Psychological,family,and social factors linked with juvenile theft in Korea

Abstract

The absence of an approach which encompasses several micro-systems in Korea may leave important factors of youth risk behaviors undetected. Thus, an examination of a broad set of ecological factors within the micro-system--including individual characteristics as well as immediate family, peer, and school environments surrounding the youth--that is associated with juvenile theft is warranted. The current study analyzes a rare dataset of 176 youth who were arrested for theft and a matching non-theft sample of 180 youth. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to examine variables related to theft engagement. Higher levels of depression was associated with greater odds of theft behavior when examining psychological factors only. Maternal positive parenting behaviors in the family model and school adjustment in the social model were significantly linked with decreased odds of theft engagement. These results may have important implications for providing counseling and educational services to adolescents arrested for theft. Findings encourage expanding the scope of the currently individual-focused program to consideration of family and school contexts that may be crucial for serving youth with theft experience.

Keywords

family juvenile theft Korea psychological factors school adjustment

Juvenile theft in Korea

Youth offenders aged 10- to 19-years-old, the legal age range for ‘juvenile crime' in Korea, have steadily comprised 6% to 9% of total offenders over the past decade in Korea (Institute of Justice, 2012). The proportion of juvenile theft, however, has drastically increased in recent years (Figure 1). According to recent statistics, almost half (47%) of the total number of youth offenders had been convicted of juvenile theft, which thus is by far the leading criminal activity among adolescents in Korea, followed by violence (22%), fraud (7%), assault (5.2%), and bodily injury (4%) (Institute of Justice, 2012). The surge in theft offenders has only been a recent phenomenon in Korea, as violent offence was the sole leading type of criminal activity among youth more than decade ago. In 1997, for instance, the proportion of violent offenders (37.9%) was twice as large as that of theft offenders (19.6%) among juvenile offenders (Institute of Justice, 2012). This pattern, however, has reversed recently with the sudden increase in theft cases among Korean adolescents. Consequently, numerous practitioners and policy makers have focused on identifying ways to resolve the problem of juvenile theft. Juvenile theft in Korea raises particularly alarming concerns as it is characterized by collectivized illegal behavior that involves a relatively young age group and is commonly accompanied by severe levels of violence and aggression (Lee et al., 2010). Additionally, juvenile theft is harmful as it poses a large risk of recurrence and becomes a gateway for engaging in other illegal activities (Lee et al., 2010). According to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office (2008), among youth who were convicted for theft in 2007, nearly all (92.1%) were reconvicted within two years of commitment.

As such, juvenile delinquency, particularly theft, is a grave social concern in Korea. In recognition of this concern, the Korean Ministry of Justice introduced a new type of police diversion program, called the Youth Offender Counseling Program, for juvenile offenders in 2010. This community-based counseling and education program for youth offenders is part of an effort to reduce adolescent recidivism. The purpose of the Youth Offender Counseling Program is to reduce adolescents’ exposure to the juvenile judicial system, and thus further prevent reconvictions among youth that are caused by the stigma of having a criminal record (Park & Choi, 2011). Although the Youth Offender Counseling Program is relatively new in Korea, some Western countries have already adopted similar programs. For example, the US initiated a similar counseling program during the late 1960s, when juvenile delinquency rates increased but existing judicial policies were not effective in controlling juvenile delinquency. Specifically, in Texas, when an adolescent commits a minor offense, the adolescent and her (or his) parents must complete an eight-week education and counseling program (Park & Choi, 2011). The criminal record can be erased permanently if the adolescent does not commit other crimes for 90 days after the eight-week program, in which they are educated by the police, juvenile counselors, professors, juvenile justice officials, and court officials.

In Korea, the Youth Offender Counseling Program is also available for adolescents who have committed relatively less serious crimes. These adolescents do not undergo judicial proceedings at the juvenile court but instead receive alternative treatment through education and counseling services that erase their criminal records. As a rehabilitation initiative, juvenile offenders, instead of being sent to punishment-oriented detention facilities, are offered the option of participating in counseling and education services for about two days. In contrast to the US program, in which participation is mandatory for both the juvenile offender and her/his parents, the Korean program does not require parental participation. Despite the availability of the program, however, the continuous rise in first-time offenses, as well as an increase in recurrence among juvenile offenders, has raised concerns over the effectiveness of this program (Park & Choi, 2011). A comprehensive examination of psychological, family, and social domains may provide guidelines to improve this newly implemented rehabilitation initiative, and indicate an effective policy alternative for youth theft offenders.

Despite the heightened demand, relatively few studies in Korea have conducted a comprehensive investigation of multiple factors related to juvenile theft specifically. Most research has solely focused on one or two indicators (e.g. demographic, psychological, or family factors) that are related to theft behaviors among Korean adolescents (Kim, 2008; Kim & Baek, 2000; Lee, Kim, Jo, Lee, & Bang, 2011; Park, 2004). There is abundant empirical work on the multiple correlates of antisocial and delinquent behavior in adolescence in general, but the bulk of research has been mostly around youth aggression and violence (e.g. Vazsonyi & Pickering, 2003; White & Renk, 2012) and status crime such as alcohol or cigarette consumption (e.g. Elkington, Bauermeister, & Zimmerman, 2011). Only a small body of research has specifically focused on factors solely associated with juvenile theft (e.g. Li, 2009; Regnerus, 2002), and hence, our ability for intervention and psychological support for youth theft offenders is limited.

There are limitations in relying on studies that employ broad and overarching definitions of juvenile delinquency when seeking evidence to inform counseling services or preventive interventions, because the nature of juvenile theft can be overtly distinct from other forms of delinquency, such as violence and status offenses. In particular, youth often conduct theft behavior as a symbolic means to express their feelings of unhappiness or insecurity, which are a result of other underlying problems (Brown, Newnam, & Rhodes, 1989). Theft may be a symptom of internalized confusion or dissatisfaction triggered by poor family relationships or school maladjustment and thus may continue until the primary underlying problem is effectively addressed. Therefore, for clinical or counseling purposes, in order to identify the most effective points of intervention, it is important to pay attention to these unique features of juvenile theft.

