Parental Low Self-Control,Parental Socialization,Young Adult Low Self-Control,and Offending

Abstract

Significant attention has been directed at evaluating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s claim that parental socialization has a direct influence on self-control and an indirect influence on criminal behavior. Yet, only recently have researchers investigated the role parental self-control occupies in shaping these processes. To advance research in this area, the current study utilizes data collected on a sample of young adults (n = 420) to examine how parental low self-control is related to parental socialization, young adult low self-control, and young adult offending. In support of the hypothesized model, the results of a structural equation model indicate the effect of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control is indirect through parental socialization, the effect of parental socialization on young adult offending is indirect through young adult low self-control, and the effect of parental low self-control on young adult offending is indirect through both parental socialization and young adult low self-control.

Keywords

self-control theory parental self-control parental socialization young adult self-control offending SEM

Self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) has garnered significant attention, and a large body of research finds that low self-control is consistently correlated with delinquency, crime, and other forms of deviant behavior (see de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). As a result, researchers have increasingly focused their attention on testing other aspects of the theory, one of which is a focus on the extent to which parental socialization efforts directly influence the development of self-control and indirectly relate to delinquent and criminal behavior. On this matter, a number of studies provide evidence that parental monitoring and disciplinary practices are significantly correlated with self-control (e.g., Cullen, Unnever, Wright, & Beaver, 2008; Hay, 2001; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010) and that at least a portion of the effect of parental socialization on delinquent and criminal behavior operates through self-control (e.g., Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004; Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, & Lin, 2007).

However, only recently have researchers started investigating the role that parental self-control plays in shaping parental socialization, child and young adult self-control, and offending (e.g., Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008; Verhoeven, Junger, Van Aken, Deković, & Van Aken, 2007). Although small, this body of research suggests the importance of incorporating parental self-control into a more fully specified model of the development and consequences of self-control. For example, Boutwell and Beaver (2010) found that parents who are higher in self-control are more likely to have young children who are higher in self-control and to be more involved with and show affection toward their children. Similarly, Nofziger (2008) found that maternal self-control is positively associated with certain parental monitoring and disciplinary practices during adolescence, and that maternal self-control is positively associated with adolescent self-control.

As revealing as these early studies have been, additional research is warranted. In particular, research has yet to adequately assess the indirect influence of parental self-control on young adult offending via parental socialization efforts during adolescence and young adult self-control. In an effort to advance research in this area, the current study seeks to address three research questions. First, is the effect of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control indirect through parental socialization efforts? Second, is the effect of parental socialization efforts on young adult patterns of offending indirect through young adult low self-control? Third, is parental low self-control predictive of young adult patterns of offending, and if so, is this effect indirect through reports of parental socialization and young adult low self-control?

To address these research questions, we draw on data collected from several hundred young adults to test a structural equation model that examines direct and indirect effects between the theoretical constructs of interest. Prior to describing the research design and data in greater detail, and presenting our methodology and the results of our analysis, we first review prior research addressing the influence of parental socialization on self-control and its indirect influence on delinquent and criminal behavior via self-control. Following this, we describe recent studies that have linked parental self-control to parental socialization and child and adolescent self-control.

Research on Parental Socialization, Self-Control, and Delinquency and Crime

Since its development a quarter century ago, the primary argument of self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)—that self-control is a significant predictor of delinquent and criminal behavior—has been confirmed by hundreds of empirical studies using a variety of measures and modeling strategies in a number of cultural contexts (see reviews by Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). As a result of this overwhelming support, researchers have largely shifted attention to testing secondary claims made by Gottfredson and Hirschi. These include, for example, tests of the stability thesis (e.g., Burt, Sweeten, & Simons, 2014; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Na & Paternoster, 2012) and examinations of the interaction between self-control and opportunity (e.g., Hay & Forrest, 2008; Kuhn & Laird, 2013; Longshore, 1998).

An additional argument that is the focus of the current study pertains to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) emphasis on the important role parents play in shaping the self-control of children and whether they will go on to commit delinquency during adolescence and crime during adulthood. In particular, they discuss the importance of parental attachment, monitoring, and discipline for the development of self-control stating,

. . . in order to teach the child self-control, someone must (1) monitor the child’s behavior; (2) recognize deviant behavior when it occurs; and (3) punish such behavior . . . All that is required to activate the system is affection for or investment in the child. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 97)

In turn, individuals who are higher in self-control should engage in less delinquency during childhood and adolescence and less criminal behavior during adulthood.

