SOCUL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY*

SOCUL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY*

MICHAEL D . WIATROWSKI

DAVID B . GRISWOLDFlorida Atlantic University

MARY K . ROBERTSUniversity of Florida

Hirschi's social control theory proposes that delinquents fail to form or maintaina bond to society consisting of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.Using data from the Youth in Transition Study, the present report develops andtests multivariate models of social control theory which simultaneously considerhow the four bond elements operate in relation to delinquency. Factor analysisand communality analysis examine the uniqueness of the four bond elements, andrevised and additional measures are suggested. Background factors-measures ofsocial class and ability-are added to the model, and a revised formulation ofsocial control is suggested.

Hirschi's (1969) Causes of Delinquency isa benchmark for theory construction andresearch in the delinquency field. Thetheory rests on the Hobbesian assumptionthat human behavior is not inherentlyconforming, "but that we are all animalsand thus naturally capable of committingcriminal acts" (Hirschi, 1%9:3I). Sincedelinquency is intrinsic to human nature,it is conformity that must be explained.Conformity is achieved through socializa-tion, the formation of a bond between in-dividual and society comprised of fourmajor elements: attachment, commit-ment, involvement, and belief. Thestronger each element of the social bond,the less likely delinquent behavior.

* Direct all correspondence to Michael D. Wia-trowski. Department of Criminal Justice, Florida At-lantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Special thanks to Dr. Gary Gottfredson and Dr.Don C. Gibbons for their assistance with this manu-script. Thanks also to Dr. Jerald Bachman, Dr.Travis Hirschi, and the reviewers for their commentson earlier drafts.

The data used, originally collected by JeraldBachman, were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Re-search. The responsibility for the analyses or in-terpretations presented here is mine alone. Prepara-tion of this report was supported by grants NIE-G-78-0210 and NIE-G-80-0113 to the Center for SocialOrganization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins Uni-versity. The opinions expressed in this report do notnecessarily reflect the positioti or policy of the Na-tional Institute of Education, and no official en-dorsement by the Institute should be inferred.

Attachment corresponds to the affec-tive ties which the youth forms to signifi-cant others. The family environment is thesource of attachment because parents actas role models and teach their childrensocially acceptable behavior.

Commitment is related to the aspirationof going to college and attaining a high-status job. This is an investment in con-ventional behavior which the youth risksshould he become delinquent. In contrastto youths with well-defined goals, adoles-cents engaged in drinking, smoking, dat-ing, and other behavior not orientedtoward future goals are much more likelyto get involved in delinquent behavior.

Involvement refers to participation inconventional activities which lead towardsocially valued success and status objec-tives. The quality of a youth's activitiesand their relationship to future goals andobjectives are important in preventing de-linquency. Time spent on homework, forexample, is viewed as antecedent to suc-cess in attaining educational goals whichare prerequisites to high-status occu-pations.

Belief is acceptance of the moral va-lidity of the central social-vaJue system(Hirschi, 1969:203). This variation in theacceptance of social rules is central to so-cial control theory, because the less rule-bound people feel, the more likely theyare to break rules (Hirschi, 1969:26).Hirschi (1969:26) argues that there is one

American Sociological Review 1981, Vo!. 46 (October.525-341) 525

526 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

dominant set of values and that even de-linquents may recognize the validity ofthose values, although they may not feelbound by them because of weakened tiesto the dominant social order.

HIRSCHI'S DATA ANALYSIS

Although Hirschi's theory fares betterthan subcultural and differential associa-tion theory, Empey (1978:239) implies thatthe theory's empirical support falls shortof complete explanation, Hirschi does notconsider how his four elements might actsimultaneously to affect the likelihood ofdelinquent behavior. In addition, insteadof empirically analyzing the relationshipsamong the elements of the bond, he sim-ply hypothesizes relationships betweenattachment and commitment, commit-ment and involvement, and attachmentand belief. Consequently, Hirschfs theoryconstruction and data analysis raise threerelated questions. First, the extent towhich Hirschi's four elements representempirically distinct components of so-cialization is unclear. If most of the vari-ance explained in the criterion is sharedby the four elements, they would not con-stitute analytically distinct elements of thebond. Second, why are only four elementsof the bond identified? The modest pre-dictive power of Hirschi's constructs sug-gests that additional elements of the bondshould be considered. Third, althougheducational and occupational aspirationsare central to Hirschi's theory, he fails toincorporate constructs—such as familysocioeconomic level, ability, andsignificant-others' influence—that re-search has determined to be important inthe development of these aspirations(Haller and Portes, 1973; Sewell, Haller,and Portes, 1969). Hirschi worries aboutthis, but his examination of the zero-ordercorrelations of delinquency and socialclass finds that there is no important re-lationship between social class and delin-quency (1969:75). Nevertheless, Hirschi(1969:73) suggests that this relationshipmay be suppressed by some third, inter-vening variable.

The present research addresses theforegoing three issues. First, we createmeasures of each of Hirschfs four ele-

ments and estimate how much each ele-ment contributes over and above theothers to the explanation of delinquentbehavior. Second, we examine moreclosely the structure of the social bond,using factor analysis to discover and de-fine new elements. Finally, we performtwo multivariate analyses, incorporatingmeasures of social class, ability, andgrades as well as elements of the socialbond. The first analysis, using Hirschfsfour elements, is intended to replicate andextend, rather than extensively reformu-late, his study. Finally, we develop andevaluate a revised model, based on thefactor analysis, which is somewhat morepars imonious and complete thanHirschi's.

DATA AND MEASURES

Data were obtained from the Youth inTransition Study (Bachman, 1975). This isa longitudinal study of 2213 tenth-gradeboys from 87 schools who were surveye_din 1966 in five waves of data collection.The use of concurrent measures parallelsHirschi's (1969) research, A multistageprobability sample was used to provide anessentially unbiased representation oftenth-grade boys in public high schoolsthroughout the United States (Bachman,O'Malley, and Johnston, 1978:3).'

The selection of information was guidedby Hirschi's (1969) discussion and re-search. Since the exact items used inHirschi's study were not available, equallyweighted composite scales were con-structed from items which coincided withHirschi's constructs. The selection of dis-similar items creates the possibility thatdifferences in results are attributable to

' Originally 88 schools selected from the Univer-sity of Michigan's Survey Research Center's primarysampling units were invited to participate in thestudy and 71 consented. Replacement schools werefound in the same geographic area for all but oneschool. Approximately 25 males were selected fromeach school, and of the 2,277 boys who were invitedto be members of the survey group, 2,213 (over97%) chose to participate. This would indicate thatnonrespondents and dropouts were not a seriousproblem (Bachman, O'Malley, and Johnston, 1978:2-4). Participation rates for waves 2 through 5 were85.2, 81.3, 73.2, and 73.5%.

