Pathways to Crime and Emerging Adulthood: Differences between Prison Inmates and Normative Young Adults in Israel

Abstract

The current study evaluates differences between inmates and normative young male adults based on the Pathways to Crime model. Research findings support the model’s assumptions, showing that inmate characteristics are consistent with the Life-Course Persistent (LCP) pathway, while the characteristics of the non-inmates are mostly consistent with the abstainers’ pathway. This investigation makes a theoretical contribution, demonstrating the model’s suitability for distinguishing between crime pathways among emerging adults. Also, emphasis is placed on emerging adulthood as an intermediate period on the path to adulthood, which can affect the evolution of crime pathways among at-risk populations.

Keywords

pathways to crime emerging adulthood youth inmates

Introduction

A great deal of research and statistical data indicate that adolescents engage in criminal activities and high-risk behaviors at higher rates than adults (e.g., Cohen-Medina & Ben-David, 2016; Ryan et al., 2013). These sources primarily focus on the delinquency and risk behaviors of teens in adolescence (ages 10–18), a period which constitutes a stage of transition from childhood to adulthood, and which is characterized by developmental changes that affect identity formation (Erikson, 1968).

These assumptions are consistent with the age-crime curve (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983), which peaks during adolescence when many adolescents experience difficulties and are in the process of forming their own identity (Aviad-Wilchek, 2005; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Shechory & Ben-David, 2010). Nevertheless, this involvement is usually limited to adolescence and does not develop into a criminal career during adulthood (Mulder et al., 2011). This period is also a crucial time in the process undergone by young offenders, dubbed the “criminological crossroads” (Thornberry et al., 2013). While most law breakers opt for a normative route upon reaching young adulthood (Farrington et al., 2012; Piquero, 2008), a minority continue their delinquent activities (Farrington, 2012) and even end up in prison. However, the journey to adulthood has drastically changed in developed nations over the last 50 years (Salvatore et al., 2012). Some researchers have noted the extension of the period between adolescence and adulthood, and identified it as “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2006; Erikson, 1968) or “prolonged adolescence” (Erikson, 1968), relating to young adults (ages 18–25).

Emerging adulthood is both a period of role transition related to school, relationships, and employment, and a more gradual maturation of individual beliefs and values (Arnett, 2000). The main developmental task in this period is to form and explore the identity of the young adult. In this period, young adults are characterized by egocentrism; a sense of detachment stemming from existing in the intermediate phase between adolescence and adulthood; instability; openness to a wide variety of possibilities; and an occupation with existential questions, spirituality, developing outlooks and views on life and the world (Arnett, 2000; Schwartz et al., 2013). Individuals at this stage who do not consider themselves “adults” are less likely to forge solid relationships and more likely to be risk takers (Nelson & Barry, 2005). The behavior of a young adult inclined to risk behaviors and involvement in criminal activities might take a turn for the worse in this period.

In Israel, this age has another special meaning. Unlike their counterparts in most western countries, Jewish young adults in Israel must enlist for mandatory military service (Shulman, Blatt & Walsh, 2006). The army period is considered a meaningful shaping period in the life of young adults. Strict and demanding, the relatively long service (2 years for females and 3 years for males) is characterized by taking responsibility, coping with physical and mental difficulties, and partial separation from the family setting—all of which let young people experience new liberties for the first time (Mayseless & Hai, 1998). This period confirms the young adult’s acceptance into society and into the adult world. Young adults involved in criminal activities who are incarcerated are usually exempted from military service. Israeli society perceives them as shirkers and worthy of condemnation.

Studies support the claim that emerging adulthood is an important new life stage (e.g., Salvatore & Taniguchi, 2012). However, there is scant literature on young adults (aged 18–25) involved in criminal activity (Farrington et al., 2012; Salvatore et al., 2012). This is even more evident in the case of young adult prison inmates in their twenties. While previous research in the area of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000) has largely addressed risky behaviors (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption, drunk driving, and dangerous sexual behaviors), research on criminal offenders during emerging adulthood is limited (for a review, see Piquero, 2008).

The purpose of the current study was to contribute to the understanding of pathways to crime taken by young adult prison inmates (aged 18–25). Our focus is on the differences between them and normative young adults, based on the principles of the Pathways to Crime model (see Caspi et al., 1993, 1994). Over the past few decades, a number of researchers have tried to distinguish between the different criminal routes taken by offenders according to sociological and personal characteristics (for a review, see Piquero, 2008). The novelty of these studies is mainly manifested in the attempt to construct typologies that combine demographic characteristics, personality variables, and so on (Kennedy et al., 2011; Shechory et al., 2011; Shechory-Bitton & Kamel, 2014).

In 1993, Moffitt developed a model according to which anti-social behavior is limited to adolescence, while chronic antisocial behavior persists throughout life. Behaviors belonging to each of the two groups differ in a number of variables that determine whether the behavior is normative or pathological. Later studies examined these initial assumptions and developed the Pathways to Crime model (see Caspi et al., 1993, 1994). The model examined various variables among children and teens, from childhood to age 18. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the model has yet to be applied to young adult prison inmates. There are three pathways in the model. One is the abstainers pathway—adolescents with no involvement in criminal activity. The two other pathways describe two primary groups of offenders: (1) adolescence limited (AL)—adolescents who were involved in criminal activity in their youth; however, this tendency gradually disappeared in adulthood and (2) life-course persistent (LCP)—a smaller and more serious group of adolescents whose involvement in criminal activity peaks during youth and then persists in adulthood, even evolving into an actual criminal career (Farrington, 2012).