Accordingly, this study aimed to identify important individual, family, and social correlates of juvenile theft, using a sample of adolescents who were arrested for theft (but referred to the Youth Offender Counseling Program instead of being sent to detention facilities) and an age-matched normative youth sample in Korea. Examining a broad set of factors surrounding the youth that are associated with engagement in juvenile theft may suggest areas of preventive measures and intervention through targeted services.

Ecological framework: Micro-systems

Youth involved in delinquent behavior are characterized by individual psychological factors and also experience problems in areas concerning the family, peers, and school. Based on this observation, the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) can be a practical framework for discussing the multifaceted determinants of adolescent theft behavior. The ecological systems theory maintains that individual factors matter, but social contexts in which individuals are embedded are equally important for understanding individual outcomes. As such, individual behavior and experiences must be understood within an overall interrelated environment that contains multiple systems, including the micro-, mezzo-, exo-, macro-, and chrono-systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Of these systems, the micro-system is conceptualized as interpersonal relationships that occur in the immediate setting containing the youth, such as parental practices within the home or peer relationships and school adjustment within the school environment, that surround the youth’s daily lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Thus, as the immediate social context, the micro-system (e.g. family, peers, and school) can be understood as a domain that is strongly linked with youth behaviors, and hence, can be a critical area of examination for understanding juvenile theft. Given the prominence of the micro-system surrounding youth involved in theft offenses, the following section provides an overview of the literature on the individual psychological correlates of theft behavior. Subsequently, the role of micro-systems, including the family as well as school and peer domains associated with adolescent theft behavior is further discussed.

Individual psychological factors

Identifying psychological variables related to delinquent behavior has been a longtime interest. The current study selected self-esteem and depression symptoms to represent protective and risk factors of the individual psychological domain.

First, self-esteem is a concept equivalent to self-appraisal or self-worth (Mann, Hosman, Schaalma, & de Vries, 2004) and is especially important in adolescence, a period during which youth actively engage in exploration and development of the self. As a feature that influences individual aspirations and interpersonal relationships, positive self-esteem serves as a protective factor against various forms of psychosocial maladjustment (Mann et al., 2004). Low self-esteem may be associated with increased theft behavior through several possible processes (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005). For example, a large tradition of self-esteem research has maintained that low self-regard may weaken ties to conform to the general norms of society and subsequently increase the likelihood of involvement in delinquent subcultures (Hirschi, 1969; Rosenberg, 1965). Other scholars have suggested that feelings of inferiority and rejection can induce feelings of anger towards other people and consequently increase externalizing behaviors (Donnellan et al., 2005). Alternatively, a reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and antisocial behavior may exist such that some youth may turn to delinquent behavior as a means to enhance their self-esteem (Rosenberg, Schooler, & Schoenbach, 1989).

As a risk factor, depression is an important psychological domain that has been identified with delinquent behaviors among adolescents (Beyers & Loeber, 2003; Ritakallio et al., 2008; Wiesner & Kim, 2006). Feelings of depression are one of the most common forms of internalizing behavior and typically begin in adolescence (Hankin, 2006). The literature has shown that internalizing behaviors like depression are often comorbid with externalizing problem behaviors, such as delinquency, among youth (Beyers & Loeber, 2003; Liu, 2004). There are several possible mechanisms that link depression with delinquent behaviors. Adolescents with high levels of depressive symptoms may choose to engage in theft behavior as a defense mechanism or a means of receiving attention for help (Park, 2004). Alternatively, greater feelings of shame or self-devaluations may induce greater externalizing problem behaviors (Beyers & Loeber, 2003). Conversely, youth who engage in delinquent behaviors may socialize with other deviant peers and develop antisocial attitudes and feelings of depression. Although the direction of the influence is equivocal (Beyers & Loeber, 2003; Hankin, 2006), the relationship between depression and delinquent behavior stands robust in the literature base.

Family factors

In addition to individual factors, contextual factors with which adolescents directly interact may be important for understanding the correlates of juvenile theft. These domains include the family, peers, and school. Although adolescents may spend more time outside the home than during childhood, the family still plays an important role in shaping youth problem behaviors (De Kemp, Scholte, Overbeek, & Engels, 2006; Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003; Vazsonyi & Pickering, 2003). Research has documented that positive parent–youth interaction is associated with lower risks of youth involvement in delinquency. However, these processes may be reciprocal and occur in both directions (Hipwell et al., 2008; Nelson & Rubin, 1997). Strong bonds with parents may prevent youth from engaging in behavior against social norms (Hirschi, 1969). Longitudinal studies have identified that maladaptive parenting behaviors lead to a developmental trajectory susceptible to delinquent behaviors into adulthood, whereas positive parenting practices prevent youth from engaging in problem behaviors (Hoeve et al., 2008). Equally likely is the idea that greater levels of delinquency in youth can cause weaker ties between youth and parents (Huh, Tristan, Wade, & Stice, 2006; Jang & Smith, 1997).

Social factors

In adolescence, peers and school factors play a prominent role in delinquent behaviors. There are several mechanisms that can explain peer influence on youth engagement in undesirable behaviors. Peers have been found to motivate or reinforce ideas, transmit delinquent values, facilitate social learning, provide increased opportunities, and impose pressure that leads youth into delinquent behaviors (Regnerus, 2002). Understanding the role of peers can be important for understanding youth theft behavior, which usually peaks in adolescence and declines with age. This is especially so, as studies have found that conformity to peer norms have a particularly strong effect in adolescence because of the unique characteristics of this developmental period, in which youth are more strongly dependent on their peers than their parents (Steinberg, 1990; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007).