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY 527

differences in measures. Homogeneity orreliability coefficients are used to assessscale reliability. Although assessments ofacceptable levels of reliability are gov-erned by convention, a low coefficient is asource of measurement error. In the moreparsimonious model of the social bond,selected items are deleted from scaleswhen they result in scales with unac-ceptably low reliability coefficients.

Items in the Youth in Transition data setthat appeared closely related to those inHirschfs data set were identified. Thenfactor-analytic and item-analytic proce-dures were used to identify the measuresto be used in the model testing. The fol-lowing paragraphs discuss the items cho-sen for initial examination as measures ofHirschfs four elements; see Appendix Afor abbreviations and sample items.

Attachment involves the relation of theôuth to parents, peers, and school. Werepresented attachment to parents by twoindices, measures of closeness of theyouth to his father and to his mother. At-tachment to peers was represented byitems about the importance of friends tothe respondent and how important it wasto spend time with his peers. Attachmentto school was represented by indices ofpositive attitude toward school, negativeat t i tude toward school, academicachievement, self-concept of schoolability, and the youth's perception ofteachers' interest in him.

^^mrnitment was represented by anindex of" the youth's occupational aspira-tions coded by Duncan occupationalprestige scores. Educational aspirationswere measured by a continuum of educa-tional interests; additional items measuredthe clarity of occupational plans, whetherthe boys had taken any steps toward at-tending college, and the amount of timespent and frequency of dating. As will beshown Fater, the wide conceptual range inthe component elements of commitment,as initially constructed, affected its relia-bility coefficient.

Involvement was represented by threepieces of information that indicated howrnuch school work the youth was doin^.While Hirschi relied primarily on the re-lationship between the amount ofhomework done and delinquency, we ex-

panded the analysis to include not onlyhomework but also extra school work notrequired by the teacher and the frequencywith which school work was discussed bythe boys.

Belief was difficult to operationalize be-cause the process of developing beliefs iscomplex. A youth with close parental at-tachments is rewarded for conformity by". . . the approval and esteem of those headmires" (Hirschi, 1969;200). This causalsequence in turn leads to a respect for" . . . persons in positions of authority, tobelief that the rules of society are bindingon one's conduct" (1969:203). Frequently,Hirschi uses "conscience" in terms ofsuperego development (1969:87) and inte-grates this with the concept of guilt innoting that delinquent youth experiencelittle guilt when breaking the law.

We used a broader definition of belief,selecting items that measured belief at itsfinal stage of development rather thansome earlier stage. The possibility doesexist that youth may abide by social rulesbut not respect the police. An honestyindex comprised of items which assessedattitudes towards truthfulness, lying,cheating, and helping friends in difficultsituations was used for part of the beliefmeasure. These belief items were initiallysupplemented by a guilt index, includedbecause individuals lacking a psychologi-cal sense of responsibility would, intheory, be free to behave without any no-tion of psychological accountability fortheir behavior. The guilt index was laterdeleted because of unaccep tab lepsychometric properties of the beliefscale; its relatively low reliability coeffi-cient is a potential challenge to the use ofthis index as an operational measure ofbelief.

Delinquency was measured using anindex consisting of the responses to 26items (with up to six missing data itemsallowed) adapted from Gold's (1966) self-report measure of delinquency. Amongthe areas measured were responses toquestions about theft and vandalism, in-terpersonal aggression, delinquency inschool, frequency and seriousness of de-linquency, and trouble with parents. Toprotect the confidentiality of the respon-dents, data on individual delinquency

528

items were not made available. While itwould have been desirable to restrict theitems to criminal offenses and exclude tri-vial offenses, this was not possible. How-ever, the items included in the index havea high alpha coefficient of .85, whichdemonstrates their internal consistency.

Hirschi's study used two items fromNye and Short's (1957) seven-item delin-quency scale and four items from Dentlerand Monroe's (1961) five-item "theftscale." Nye and Short's research has beencriticized for including trivial items (Hin-delang et al., 1979) as have other earlyself-report instruments (Elliott and Age-ton, 1979). Differences in the findings ofthis study and those of Hirschi may be dueto the different measures of the dependentvariables.

In the Youth in Transition study reportthere was no direct validation of delin-quency measures against official policereports. There is evidence, however, con-cerning the validity of the scale items(Bachman, et al., 1978:172) and the self-report method in general (Elliott andAgeton, 1980:96; Hardt and Hardt, 1977).These include the concurrence of theYouth in Transition findings with otherstudies, the stability of responses over aneight-year period, the internal consistencyof attitudinal and behavioral data, andmethodological studies that indicate in-frequent affirmative responses to the useof fictitious drugs. The authors concludethat the validity of a variable is a matter ofindividual judgment and that their " . . .measures are basically valid" (Bachman,O'Malley, and Johnston, 1978:173).

Socioeconomic level was measuredwith a scale of five items that were equallyweighted to form an index: father's occu-pational status, parent's education, pos-sessions in the home, number of books inthe home, and the number of rooms perperson in the home. Mental ability wasmeasured using scores on the GeneralAptitude Test Battery for verbal and mathability.

COMMUNALITY ANALYSIS

Hirschi theorizes that there are four sepa-rate elements of the social bond. In statis-tical terms this means that the four mea-

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

sures are independent of each other—thateach makes at least some unique contri-bution to predicting delinquency. The ex-tent to which the elements do makeunique contributions is examined in thissection. First, the extent to which delin-quency is predictable using all the mea-sures assumed to tap some element of thebond is estimated. Then composite mea-sures, constructed on the basis ofHirschi's (1969) theory, are used to predictdelinquency, and the unique contributionof each composite is examined.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the first partof these results. The proportion of thevariance of delinquency explained by all23 individual indicators of the bond was.318. The unique variance attributable toeach element of the bond was obtained bysubtracting the squared multiple correla-tion of all bond elements except those as-sumed related to the element under con-

Table 1. Regression of Delinquency on IndividualMeasures Assumed to be Associated withthe Element6 of the Bond

Bond elementand variable

AttachmentCLOSMOMCLOSFATHHOWIMPFTIMWFRNPOSSCHINEGSCHIACAACHIABILCONTCHINTR

CommitmentDUNASPICLAROCPLRCVOJTCOMPHSRCVMILTRCVVOCATNDCOLMADECOLPDATEIND

InvolveTIMEHWDSCHWFRXTRASCH

BeliefHONESTIGUILTIN

R' - .318

r

-.261*-.243*-.015

.015- .313 '

.302«-.256*-.102*-.163*

- .085 '.015.039

- .137 '.036.021

-.158*.018.372*

-.155«-.160*- . 1 8 1 '

-.319*-.155*

Beta

-.120*-.101*

.011-.006- .083 '

.104'-.028

.028- . 0 4 5 "

.060"-.016-.016-.033

.015-.020-.028

.013

.332'

-.082*-.012-.050««

-.136*.069*

• p S .05." pS .01.