The distinction between the paths focuses on differences in socio-demographic variables (e.g., family background, problematic behavior in childhood, contact with delinquent peer groups), crime characteristics (age at onset of criminality, number of arrests, and continuation of criminal activity into adulthood), and personality traits (mainly with regard to aggression levels and self control). Research findings support the model’s assumptions (e.g., Dandreaux & Frick, 2009; Pulkkinen et al., 2009). Family and social background, as well as criminality characteristics, were found to be the major factors distinguishing between the various pathways (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994; Moffitt, 1993). Thus, those who belong to the “abstainers” pathway often do not form social relationships with a delinquent peer group (Boutwell & Beaver, 2008; Brezina & Piquero, 2007), experience supportive family and school involvement, and hold moral beliefs (Chen & Adams, 2010; Johnson & Menard, 2012). Normally, when they reach the stage of young adulthood, they find their place in society and take responsibility for their life.

Adolescents who belong to the AL pathway usually have mostly normal and healthy childhood backgrounds. As children they displayed antisocial behavior, although not to a degree perceived as deviant. Their relationship with their parents was mostly close (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994; Moffitt, 1993). The main explanation for their behavior coincides with puberty characteristics related to social pressure and as a result of confusion experienced through the role-less years between biological maturation and transitioning into the adult world by means of access to mature privileges and responsibilities (Moffitt, 2006).

Adolescents who belong to the LCP pathway are characterized as having come from low socioeconomic background and families in which parenting was inadequate or harsh and relationships weak. Antisocial behaviors and patterns were observed from childhood, including negative relationships outside the family and low learning skills (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994; Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt et al., 2001).

The cumulative effects of the negative transactions between individual and environment result in a personality characterized by physical aggressiveness and antisocial behaviors that continues through midlife (Moffitt et al., 2001). Based on the model’s premises, offenders who were incarcerated are expected to fit the characteristics of those in the LCP pathway.

Various studies indicate a correlation between aggression and socio-demographic characteristics related mainly to family background: low parental attachment (Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, 2012), negative parenting style and lack of parental supervision (Brotman et al., 2009), exposure to domestic violence during childhood (Ferguson et al., 2008), behavior problems, family problems during childhood, and violent crime in adulthood (Dandreaux & Frick, 2009; Ehrensaft et al., 2004; Huesmann et al., 2009; Theobald et al., 2013). High aggression was also found related to risk behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse (Doran et al., 2012). Similar relationships were found between low self control and risk behaviors (substance abuse, reckless sexual behavior, and dangerous driving) (Boer et al., 2011) as well as between high aggression (Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Ridder et al., 2012; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010), socialization with delinquent peer groups (McGloin & O’Neill-Shermer, 2009), and involvement in crime (Rebellon et al., 2008; Vohs & Faber, 2007).

In the current study, the principles of the Pathways to Crime model (Caspi et al., 1993, 1994) were used in order to examine the differences between young adults serving a prison sentence and young adults defined as part of the normative population. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that differences would be found in the background characteristics of young adult prison inmates and normative young adults (henceforth, the non-inmates group). We posited three hypotheses:

Inmates, more than normative participants, would be found to have been subjected to negative social influences (e.g., contact with delinquent peers) during puberty, to come from underprivileged family backgrounds, and to describe themselves as displaying deviant behavior in childhood as well as demonstrating more substance use.

In terms of personality traits, inmate participants would have lower self control and higher levels of aggression.

Negative social influences during puberty, underprivileged family backgrounds, and deviant behavior in childhood would be related with lower self control and higher levels of aggression.

Methods

Participants

The study was conducted with 219 young adult males. Of all the participants, 114 were prison inmates and 105 non-inmate young adults. The inmates’ group included 15 (13.2%) inmates sentenced for drug offenses, 40 (35%) for property offenses, 45 (39.5%) for violence offenses, and 14 (12.3%) for sex offenses. Table 1 describes subject demographic data and examines differences between the two groups.

Table 1.

Demographic Data and Differences between the Groups (N = 219).