The school environment is another important domain for explaining juvenile delinquency (Vazsonyi & Pickering, 2003). When youth establish strong attachment and commitment to school, they are less likely to engage in delinquency (Thornberry, 1987). In a recent study using nationally representative data of US adolescents, Hoffman and colleagues (2013) found that academic achievement and attachment to school were strongly correlated with delinquent behaviors. Some possible explanations of this finding are that high-achieving youth are strongly vested in the school and experience a positive school environment; consequently, they are more inclined to avoid delinquent activities that may damage well-established relationships within the school environment. On the other hand, the sense of marginalization that low-achieving youth experience at the school may push them away from school and toward delinquent behaviors (Hoffmann, Erickson, & Spence, 2013).

Research question

An examination of a broad set of ecological factors within the micro-system—including individual characteristics as well as immediate family, peer, and school environments surrounding the youth—that is associated with juvenile theft is warranted, as the absence of a comprehensive approach that encompasses several micro-systems in Korea may leave important factors of youth risk behaviors undetected. However, the bulk of existing research on Korean youth have concentrated on identifying the role of only a few variables in a single study that are linked with youth theft behavior (Kim, 2008; Kim & Baek, 2000; Lee et al., 2011; Park, 2004).

Furthermore, to our knowledge, most empirical studies on youth theft are based on North American and European populations (e.g. Regnerus, 2002) and there is a dearth of research examining youth from other international contexts. This possibly limits our understanding of the correlates of juvenile theft in populations from other countries and cultures with different social norms, values, and institutional regulations.

Specifically, the Korean culture, which fosters a patriarchal family environment and inordinately pressures youth for academic success, may differentiate the developmental context of Korean youth from that of adolescents in other countries. In the Korean patriarchal family, fathers are likely to be less involved in parenting. However, numerous studies have claimed that lack of paternal supportive parenting may lead to delinquent behaviors and lack of positive development in youth (Hoeve et al., 2009). Additionally, the emphasis on academic achievement may alienate youth who perform poorly in school and push them into adopting subcultures (Clark, 1992) that de-emphasize education and value deviance. At the macro level, identifying factors that are linked with theft behavior among the Korean youth population is timely because of the aforementioned dynamic social transformations that have taken place in Korea: First, only recently has theft become the top leading youth offence, and second, the effectiveness of the newly adopted Youth Offender Counseling Program is yet to be determined.

Therefore, in response to the limitations of the current literature and uniqueness of the Korean situation, this study attempts to identify individual, family, and social factors that are related to increased risk of juvenile theft engagement among youth offenders in Korea. The present study asks ‘Which individual psychological, family, or social factors are associated with juvenile theft behavior in Korea?’. It analyses a rare dataset of 176 youth who were arrested for theft and a matching non-theft sample of 180 youth. Instead of receiving the judicial punishment, the arrested youth were alternatively referred to the Youth Offender Counseling Program. Based on a multiple-domain approach, this study comprehensively investigates individual psychological factors as well as family and social factors that are linked with juvenile theft. The results can help identify possible points of intervention and have implications for improving the newly adopted Youth Offender Counseling Program.

Method

Participants and procedures

The participants of this study were recruited from 14- to 19-year-olds who were arrested in six police offices located in the Busan Metropolitan area between March 2010 and December 2012 for theft and violent offenses. Of a total of 493 youth who were referred to the Youth Offender Counseling Program, a subsample of 209 youth who were involved in theft crime was selected. These youth were referred by the police to participate in the program organized by the Busan Metropolitan Youth Counseling Support Center. The police officers link the offenders with the counseling center after receiving consent forms from them and their parents. An age-matched group of 192 non-offending middle- and high-school students in the same province was also included in the study. All study participants (both theft and non-theft groups) completed a self-reported questionnaire that took 30–40 minutes to complete. It asked about demographic, psychological, family, and social characteristics. The final sample consisted of 176 youth from the theft group and 180 youth from the non-theft group who had no missing data on any variable of interest.

As presented in Table 1, 66% of the theft offenders reported having been involved in first-time theft and 34% had committed theft more than once in their lifetime. With regard to place where theft had been committed, 39% of thefts occurred in department, grocery, stationery, or clothing stores; 16%, in others’ homes (i.e. burglary); 14%, in the offender’s own home; and 20% were cases of pickpocketing.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of sample characteristics (N = 356).

Variable Non-theft adolescents (N = 180)
Theft adolescents (N = 176)
Test statistic^a p-value

M(%) SD M(%) SD

Experience of theft

First time – – 66% – – –

Repeated – – 34% – – –

Place of occurrence (multiple responses allowed)

Department store, grocery, stationary store, or clothing store – – 39% – –

Burglary – – 16% – – –

Own home – – 14% – – –

Pickpocketing – – 20% – – –

Demographic factors

Age 14.94 0.14 15.85 0.10 −5.10 <0.001

Male 86% – 84% – 0.13 0.72

Psychological factors

Self-esteem 2.92 0.04 2.83 0.04 1.66 0.10

Depression 1.51 0.02 1.59 0.02 −2.78 0.01

Family factors

Maternal positive parenting behaviors 3.56 0.05 3.15 0.06 4.89 <0.001

Paternal positive parenting behaviors 3.25 0.05 2.98 0.06 3.25 <0.001

Social factors

Peer conformity 3.33 0.05 3.46 0.05 −1.85 0.07

School adjustment 3.05 0.03 2.73 0.05 5.64 <0.001

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; ^aDifferences between groups were tested using an independent two-sample t-test (for continuous variables) or Pearson’s chi-squared test (for categorical variables).

Descriptive data on each group’s demographic, psychological, family, and social characteristics are presented in Table 1. The average age of the non-theft group (M = 14.94) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that of the theft group (M = 15.85). The groups did not significantly differ in gender composition (over 80% male; p = 0.72).