Table 2. Total Association and Unique Contribu-tion of Each Category of Predictors

Set ofpredictors

AttachmentCommitmentInvolvementBeliefAll Predictors

Number ofmeasures tn

the set

9932

23

Totalassocia-

tion

.177

.157

.061

.103

.318

Uniquecontri-bution

.063

.109

.010

.016—

NOTE: Total association is the squared multiplecorrelation of a set of predictors with delinquency.The unique contribution of a set of predictors is theincremental validity of the set. That is, it is the gainin R̂ achievement when that set is added to theregression equation after all other predictors havealready been used in a regression equation.

sideration from the squared multiple cor-relation obtained when all bond elementsare used to predict delinquency. In Table3 the variances for each element of thebond are indicated along with the ex-plained variance for an element operatingby itself. The unique variances for eachelement are quite low, ranging from .010for involvement items to .109 for com-mitment. An alternative interpretation ofthe low amount of uniqueness is that un-derlying these measures of the bond thereexists a general factor called socialization,and that these elements along with otherundefined elements of the bond are nega-tively correlated with delinquency be-cause delinquency is negatively correlatedwith the larger construct of socialization.

One criticism of the communalityanalysis presented above is that categoriesof bond measures containing a largernumber of measures may be expected tobe associated with more variance in thecriterion because of their number alone.

In addition, the use of multiple indicatorsof each bond element does not allow for asimple presentation of control theory. Todeal with these problems, scales wereformed for each bond element and thecommunality analysis was again per-formed.

Scales were constructed by examiningthe correlation matrix and determiningwhich items within an element such asattachment or commitment were posi-tively correlated with each other. Appen-dix B describes the measures used in Ta-bles 3, 4, 5, and 6. The correlation matrixand alpha reliability coefficients for eachscale are presented in Table 3. The com-mitment and belief scales were difficult toconstruct because the items which wereinitially chosen to operationally representan element formed scales with unac-ceptably low alphas. Only scales with ac-ceptable reliabilities are reported here.For the commitment scale the dating itemdid not form a scale with the occupationaland educational aspiration items. Theproportion of variance of delinquency in-volvement explained by a scale formedfrom all three items was less than thatexplained by dating alone. One interpre-tation of this is that involvement in datingmay represent a dimension of the bondwhich is independent of the other parts ofcommitment, as the low communality ofdating in the factor analysis in the follow-ing section would indicate.

The honesty and guilt indices formed ascale with an alpha of .22. Despite theallusions to the relationship of conscienceand superego development to belief(Hirschi, 1969:87, 200), the data did notsupport combining these measures into a

Table 3. Correlation Matrix and Alpha Coefficients for Scaled Bond Measures

-— _ _ 3 4 Alpha^

1. Attachment2. Commitment3. Involvement4. Belief5. Delinquency

1.32I«.403*.435*

-.360*

1.205*.193*

-.137*

1.192

-.241

-.319*

.54

.59

.77

.87

.85

• p s .01." This is an approximation based on code book data for item means and standard deviations, and the total

scale mean and standard deviation, using an adaptation of the formula for KR20. Estimates of the reliability ofseveral subscaies made by Patrick O'Maliey (personal communication, August 30. 1979), assuming thatmeasurement error is equal at each time (i.e., each data collection) and that errors are uncorrelated, rangefrom .85 for a scale composed of items related to delinquent behavior in school to the low .50s for otherscales.

530

simple index. The correlation betweenhonesty and guilt was .129 and the coeffi-cient between guilt and delinquency was-.015. The guilt item was deleted from theanalysis and the homogeneity coefficientof .87 shown for belief in Table 3 refers tothe reliability of the honesty index. Thezero-order correlation between the hon-esty measure and delinquency is —.319,in the direction and magnitude predictedby Hirschi.

In Table 3 the correlation matrix showsthat the scaled bond elements are associ-ated with each other and that each ele-ment is negatively related to delinquencyto about the same degree as was reportedby Hirschi (1969). The proportion of totalexplained variance of the four bond ele-ments taken together as shown in Table 4declined to . 174 because of the exclusionof the dating item from the commitmentscale.^ The unique variance explained byeach scaled element remained small,ranging from .000 to .034, indicating thatincrementally each bond element adds lit-tle to the explanation of delinquency inrelation to the total amount of varianceexplained.

Tabie 4. Squared Zero-Order Correlations andUnique Contributions of ScaledElements of the Bond

Element

AttachtnentCommitmentInvolvementBeliefR"

r=

.130*

.019*

.062*

.102*

Unique variance

.034

.000

.012

.032.174

• p ̂ .01

INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOND

Our variables were chosen as reasonablemeasures of Hirschi's constructs, andconsiderable efforts were taken to exam-ine the psychometric properties of thesevariables. The items assumed to represent

^ The association of extensive dating with a host ofyouthiiji behaviors which do not conform to con-ventional adult values is well-supported in the lit-erature (see Hirschi, 1969:163-71; Galvin, 1975; andColeman, 1961). However, Bealer, Willits, andMaida (1965) have argued that failure to adopt one ormore conventioDal values does not preclude conform-ity to others.


elements of the social bond were factoranalyzed using a principle componentanalysis and varimax factor rotation toexamine their underlying structure. Wewould expect that four elements repre-senting attachment, commitment, in-volvement, and belief would emerge asfactors. The structure of the bond, how-ever, takes a different form from that im-plied in Causes of Delinquency.

Table 5 shows the results of a seven-factor principal components solution withvarimax rotation. Although a scree testimplied that fewer factors might have beenrotated, the conceptual clarity of theseven-factor solution led us to use it forthis portion of the analysis (seven eigen-values were greater than 1,0),

The positive and negative school indi-ces and the academic achievement indexhave high loadings on the first factor(Table 5), which might be termed attach-ment to school. The second and thirdfactors represent status or achievementorientation and appear related to Hirschi'sconcept of commitment. Those individu-als who have high aspirations, are certainof their academic abilities, and want toattend college score high on factor II, Cor-respondingly, the vocational items in-cluding job training and military or vo-cational training are negatively loaded onthis factor. Boys scoring high on the thirdfactor have low academic-ability self-concepts, low aspirations, and unclear oc-cupational plans. Those represented onthis low-status orientation factor are alsounlikely to expect to complete high schoolor attend college.