A number of studies have assessed these claims. As it pertains to the influence of parental socialization on self-control, several studies find that adolescents and young adults whose parents monitor and discipline their behavior and who have positive relationships with their parents have more self-control (e.g., Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Cullen et al., 2008; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Perrone et al., 2004; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010). With regard to the influence of parental socialization on delinquent and criminal behavior, a large body of research similarly provides evidence in support of this link (for meta-analytic reviews, see Hoeve et al., 2009; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).

In addition, researchers have also directed considerable attention to the topic of whether the influence of parental socialization on delinquency and crime operates through self-control (e.g., Burt et al., 2006; Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005; Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; Hay, 2001; Jo & Zhang, 2014; Jones, Cauffman, & Piquero, 2007; Kort-Butler, Tyler, & Melander, 2011; Perrone et al., 2004; Unnever, Cullen, & Agnew, 2006; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007). Although there are considerable differences in the measures and modeling strategies used by these studies, a majority of them find that at least a portion of the effect that parental socialization has on delinquency and crime operates indirectly through self-control (but see Botchkovar & Broidy, 2013; Vera & Moon, 2013).

With these considerations in mind, it is important to point out that recent work using genetically sensitive methodologies calls into question whether these associations are causal or spurious due to heritability. For example, Wright and Beaver (2005) found that once heritability is accounted for, most associations between measures of parenting and self-control are no longer statistically significant (see also Beaver, Ferguson, & Lynn-Whaley, 2010; but see Cecil, Barker, Jaffee, & Viding, 2012). Likewise, Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, and Vaughn (2008) found that parenting was largely unrelated to self-control and delinquency when analyzing data on twins who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Thus, while there is considerable evidence suggesting that parental socialization is consequential for self-control and delinquent behavior, this line of research must be tempered in light of recent evidence finding otherwise when genetic confounding is taken into account.

The Neglected Contribution of Parental Self-Control

While much attention has been directed at examining the aforementioned associations, what has received far less attention is the contributing role of parental self-control and the manner in which it potentially shapes parental socialization efforts, child self-control, and eventual patterns of offending. Given the fact that parental self-control appears to be far removed from the more proximate relationships of interest emphasized in self-control theory, this may not be all that surprising. Yet, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 101) do discuss the importance of parental self-control, noting that parents who are low in self-control are unlikely to effectively instill self-control in their children. Given the nature of low self-control described by Gottfredson and Hirschi, there are a number of reasons to suspect that parents who are low in self-control might fail to effectively socialize their children. For example, parenting requires considerable patience and the ability to place the needs of children often ahead of one’s own, and parents who are self-centered are unlikely to succeed at these tasks. Likewise, parents who are short-tempered may create hostile family environments where a lot of shouting and yelling takes place and conflicts are resolved using physical forms of discipline rather than through reasoned discussion. In addition, impulsive and short-sighted parents might not recognize deviant behavior in their children when it takes place, and when they do they may be inconsistent in their disciplinary practices.

Studies assessing the influential nature of parental self-control, though few, provide compelling evidence that parental self-control has a significant impact on parenting practices and child and adolescent self-control. For example, analyzing data collected on a sample of parents and toddlers from the Netherlands, Verhoeven and colleagues (2007) found that parents who scored lower on the Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) self-control scale are more likely to use harsh disciplinary practices and to use psychological control more often. In a slightly different manner but focusing on the same developmental period, Boutwell and Beaver (2010) found that mothers of 3-year-olds participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study who were lower in self-control also scored lower on a measure of maternal involvement (e.g., reading to children, showing them affection). Furthermore, they found that maternal low self-control was positively correlated with child low self-control during the same time period, even when controlling for maternal involvement and a number of other factors. Nofziger (2008) also studied similar issues but during early adolescence by utilizing data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) and the NLSY Child data. Similar to what was revealed in Verhoeven et al. (2007) and Boutwell and Beaver (2010), Nofziger (2008) found evidence of significant associations between a behavioral measure of maternal self-control and maternal monitoring and disciplinary practices, as well as a direct effect of maternal self-control on adolescent self-control that was unchanged when accounting for parenting practices.

More recently, Henschel, de Bruin, and Mohler (2014) investigated whether mothers who were lower in self-control were more likely to potentially abuse their preschool-aged children. To address this issue, Henschel et al. (2014) used the 36-item Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) self-control scale and examined it in relation to scores on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI; Borrego, Timmer, Urquiza, & Follette, 2004). Consistent with the earlier studies reviewed, Henschel and colleagues found that mothers who were lower in self-control scored significantly higher on the CAPI. Thus, taken together, the existing evidence points to a pattern which suggests that children who have parents who are lower in self-control are more likely to be exposed to more hostile and less nurturing family environments and to be lower in the self-control themselves.