Measures

Demographic factors

The demographic inventory consisted of eight questions: Two about demographic information of the theft group (i.e. gender and age), a question about whether this was a first-time theft offense or not and a question about the place of theft crime committed.

Psychological factors

Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale that was translated into Korean by Chun (1974) was used to measure adolescent self-reported self-esteem. The ten-item inventory defines self-esteem as a single dimension that consists of two sub-factors—positive self-esteem and negative self-esteem. Four questions that asked about negative self-esteem were reverse-scored, such that a higher score was indicative of greater positive self-esteem. The total self-esteem score was an equally weighted average of all ten items. Each item was measured using a four-point Likert scale (1 = ‘never’; 4 = ‘very frequently’). In the Korean version of the scale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.81 and 0.89 for elementary school and college student groups, respectively (Lee, Nam, Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2009). In the factor analyses, the Korean self-esteem scale displays a good scale dimensionality and suitable validity (e.g. supporting a consistent one-factor structure for all age groups; Lee et al., 2009) and support findings from previous studies (Marsh, 1996; Pullmann & Allik, 2000; Whiteside-Mansell & Corwyn, 2003). The Korean version of the scale displays good stability through high item-total scale correlations and good discriminant validity, which is shown to effectively discriminate between individuals of low and high self-esteem (Lee et al., 2009). In the current study, the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.83.

To measure depression levels, this study adopted the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), which was developed for children and youth aged 7- to 17-years-old by Kovacs (1981) and translated into Korean by Cho and Lee (1990). This self-report inventory consists of a total of 27 items rated on a three-point Likert scale (0 = ‘absence of depressive symptoms’ and 2 = ‘presence of depressive symptoms’). The total score is the average of all 27 items. A higher score indicates greater levels of depression. The Korean CDI is a reliable instrument with a multidimensional structure of depression (Cho & Lee, 1990). According to Cho and Lee (1990), the Korean CDI’s internal-consistency reliability estimate is 0.88; test–retest reliability estimate over two weeks is 0.82; spilt-half reliability estimate is 0.71; and mean of item-total correlations is acceptable (p < 0.001). In the factor analyses, the Korean CDI displays suitable validity supporting an eight-factor structure, which are consistent with prior work (Finch, Fleming, & Spirito, 1982; Saylor, Finch, & Spirito, 1984). Factor structures are consistent across age and sex groups. The Korean CDI shows acceptable cross-cultural validity, good convergent validity with other measures of depression, and good discriminant validity (Cho & Lee, 1990). In the current study, the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.83.

Family factors

Positive paternal and maternal parenting behaviors were measured using Huh’s scale (2004), which was developed based on theories of parenting behaviors types (e.g. Own Memories of Childrearing Experiences (EMBU); Perris, Jacobsson, Lindström, Von Knorring, & Perris, 1980) and about care versus overprotection parenting behaviors dimensions (e.g. Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI); Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). Participants answered 14 questions each on their paternal and maternal behaviors in the areas of monitoring (e.g. ‘My mother/father knows where I am after school’), rational explanation (e.g. ‘My mother/father clearly explains why she/he is angry with me’), and affection (e.g. ‘My mother/father enjoys spending time with me’). Each question is rated on a four-point Likert scale (1 = ‘almost never’; 4 = ‘frequently’). The scores of the 14 items are averaged to form the final positive parenting score. Higher scores indicate positive paternal and maternal behaviors towards the youth. The youth self-reported scale has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (e.g. high item-total scale correlations and internal reliability, good convergent validity with other parenting behaviors measures, good criterion-related validity; Huh, 2004). In terms of positive parenting behaviors, the internal-consistency reliability estimate was 0.79, 0.81, and 0.84 for monitoring, rational explanation, and affection, respectively. For the maternal scale, the estimates were 0.77, 0.79, and 0.82 for monitoring, rational explanation, affection, respectively. Korean studies using the scale indicate that Huh’s (2004) scale is a relatively reliable measure and has predictive validity for a wide variety of parenting experiences (Lee & Lea, 2012, Yon, Han, & Yoon, 2011). In the current study, the Cronbach α coefficients for monitoring, rational explanation, and affection were 0.72, 0.79, and 0.88 for fathers and 0.85, 0.84, and 0.90 for mothers; 0.90 for positive paternal parenting and 0.92 for positive maternal positive parenting.

Social factors

Berndt's (1979) peer conformity that was translated into Korean by Oh (1990) was used to measure adolescents’ self-reported peer conformity. It is based on 20 questions including prosocial, neutral, and antisocial behaviors originally developed by Berndt (1979). However, Oh (1990) selected only 16 questions representing the situations that might frequently occur in the everyday lives of Korean adolescents and translated them into Korean. For example, a question exemplifying a prosocial situation asked the adolescents whether they would help a classmate with a report if asked by their peers, instead of doing what they wanted to do, which was helping another classmate operate the film projector. A question exemplifying a neutral situation asked the adolescents whether they would go to the PC game room if asked by their peers, even if they were not particularly interested in computer games. A question exemplifying an antisocial situation asked the adolescents whether they would steal a bike if a peer wanted help in doing it. For each of the 16 situations, using a six-point scale, participants were asked to indicate the likelihood of engaging in peer-conforming behavior (6 = ‘very likely’; 5 = ‘quite likely’; 4 = ‘probably likely’) or non-conforming behavior (3 = ‘probably likely’; 2 = ‘quite likely’; 1 = ‘very likely’). The peer conformity score was measured as the average of the 16 items, with a higher score representing greater levels of peer conformity. The Korean version of the scale displays acceptable internal-consistency reliability estimate (0.77), as well as acceptable item-total scale correlations, good convergent validity with other peer relationship measures, and good divergent validity (Oh, 1990). In the current study, the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.72.