The fourth factor appears to tap schoolinvolvement, including the positiveschool-attitudes index and the feeling thatteachers take a personal interest in thatindividual. This dimension also taps a"motivational" element, in which theyouth is willing to discuss homework withfriends and voluntarily do extra schoolwork.

The final three factors explain only asmall portion of the remaining variance.Factor V relates to parental attachment.Factor VI suggests the existence of apeer-attachment element of the socialbond. The dating element also appears onfactor VI, suggesting that this dimension

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY

Table 5. Varimax Rotated Factor Structure of Measures Related to HirschFs Constructs

531

CLOSMOMCLOSFATHHOWIMPFTIMWFRNPOSSCHINEOSCHIACAACHIABILCONTCHINTRDUNASPICLAROCPLRCVOJTCOMPHSRCVMILTRCVVOCATNDCOLMADECOLPDATEINDTIMEHWDSCHWFRXTRASCHHONESTIGUILTIN

I

.207

.068

.054

.068

.565-.550

.748

.132

.028

.215

.021-.057

.114

.026-.082

.153-.126-.332-.053

.114

.103

.799

.328

11

-.008-.023

.076-.023

.003-.213

.055

.443

.019

.419

.161-.720

.014-.659-.682

.443

.009-.191-.001-.033

.064

.026

.015

III

-.006-.033-.027

.036-.173

.303-.141-.354

.016-.481-.505-.052-.689

.043-.044-.572-.176

.019

.ni-.046-.050-.067

.177

IV

-.088-.160-.016-.008

.471-.203

.149

.328

.568

.112-.044

.077-.031

.038-.008-.147-.033

.016-.190

.701

.737

.010

.076

V

.771

.805

.073-.049

.198-.167

.057-.080

.273-.092

.057-.036

.059-.008

.039

.043

.107

.071-.086

.004

.039

.136-.091

VI

.061-.007

.726

.777

.090-.041

.057

.041

.128

.054-.030

.051

.041

.004

.002

.037

.006

.365

.091

.024-.094-.107

.054

VII

.042

.001

.024-.005

.097

.119

.121

.135-.077

.070-.108-.001-.046

.012

.017

.088

.802

.030-.057-.004

.064-.001

.575

h=

.650

.679

.543

.612

.628

.524

.626

.473

.421

.482

.299

.534

.496

.438

.476

.580

.703

.286

.134

.508

.575

.662

.487

NOTE: Complete names for variables and sample items included in indexes are provided in Appendix A.

taps a more comprehensive concept ofsociability in which the youth chooses toassociate not only with his male peers butalso with members of the opposite sex.Factor VII is difficult to interpret and rep-resents little of the common variance. Theonly item with a high loading indicateswhether the youth had made collegeplans. This item was chosen to showwhether the youth was able to perceivethe litik between educational aspirationsand actually attending college. It wouldhave been expected to load on the secondfactor, and the failure to do so may beinterpreted as an indication that attitudesand behavior are not always linked, orthat too many factors have been ex-tracted.

Because the four elements of the socialbond representing attachment, commit-ment, involvement, and belief did not ap-pear as separate factors, a new interpreta-tion of the bond appears necessary. Wefind factors representing parts or compo-rients of the social bond, sucli as the at-tachmeiit tp school and school involve-inent, high and low status comtnitments,and parental and peer attachments. Thedating and belief items also did not appearas factors^ DatingJsad a moderate negative

loading on attachment to school and thehigh-status career orientation but was un-related to the low-status career stream.This is important because a host of non-productive juvenile activities which in-clude dating, drinking, and cruisingaround in a car are thought to preventyouths from making investments in con-ventional behavior. While this is partiallysupported in these data, concomitantly,dating is largely unrelated to all of thefactors as a whole (h'' = .29). The lowcommunality of dating suggests that itshould be represented separately in asocial-control model.

These results suggest a more complexinterpretation of the social bond than thatpresented by Hirschi. The emergence of astrong factor involvitig the school accordswith other research which indicates that inadolescence the peer structure of boys is amajor locus of influence (Greenberg, 1977;Coleman, 1961; Smelser and Halpem,1978; Polk and Schafer, 1972). The pres-ence of this school-related factor is alsoconsistent with the view that one functionof the school is to assist young people inthe transition to adult social roles. Schoolserves as a mechanism in which aspira-tions formed earlier in life are translated

532

into concrete achievement goals. Natu-rally, conclusions derived from any factoranalysis are largely determined by whichvariables are chosen for analysis. WhileHirschi's analysis reflects a concern withparental, educational, peer, belief, andaspirational items, it is grounded on thepremise that the parental relationship is animportant determinant of the later ele-ments of the social bond. Thus theemergence of school-related factors is inpart a function of the number of school-related items selected, and it is also indic-ative of the relative strength of those itemsin a factor analysis of the social bond.

A factor representing a vocationalorientation implies that there is a group ofyouths bonded to society, but in some-what lower status positions. This factorappears to accord with some speculationby Polk (1975) that the relationship be-tween social status and socialization in-cludes lower social status youths who arenot involved in an alternative youth cul-ture system. The zero-order correlationsof dating with a scaled measure of com-mitment and vocational orientation (de-scribed in a later section of the report) areclose to zero (.000 and .085, respectively).These results do not demonstrate theability of commitment to conventionalgoals to exclude dating or the preoccupa-tion of those vocationally oriented withactivities which are unrelated to futuregoals.

The emergence of the honesty index onthe school-attachment dimension con-tradicts Hirschi, who hypothesized thatthe adherence to conventional socialvalues should be related to attachment toparents. This is consistent with researchwhich suggests that, as society becomesmore complex, socialization functionswhich once belonged to the family are as-sumed by educational institutions(Smelser and Halpern, 1978; Parsons,1959).

The variety of items in the factoranalysis loading on the first factor (at-tachment to school) indicates that youthswith a positive relationship to school aremaking investments in conventional pat-terns of behavior. This is congruent withthe thesis that school does have a so-cializing function in which values are


reinforced and also with a social controlhypothesis that school involvement repre-sents a primary group process in whichsocialization occurs in successful, con-ventional social interaction.

In summary, some of HirschFs postu-lated dimensions emerge as distinct fac-tors, but the general picttire of the compo-nents of the bond is altered. What thissuggests is that it may be more appropri-ate to reconceptualize the nature of thebond.