The Current Study

Past research has directed significant attention to the interrelationships between parental socialization, self-control, and delinquent and criminal behavior. Early evidence also points to parental self-control being an important precursor to these processes. Yet, lacking from the existing literature is an examination of the extent to which parental self-control indirectly influences young adult offending through parental socialization and young adult self-control. To address this gap in research, this study examines the direct and indirect effect of parental low self-control on parental socialization efforts, young adult low self-control, and young adult offending. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized model and the anticipated direction of effects, each of which follow from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) arguments.¹

Figure 1:

Hypothesized Causal Model

First, we hypothesize direct effects will be observed between (a) parental low self-control and effective parental socialization (negative effect), (b) effective parental socialization and young adult low self-control (negative effect), and (c) young adult low self-control and young adult offending (positive effect). Second, we hypothesize there will be a positive, indirect effect of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control operating through parental socialization. Third, we hypothesize there will be a negative, indirect effect of parental socialization on young adult offending operating through young adult low self-control. Fourth, we hypothesize there will be a positive, indirect effect of parental low self-control on young adult offending operating through both parental socialization and young adult low self-control.

Method

Participants

This study is based on a sample of 420 young adults enrolled in various sections of criminology and criminal justice courses in the fall of 2014 at two large, public 4-year universities located in the southeastern United States. The average age of the participants was 21.6 years. The sex composition was split evenly with half of participants being male and half being female. Approximately two thirds of participants indicated they were a race other than White or Caucasian. The racial composition of the sample is further addressed in a following section.

Procedure

Individuals were invited to participate in the study during their first class meeting of the semester and were told their participation would require the completion of a survey questionnaire related to parental influences on young adult behavior. In accordance with the approved Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, anonymity was maintained by obtaining verbal rather than written consent of participants. Potential participants were also told that participation was voluntary and deciding not to participate would in no way affect their respective course grade. Of the 458 individuals who were invited to participate, 427 completed the survey questionnaire in their respective classroom, yielding a participation rate of 93%. Complete data for each of the measures described below were available for 420 individuals.

Materials

The survey instrument was designed to capture retrospective reports of parental low self-control and parental socialization by asking participants to respond to items referencing the period of time that encompassed high school for them. However, the items tapping participants’ reports of their own self-control and offending are contemporaneous indicators. We recognize a longitudinal research design measuring parental low self-control and parental socialization practices at one point in time and measuring young adult low self-control and offending behavior at a later point in time would be preferable. Nonetheless, a retrospective research design can provide important insight into the validity of the theoretical model proposed in the absence of available longitudinal data. We return to this important issue in the discussion section.

Measures

Parental Low Self-Control

Past research measuring parental self-control has been based on either behavioral (eg., Nofziger, 2008) or attitudinal (e.g., Verhoeven et al., 2007) self-reports provided directly by parents. However, in this study, the reports of parental self-control are not provided by parents, but instead are based on young adult perceptions of the behavior of their “primary caregiver.” Given this, the development of these items presented us with a unique challenge—attitudinal items, such as those developed by Grasmick et al. (1993), would not be appropriate because young adults would not be able to reliably know, for example, whether their parent “devotes much thought and effort to preparing for the future.” Thus, we had to develop items that referenced parental behavior more closely aligned with those used by Nofziger (2008) that are broad, easily observable, and consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s conceptualization of low self-control. In an earlier pilot study of 50 young adults, several items were tested, revealing that some appeared to load onto a single construct more closely together than others. The end result was the use of five items included in the survey instrument used for the current study (described below). Because these items not only reference past behavior but also the behavior of another person, test–retest reliability was examined during the pilot study. Importantly, the five items used in the current study had a 1 week test–retest reliability estimate of 0.85, indicating that young adults are consistent in reporting on the past behavior of their parents.

For each of the five items, participants were provided with the following prompt: “Please respond to each of the following items by selecting the option that best characterizes the person you considered to be your primary parent/guardian when you were in high school.” The items were as follows: “He/she would do things that most people would consider to be selfish,” “He/she would do things that most people would consider to be dangerous,” “He/she would get drunk,” “He/she would easily lose his/her temper,” and “He/she would do things that most people would consider to be lazy.”² Response options were “never” (1), “rarely” (2), “sometimes” (3), and “often” (4). Higher scores are indicative of lower parental self-control (α = .78); a latent factor was created measuring parental low self-control. The descriptive statistics for this measure and all other measures to be described are provided in Table 1.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (N = 420)