		Non inmates (n = 105)	Inmates					Difference
		Non inmates (n = 105)	Total (n = 14)	Drugs (n = 15)	Property (n = 40)	Violence (n = 45)	Sex (n = 14)	Inmates–non inmates	Inmate groups
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	t(217)	F(3,110) (η²)
Age	18–25	19.81 (1.27)	21.11 (1.90)	22.13 (1.64)	21.13 (1.92)	20.84 (1.98)	20.79 (1.58)	5.89***	1.93 (0.050)
		N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	χ ²	χ ²
Nationality	Jewish	99 (94.3)	90 (78.9)	10 (66.7)	26 (65.0)	40 (88.9)	14 (100.0)	χ²(1) = 10.88***	χ²(3) = 12.45**
Nationality	Non-Jewish	6 (5.7)	24 (21.1)	5 (33.3)	14 (35.0)	5 (11.1)	–	χ²(1) = 10.88***	χ²(3) = 12.45**
Country of birth	Israel	97 (92.4)	86 (75.4)	12 (80.0)	30 (75.0)	33 (73.3)	11 (78.6)	χ²(1) = 11.42***	χ²(3) = 0.35
Country of birth	Other	8 (7.6)	28 (24.6)	3 (20.0)	10 (25.0)	12 (26.7)	3 (21.4)	χ²(1) = 11.42***	χ²(3) = 0.35
Marital status	Single	104 (99.0)	104 (91.2)	15 (100.0)	34 (85.0)	42 (93.3)	13 (92.9)	χ²(1) = 7.01**	χ²(3) = 3.68
Marital status	Other	1 (1.0)	10 (8.8)	–	6 (15.0)	3 (6.7)	1 (7.1)	χ²(1) = 7.01**	χ²(3) = 3.68
Religiosity	Secular	67 (65.0)	37 (33.0)	7 (46.7)	16 (41.0)	11 (25.0)	3 (21.4)	χ²(2) = 23.45***	χ²(6) = 11.18
	Traditional	20 (19.4)	51 (45.5)	8 (53.3)	17 (43.6)	21 (47.7)	5 (35.7)
	Religious	16 (15.5)	24 (21.4)	–	60 (15.4)	12 (27.3)	6 (42.9)
Education	Lower than secondary	14 (13.6)	83 (81.4)	11 (73.3)	30 (88.2)	33 (80.5)	9 (75.0)	χ²(1) = 94.45***	χ²(3) = 2.04
Education	Full secondary and higher	89 (86.4)	19 (18.6)	4 (26.7)	4 (11.8)	8 (19.5)	3 (25.0)	χ²(1) = 94.45***	χ²(3) = 2.04
Military service	Did not serve	15 (14.6)	93 (85.3)	12 (80.0)	35 (92.1)	36 (83.7)	10 (76.9)	χ²(1) = 106.10***	χ²(3) = 2.56
Military service	Served (partial/full)	88 (85.4)	16 (14.7)	3 (20.0)	3 (7.9)	7 (16.3)	3 (23.1)	χ²(1) = 106.10***	χ²(3) = 2.56

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The entire sample was comprised of young Jewish males, primarily Israeli-born and single. In contrast, the inmates were more traditional/religious than the mainly secular non-inmates group, less educated, and less had served in the army. No differences were found between the inmates by type of offense. More specifically, inmates were about 21 years old on average, with non-inmates about 20 years of age. Most were Jewish, Israeli-born, and single, in both groups. About a third of the inmates were secular, compared with about two-thirds of the non-inmates. Education was lower than secondary for most inmates, and was at least secondary for most non-inmates. Likewise, most inmates did not serve in the Israeli army, while most non-inmates did. The findings presented in the table indicate that significant differences were found in the demographic background characteristics of prison inmates and of the non-inmates group, but as a rule no significant differences were found among the inmate groups by offense.

Measures

Socio-demographic questionnaire: The questionnaire was designed specifically for the current study based on items used in studies that explored pathways to crime (see Caspi et al., 1993, 1994). The questionnaire examined the following information: age, marital status, education, details of the family of origin, contact with delinquent peer groups during puberty, reason for incarceration, and previous incarcerations.

The questionnaire consisted of general questions on age, family status, religiosity, educational level, military service, the family’s financial circumstances, questions on the participant’s childhood and family background (e.g., Did you spend your childhood in your parents’ home or elsewhere? Were any of your close family members involved in criminal behavior in any way?), and whether the participant was involved with delinquent peers and/or demonstrated deviant or problematic behaviors (for more details, see Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire on criminality characteristics (e.g., age at onset of criminality, first arrest, and previous incarcerations) and current and previous substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) (for details, see Table 4).

Table 2.

Differences between Research Groups by Family of Origin (N = 219).

		Non-inmates (n = 105)	Inmates (n = 114)	Difference
		N (%)	N (%)	χ²(1)
Resided in childhood	With parents	103 (98.1)	70 (61.4)	44.35***
Resided in childhood	Other (institutions, foster families, etc.)	2 (1.9)	44 (38.6)	44.35***
Economic status in childhood	Bad	4 (3.8)	20 (17.7)	25.49***
	Medium	27 (25.7)	50 (44.2)
	Good	74 (70.5)	43 (38.1)
Involvement in crime in family	No	101 (96.2)	73 (64.6)	33.71***
Involvement in crime in family	Yes	4 (3.8)	40 (35.4)	33.71***
Drugs and alcohol in family	No	96 (91.4)	79 (69.3)	16.67***
Drugs and alcohol in family	Yes	9 (8.6)	35 (30.7)	16.67***
Mental illness in family	No	99 (95.2)	95 (84.1)	7.07**
Mental illness in family	Yes	5 (4.8)	18 (15.9)	7.07**
Abuse in childhood	No	97 (92.4)	88 (77.9)	8.91**
Abuse in childhood	Yes	8 (7.6)	25 (22.1)	8.91**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Patrick et al., 2002; Tellegen, 1982): The original questionnaire contains 11 different subscales, including Self Control (Cronbach’s alpha .85) and Aggression (Cronbach’s alpha .81), The MPQ has known construct validity. The factor structure of the MPQ was validated with a factor analysis by Krueger (2000). Other research found a correspondence between a self-report of the MPQ trait scores and observer ratings (Harkness et al., 1995). In addition, it has been utilized in studies of delinquent behavior (Krueger et al., 1994) (for more details, see Patrick et al., 2002).