Finally, the self-reported school adjustment questionnaire used in the current study employed Moon’s school adjustment inventory (2001), which was developed based on items used from previous studies on academic, social, emotional adjustment behaviors in school (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999). The questionnaire consists of 22 items representing concepts such as interest in school (e.g. ‘I think it is a waste of time to go to school’), attitude toward learning achievement (e.g. ‘I am not interested in studying’), and compliance with school regulations and rules (e.g. ‘I throw out garbage anywhere’). Each item was originally scored based on a four-point Likert scale (1 = ‘never’; 4 = ‘frequently’), but reverse-coded such that a higher score indicated higher levels of school adjustment among youth. The final score is the unweighted average of 22 items. Moon’s (2001) scale is a reliable instrument with a good internal-consistency reliability estimate (0.93). For subscales, internal-consistency reliability estimates are 0.83, 0.93, and 0.80 for interest toward school, attitude toward learning achievement, and compliance of school regulations and rules (Moon, 2001). Other psychometric characteristics of the scale also demonstrated good convergent validity with previous school adjustment measures. In the current study, the Cronbach α coefficient is 0.91.

Analysis methods

First, descriptive statistics for various participant characteristics were calculated separately for the non-theft and theft groups (Table 1). To explore differences between the two groups, an independent two-sample t-test (for continuous variables) or Pearson’s chi-squared test (for categorical variables) was performed. Second, Pearson’s correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationship between any pair of variables for the non-theft and theft groups. Third, as one of the main goals of the research was to clarify factors associated with youth theft involvement, stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to examine variables related to theft engagement. Models 1, 2, and 3 examined the role of psychological (self-esteem and depression), family (paternal and maternal positive parenting behaviors), and social (peer conformity and school adjustment) factors, respectively. In all models, gender and age were included as control variables. All tests were two-sided and conducted using STATA (StataCorp, 2013).

Results

There were statistically significant differences between the non-theft and theft youth for various psychological, family, and social domains (Table 1). Age (p < 0.001) and depression levels (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the theft group, whereas the non-theft sample experienced more positive maternal and paternal parenting practices (p < 0.001) and scored higher on school adjustment (p < 0.001).

Pearson’s correlation analysis results are presented in Table 2. Patterns of correlation among key variables representing the psychological, family, and social domains were similar between the non-theft and theft youth groups, though the strength of the relationships differed. Depression had negative relationships with self-esteem, positive parenting, and school adjustment, but a positive relationship with peer conformity. Self-esteem had a positive relationship with positive parenting and school adjustment, but a negative relationship with peer conformity. Maternal and paternal positive parenting behaviors were negatively and positively linked with peer conformity and school adjustment, respectively. Peer conformity and school adjustment had a negative relationship.
Table 2.
Summary of Pearson’s correlation analysis for the non-theft group (N = 180) and theft group (N = 176).

D SE MPB PPB PC SA

D – −0.5978 −0.3613 −0.4485 0.0872 −0.5101

SE −0.5595 – 0.3637 0.4998 −0.1673 0.3884

MPB −0.0950 0.1678 – 0.6508 −0.1022 0.3708

PPB −0.1676 0.1948 0.6059 – −0.2463 0.3613

PC 0.2818 −0.2618 −0.1436 −0.1055 – −0.4498

SA −0.4026 0.2614 0.1351 0.2972 −0.3436 –

Note: Correlation coefficients for the non-theft group (N = 180) are presented above the diagonal. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the theft group (N = 176) are presented below the diagonal and highlighted in gray. D = depression; SE = self-esteem; MPB = maternal positive parenting behaviors; PPB = paternal positive parenting behaviors; PC = peer conformity; SA = school adjustment.

To determine variables significantly associated with engagement in theft behaviors of the current sample of adolescents, stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis (Table 3). In Model 1, which examined the relationship between psychological factors and theft involvement after controlling for demographic characteristics, age (OR = 1.43, p < 0.001) was statistically associated with an increase in the odds of adolescent theft. The age variable was statistically significant across all three models. Depression was also positively linked with theft experience (OR = 3.05, p < 0.05). The depression measure trended toward significance (p < 0.10) when family variables were included, and no longer became significant when social factors were added to the model. Model 2, which added family indicators, showed that a one-unit increase in maternal parenting behaviors score was associated with a 49% decrease in the odds of adolescent theft engagement (OR = 0.51, p < 0.01) after controlling for age and gender. Maternal positive parenting remained statistically significant (OR = 0.52, p < 0.01) when social factors were included in the model. Paternal positive parenting behavior, however, was not significant. Model 3, which added social factors onto Model 2, showed that a one-unit increase in school adjustment score was linked with a 57% decrease in the odds of adolescent theft experience (OR = 0.43, p < 0.01). McFadden’s adjusted pseudo-R² improved from 0.053 to 0.081 and to 0.096 as the family and social domains were added to the stepwise logistic regression models across Models 1 through 3.
Figure 1.
Number of theft and violent offenders between 2006–2013.

Table 3.
Results of multiple logistic regression analysis (N = 356).

Variable Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI

Demographic factors

Gender (Female = 1, Male = 0) 1.36 [0.71, 2.63] 1.50 [0.76, 2.95] 1.50 [0.75, 2.98]

Age 1.43* [1.25, 1.65] 1.44* [1.25, 1.66] 1.39*** [1.20, 1.61]

Psychological factors

Self-esteem 0.85 [0.51, 1.43] 1.03 [0.60, 1.76] 1.05 [0.60, 1.83]

Depression 3.05* [1.09, 8.55] 2.64+ [0.92, 7.57] 1.45 [0.47, 4.48]

Family factors

Maternal positive parenting behaviors 0.51 [0.36, 0.74] 0.52 [0.36, 0.76]

Paternal positive parenting behaviors 1.08 [0.73, 1.60] 1.2 [0.80, 1.80]

Social factors

Peer conformity 0.9 [0.62, 1.31]

School adjustment 0.43** [0.26, 0.71]

McFadden’s Adjusted Pseudo -R² 0.053 0.081 0.096

Note: CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; +p < 0.10; p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.