Variables	M	SD	Factor Loading	Minimum	Maximum
Demographics
Age	21.644	3.398	—	18	51
Male	0.496	0.500	—	0	1
Non-White	0.673	0.469	—	0	1
Parental low self-control
He/she would do things that most people would consider to be selfish	1.587	0.798	0.746	1	4
He/she would do things that most people would consider to be dangerous	1.348	0.655	0.518	1	4
He/she would get drunk	1.492	0.873	0.479	1	4
He/she would easily lose his/her temper	2.269	0.925	0.576	1	4
He/she would do things that most people would consider to be lazy	1.658	0.810	0.490	1	4
Parental socialization
My parents always knew where I was when I was not at home	3.061	0.887	0.671	1	4
Overall, I had a positive relationship with my parents	3.443	0.708	0.815	1	4
My parents knew the names of all my closest friends	3.409	0.758	0.724	1	4
My parents were consistent with their enforcement of the household rules they set for me	3.323	0.756	0.662	1	4
Young adult low self-control
I am good at resisting temptation (reverse coded)	1.905	0.824	0.669	1	4
I have a hard time breaking bad habits	2.150	0.889	0.506	1	4
I say inappropriate things	2.061	0.869	0.597	1	4
I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun	1.948	0.839	0.834	1	4
I refuse things that are bad for me (reverse coded)	2.098	0.912	0.704	1	4
People would say that I have iron self-discipline (reverse coded)	2.339	0.934	0.470	1	4
Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done	1.936	0.827	0.557	1	4
I am lazy	1.884	0.822	0.513	1	4
Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong	1.591	0.795	0.713	1	4
Young adult offending
Smoked marijuana	1.182	1.601	0.820	0	4
Driven a car while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs	0.811	1.193	0.729	0	4
Gotten into a place that charges admission without paying	0.658	1.086	0.609	0	4
Cheated on an exam or assignment	0.509	0.858	0.424	0	4
Drank more than five alcoholic drinks at once	1.477	1.540	0.776	0	4

Parental Socialization

Guided by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theoretical arguments, past research testing self-control theory has focused primarily on the influence of parental affection, monitoring, and discipline on self-control (see Cullen et al., 2008). The items included in the current study are consistent with this approach. For each of the four items included in the measure for parental socialization, participants were provided with the following prompt, “Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the relationship you had with your parents when you were in high school.” Referencing this period of time is reasonable given research indicating that parenting continues to be consequential for self-control during the second decade of life (e.g., Hay & Forrest, 2006). The items included were as follows: “My parents always knew where I was when I was not at home,” “Overall, I had a positive relationship with my parents,” “My parents knew the names of my closest friends,” and “My parents were consistent with their enforcement of the household rules they set for me.” Response options were “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “agree” (3), and “strongly agree” (4). Higher scores are indicative of more effective parental socialization efforts (α = .75); Items very similar to these have been used effectively in past research (e.g., Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004). A latent factor was created measuring parental socialization.

Young Adult Low Self-Control

A variety of measures have been used to measure adolescent and young adult self-control, the most widely recognized being the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale. However, other measures have been developed that are also strongly correlated with delinquency and crime. For the current study, we utilized 9 items from the Tangney et al. (2004) brief self-control scale, which has been used effectively in a number of previous studies testing various aspects of self-control theory (e.g., Holtfreter, Reisig, Piquero, & Piquero, 2010; Reisig & Pratt, 2011). Participants were asked to respond to the following statements reflecting “how they typically are:” “I am good at resisting temptation” (reverse coded), “I have a hard time breaking bad habits,” “I say inappropriate things,” “I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun,” “I refuse things that are bad for me” (reverse coded), “people would say that I have iron self-discipline” (reverse coded), “pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done,” “I am lazy,” and “sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong.” Response options were “not at all” (1), “a little” (2), “quite a bit” (3), and “very much” (4). Higher scores are indicative of lower self-control (α = .81); a latent factor was created measuring young adult low self-control.

Young Adult Offending

Participants were asked five questions about whether or not they had engaged in the following behaviors at some point in the last 12 months: “smoked marijuana,” “driven a car while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs,” “gotten into a place that charges admission without paying,” “cheated on an exam or assignment,” and “drank more than five alcoholic drinks at once.”³ For participants who indicated they had engaged in any of the behaviors, they were prompted to report how many times, ranging from “1 to 2 times” (1) to “10 + times” (4), producing an ordinal measure of delinquency for each of the five items (α = .73); as with the previously described measures, a latent factor was created measuring young adult offending.⁴

Demographics

In addition to measuring the primary theoretical constructs of interest, participants also reported their age (in years), gender (male = 1; female = 0), and their race. For the analysis, a single dummy variable for race was created (non-White = 1; White = 0).⁵