In the present study, we used two subscales: Self Control and Aggression. The Self Control subscale consisted of 24 items (e.g., Before I enter into a new situation, I like to find out what I can expect from it). The internal consistency of the scale was α = .83. The Aggression subscale consisted of 20 items (e.g., When I get angry I want to hit someone). The internal consistency for the scale was α = .84. For each item the participants were required to reply “Correct” (1) or “Incorrect” (0) with regard to the description presented in the item. The MPQ was translated into Hebrew (Ben-Porath et al., 1995). The cross-cultural stability of the questionnaire’s factorial structure was studied by comparing Israeli and American samples. Internal consistency analyses demonstrated satisfactory reliability of the Hebrew MPQ’s scales (see also Shechory et al., 2011; Shechory-Bitton & Kamel, 2014).

Procedure

The research proposal and the questionnaires were approved by the Internal Review Board of Bar Ilan University and by the Research Committee of the Israel Prison Service. The research procedure included two stages. At first, data were collected from the prisons inmates. Then, data were collected from young adults not involved in criminal activities.

With regard to data collection in prisons: The study included 114 male prisoners, young adults from various prisons in Israel, in which permission was given to conduct the study. In Israel, there is only one prison for youths (age up to 18). However, the authorities did not give permission to conduct the study there. Questionnaires were distributed to participants in the prisons after coordination with each prison authority. The questionnaires were distributed to each participant individually, by the first author, in a quiet spot that guaranteed privacy and anonymity. Prior to completing the questionnaires, the participants were told that the aim of the study was to expand existing knowledge about young adult prison inmates in Israel. It was explained to each participant that the questionnaires were anonymous and would be used for purposes of the study only. They were also informed that they were under no obligation to take part in the study. All inmates who agreed to participate in the study signed a letter of consent to that effect. A total of 114 inmates took part in the study. Nine inmates were found unfit due to low reading and comprehension skills, and about seven inmates refused to participate in the study.

Data collection among the non-inmates was performed after data collection in the prisons.

The sampling method was purposeful and deliberate. The control group was selected using a deliberate sampling method. The research questionnaires were distributed in an age, gender, and ethnicity matched group, endeavoring to match the traits of the non-inmates group to those of the inmates. The second author reached out to co-workers and representative of institutions (e.g., different military units and pre-military volunteering programs) in order to locate the control group sample. Before completing the questionnaires, the purpose of the study was clarified and the participants signed an informed consent form to participate in the study. The participants were told that the questionnaires are anonymous and will be used only for purposes of the study.

Results

Before analyzing differences between inmate and non-inmate groups, differences within the first group were examined by type of offense committed. As a rule, no differences were found in the crime characteristics of the inmates and in their socio-demographic characteristics, aside from the existence of previous incarcerations (a higher proportion of inmates who had committed drug and property offenses were previously incarcerated than those who had committed violent and sex offenses) and whether they had ever used drugs (more common among drug offense inmates than among property and sex offense inmates). Due to the similarity between the inmate subgroups, as well as the small number of inmates whose offense was drugs or sex (n = 15, n = 14, respectively), the subgroups were merged into one group of inmates (unrelated to type of offense). The findings presented below show the results of comparisons between the inmates group and the non-inmates group.

Differences Among the Groups by Socio-Demographic Variables

Chi-square analyses were conducted to compare the groups by socio-demographic variables, which included references to childhood and family of origin. Table 2 presents the results of the differences among the research groups by family of origin. Table 3 describes characteristics of childhood problems and social influences on the research participants by group.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Childhood Problems and Social Influences by Group (N = 219).

		Non-inmates (n = 105)	Inmates (n = 114)	Difference
		N (%)	N (%)	χ²(1)
Were you a problematic child?	No	94 (89.5)	50 (44.2)	49.76***
Were you a problematic child?	Yes	11 (10.5)	63 (55.8)	49.76***
Did others regard you as a problematic child?	No	94 (89.5)	59 (51.8)	37.03***
Did others regard you as a problematic child?	Yes	11 (10.5)	55 (48.2)	37.03***
Did you behave in an unusual manner?	No	94 (89.5)	59 (51.8)	37.03***
Did you behave in an unusual manner?	Yes	11 (10.5)	55 (48.2)	37.03***
Contact with delinquent peer groups	No	82 (78.1)	44 (38.6)	34.90***
Contact with delinquent peer groups	Yes	23 (21.9)	70 (61.4)	34.90***

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Tables 2 and 3 show that in all measures examined—personal, familial, and environmental—in the past and present, the situation of inmates is worse than that of non-inmates: residence and economic status in childhood, criminal involvement and drug and alcohol abuse in the family, mental illness in the family, being a victim of childhood abuse, behavioral deviance in childhood, and criminal involvement of peers.

Crime Measures

Examination of crime characteristics shows that for 60.2% of the inmates (N = 68), this is their first prison sentence. Inmates whose current sentence is not the first (39.8%) were incarcerated in the past between 1 and 2.62 times on average (SD = 1.41). Mean age upon the first incarceration was 15.64 (SD = 2.85). Age at onset of criminality was 14.35 (SD = 3.25).

Respondent self-report of substance use indicates significant differences between the groups in drug and alcohol abuse. Approximately 53% of the inmates reported having ever used drugs versus 19% of the non-inmates group. Approximately 22% of the inmates reported previous drug or alcohol addiction versus approximately 2% of the non-inmates group, while approximately 9% of the inmates reported current drug or alcohol addiction versus 2% of the non-inmates group. Table 4 presents the differences between the groups.

Table 4.

Criminal and Substance Use Characteristics by Group (N = 219).