A SIMPLE MULTIVARIATE MODEL OF THESOCIAL BOND

We constructed a path model whichstructured the multivariate examination ofHirschi's four elements of the bond (Fig-ure 1), despite doubts about the elements'utility raised by the communality andfactor analyses. Rather than simply argu-ing, as did Hirschi (1969:75), that socialclass is not important to delinquency, weconsider socioeconomic class and abilityas prior or exogenous variables whosecauses are unanalyzed, but examine directand indirect effects of these variables viaelements of the bond. The contributions ofthe four elements of social control theoryare also assessed with SES and abilityused as statistical controls. Thus this"simple" model may be considered amodification of Hirschi's original formu-lation. However, if the hypothesized ef-fects do not emerge, then notions of classand ability differences in socialization canbe discarded and Hirschi's theory re-turned to its original form. Appendix Bdescribes the indices which are analyzedin Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Table 6 shows the decomposition of ef-fects according to the model in Figure 1,and Table 7 shows the direct path coeffi-cients according to the model.' The re-

•' Path analysis was used to examine the effects ofcomponents of the model described in Figure 1 ondelinquency outcomes. Central to our analysis is anunderstanding of the terms total associations, totalcontributions, direct contribution, and indirect con-tributions (Alwin and Hauser, 1975; Gottfredson,1978). The total association is the zero order correla-tion between two variables, while the total contribu-tion is the standardized partial regression coefficient(Beta weight) in a regression equation which includesall potential explanatory variables. The direct con-


Achl

I^vo

Beli

. V . .

lvem

ef

e n t

Delinquency

Figure 1. Simple Multivariate Model of the Social Bond

Table 6. Decomposition of EfFects According to thePath Model Involving Social ControlTheory Elements of the Bond

IndependentvariableBackground

SESAbihty

BondAttachmentCommitmentInvolvementBelief

Totalassociation

.026-.024

-.360*-.137'-.248*-.319*

Totaleffect

.044-.043

-.234'-.069*-.113*-.206*

Directeffect

.103*-.060*«

- .234*- 069**-.113*-.206*

NOTE: R^ - .188 residual =* p « .01

** p « .05

ûlts itnply that each of the social controltheory, variables makes significant directcontributions to the explanation of delin-quent behavior even when SES and abilityare statistically controlled, and that noneof the contributions is negligible evenwhen other social control variables areconsidered simultaneously. The direct andindirect contributions of the backgroundvariables (SES and ability) are of interest.As noted by Hirschi (1969), social classhas a tiny and nonsignificant total associ-ation with delinquency. When other vari-ables are considered simultaneously,however, SES paradoxically makes amodest but significant positive contribu-tion to the amount of self-reported delin-quent behavior, Hartshorne and May's

tribution is the Beta weight in a regression equationwhich includes the causally prior but not interveningvariables at that stage, or inclusion level (cf. Nie etal., 1975:375) of the equation, while the inditect ef-fects ate those effects which are transmitted via in-termediary variables.

Studies in Deceit (1928) provides impor-tant insight into this relationship by doc-umenting the association between honestyand intelligence. Youth who are fromhigher status backgrounds and are moreintelligent may report their deviant be-havior more completely, accounting forthe relationship between socioeconomicstatus, intelligence, and delinquency,'

Social class is a significant factor in ex-plaining the levels of commitment and ofmoderately significant importance in ex-plaining levels of attachment and in-volvement. Ability also makes moderatelysized and significant positive contribu-tions to attachment and belief, and it has amajor effect on the level of commitment.This outcome accords well with Hirschf stheoretical account, in which ability is as-sumed to influence levels of delinquentbehavior primarily because it affects thecommitment of youth to conventional at-tainment goals. It should be kept in mindthat commitment as measured in the pres-ent research refers largely to high levelsof academic and occupational aspirations.In short, the results correspond withtheory in implying that students of lowability and social class are less committedto conventional goals, presumably be-cause those goals are beyond their reach,and that as a consequence of loweredcommitment, these students are free toengage in delinquent behavior.

In spite of the generally positive results,these findings are far from satisfactory forthree reasons. First, the proportion of

•* The book by Hartsbome and May, Studies inDeceit (1928) was made known to the mithor by ananonymous reviewer.


Table 7. Standardized and Unstandardized Path Coefficients in Social Control Model of Delinquency

variable

BackgroundSESAbility

BondAttachmentCommitmentInvolvementBelief

Residual

Attachment

Beta (b)

.122(.006)*

.149(.O58)*

.053

.973

Commitment

Beta (b)

.287(.006)«

.315(.O57)«

.260

.860

Involvement

Beta (b)

.092(.002)*

.017(.0O4)

.010

.999

BeUef

Beta (b)

.006(.000)

.214(.023)«

.047

.976

Delinquency

Beta (b)

.103(.000)*-.060(.002)"

-.234(-.O19)*-.0m-M2)"-.H3(-.O16)*-.206(-.059)«

.188

.901

*p e .01.** p >£ .05.

variance in delinquency explained by themodel is not large—19%. This is small incomparison with the proportion explainedusing all twenty-three variables examinedin Table 5, primarily because the predic-tive power of the individual variables wasravaged by constructing scales which ac-corded closely with Hirschi's theoreticalstatement. In particular, because datingdid not scale with the commitment vari-ables as Hirschi appears to imply it would,this variable could not be used. (Scoring ittogether with other measures of commit-ment results in a much lower reliability ofthat scale. The alpha reliability of thescale used was .59, and when dating isadded this drops to .46.) Second, thefactor-analysis results imply that an alter-native set of bond elements would morefaithfully represent the structure of thevariables involved. And third, the modeldoes not explicitly take into account thewell-established finding that school gradesare inversely related to delinquency(Hirschi, 1969:111-20; Silberberg and Sil-berberg, 1971; Bachman, O'Malley, andJohnston, 1978), which implies that themodel is misspecified. The next sectiondescribes analysis of a reformulatedmodel designed to remedy these defects.

