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay, F. L. Mott, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and D. Phillips. 1991. “Children ofthe NLSY: A Unique Research Opportunity.” Developmental Psychology 27:918-31.

Chiricos, Ted, Ranee McEntire, and Marc Gertz. 2001. “Perceived Racial and Ethnic Composi-tion of Neighborhood and Perceived Risk of Crime.” Social Problems 48:322-40.

Cochran, John K., Peter B. Wood, Christine S. Sellers, Wendy Wilkerson, and Mitchell B.Chamlin. 1998. “Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control: An Empirical Test of a Gen-eral Theory of Crime.” Deviant Behavior 19:227-55.

Delisi, Matt, Andy Hochstetler, and Daniel S. Murphy. 2003. “Self-Control Behind Bars: A Vali-dation Study of the Grasmick et al. Scale.” Justice Quarterly 20:241-63.

Elliott, Delbert S., William Julius Wilson, David Huizinga, Robert J. Sampson, Amanda Elliott,and Bruce Rankin. 1996. “The Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Adolescent Devel-opment.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33:389-426.

Evans, T. David, Francis T. Cullen, Velmer S. Burton, R. Gregory Dunaway, and Michael L.Benson. 1997. “The Social Consequences of Self-Control: Testing the General Theory ofCrime.” Criminology 35:475-501.

Feldman, S. Shirley and Daniel A. Weinberger. 1994. “Self-Restraint as a Mediator of FamilyInfluences on Boys’ Delinquent Behavior: A Longitudinal Study.” Child Development65:195-211.

Furstenberg, Frank F. 1993. “How Families Manage Risk and Opportunity in Dangerous Neigh-borhoods.” Pp. 231-258 in Sociology and the Public Agenda, edited by William Julius Wil-son. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Garbarino, J. and D. Sherman. 1980. “High-Risk Neighborhoods and High-Risk Families: TheHuman Ecology of Child Maltreatment.” Child Development 51:188-98.




Geis, Gilbert. 2000. “On the Absence of Self-Control as the Basis for a General Theory of Crime:A Critique.” Theoretical Criminology 4:35-53.

Gibbs, John J. and Dennis Giever. 1995. “Self-Control and Its Manifestations Among UniversityStudents: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Justice Quar-terly 12:231-55.

Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin. 1998. “Parental Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Journal of Re-search in Crime and Delinquency 35:40-70.

Gibson, Chris L., John Paul Wright, and Stephen G. Tibbetts. 2000. “An Empirical Assessmentof the Generality of the General Theory of Crime: The Effects of Low Self-Control on SocialDevelopment.” Journal of Crime and Justice 23:109-34.

Gottfredson, Denise C. 2001. Schools and Delinquency. New York: Cambridge University Press.Gottfredson and Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University

Press.Graham, P. J. and M. L. Rutter. 1968. “The Reliability and Validity of the Psychiatric Assessment

of the Child, II: Interview with the Parent.” British Journal of Psychiatry 114:581-92.Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik, and Bruce K. Arneklev. 1993. “Testing

the Core Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 30:5-29.

Hay, Carter. 2001. “Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory.”Criminology 39:707-36.

Hirschi, Travis. 1995. “The Family.” Pp. 121-40 in Crime, edited by James Q. Wilson and JoanPetersilia. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Hirschi, Travis and Michael R. Gottfredson. 2000. “Control Theories of Crime.” Pp. 81-96 inExplaining Criminals and Crime, edited by Raymond Paternoster and Ronet Bachman. LosAngeles: Roxbury.

. 1993. “Commentary: Testing the General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency 30:47-54.

. 1995. “Control Theory and the Life-Course Perspective.” Studies on Crime and CrimePrevention 4:131-42.

Huesmann, Rowel L., Leonard D. Eron, Monroe M. Lefkowitz, and Leopold O. Walder. 1984.“Stability of Aggression Over Time and Generations.” Developmental Psychology 20:1120-34.

Junger, Marianne, Robert West, and Reiner Timman. 2001. “Crime and Risky Behavior in Traf-fic: An Example of Cross-Situational Consistency.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 38:439-59.

Kasarda, John D. and Morris Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” Ameri-can Sociological Review 39:328-39.