		Non-inmates (n = 105)	Inmates (n = 114)	Difference
		N (%)	N (%)	χ²(1)
Ever used drugs	No	85 (81.0)	53 (46.9)	27.16***
Ever used drugs	Yes	20 (19.0)	60 (53.1)	27.16***
Previous drug or alcohol addiction	No	103 (98.1)	87 (77.7)	20.74***
Previous drug or alcohol addiction	Yes	2 (1.9)	25 (22.3)	20.74***
Current drug or alcohol addiction	No	103 (98.1)	102 (91.1)	5.12*
Current drug or alcohol addiction	Yes	2 (1.9)	10 (8.9)	5.12*

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Differences between the Groups by Self Control and Aggression

Table 5 presents averages, standard deviations, and univariate analyses of variance between the different groups for self control and aggression.

Table 5.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Analyses of Variance for Self Control and Aggression between the Research Groups (N = 219).

	Inmates	Non-inmates	F(1, 214) (η²)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	F(1, 214) (η²)
Self control	0.49 (0.24)	0.30 (0.17)	37.27*** (0.151)
Aggression	0.57 (0.17)	0.69 (0.22)	13.54*** (0.061)

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5 shows that inmates demonstrated lower levels of self control and higher levels of aggression than the non-inmates group.

In order to assess the contribution of the study variables to self control and aggression, two multiple hierarchical regression models were calculated (Table 6). In these models, the independent variables were composed of: group (1—inmates, 0—non-inmates); demographic variables (age-continuous; religiosity: 1—secular, 0—non secular; education level: 1—secondary education and higher, 0—less than secondary education; army service: 1—yes, 0—n; and economic status in childhood: 1—bad to 5—very good); crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin (as in Table 2, 1—yes, 0—no); characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood (as in Table 3, 1—yes, 0—no); and alcohol and substance use by the participants (as in Table 4, 1—yes, 0—no). In order to reduce the number of predictors, factor analysis was conducted with all but the demographic predictors: crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin, characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood, and substance use by the participants.

Table 6.

Multiple Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Self Control and Aggression (N = 219).

	Self control			Aggression
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Step 1
Group	−0.01	0.05	−0.02	0.06	0.05	0.14
Age	0.01	0.01	0.04	−0.03	0.01	−0.14*
Religiosity	0.03	0.03	0.08	0.02	0.03	0.04
Education level	0.04	0.04	0.11	−0.02	0.04	−0.04
Army service	−0.02	0.04	−0.05	−0.01	0.04	−0.03
Economic status in childhood	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.02
Crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse—family of origin	−0.06	0.03	−0.15*	0.07	0.03	0.15*
Problems and social influences in childhood	−0.09	0.03	−0.21*	0.09	0.04	0.19*
Participants’ alcohol and substance use	−0.07	0.03	−0.17*	0.08	0.03	0.18*
Adj R²	0.21***			0.27***
Step 2
Group	−0.02	0.05	−0.05	0.15	0.06	0.32*
Age	−0.03	0.02	−0.16	0.04	0.02	0.16
Religiosity	0.02	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.08
Education level	0.04	0.04	0.09	−0.01	0.04	−0.02
Army service	−0.02	0.04	−0.05	0.09	0.05	0.20
Economic status in childhood	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.01	0.05
Crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse—family of origin	−0.07	0.03	−0.16*	0.07	0.03	0.14*
Problems and social influences in childhood	−0.09	0.03	−0.21*	0.10	0.03	0.21**
Participants’ alcohol and substance use	−0.07	0.03	−0.16*	−0.01	0.05	−0.01
Group × age	0.08	0.03	0.29**	−0.12	0.03	−0.40***
Group × army service	–	–	–	−0.22	0.07	−0.25**
Group × participants’ crime and substance use	–	–	–	0.13	0.06	0.25*
Adj R²	0.24***			0.40***
	F(10, 208) = 7.37***			F(12, 206) = 12.21***

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Three factors were detected composing 56.50% of the variance. The first factor included the four variables of characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood (eigenvalue = 3.78, α = .76, loadings of 0.60–0.77); the second factor included the three variables of alcohol and substance use by the participants (eigenvalue = 1.35, α = .60, loadings of 0.61–0.82); and the third factor included the three variables of crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin (eigenvalue = 1.09, α = .60, loadings of 0.42–0.74). Thus, a total score was composed for each factor, such that a positive response to any item of the factor resulted in a positive total score for that factor (1), and negative responses to all factor items yielded a negative total score (0).

Each regression model was built in two steps. Variables entered hierarchically in the first step were: group, demographic variables, total scores for crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin, characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood, and alcohol and substance use by the participants. The second step included the interactions between all variables and the group variable, entered in a stepwise manner.

The results in Table 6 reveal that both models are significant, with 24% of the variance in self control and 40% of the variance in aggression being predicted by the study variables and their interactions with the group variable. Self control was negatively predicted by crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin, characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood, and alcohol and substance use by the participants, so that the existence of each was related to lower self control, beyond group and the demographic variables. Interpretation of the significant interaction with age, regarding self control, revealed that age was positively related to self control for the inmates (B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, β = 0.25, p = .015), but was unrelated among non-inmates (B = −0.03, SE = 0.02, β = −0.16, p = .101). That is, the older the inmates, the higher the self control; but no relationship with age was found for non-inmates.