A COMPLEX MODEL OF THE SOCIAL BOND

In the reformulated model (Figure 2) thebond elements are chosen to more faith-fully represent the bond components andstructure derived from interpretation ofthe factor and communaiity analyses.*

* The measures used in the remainder of thisanalysis are presented in the bottom portion of Table

Since Hirschi did not present a mul-tivariate model of the social bond, themodel here can be challenged on thegrounds that the specification of the modelis incorrect. However, this should indi-cate the general difficulty of constructingmodels from verbal descriptions oftheories. Socioeconomic status and abilityare again treated as exogenous back-ground variables because s ta tus-attainment research (Blau and Duncan,1967; Haller and Portes, 1973) implies thatSES and ability affect the nature of pa-rental socialization, which in turn affectseducational and occupational aspirationsand attachment to school. The relation-ship of ability to educational aspirations,school attachment, and grades throughparental attachment is ^so informed bythe status-attainment model. Parental at-tachment was regarded as the foundationof the social bond. Thus, the model showsparental attachment as causally prior toand directly linked with commitment toeducational and occupational aspirations,dating, attachment to school, and in-volvement. While factor analysis saysnothing about the causal ordering of vari-ables, belief was placed after the previousblock of variables because of the loadingof the belief items on the attachment-to-school factor. This suggests that accep-tance of conventional social values maybe the consequence of a youth's belief inthe efficacy of education in pursuing fu-ture goals, although the relationship could

5. Dr. Travis Hirschi reviewed an early draft of thispaper and did not criticize the specification of themodel.


Figure 2. Complex Model of the Social Bond

be reversed. Belief is treated as a separateelement because it is conceptually distinctfrom attachment to school.

The revised model of social controltheory explains 32.5% of the variance indelinquency. With 13 fewer variables, theamount of variance in delinquency ex-plained is comparable to that explained inthe 23-item regression analysis presentedearlier in Tables 1 and 2. Compared to thesimple social control model shown in Fig-ure 1, the more complex model of Figure 2explains an additional 14% of the vari-ance.

Table 8 shows the decomposition of ef-fects according to the revised model andTable 9 shows the path coefficients. Pa-jental attachment and school attachmentboth have substantial negative total anddirect effects on delinquency, net of othervariables in the model; and dating hassubstantial positive total and direct ef-fects. Grades, involvement, and beliefhave smaller but nevertheless statisticallysignificant total and direct effects on de-linquency. In contrast to the earlier model(Figure 1), the revised model impliesmoderate positive net (direct) effects ofSES and ability. Grades make a moderatenegative direct contribution, as does in-volvement. In the context of the revisedmodel, commitment to a vocationalcareer, commitment to college and ahigh-status occupation, and peer attach-ment make no statistically significantcontributions to the explanation of delin-quency, implying that their zero-order as-sociation may be regarded as spurious.

In social control theory, the peer rela-tions of delinquents are characterized bytheir low level of social skills (Hirschi,1969). The lack of a relationship betweenpeer attachment and delinquent behaviortherefore refiects the unimportance offriends to delinquent youth. This illus-trates an important difference betweensocial control theory and other delin-quency theories which posit a central rolefor peer relations (Hansell and Wia-trowski, 1980).

Some of the other results in Tables 8and 9 should be highlighted. First, exceptfor belief and grades in general, the coeffi-cients of determination (R'') are generallysmall, implying that the residuals (thecontributions of unmeasured variablesand measurement error) are large. Thismeans, in short, that even the revisedmodel allows much room for improve-ment. Second, ability has strong positivetotal and direct effects on grades, andmoderate positive total and direct effectson school attachment, and a moderatenegative effect on dating. Parental at-tachment has fairly strong positive effectson school attachment, involvement, andbelief (as well as delinquency), implyingthat even for adolescents who are wellinto their high-school years, parental at-tachment exerts considerable influence.

The proportion of variance in beliefwhich was explained is substantial incomparison to other elements of the bond.This analysis makes possible a compari-son of the effects of parental versus schoolattachment on belief. The path coefficient


Table 8. Decomposition of Effects of Revised Model of Social Control Theory

SESABILITYPARATTGRADETMDATEINDSCHLATTVOCORNTINVOLVECOMMITPEERATTBELIEF

Total

tion

.025- .026- .295-.214

.372-.367

,042- .248

.0&3,000

- .319

PARATT

Total Dir.

.062* .062*- .042 - ,042

GRADETM1

Total

.038

.441*--092*

Dir.

.032

.445*- . 0 9 2 '

DATEIND

Total

- .023-.130*- .017

Dir.

- .022-.130*-.017

SCHATT

Total Dir.

.094* .076*

.193* .205*.292* .292*

VOCORNT

Total Dir.

- . 123* - . 123*- .118* - .118*

.015 .015

for school attachment is much larger thanthe coefficient for the path from parentalattachment to belief. This result is ex-plained in part by an examination of Table8, in which the associations are decom-posed. Table 8 shows that parental at-tachment affects school attainment, whichis strongly related to the level of belief,implying that part of the effects of parentalattachment on belief is transmittedthrough school attachment.

DISCUSSION

Several limitations of the present researchrequire comment. First, we assessed thecontributions of elements of the bond in away which parallels as closely as possibleHirschi's (1969) original research. Theself-report delinquency measure used inHirschi's research included items like"Have you ever taken a car for a ridewithout the owner^s permission?" Such anitem taps delinquent behavior for a timeperiod prior to the collection of data. Wehave followed suit here and used ret-rospective self-reports of delinquent be-havior collected with measures of ele-ments of the bond. Our measure of delin-quent behavior asks for reports on be-havior over the past three years, but theschool performance measure (grades) re-fers only to the past year. This means thatthe causal ordering implied by our pathmodels is, for these data at least, ques-tionable. This is a limitation which un-dermines confidence in causal interpreta-tions in the present research. In the fu-ture, longitudinal analysis should be di-rected at making explicit the causalordering of variables.

A second potential limitation is the use

of a single, global measure of delinquency.This measure contains some items per-taining to delinquent behavior in school,and it is possible that the apparent influ-ence of attachment to school and otherschool-linked variables on delinquencymay be due only to the inclusion of theseitems. At the same time, however. Gold(1970) and Faine (1974) have carefully ex-amined the dimensionality of self-reportdata similar to the kind used here, andhave concluded that little is to be gainedby use of more than a single dimension.

Despite these limitations, the develop-ment of the revised model produced sev-eral important results. The revised modelimplies that the low correlations betweensocial class and ability and delinquencyand the emergence of the positive directeffects reported are spurious in the con-text of other variables which are includedin the equation to explicate the relation-ship to delinquency. Therefore, a sub-stantive interpretation of the effects of so-cial class and ability will not be offered.Parental attachment and school attach-ment have a strong negative relation withdelinquency, whereas for grades the coef-ficient was moderately negative, as wouldbe predicted by control theory. Datingwas strongly related to delinquency, indi-cating that those boys who dated morewere involved to a greater extent with de-linquency.

The pattern of results which emergedfor our revised measures of commitmentand involvement is important. Our com-mitment variable did not exhibit the strongnegative effects predicted by Hirschi'scontrol theory; thus, although the presentresults confirm a negative association ofadherence to conventional "success" or


INVOLVE

Total

,094*.013

- .222*

Dir,

,081-,022,222*

COMMIT

Total Dir.