Keane, Carl, Paul S. Maxim, and James J. Teevan. 1993. “Drinking and Driving, Self-Control,and Gender: Testing the General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 30:30-46.

Kellam, Sheppard G., J. D. Branch, K. S. Agrawal, and M. E. Ensminger. 1975. Mental Healthand Going to School: The Woodlawn Program of Assessment, Early Intervention, and Evalu-ation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klebanov, Pamela K., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, and Rachel A. Gordon.1997. “Are Neighborhood Effects on Young Children Mediated by Features of Home Envi-ronment?” Pp. 119-145 in Neighborhood Poverty: Volume 1. Context and Consequences forChildren, edited by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. Duncan, and J. Lawrence Aber. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Loeber, Rolf and David P. Farrington (eds). 1998. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.




Loeber, Rolf and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. 1986. “Family Factors as Correlates and Predic-tors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency.” Pp. 29-149 in Crime and Justice: AnAnnual Review of Research, vol. 7, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Longshore, Douglas, Judith A. Stein, and Susan Turner. 1998. “Reliability and Validity of a Self-Control Measure: A Rejoinder.” Criminology 36:175-82.

Longshore, Douglas, Susan Turner, and Judith A. Stein. 1996. “Self-Control in a Criminal Sam-ple: An Examination of Construct Validity.” Criminology 34:209-28.

Marenin, Otwin and Michael D. Reisig. 1995. “A General Theory of Crime and Patterns of Crimein Nigeria: An Exploration of Methodological Assumptions.” Journal of Criminal Justice23:501-18.

Massey, Douglas S. 1995. “Getting Away with Murder: Segregation and Violent Crime in UrbanAmerica.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143:1203-32.

Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. “NeighborhoodInequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence.” Criminology39:517-59.

Mott, Frank L., Paula C. Baker, David E. Ball, Canada K. Keck, and S. N. Lenhart. 1995. TheNLSY Children 1992: Description and Evaluation. Columbus: The Ohio State University,Center for Human Resource Research.

Nagin, Daniel S. and Raymond Paternoster. 1993. “Enduring Individual Differences and Ratio-nal Choice Theories of Crime.” Law & Society Review 27:467-96.

Paternoster, Raymond and Robert Brame. 1998. “The Structural Similarity of Processes Gener-ating Criminal and Analogous Behaviors.” Criminology 36:633-70.

Piquero, Alex R., Randall MacIntosh, and Matthew Hickman. 2000. “Does Self-Control AffectSurvey Response? Applying Exploratory, Confirmatory, and Item Response Theory Analy-sis to Grasmick et al.’s Self-Control Scale.” Criminology 38:897-929.

Piquero, Alex R. and Andre B. Rosay. 1998. “The Reliability and Validity of Grasmick et al.’sSelf-Control Scale: A Comment on Longshore et al.” Criminology 36:157-74.

Piquero, Alex R. and Stephen Tibbetts. 1996. “Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of LowSelf-Control and Situational Factors in Decision-Making: Toward a More Complete Modelof Rational Offending.” Justice Quarterly 13:481-510.

Polakowski, Michael. 1994. “Linking Self- and Social Control with Deviance: Illuminating theStructure Underlying a General Theory of Crime and Its Relation to Deviant Activity.” Jour-nal of Quantitative Criminology 10:41-78.

Pratt, Travis C. and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’sGeneral Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 38:931-64.

Pratt, Travis C., Francis T. Cullen, Kristie R. Blevins, Leah E. Daigle, John Paul Wright, andJames D. Unnever. 2002. “The Relationship of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder toCrime and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Police Science andManagement 4:344-60.

Reed, Gary E. and Peter C. Yeager. 1996. “Organizational Offending and Neoclassical Criminol-ogy: Challenging the Reach of A General Theory of Crime.” Criminology 34:357-82.

Roundtree, Pamela Wilcox, Kenneth C. Land, and Terance D. Miethe. 1994. “Macro-Micro Inte-gration in the Study of Victimization: A Hierarchical Logistic Model Analysis Across SeattleNeighborhoods.” Criminology 32:387-414.