Aggression was positively predicted by crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin, and characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood, so that the existence of each was related with higher levels of aggression, beyond group and the demographic variables. Three interactions with group were found significant regarding aggression. First, interpretation of the significant interaction with age revealed that age was negatively related with aggression for the inmates (B = −0.08, SE = 0.02, β = −0.37, p < .001) and was positively related with aggression among non-inmates (B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, β = 0.20, p = .038). That is, the younger the inmates, the higher the level of aggression; yet, the younger the non-inmates, the lower the level of aggression. Further, army service was negatively related with aggression for the inmates (B = −0.13, SE = 0.06, β = −0.20, p = .023), but was unrelated among non-inmates (B = 0.09, SE = 0.05, β = 0.18, p = .073). In other words, inmates who did not serve in the army were likely to have higher levels of aggression than those who did. Finally, participant alcohol and substance use was positively related with aggression among inmates (B = 0.12, SE = 0.04, β = 0.24, p = .007) and was unrelated among non-inmates (B = −0.01, SE = 0.04, β = −0.01, p = .933), testifying that inmates who used alcohol or drugs were likely to have higher levels of aggression than those who did not.

Discussion

The present study examined differences between two groups of young adults: prison inmates and a normative sample. The aim of the study was to examine the differences between the groups according to the Pathways to Crime model (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994). As hypothesized, the research findings indicate that all the socio-demographic variables examined: personal, familial, and environmental, both in the past and in the present distinguish between young adult prison inmates and young adults from the general population (the non-inmates group). Inmate socio-demographic characteristics are thus consistent with the LCP pathway, while the socio-demographic characteristics of the non-inmates group are consistent, mostly, with the abstainers’ pathway. For example, most of the inmates, unlike the non-inmates group, did not reside in their parents’ home, were exposed to criminal activity and drug and alcohol abuse by family members, were exposed to mental illness of family members, experienced abuse in childhood, defined themselves as having been problematic as children, were exposed to criminal involvement among members of their peer group, and were addicted to drugs or alcohol in the past or present.

These findings are compatible with the basic premise of the Pathways to Crime model (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994; Moffitt, 1993) as well as with research findings (Alink & Egeland, 2013; Farrington, 2012; Hyun, 2009) indicating an association between socio-demographic risk factors and the development of delinquency that persists in young adulthood. The findings are also consistent with the underlying premise of Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1947), whereby criminality is learned from the individual’s social environment and from learning processes originating from exposure to criminal culture.

Support for the above findings and for the distinction between the pathways to crime is provided by investigation of the differences in the personality traits examined in this study, primarily with regard to level of aggression and self control. As hypothesized, young adult prison inmates were characterized by a higher level of aggression and lower self control than the non-inmates group. Examining the two multiple hierarchical regression models also supports these findings, showing the important role of these personality traits. While trying to assess the contribution of the study variables to self control and aggression, the results show that aggression was positively predicted and self control was negatively predicted by socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., crime, addiction, mental illness and child abuse in family of origin, and characteristics of problems and social influences in childhood). This is compatible with the description provided by Moffitt et al. (2001) about the characteristics of those on the LCP pathway as well as with various studies that indicate an association between delinquent behavior and aggression (Pulkkinen et al., 2009) and self control (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2008).

Overall, the research findings support premises regarding differences between the non-inmate group and the group of inmates. Hence, the Pathways to Crime model makes it possible to distinguish between young adults who belong to the “abstainers” path and those who belong to the LCP path. Nonetheless, examination of differences within the inmates group by type of offense committed indicates a great deal of similarity between the inmates, unrelated to the type of offense committed. Accordingly, the question is whether the model is capable of distinguishing between young offenders by type of offense. Originally, Caspi et al. (1994) (see Krueger et al., 1994) used the model to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal populations, and the distinction between young adult prison inmates by type of offense may require inspection of additional variables beyond those included in the current study. For instance, the research literature indicates that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, and that there are personality differences related to the type of offense committed (Glowacz & Born, 2013; Shechory & Ben-David, 2005).

The picture of pathways to crime among young adults may also be more complex than that outlined in the Pathways to Crime model. Studies have found that when self-reports of crime were used, additional pathways to crime were revealed (for review, see Piquero, 2008). Studies also found that the LCP path to crime may be divided into three sub-pathways: low frequency chronic offenders, chronic offenders whose criminality worsens during young adulthood, and high chronic criminality (Colman et al., 2009). Moffitt (2006) also presented a new crime pathway called “low-level chronic offenders.” Young people who belong to this pathway share similar risk factors to those of the LCP group, as proposed in the original model, but are characterized by a lower frequency of offenses and symptoms of a secluded personality. The young adulthood period is a developmental and dynamic period when many changes may occur that affect continued criminal behavior. It appears that in order to distinguish between young adult offenders by type of offense, it is necessary to try and create more subtle distinctions within the life-course persistent pathway. As mentioned in the literature review, research on criminal offenders during emerging adulthood is limited (Hartwell et al., 2010). There is thus room for more research.

The current study has several limitations that indicate a need for further research. One limitation has to do with the size of the sample with regard to inmates who committed drug offenses and sex offenses. Thus, the findings must be treated with caution, particularly with regard to these two groups. This limitation is an outcome of the lack of access to prison inmates in the young adulthood age range and the lack of formal approval to conduct the study at a prison for youths. There is room for an additional study that will examine differences between inmates in larger samples. Another limitation concerns the lack of formal approval to inspect criminal records and details of types of offenses in inmate files. Therefore, we used self-reports by inmates. This type of report is susceptible to bias, particularly when reporting forbidden acts and among a criminal population (Kirk, 2006). Moreover, the inmates answered questions on their childhood and family retrospectively. A longitudinal study would certainly help to achieve a deeper understanding of the pathways to crime characteristics of the criminal behavior of young adults and particularly of prison inmates.