Discussion

Using a unique sample from Korea, the current study investigated psychological, family, and social factors associated with adolescent theft behavior. Findings were consistent with the ecological systems perspective that individual characteristics, as well as the interactions with immediate environment of the micro-system surrounding the youth, may be important domains for understanding factors related to juvenile theft and treating at-risk youth in Korea. Specifically, in the model that only examined psychological variables (Model 1), depression was significantly associated with juvenile theft experience. As the family (Model 2) and social (Model 3) environments were considered, however, the relevance of the individual psychological indicator concerning theft decreased. These results were fairly consistent with a subset of prior research (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Hoeve et al., 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2013; Wiesner & Kim, 2006), with an exception of some (Donnellan et al., 2005) that have been conducted in Western cultures. The following section elaborates on the main findings of the current study, with a focus on the psychological, family, and social domains in relation to prior research conducted in Korean and other contexts. It also identifies possible implications for the Korean Youth Offender Counseling Program.

Depression as a critical psychological factor

In terms of individual psychological measures, depression was strongly linked with theft only in Model 1. As explained by Park (2004), the significant depression–theft relationship may be a result of adolescents with high levels of depressive symptoms engaging in theft behavior as a defense mechanism. In other words, adolescents suffering from depressed affect may actively seek out ways to relieve their negative psychological status by engaging in antisocial behaviors. Alternatively, instead of depression leading to theft, involvement in antisocial activities may result in depression. This idea is equally plausible, as the psychological rewards for antisocial behavior may not always be positive.

Although it is difficult to tease out the exact causal mechanisms through which depression and theft involvement are related because of the cross-sectional nature of the data analysed in the current study, the present results may have important implications for intervention. A meta-analysis by Fazel and colleagues (2008) documented a high prevalence of depressive disorder among youth in juvenile detention and correctional facilities. However, most of these studies have had difficulty in identifying whether these youth were already suffering from depression at the time they were admitted to the facility or whether being in an institutionalized facility caused depression. The uniqueness of the sample used in this study—it included youth who were arrested for theft but were not sent to detention facilities—provides some support for the possibility that youth who have committed theft may have depression symptoms even before entry into a correctional facility.

Another individual characteristic that was examined in the current study was self-esteem, a construct that is especially important in adolescence. Unlike depression, self-esteem was not statistically significant in any of the models. The absence of a significant relationship may be explained by the mixed evidence as to whether high self-esteem is related to more (Donnellan et al., 2005) or less (Baumeister et al., 1996) involvement in problem behaviors. Although a portion of the literature base highlights the protective effect of self-appraisal or self-worth against various forms of psychosocial maladjustment (Mann et al., 2004), a subset of research has reported that high levels of self-esteem may be linked with delinquent behavior, in that individuals with high self-esteem resort to antisocial behavior when the positive view of the self is threatened by others (Baumeister et al., 1996). The non-significant association of self-esteem in the current study may be due to mixed functional aspects of self-esteem in relation to problem behavior in youth.

Maternal positive parenting practice as a critical family factor

Results demonstrated that family factors were as important as individual factors for understanding youth theft behaviors. In particular, positive parenting behavior of mothers, not fathers, was strongly related to theft engagement. The positive parenting practices of mothers, as opposed to fathers, may be explained in terms of the greater quantity and quality of interaction adolescents have with their mothers, compared to their fathers. This explanation is plausible in Korea’s patriarchal culture, in which the mother is predominantly responsible for parenting. Prior research has found that adolescents spend more time with their mothers than their fathers (Shin & Jang, 2013). During that time, they engage in high-quality activities that foster communication between the parent and youth (Nam, Sung, & Gwon, 2014). Positive parenting practices of mothers may open up opportunities for information sring, and consequently allow parents to naturally monitor the whereabouts of adolescents.

Although the present results are congruent with the idea that maternal positive parenting practices are related to lower antisocial behavior, it is difficult to determine whether positive parenting practices are a protective factor or whether youth who are prosocial draw on positive parenting behaviors. The literature provides evidence for both arguments. For example, Hoeve et al. (2008) found that positive parenting practices can prevent youth from engaging in risky behaviors, whereas Huh and colleagues (2006) found that youth problem behaviors reduce the quality of parent–youth relationships.

Another important area of future inquiry, in relation to current counseling services in Korea, is the possibility of various gender combinations in youth-parent interactions leading to different behavioral problems (Hong, Han, & Lee, 2014; Moretti & Craig, 2013). For example, Hong and colleges (2014) found in a community sample of Korean youth that the increase in the odds of theft engagement with father neglect was greater for girls than boys. Consideration of gender dyads may be important as mothers and fathers may play distinct roles in predicting various types of youth psychosocial maladjustment (Stolz, Barber, & Olsen, 2005).

The strong association reported in the current study, regardless of the exact direction of influence, has implications for the counseling and education system for youth offenders in Korea. Currently, counseling and education services for youth offenders in Korea primarily focus on providing services for the youth only. Although a subset of the literature is concerned about the reduced role of parents in determining youth outcomes in adolescence, the current results indicate how the family environment can stand out as another important aspect.

School adjustment as a critical social factor

Similar to maternal parenting practices, schools also had an important link with juvenile theft. School adjustment, conceptualized as school interest, attitude toward academic achievement, and conformity to rules and norms, was significantly associated with theft behavior in this sample of Korean youth. This result is in accordance with a large body of studies that explained the link between school adjustment and antisocial behavior through a framework based on social control theory. Hoffman and colleagues (2013), for example, explained that youth with low academic achievement are likely to develop weak school bonds, and this allows them to easily turn to delinquent behaviors.