Analytic Plan

To investigate the relationships of interest we use structural equation modeling of latent variables for the primary constructs of interest and observed variables for the demographic measures using the statistical package Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). Several fit indices are used to evaluate model fit.⁶ In addition to the conventional χ² test statistic, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) is used, as it takes into account the sample size to correct for the tendency of the χ² to reject models with large samples. Values less than 0.05 are good, values between 0.05 and 0.08 are acceptable, and values greater than 0.10 indicate poor model fit. We also use the non-normed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), which takes into account the number of parameters in a model to adjust for the tendency for fit indices to increase as the size of the model increases; values of 0.90 to 0.95 are considered acceptable and values greater than 0.95 are considered good. We also utilize the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), which has the same goodness of fit criteria as the NNFI. Finally, we include the latent factor R² to indicate how much variation in a particular latent variable is explained by the structural model.

We utilized the weighted least squares estimator in Mplus 6.12 because it makes no assumptions about joint normality.⁷ In addition, this estimator uses a diagonal weight matrix with standard errors. Preliminary analyses using maximum likelihood estimators indicated substantial bias in assuming joint normality. As our indicators are categorical in their measurement (i.e., ordinal), we estimate simultaneous probit models. Under this specification, thresholds are estimated for each of the categories of the variable. Preliminary analyses indicated that treating our indicators as continuous produced substantial bias in the parameter estimates.

Results

Table 2 presents the results of the structural equation used to model the relationships of interest and test the hypothesized model that was presented in Figure 1.⁸ The fit indices for the RMSEA (0.048), NNFI (0.923), and CFI (0.913) each indicate an adequate fit of the data to the model. Three endogenous latent variables are specified: parental socialization, young adult low self-control, and young adult offending. As hypothesized, the first portion of the model estimating the effect of parental low self-control on parental socialization reveals a substantively large, negative effect (β = −.504). In other words, young adult perceptions of the low self-control of their primary caregiver are negatively correlated with their perceptions that their parents engaged in effective parental socialization when they were in high school. The effects of age, sex, and race on parental socialization do not attain statistical significance. The R² value of .255 indicates that 25% of the variation in the latent factor of parental socialization is explained by the structural model.

Table 2:

Weighted Least Squares With Mean and Variance Adjusted Unstandardized Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Standardized Coefficients for Structural Model (N = 420)

	Endogenous Factors
Predictor	Parental Socialization	Young Adult Low Self-Control	Young Adult Offending
Age	0.011	−0.017*	−0.029
	(0.012)	(0.008)	(0.019)
	0.004	−0.085	−0.118
Male	−0.073	0.238***	0.072
	(0.081)	(0.070)	(0.085)
	−0.054	0.180	0.042
Non-White	−0.042	−0.188**	−0.094
	(0.090)	(0.075)	(0.092)
	−0.029	−0.134	−0.052
Direct effect of parental low self-control	−0.592***	—	—
	(0.095)
	−0.504
Indirect effect of parental low self-control	—	0.244***	0.206***
		(0.051)	(0.043)
		0.212	0.140
Direct effect of parental socialization	—	−0.412***	—
		(0.060)
		−0.422
Indirect effect of parental socialization	—	—	−0.348***
			(0.053)
			−0.279
Direct effect of young adult low self-control	—	—	0.844***
			(0.068)
			0.661
R ²	.255	.246	.493
Likelihood ratio χ² (df)		574 (284)
RMSEA		0.048
Bentler–Bonett NNFI		0.923
CFI		0.913

Notes. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index. Row 1: unstandardized coefficient; Row 2: Standard error; Row 3: Standardized coefficient

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Moving to the portion of the model that considers the direct effect of parental socialization on young adult low self-control and the indirect effect of parental low self-control on young adult self-control operating through parental socialization, the estimates again support the hypothesized theoretical model. Specifically, a negative, direct effect of retrospective reports of parental socialization on young adult low self-control is observed (β = −.422). Likewise, a positive, indirect effect of retrospective reports of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control operating through parental socialization is found (β = .212). Thus, in these data, parental low self-control is consequential for the manner in which parents socialize their children and patterns of self-control in emerging adulthood. The data also indicate that older individuals (β = −.085) and non-Whites (β = −.134) are less likely to be lower in self-control, whereas males are more likely to be lower in self-control (β = .180). The R² value of .246 indicates that nearly 25% of the variation in the latent factor of young adult low self-control is explained by the structural model.

The third portion of the model considers the direct and indirect effects of parental low self-control, parental socialization, and young adult low self-control on young adult offending. As hypothesized, young adult low self-control has a large, positive effect on young adult offending (β = .661). Likewise, the model provides evidence of a negative, indirect effect of parental socialization on young adult offending that operates through young adult low self-control (β = −.279). Last, the most informative estimate in the model is the significant indirect effect of parental low self-control on young adult offending operating through both parental socialization and young adult low self-control (β = .140). The R² value of .493 indicates nearly 50% of the variation in the latent factor of young adult offending is explained by the structural model.