In conclusion, to our knowledge, the current study was the first to examine the Pathways to Crime model among young adult inmates in Israel. The research findings raise the need for additional studies to further corroborate the results of the current study. This does not detract from its contribution as these findings might help the legal and therapeutic systems involved with deviant populations to understand and evaluate the development of pathways to crime among young adults. These research findings have significance for the judicial-systemic dimension as well. Adolescents up to age 18 in Israel are judged in juvenile courts, but once they reach the age of 18 the court system sees them as adults for all purposes. Thus, the research participants, defined as young adults, were serving time in an adult prison. It is extremely significant for the legal system to acknowledge that young adults are still in a developmental phase and that they should not be judged as adults.

The characteristics of young adults portrayed in the current study justify a rehabilitative approach, by both prison and legal systems, tailored to their needs in this important period of transition. The findings of the current study may constitute an important step in advancing the judicial understanding of the significance of inmate age, with all that this entails (see also Farrington et al., 2012). On the therapeutic dimension, it is important to recognize that young adults are still in a developmental stage where the risk factors that characterize them can be influenced, and therefore it is possible to expect better implementation of long-term rehabilitation programs (see also Kolivoski & Shook, 2016).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Mally Shechory-Bitton, PhD, is vice rector and chair of the criminology department at Ariel University. Her academic work includes both practical and theoretical experience in the fields of victimology, violence, and aggression.

Maayan Zohari, MA, is a social worker whose practice focuses on empowerment and rehabilitation of traumatized at-risk youth and young adults.

References

Alink

L. R. A.

Egeland

(2013). The roles of antisocial history and emerging adulthood developmental adaptation in predicting adult antisocial behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 131–140.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 3–19). American Psychological Association.

Aviad-Wilchek

(2005). Model for predicting learning perseverance among boarding school students in Israel. International Journal of Disability & Human Development, 4(2), 121–130.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Almagor

Hoffman-Chemi

Tellegen

(1995). A cross-cultural study of personality with the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 360–373.

Boer

B. J. D.

Hooft

E. A. J. V.

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). Stop and start control: A distinction within self-control. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 349–362.

Boutwell

B. B.

Beaver

K. M.

(2008). A biosocial explanation of delinquency abstention. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 18(1), 59–74.

Brezina

Piquero

A. R.

(2007). Moral beliefs, isolation from peers, and abstention from delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 28, 433–465.

Brotman

L. M.

O’Neal

C. R.

Huang

K. Y.

Gouley

K. K.

Rosenfelt

Shrout

P. E.

(2009). An experimental test of parenting practices as a mediator of early childhood physical aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(3), 235–245.

10.

Caspi

Lyman

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

(1993). Unraveling girl’s delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual contributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 19–30.

11.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

Krueger

R. F.

(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32(2), 163–195.

12.

Chen

Adams

(2010). Are teen delinquency abstainers social introverts?: A test of Moffitt’s theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 439–468.

13.

Cohen-Medina

Ben-David

(2016). A comparative study on self-monitoring: An updated perspective on normative versus at-risk youth. Child Indicators Research, 9(4), 873–888.

14.

Colman

R.A.

Kim

D. H.

Mitchell-Herzfeld

Shady

T. A.

(2009). Delinquent girls grown up: Young adult offending patterns and their relation to early legal, individual, and family risk. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(3), 355–366.

15.

Dandreaux

D. M.

Frick

P. J.

(2009). Developmental pathways to conduct problems: A further test of the childhood and adolescent-onset distinction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(3), 375–385.

16.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

(2008). The Gottfredson–Hirschi critiques revisited reconciling self-control theory, criminal careers, and career criminals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5), 520–537.

17.

Doran

Luczak

S. E.

Bekman

Koutsenok

Brown

S. A.

(2012). Adolescent substance use and aggression—A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(6), 748–769.

18.

Duckworth

A. L.

Kern

M. L.

(2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268.

19.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2004). Clinically abusive relationship in an unselected birth cohort: Men and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258–271.

20.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity, youth and crisis. Norton.

21.

Farrington

D. P.

(2012). Childhood risk factors for young adult offending: Onset and persistence. In L’Osel

Bottoms

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Young adult offenders: Lost in transition? (pp. 48–65). Routledge.

22.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

Howell

J. C.

(2012). Young adult offenders: The need for more effective legislative options and justice processing. American Society of Criminology, 11(4), 729–750.

23.

Ferguson

C. J.

Cruz

A. M.

Martinez

Rueda

S. M.

Ferguson

D. E.

Negy

(2008). Personality, parental, and media influences on aggressive personality and violent crime in young adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(4), 395–414.

24.

Gallarin

Alonso-Arbiol

(2012). Parenting practices, parental attachment and aggressiveness in adolescence: A predictive model. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1601–1610.

25.

Glowacz

Born

(2013). Do adolescent child abusers, peer abusers, and non-sex offenders have different personality profiles? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22, 117–125.

26.