Alternatively, the strong association between school adjustment and theft behavior can be understood within the specific sociocultural context of Korea, which disproportionately rewards high-performing students. Education is a critical aspect of the daily lives of Korean adolescents. On a given weekday, the average Korean adolescent spends about 9–11 hours on academic activities (e.g. school lectures and after-school academic activities) (KOSTAT, 2009). One reason Korean youth spend such a large amount of time on academics is extremely high parental expectations, as Korean parents tend to evaluate youth based on their ability to excel academically (Park, Park, & Kim, 2010). Thus, low-performing adolescents or youth in Korea who are not interested in school, may experience negative parenting behavior and easily feel devalued and depressed. These factors may increase the probability of engaging in deviant behaviors, such as theft. Furthermore, in a highly competitive society that values academic success, such as Korea, youth who are low achievers or adjust poorly in school are likely to feel extreme stress and alienation from mainstream society. These marginalized low-achieving youth may turn to deviant behaviors (Hoffman et al., 2013). When youth feel alienated, it is likely that they choose to drop out of school and adopt subcultures that value deviant behavior such as theft, to gain a sense of approval or belonging from others, which are particularly critical elements in adolescence (Clark, 1992).

Contrary to prior literature (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007) and what was initially hypothesized earlier in the study, peer conformity did not show a positive relationship with youth theft behavior. One explanation for this finding may relate to the nature of theft behavior. As theft is often an externalization of internal feelings of unhappiness and insecurity (Brown et al., 1989), youth actions may be less motivated by peers, whereas antisocial behavior characterized as hostility and aggression may be more linked with peer influence and pressure (Snyder, 2002). Second, the developmental features of middle adolescence during which peer conformity is heightened (Berndt, 1979) may be another possible explanation. This idea may be supported by the descriptive statistics results. Specifically, in the current sample of 14- to 19-year-olds, there was no statistical difference in peer conformity levels between the theft and non-theft youth groups. Furthermore, although peer conformity has traditionally been associated with negative behaviors (Berndt, 1979), recent studies have identified that peer conformity can also promote social desirable behaviors (Brown, 2004), such as doing well in school. A more detailed investigation of the exact processes through which peer conformity works to shape youth behaviors is warranted in the future.

Limitations

Despite the significance of the findings of the study, some limitations must be kept in mind when interpreting the results. The cross-sectional nature of the dataset limits our ability to make strong causal inferences. Prior work, such as the international theory of delinquency (Thornberry, 1987), has posited that individual and social factors can simultaneously be a cause and effect of problem behavior among youth. In other words, social factors and delinquent behavior have a reciprocal interrelated relationship, such that not only do external factors affect delinquent behaviors but also delinquent behaviors shape external factors. Thus, the literature would benefit from the use of longitudinal data, which at minimum can help identify causal effects. Generalizability of the results derived from this study to other populations is another potential limitation. As the sample was recruited from a single region in Korea, extrapolation of these results to other cultures and countries should be done cautiously. Finally, we did not collect information on involvement in juvenile theft experience in the past among the age-matched sample of non-offending youth. It is important to keep in mind that a large presence of youth in the non-offending sample with past experience in theft (regardless of being arrested) or other types of delinquent behavior may bias the study results downwards. Despite its limitations, the current results may still contribute to expanding the literature base on the factors related to juvenile theft, as quantitative data collected from Korean youth offenders are extremely scarce.

Conclusion and implications

Using an ecological systems perspective with a particular emphasis on the micro-system, the current study found that a higher level of depression was associated with greater odds of theft behavior when examining psychological factors only (Model 1). Maternal positive parenting behaviors and school adjustment in the family model (Model 2) and the social model (Model 3) were significantly linked with increased odds of theft engagement in this particular sample of Korean youth. Study results lend support to the idea that youth outcomes are shaped by constant interaction with various dimensions of the micro-system, particularly the family and school.

Findings showed that youth who commit juvenile theft are exposed to a constellation of psychological, family, and social factors that are all intertwined in a complex way. For example, depression no longer became significant when family or social factors were considered. This may indicate that while depression is a characteristic of theft youth, it may also be a result of maladaptive contexts within the family environment. Both maternal positive parenting behavior and school adjustment seemed to be strongly linked with theft engagement when multiple domains were examined comprehensively in a single model. This finding should be related to the idea that particular types of parenting practices may be more common among adolescents who engage in theft. At the same time, it is worth noting the possibility of parental behaviors to be strongly linked with youth’s adjustment in school.

These results may have important implications for the newly adopted Youth Offender Counseling Program in Korea that is designed to provide counseling and educational services to adolescents arrested for theft. Specifically, they encourage expanding the scope of the currently individual-focused program to a broader ecological base containing a comprehensive set of micro-systems. In other words, rather than criticizing, labeling, or solely targeting individual psychological conditions, consideration of family and school contexts may be crucial. This may be particularly important among youth with theft experience, as theft behavior is often considered as a symbolic way of expressing discontent or insecurity that is triggered by underlying problems in other areas of life, such as the family or school (Brown et al., 1989). A more comprehensive counseling program that involves parental (particularly mothers) and school participation may be more effective. In particular, counseling programs that facilitate youth–parent communication may encourage positive functioning within the family and hence prevent youth from engaging in problem behaviors. Imposing mandatory participation of parents in the educational and counseling services as done in other countries, such as the US, may be key to the success of the Youth Offender Counseling Program (Park & Choi, 2011). Additionally, an effective program should also work with school counselors, school psychologists, and teachers to help identify ways to improve school interest, attitude toward learning, and interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers, such that at-risk youth do not resort to theft behaviors (Hoffmann et al., 2013). Establishing support systems collaborating between school and community through effective mentorship may also be particularly important for preventing first-time offenders to develop into perpetuating offenders, should the family fail to provide support to at-risk youth (Park & Choi, 2011). Furthermore, a successful comprehensive counseling and education program, through improvement in parenting practices and school adjustment, may indirectly reduce the high levels of depression commonly observed among youth offenders.