Supplementary Analyses

Although these results conform to the theoretical model tested, we did explore alternative models as well. In particular, we estimated a model in which the following three direct paths were added: (a) parental low self-control → young adult low self-control, (b) parental low self-control → young adult offending, and (c) parental socialization → young adult offending. With these three direct paths added to the model, the model fit was significantly impaired and there was no evidence of direct effects between (a) parental low self-control → young adult offending, and (b) parental socialization → young adult offending. However, there was evidence of a direct effect of parental low self-control → young adult low self-control (b = .227, β = .194, p < .01). Thus, we re-estimated the structural equation model without the two direct paths just mentioned that were found not to be significantly different from zero. It was this model, which included each of the paths specified in Figure 1 plus the direct path between parental low self-control and young adult low self-control that provided the best model fit. We elected not to present this model because it was not the theoretically specified model. Nonetheless, we revisit the importance of a direct effect of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control in the discussion section.

Discussion

Recent scholarship on self-control theory has started to document the influence of parental self-control on parental socialization efforts and child and adolescent self-control. The findings of the current study add to this emergent literature by revealing that parental low self-control is indirectly related to young adult patterns of offending because of the ways in which it directly and indirectly influences parenting practices and young adult levels of self-control. In this final section of the article, we discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice, address the limitations of the study and associated avenues for future research, and conclude with some final remarks.

In one manner, the findings of this study speak to the literature on the persistence of antisocial behavior across generations, which has been well documented (e.g., Beaver, 2013; Farrington, Coid, & Murray, 2009; Thornberry; Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003; West & Farrington, 1977). Whereas most studies have assessed the intergenerational continuity of offending, this study and those preceding it (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008) appear to provide clear and convincing evidence of the intergenerational continuity of low self-control. What remains less clear, however, is the extent to which this continuity is genetically or environmentally driven. As we noted, an alternative SEM was estimated in which a direct path between parental low self-control and young adult low self-control was added to the model. That model showed an improvement in model fit and indicated the presence of both direct and indirect effects of parental low self-control on young adult low self-control.

A direct effect of parental self-control on second generation self-control, which was also documented by Boutwell and Beaver (2010) and Nofziger (2008), may suggest evidence of heritability. At the same time, it could also be taken to mean that there are other ways in which parental low self-control might be indirectly related to child and young adult low self-control that this and other studies have yet to consider. For example, research indicates that parents differ in the amount and type of language they use with their children (Hart & Risley, 1995). Given evidence that language has been found to influence self-control (Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, Wright, & Boutwell, 2008), it is possible that parents who are lower in self-control might be less adept at assisting in the development of the language skills of their children, which may in turn stunt the development of self-control.

Our findings also inform the growing body of literature assessing the indirect effect of parental socialization on delinquency and crime that operates through adolescent and young adult self-control. Consistent with a number of prior studies (e.g., Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004; but see Wright et al., 2008), we found a significant indirect effect of parental socialization on the measure of offending via young adult low self-control. When this finding is considered in the context of our other concurrent findings of the influential nature of parental low self-control on parental socialization, young adult low self-control, and offending, this study lends support to the contention that the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior operates at least partially through the family environment parents create for their children (see Farrington et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003). This increases the importance of programming efforts directed at improving the quality of family environments, many of which have proven to be successful (see Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009). In addition, given the role that parental self-control appears to play in affecting both distal and proximate causes of offending, our findings strongly suggest the utility of programming that aims to increase the self-control of parents who otherwise might not have the knowledge, patience, or motivation to effectively socialize and instill self-control in their children.

With these considerations in mind, it is important to discuss certain limitations of the study, which point to directions for future research. First, we utilized a retrospective research design rather than a prospective one. As such, young adult reports of the self-control of their parents and the parenting practices they were exposed to when they were in high school that we relied on could suffer from memory recall error. Thus, future research should seek to replicate our findings using longitudinal data that can better help to establish correct temporal ordering. Second, there is the potential that respondents could have imputed their own behavior to that of their parents (i.e., a projection effect). If this took place, the associations between the variables of interest could be inflated. Related to this, it is possible that the accuracy of young adult reports of parental low self-control and past parental socialization could vary according to self-control itself (see Meldrum, Piquero, & Clark, 2013; Piquero, MacIntosh, & Hickman, 2000). To the extent that each of the above concerns applies to the data utilized herein, the estimates produced by the structural equation model could be biased in unknown ways. Having recognized these possibilities, it is important to point out that the relationships we observed in the data are consistent with prior studies establishing significant cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between parental self-control, parental socialization, and child and adolescent self-control when parent’s own reports of self-control have been used (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Nofziger, 2008).