Harkness

A. R.

Tellegen

Waller

(1995). Differential convergence of self-report and informant data for Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire traits: Implications for the construct of negative emotionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 185–204.

27.

Hartwell

S. W.

Fisher

W. H.

Davis

(2010). Emerging adults with psychiatric disabilities involved with the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 756–768.

28.

Huesmann

L. R.

Dubow

E. F.

Boxer

(2009). Continuity of aggression from childhood to early adulthood as a predictor of life outcomes: Implications for the adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent models. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 136–149.

29.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

(1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552–584.

30.

Hyun

(2009). Factors associated with stability and change in offending among school enrolled adolescents and their transitions into emerging adulthood (Doctoral dissertation). University of California.

31.

Johnson

M. C.

Menard

(2012). A longitudinal study of delinquency abstention differences between life-course abstainers and offenders from adolescence into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(3), 278–291.

32.

Kennedy

T. D.

Burnett

K. F.

Edmonds

W. A.

(2011). Intellectual, behavioral, and personality correlates of violent vs. non-violent juvenile offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 315–325.

33.

Kirk

D. S.

(2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 107–129.

34.

Kolivoski

K. M.

Shook

J. J.

(2016). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons examining the relationship between age and prison behavior in transferred juveniles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43. Advance online publication. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854816631793

35.

Krueger

R. F.

(2000). Phenotypic, genetic, and nonshared environmental parallels in the structure of personality: A view from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1057–1067.

36.

Krueger

R. F.

Schmutte

P. S.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Campbell

Silva

P. A.

(1994). Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(2), 328–338.

37.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41(3), 555–592.

38.

Mayseless

Hai

(1998). Leaving home transition in Israel: Changes in parent-adolescent relationships and adolescents’ adaptation to military service. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(3), 589–609.

39.

McGloin

J. M.

O’Neill

S. L.

(2009). Self-control and deviant peer network structure. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(1), 35–72.

40.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

41.

Moffitt

T. E.

(2006). Life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In: Cicchetti

Cohen

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 3: Risk, disorder, and adaption (2nd ed., pp. 598–570). John Wiley.

42.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Rutter

Silva

P. A.

(2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. University Press.

43.

Mulder

Brand

Bullens

Van Marle

(2011). Risk factors for overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1), 118–135.

44.

Nelson

L. J.

Barry

C. M.

(2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The role of self classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242–262.

45.

Patrick

C. J.

Curtin

J. J.

Tellegen

(2002). Development and validity of a brief form of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14(2), 150–163.

46.

Piquero

A. R.

(2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In: Liberman

A. M.

(Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 23–78). Springer.

47.

Pulkkinen

Lyyra

A. L.

Kokko

(2009). Life success of male’s nonoffender, adolescence-limited, persistent, and adult-onset antisocial pathways: Follow-up from age 8 to 42. Aggressive Behavior, 35(2), 117–135.

48.

Rebellon

C. J.

Straus

M. A.

Medeiros

(2008). Self-control in global perspective: An empirical assessment of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory within and across 32 national settings. European Journal of Criminology, 5(3), 331–362.

49.

Ridder

D. T. D.

Lensvelt-Mulders

Finkenauer

Stok

F. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2012). Taking stock of self control: A meta-analysis of how trait self control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99.

50.

Ryan

J. P.

Williams

A. B.

Courtney

M. E

. (2013). Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 454–465.

51.

Salvatore

Taniguchi

(2012). Do social bonds matter for emerging adults? Deviant Behavior, 33, 738–756.

52.

Salvatore

Taniguchi

Welsh

W. N.

(2012). Is emerging adulthood influencing Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy? Adding the “prolonged” adolescent offender. West Crime Review, 13(1), 1–15.

53.

Schwartz

S. J.

Donnellan

M. B.

Ravert

R. D.

Luyckx

Zamboanga

B. L.

(2013). Identity development, personality, and wellbeing in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Theory, research, and recent advances. In: Weiner

I. B.

Lerner

R. M.

Easterbrooks

Mistry

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 6: Developmental psychology (pp. 339–364). John Wiley and Sons.

54.

Shechory

Ben-David

(2005). Aggression and anxiety in rapists and child molesters. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(6), 652–661.

55.

Shechory

Ben-David

(2010). A comparative analysis of delinquency among youth from the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia in Israel. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 8, 290–311.

56.

Shechory

Perry

Addad

(2011). Pathways to women’s crime: Differences between women convicted for drug, violence and fraud offenses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 15(4), 399–416.

57.

Shechory-Bitton

Kamel

(2014). Pathways to crime and risk factors among Arab female adolescents in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review, 44(September), 363–369.

58.

Shulman

Blatt

S. J.

Walsh

(2006). The extended journey and transition to adulthood: The case of Israeli backpackers. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(2), 233–248.

59.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1947). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company

60.

Tellegen

(1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

61.

Theobald

Farrington

D. P.

Piquero

A. R.

(2013). Childhood broken homes and adult violence: An analysis of moderators. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(1), 44–52.

62.

Thornberry

T. P.

Giordano

P. C.

Uggen

Matsuda

Masten

A. S.

Bulten

Donker

A. G.

Petechuk

(2013). Explanations for offending (study group on the transitions between juvenile delinquency and adult crime). US Department of Justice.

63.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Huang

(2010). Where self control comes from: On the development of self control and its relationship to deviance over time. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 245–257.

64.

Vohs

K. D.

Faber

R. J.

(2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537–547.