- .033 - ,028,051 .047

- . 0 9 0 ' - . 090 '

PEERATT

Total

-.010.046.066*

Dir.

-.014,049,066*

BELIEF

Total

.009

.217*

.229"-.025- . 0 9 I '

,500*. 0 3 •>

-,022.011.001

Dir.

-.039,127-,090-

-.025- .091*

,500*.033

-.022,011

-.001

DEL.INQ

Total

.044-.044- . 2 9 8 '- 0 9 7 '

.334-- , 2 3 9 '

,011-,082"

.033,004

-,125*

Dir.

.095*

.096*- , 182"- lOO*

,323*-,178*

,015- .085-

.034,004

-,125*

Alfriia

.78,76

.92

.85

.54

.77

.S9

.62

.87

*p«.Ol.**ps.O5.

attainment goals with delinquency, thatreduced relationship may be consideredunimportant. This may be due to the re-dundancy of commitment with other mea-sures in the expanded models or to its lowreliability. The strength of the involve-ment relationship is also reduced, but stillsignificant and in the predicted direction.

The moderate and significant negativepath coefficient for belief in our complexmodel implies that when other variablesare considered simultaneously, con-ventional value orientations are negativelyrelated to the incidence of delinquent be-havior. In short, a lack of conventionalvalue orientations is important in the ex-planation of delinquency.

Our model subscribes to the validity ofthe component concepts introduced inCauses of Delinquency, but questions theutility of that particular set of' elements ofsocialization. In the context of statisticalcontrols for ability, social class, andgrades in school, the bond elements whichemerge as important explanatory vari-ables are attachment to parents, dating.

attachment to school, belief, and in-volvement, A model incorporating thesebond elements appears more isomorphicwith theories of adolescent socializationwhich treat education as important in theintegration of the youth into adult sociallife.

In considering how all the elements ofthe bond operate simultaneously, a dif-ferent picture emerges than when applyingsimpler forms of analysis. Our examinationof the total association, or the zero-ordercorrelations, shows that large correlationswith Hirschfs four bond elements do exist(with the exception of the element ofcommitment to college and a high-statuscareer). When those components in thecomplex model are considered simulta-neously and with controls for ability andschool grades, however, it can be seenthat several components are more impor-tant than others. Our results imply thatmodels such as those depicted in Figures 2and 3 will be more adequate and par-simonious than that originally formulatedby Hirschi.

Figure 3. Modified Complex Model of the Social Bond


t S. 5̂ J-

S853

S8SS

q q

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY

The emergence of schools as primarysocializing institutions reflects the di-vision of labor in a complex society,where specialized social institutions per-form functions of education, socialization,and preparation for adult social roleswhich previously occurred within thefamily (Parsons, 1959; Smelser and Hal-pern, 1978). The bonds to society are thusformed not only in the family, as Hirschiargues, but in part in an educational con-text, as this research demonstrates. Socialclass and ability are included in our finalmodel because of their relationship withelements of the bond which in turn affectdelinquency involvement: social class andability are treated as exogenous variableswhich affect both parental attachment anda set of school-related components of thesocial bond, which in turn affect belief.Belief was placed after the parental andschool-related items because of itstheoretical relationship to familial so-cialization and empirical relationship tothe educational measures discussed ear-lier. 4n turn, the background, parental,Sghgol, and belief measures predict delin-guencjînyolvement. The resulting modelof tfte social bond is more complex thanthat shown in Figure 1 and accords withtheory and research on the effects ofschooling and adolescence.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SAMPLE ITEMS

The following items were used in the study. Sam-ple items which were used to constitute scales arepresented below.

1. CLOSMOM = Index to Closeness to Mothera. How close do you feel to your mother?b. How much do you want to be like the kind of

person your mother (or femaJe guardian) is?2. CLOSFATH = Index of Closeness to Father

a. How close do you feel to your father?b. How much do you want to be like your father

(or male guardian) when you are an adult?3. HOWIMPF = How important are Friends

a. How important would you say friends are inyour life?

4. TIMWFRN = Time with Friendsa. How important is it to spend time with your

friends?5. POSSCHI = Positive School Attitudes Index

a. I feel satisfied with school because 1 learnthings I want to know.

b. I believe school will help me be a matureadult.

539

«. NEGSCHI = Negative School Attitudes Indexa. School is very borii^ for me, and Tm not

learning what I feel is important-b. 1 feel the things 1 do at school waste my time

more than the things I do outside of school.7. ACAACHI = Academic Achievement Index

a. Studying constantly in order to become a welleducated person.

b. Studying hard to get good grades in school.8. ABILCON = Self-concept of Academic Ability

a. How do you rate yourself in school abilitycompared with those in your grade at school?

b. How close do you come to doing the bestwork you are able to do in school?

9. TCHINTER = Teacher Interesta. How often do teaîers take an interest in my

work? \10. DUNASPI = Duncan Ranking of Aspired Occu-

pation11. CLAROCPL = Clarity of Occupational Plans

a. How likely is it that your plans wUl work outthis way?

12. RCVOJT = Receive On-The-Job-Traininga. How likely are you to receive on-the-job

training?13. COMPHS = Complete High School

a. How likely are you to complete high school?14. RCVMILT = Receive Military Training

a. How likely are you to receive job training inthe military?

15. RCVVOC= Receive Vocational Traininga. How likely are you to attend a technical or

vocational school?16. ATNDCOL = Attend College

a. How likely are you to attend college?17. MADECOLP = Made College Plans

a. Have you made plans to attend college?18. DATEIND = Dating Index

a. On the average, how many evenings a weekduring the school year do you usually go outfor fun and recreation?

b. On the average, how often do you go out ondates?

19. TIMEHW = Time Spent on Homeworka. About how many hours do you spend in an

average week on all your homework, includ-ing both in and out of school?

20. DSCHWFR = Discuss Homework with Friendsa. Outside of homework how often do you have

discussions with friends about ideas thatcome up in your courses?

21. XTRASCH = Extra School Worka. How often are you interested enough to do

more reading or other work than the courserequired?

22. HONESTI = Honesty Indexa. Never cheating or having anything to do with

cheating situations even for a friend.b. Helping a close friend get by in a tight situa-

tion even though you may have to stretch thetruth a bit to do it.

23. GUILTIN = Guiit Indexa. I do things I feel guilty about afterwards.b. When I do wrong my conscience punishes

me.