Rutter, Michale, Jack Tizard, and Kingsley Whitmore. 1970. Education, Health and Behavior.London: Longman.

Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: TestingSocial-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802.




Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning PointsThrough Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

. 1995. “Understanding Variability in Lives Through Time: Contributions of Life-CourseCriminology.” Studies in Crime Prevention 4:143-58.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. “Beyond Social Capital: SpatialDynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children.” American Sociological Review 64:633-60.

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Vio-lent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277:918-24.

Sampson, Robert J. and William Julius Wilson. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, andUrban Inequality.” Pp. 37-54 in Crime and Inequality, edited by John Hagan and Ruth Peterson.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Simpson, Sally S. and Nicole Leeper Piquero. 2002. “Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory,and Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review 36:509-48.

Steffensmeier, Darrell J. 1989. “On the Causes of “White-Collar” Crime: An Assessment ofHirschi and Gottfredson’s Claims.” Criminology 27:325-58.

Taylor, Ralph B. 1997. “Social Order and Disorder of Street Blocks and Neighborhoods: Ecol-ogy, Microecology, and the Systemic Model of Social Disorganization.” Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 34:113-55.

Tittle, Charles R. 1991. “A General Theory of Crime: A Book Review.” American Journal ofSociology 96:1609-11.

Tittle, Charles R. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1998. “Criminal Behavior and Age: A Test of ThreeProvocative Hypotheses.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88:309-42.

Turner, Michael G. and Alex R. Piquero. 2002. “The Stability of self-control.” Journal of Crimi-nal Justice 30:457-71.

Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Lloyd E. Pickering, Marianne Junger, and Dick Hessing. 2001. “AnEmpirical Test of a General Theory of Crime: A Four-Nation Comparative Study of Self-Control and the Prediction of Deviance.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency38:91-131.

Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Travis C. Pratt. 2003. “Parental Management, ADHD,and Delinquent Involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Jus-tice Quarterly 20, 471-500.

Wiebe, Richard P. 2003. “Reconciling Psychopathy and Low Self-Control.” Justice Quarterly20:297-36.

Wikstrom, Per-Olof H. and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. “Social Mechanisms of Community Influ-ences on Crime and Pathways in Criminality.” In The Causes of Conduct Disorder and Seri-ous Juvenile Delinquency, edited by B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, and A. Caspi. New York:Guilford Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, andPublic Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

. 1991. “Studying Inner-City Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research.”American Sociological Review 56:1-14.

. 1996. When Work Disappears. New York: Knopf.Winfree, L. Thomas and Frances P. Bernat. 1998. “Social Learning, Self-Control, and Substance

Abuse by Eighth Grade Students: A Tale of Two Cities.” Journal of Drug Issues 28:539-58.Wood, Peter B., Betty Pfefferbaum, and Bruce J. Arneklev. 1993. “Risk-Taking and Self-

Control: Social Psychological Correlates of Delinquency.” Journal of Crime and Justice16:111-30.




Wright, John Paul and Francis T. Cullen. 2001. “Parental Efficacy and Delinquent Behavior: DoControl and Support Matter?” Criminology 39:677-706.

Wright, John Paul, Francis T. Cullen, and Jeremy T. Miller. 2001. “Family Social Capital andDelinquent Involvement.” Journal of Criminal Justice 29:1-9.

Zill, Nicholas and James L. Peterson. 1986. Behavior Problems Index. Washington, DC: ChildTrends, Inc.

Travis C. Pratt is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science/CriminalJustice at Washington State University. His research focuses on structural and macro-level theories of crime and institutional corrections. His recent publications have ap-peared in Crime and Delinquency, the Journal of Criminal Justice, Justice Quarterly, andCriminology.

Michael G. Turner is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests and publications fall inthe areas of criminological theory, campus victimization, and early developmental pre-cursors of delinquency. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the University ofCincinnati.

Alex R. Piquero is an associate professor of criminology in the Center for Studies inCriminology and Law at the University of Florida, Member of the National Consortiumon Violence Research, and Network Associate with the MacArthur Foundation’s Re-search Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. His research interestsinclude criminological theory, crime over the life course, and quantitative methods.




Documents

Parental Socialization and Community Context