Third, we relied on a convenience sample of young adults enrolled in college. While recent research provides evidence that offending patterns of college students are not particularly different from the larger young adult population (Wiecko, 2010), our sample is by no means representative of all college students considering that the majority of participants were non-White. Fourth, the strength of the associations found in the current study may be artificially inflated given that we relied on a single source for all of the information. Therefore, future research should seek to replicate the findings of this study when data are drawn from multiple sources and when objective measures of self-control for both parents and children are utilized (e.g., the Balloon Analogue Risk Test; Lejuez et al., 2002).

Fifth, we should point out that this study is unable to rule out the potential for genetic confounding, which generally speaking requires the analysis of data collected on samples of twins or siblings. As noted in the upfront portion of this article, recent research suggests that associations between parenting and self-control/delinquency are significantly reduced when genetic contributions are taken into account (e.g., Wright & Beaver, 2005; Wright et al., 2008). Thus, it is possible that the effects of parental socialization on young adult low self-control and offending found in the current study could be an artifact of the inability to account for heritability. Similar concerns could also extend to the effects of parental low self-control on parental socialization, young adult low self-control, and offending—the associations might stem from underlying genetic predispositions that are passed down across generational lines. Given this, future research that can take into account this potential for genetic confounds should be conducted to determine the robustness of our findings.

In conclusion, this study adds to an emerging, but important area of inquiry into the salience of parental self-control for understanding how parents socialize their children, resultant levels of young adult self-control, and patterns of young adult offending. Given the relatively limited amount of attention devoted to this topic, there appears to be ample room for future inquiry on the matter. Continued attention to this subject should help to lead to a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which antisocial behavior is transmitted across generations, the various factors that account for this empirical association, and the relevance of self-control theory for both.

Footnotes

Appendix

Weighted Least Squares With Mean and Variance Adjusted Estimates of Variances/Covariances and Correlations for Measurement Model (N = 420)

	Variance/Covariance Matrix				Correlation Matrix
	Parental LSC	Parental Socialization	Young Adult LSC	Young Adult Offending	Parental LSC	Parental Socialization	Young Adult LSC	Young Adult Offending
Parental LSC	0.304***	—	—	—	1.00	—	—	—
Parental socialization	−0.165***	0.503***	—	—	−0.422	1.00	—	—
Young adult LSC	0.115***	−0.160***	0.402***	—	0.329	−0.356	1.00	—
Young adult offending	0.089***	−0.150***	0.357***	0.641***	0.201	−0.265	0.704	1.00
Likelihood ratio χ² (df)				695 (293)
RMSEA				0.051
Bentler–Bonett NNFI				0.915
CFI				0.925

Note. LSC = low self-control; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the journal editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Notes

Author biographies:

Ryan C. Meldrum is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. His current research focuses on tests of criminological theory, with a particular emphasis on the interrelationships between self-control, peers, and involvement in delinquency. His recent publications have appeared in journals such as the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Jacob T. N. Young is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. He received his doctorate in sociology from the University of Washington. His research examines how social structure affects the diffusion and accuracy of information in friendship networks and the consequences for health-related behaviors. His recent publications have appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Social Networks.

Peter S. Lehmann is a doctoral student in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee, FL. His research interests include the family environment and social control, juvenile and criminal sentencing, and labeling effects.

References

Beaver

K. M.

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

Beaver

K. M.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Wright

J. P.

Boutwell

B. B.

(2008). The relationship between self-control and language: Evidence of a shared etiological pathway. Criminology, 46, 939-970.

Beaver

K. M.

Ferguson

C. J.

Lynn-Whaley

(2010). The association between parenting and levels of self-control: A genetically informative analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1045-1065.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Bentler

P. M.

Yuan

K. H.

(1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181-197.

Borrego

Timmer

S. G.

Urquiza

A. J.

Follette

W. C.

(2004). Physically abusive mothers’ responses following episodes of child noncompliance and compliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 897-903.

Botchkovar

E. V.

Broidy

(2013). Parenting, self-control, and the gender gap in heavy drinking: The case of Russia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 357-376.

Boutwell

B. B.

Beaver

K. M.

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

10.

Burt

C. H.

Simons

R. L.

Simons

L. G.

(2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44, 353-396.

11.

Burt

C. H.

Sweeten

Simons

R. L.

(2014). Self-control through emerging adulthood: Instability, multidimensionality, and criminological significance. Criminology, 52, 450-487.

12.