APPENDIX A (Continued)24. SES = Socioeconomic Status—equally weighted

composite comprised ofa. Father's occupational status.b. Parent's education.c. Possessions in home.d. Number of books in home.e. Number of persons per room.

25. ABILITY = Ability Indexa. GATB Vocabulary level.b. GATB Arithmetic level.

26. GRADETM = Grades Time 1a. What was the average grade you got in your

class last year?27. Delinquency Index Items

a. Stayed out later than your parents said youshould.

b. Taken something not belonging to you worthunder $50.

c. Hurt someone badly enough to need ban-dages or a doctor.

d. Taken an expensive part of a car withoutpermission of the owner.

e. Taken part in a fight where a bunch of yourfriends are against another bunch.

f. Taken something not belonging to you worthover $50.

g. Used a knife or gun or some other thing like aclub to get something from a person.

APPENDIX BITEMS USED TO CONSTITUTE SCALES IN THE PATHANALYSIS OF THE SIMPLE AND COMPLEX MODELS OFSOCIAL BOND

The following indices used in Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9were constructed by equally weighting the compositeelements derived from Appendix A.

SES = Socioeconomic StatusABILITY = GATB Math and Verbal

Test ScoresATTACHMENT = CLOSMOM

+ CLOSFATH+ HOWIMPH+ POSSCHI+ NEGSCHI+ ACAACHI+ ABILCON+ TCHINTR

COMMITMENT = DUNASPI+ ATNDCOL

INVOLVEMENT = TIMEHW+ DSCHWFR+ X-TRASCH

BELIEF = Honesty Index

The following indices used in Tables iO and IIwere constructed by equally weighting the compositeelements derived from Appendix A.

SES

ABILITY

= SocioeconomicStatus

= GATB Math andVerbal TestScores

GRADETMDATEINDSCHLATT

BELIEF

= Parental Attach-menta. CLOSMOM

+ CLOSFATH= Grades Time 1= Dating Index= School Attach-

menta. POSSCHI

+ NEGSCHI+ ACAACHI

= VocationalOrientationala. RCVOJT

-¥ RCVMILT+ RCVVOC

= Involvementa. TIMEHW

+ DSCHWFR+ XTRASCH

= Commitmenta. DUNASPI

+ ATNDCOL= Peer Attachment

a. HOWIMPF+ TIMWFRN

= Honesty Index

NOTE; The items used to construct scales werederived from those measures of the bond presentedin Tables 2 and 3. Items were combined on the basisof theoretical parsimony and their contribution to thestability of the scale. Items which did not add to thescale stability and explanatory power of the scalewere deleted.


REFERENCES

Alwin, Duane F. and Robert M. Hauser1975 "The decomposition of effects in path

analysis." American Sociologieal Review:40:37-47.

Bachman, Jerald1975 Youth in Transition. Ann Arbor: Inter-

University Consortium for Political and So-cial Research.

Bachman, J. G., P. M. QMalley, and J. Johnston1978 Adolescence to Adulthood. Ann Arbor: In-

stitute for Social ResearchBealer, R. E., F. K. Willits, and Peter R. Maida

I%5 "The myth of a rebellious adolescent sub-culture." In L. C. Burchinal (ed.), RuralYouth in Crisis. Washington, D.C.: U. S.Department of Health, Education andWelfare.

Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan1%7 The American Occupational Structure.

New York: Wiley.Coleman, James S.

1961 The Adolescent Society. New York: FreePress.

Dentler, Robert A. and Lawrence J. Monroe1961 "Social correlates of early adolescent

theft." American Sociological Review26:733-43.

Elliot, Delbert S. and Suzanne Ageton1979 "Reconciling race and class differences in

self-reported and official estimates of delin-quency ." Behavioral Research Institute:Mimeo.

Empey, LaMar T.1978 American Delinquency. Homewood, Il-

linois: Dorsey.Faine, J.

1974 "A multidimensional approach to under-standing varieties of delinquent behavior."Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa.(University Microfilm No. 74-21, 888).

Galvin, James1975 "Youth culture and adult success." Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Oregon.Gibbons, Don C.

1976 Delinquent Behavior. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Gold, Martin1966 "Undetected delinquent behavior." Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency3:27-46.

1970 Delinquent Behavior in the American City.Belmont, Calif,: Brooks/Cole.

Gottfredson, Gary D.1978 "Models and middles in human ecology: an

examination of high school crime rates."Center for Social Organization of Schools,The Johns Hopkins University. Report No.255.

Greenberg, David F.1977 "Delinquency and the age structure of soci-

ety." Contemporary Society 1:189-223.

Haller, William and Alejandro Portes1^3 "Status attainment processes." Sociology of

Education 46:51-91.Hansell, Stephen and Michael D. Wiatrowski

1980 "Competing conceptions of delinquent peerrelations." Center for the Study of the So-cial Organization of Schools. Center Report297. The Johns Hopkins University.

Hardt, Robert and Sandra Peterson-Hardt1977 "On determining the quality of the delin-

quency self-report method." Journal of Re-search in Crime and Delinquency14:247-61.

Hartshorne, Hugh and Mark A. May1928 Studies in Deceit. New York: Amo Press.

Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and JosephWeis

1979 "Correlates of delinquency: the illusion ofdiscrepancy between self-report and officialmeasures." American Sociological Review44:995-1014.

Hirschi, Travis1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, Calif.:

University of California Press.Hirschi, Travis and Michael Hindelang

1977 "Intelligence and delinquency: a revisionistreview." American Sociological Review42:571-86.

Nie, Nieman H., C. Hedlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins,Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Dent

1975 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nye, F. Ivan and James F. Short, Jr.1957 "Scaling delinquent behavior." American

Sociological Review 22:326-31.Parsons, Talcott

1959 "The school class as a social system: someof its functions in American society." Har-vard Educational Review 29:297-318.

Polk, Kenneth1975 "Schools and the delinquency experience."

Criminal Justice and Behavior 2:315-38.Polk, Kenneth and Walter G. Schafer

1972 Schools and Delinquency. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, andAlejandro Portes

1969 "The educational and early occupationalattainment process." American SociologicalReview 34:82-92.

Silberberg, N. E. and M. C. Silberberg1971 "School achievement and delinquency."

Review of Educational Research: 41:17-33.Simms, Ronald L.

1978 "Comment on Hirschi and Hindelang. Themeaning of the IQ-delinquency relation-ship." American Sociological Review43:268-70.

Smelser, Neil J. and Sydney Halpern1978 "The historical triangulation of family,

economy, and education." American Jour-nal of Sociology (Supplement) 84:288-315.

Documents

SOCUL CONTROL THEORY AND DELINQUENCY*