Cecil

C. A.

Barker

E. D.

Jaffee

S. R.

Viding

(2012). Association between maladaptive parenting and child self-control over time: Cross-lagged study using a monozygotic twin difference design. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 201, 291-297.

13.

Cochran

J. K.

Wood

P. B.

Sellers

C. S.

Wilkerson

Chamlin

M. B.

(1998). Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 19, 227 255.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Unnever

J. D.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2008). Parenting and self-control. In Goode

(Ed.), Out of control: Assessing the general theory of crime (pp. 61-74). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.

15.

de Ridder

D. T.

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, 76-99.

16.

Duckworth

A. L.

Kern

M. L.

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

17.

Farrington

D. P.

Coid

J. W.

Murray

(2009). Family factors in the intergenerational transmission of offending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 109-124.

18.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 58-69.

19.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

(1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231-255.

20.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Martin

J. S.

(1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 40-70.

21.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

22.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

23.

Hart

Risley

T. R.

(1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

24.

Hay

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

25.

Hay

Forrest

(2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739-774.

26.

Hay

Forrest

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

27.

Henschel

de Bruin

Möhler

(2014). Self-control and child abuse potential in mothers with an abuse history and their preschool children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 824-836.

28.

Hoeve

Dubas

J. S.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

van der Laan

P. H.

Smeenk

Gerris

J. R.

(2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749-775.

29.

Holtfreter

Reisig

M. D.

Piquero

N. L.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). Low self-control and fraud offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 188-203.

30.

Zhang

(2014). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: Examining the applicability of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime to South Korean youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1340-1363.

31.

Jones

Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

(2007). The influence of parental support among incarcerated adolescent offenders: The moderating effects of self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 229-245.

32.

Kort-Butler

L. A.

Tyler

K. A.

Melander

L. A.

(2011). Childhood maltreatment, parental monitoring, and self-control among homeless young adults: Consequences for negative social outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1244-1264.

33.

Kuhn

E. S.

Laird

R. D.

(2013). Parent and peer restrictions of opportunities attenuate the link between low self-control and antisocial behavior. Social Development, 22, 813-830.

34.

Lejuez

C. W.

Read

J. P.

Kahler

C. W.

Richards

J. B.

Ramsey

S. E.

Stuart

G. L.

. . .Brown

R. A.

(2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75-84.

35.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

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

36.

Longshore

(1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general theory of crime. Social Problems, 45, 102-113.

37.

Meldrum

R. C.

Piquero

A. R.

Clark

(2013). Does low self-control predict fictitious drug use and untruthfulness? Deviant Behavior, 34, 242-254.

38.

Muthén

(2007). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

39.

Paternoster

(2012). Can self-control change substantially over time? Rethinking the relationship between self and social control. Criminology, 50, 427-462.

40.

Nofziger

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

41.

Perrone

Sullivan

C. J.

Pratt

T. C.

Margaryan

(2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.

42.

Piquero

A. R.

Farrington

D. P.

Welsh

B. C.

Tremblay

Jennings

W. G.

(2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83-120.

43.

Piquero

A. R.

MacIntosh

Hickman

(2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897-930.

44.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

45.

Reisig

M. D.

Pratt

T. C.

(2011). Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited. Deviant Behavior, 32, 589-625.

46.

Simons

R. L.

Simons

L. G.

Chen

Y. F.

Brody

G. H.

Lin

K. H.

(2007). Identifying the psychological factors that mediate the association between parenting practices and delinquency. Criminology, 45, 481-517.

47.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

48.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324.

49.

Thornberry

T. P.

Freeman-Gallant

Lizotte

A. J.

Krohn

M. D.

Smith

C. A.

(2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171-184.

50.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Agnew

(2006). Why is “bad” parenting criminogenic? Implications from rival theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 3-33.

51.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Belliston

L. M.

(2007). The family → low self-control → deviance: A cross- cultural and cross-national test of self-control theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 505-530.

52.

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, 245-257.

53.

Vera

E. P.

Moon

(2013). An empirical test of low self-control theory among Hispanic youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 79-93.

54.

Verhoeven

Junger

Van Aken

Deković

Van Aken

M. A.

(2007). Parenting during toddlerhood: Contributions of parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 1663-1691.

55.

West

D. J.

Farrington

D. P.

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

56.

Wiecko

F. M.

(2010). Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1186-1190.

57.

Wright

Beaver

DeLisi

Vaughn

(2008). Evidence of negligible parenting influences on self-control, delinquent peers, and delinquency in a sample of twins. Justice Quarterly, 25, 544-569.

58.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169-1202.

59.

Yuan

K. H.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Normal theory based test statistics in structural equation modeling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 289-309.