Variable	Non-theft adolescents (N = 180)		Test statistic^a	p-value
Experience of theft
First time	–	–	66%	–	–	–
Repeated	–	–	34%	–	–	–
Place of occurrence (multiple responses allowed)
Department store, grocery, stationary store, or clothing store	–	–	39%		–	–
Burglary	–	–	16%	–	–	–
Own home	–	–	14%	–	–	–
Pickpocketing	–	–	20%	–	–	–
Demographic factors
Age	14.94	0.14	15.85	0.10	−5.10	<0.001
Male	86%	–	84%	–	0.13	0.72
Psychological factors
Self-esteem	2.92	0.04	2.83	0.04	1.66	0.10
Depression	1.51	0.02	1.59	0.02	−2.78	0.01
Family factors
Maternal positive parenting behaviors	3.56	0.05	3.15	0.06	4.89	<0.001
Paternal positive parenting behaviors	3.25	0.05	2.98	0.06	3.25	<0.001
Social factors
Peer conformity	3.33	0.05	3.46	0.05	−1.85	0.07
School adjustment	3.05	0.03	2.73	0.05	5.64	<0.001

	D	SE	MPB	PPB	PC	SA
D	–	−0.5978	−0.3613	−0.4485	0.0872	−0.5101
SE	−0.5595	–	0.3637	0.4998	−0.1673	0.3884
MPB	−0.0950	0.1678	–	0.6508	−0.1022	0.3708
PPB	−0.1676	0.1948	0.6059	–	−0.2463	0.3613
PC	0.2818	−0.2618	−0.1436	−0.1055	–	−0.4498
SA	−0.4026	0.2614	0.1351	0.2972	−0.3436	–

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Demographic factors
Gender (Female = 1, Male = 0)	1.36	[0.71, 2.63]	1.50	[0.76, 2.95]	1.50	[0.75, 2.98]
Age	1.43***	[1.25, 1.65]	1.44***	[1.25, 1.66]	1.39***	[1.20, 1.61]
Psychological factors
Self-esteem	0.85	[0.51, 1.43]	1.03	[0.60, 1.76]	1.05	[0.60, 1.83]
Depression	3.05*	[1.09, 8.55]	2.64+	[0.92, 7.57]	1.45	[0.47, 4.48]
Family factors
Maternal positive parenting behaviors			0.51**	[0.36, 0.74]	0.52**	[0.36, 0.76]
Paternal positive parenting behaviors			1.08	[0.73, 1.60]	1.2	[0.80, 1.80]
Social factors
Peer conformity					0.9	[0.62, 1.31]
School adjustment					0.43**	[0.26, 0.71]
McFadden’s Adjusted Pseudo -R²	0.053	0.081	0.096

Footnotes

Author biographies

DongHun Lee, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at Sungkyunkwan University in South Korea. He received a doctoral degree in Counseling Psychology from the University of Florida, USA. His research interest includes children and adolescents’ mental health issues, especially in a single parent family and ex-offenders’ family.

Yoonsun Han, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Child Psychology and Education at Sungkyunkwan University in South Korea. She received a joint doctoral degree in Social Work and Sociology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Her primary area of research includes family, peer, and community factors related to youth mental health and health risk behaviors in various international contexts.

ManSik Park, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Statistics at Sungshin Women’s University in South Korea. He received a doctoral degree in Statistics from the North Carolina State University, USA. His research interest includes spatial statistics and linear models.

SeakZoon Roh, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at Sungshin Women’s University in South Korea. He earned his PhD degree in instructional systems technology from Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. His research interest includes Internet and mobile addiction, higher education, and multicultural education.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Smart

Boden

J. M.

(1996) Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review 103(1): 5.

Berndt

(1979) Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology 15: 608–616. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5.

Beyers

J. M.

Loeber

(2003) Untangling developmental relations between depressed mood and delinquency in male adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31(3): 247–266. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608.

Birch

S. H.

Ladd

G. W.

(1997) The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology 35: 61–79. doi: 10.1023/A:1023225428957.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977) Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32(7): 513. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5.

Brown

(2004) Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In: Lerner

Steinberg

(eds) Handbook of adolescent psychology, New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown

W. K.

Newnam

T. A.

Rhodes

W. A.

(1989) Juvenile theft, York, PA: William Gladden Foundation.

Clark

C. M.

(1992) Deviant adolescent subcultures: Assessment strategies and clinical interventions. Adolescence 27(106): 283–293.

Cho

Lee

(1990) Development of the Korean form of the Kovacs’ Children’s Depression Inventory. Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatry Association 29(4): 943–956.

10.

Chun

B. J.

(1974) Self-esteem: A test of its measurability. Yonsei Academia 11: 1109–1129.

11.

De Kemp

R. A.

Scholte

R. H.

Overbeek

Engels

R. C.

(2006) Early adolescent delinquency: The role of parents and best friends. Criminal Justice and Behavior 33(4): 488–510. doi: 10.1177/0093854806286208.

12.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2005) Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency. Psychological Science 16(4): 328–335. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01535.x.

13.

Elliot

McGregor

H. A.

Gable

(1999) Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 549–563. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549.

14.

Elkington

K. S.

Bauermeister

J. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2011) Do parents and peers matter? A prospective socio-ecological examination of substance use and sexual risk among African American youth. Journal of Adolescence 34(5): 1035–1047. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.004.

15.

Finch

A. J.

Fleming

C. C.

Spirito

(1982) Factor analysis of the Children's Depression Inventory with emotionally disturbed children. (Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Treatment Center for Children, Richmond, Virginia).

16.

Fazel, S., Doll, H., & Långström, N. (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), 1010–1019.

17.

Galambos

N. L.

Barker

E. T.

Almeida

D. M.

(2003) Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development 74(2): 578–594. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402017.

18.

Hankin

B. L.

(2006) Adolescent depression: Description, causes, and interventions. Epilepsy & Behavior 8(1): 102–114. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.10.012.

19.

Hipwell

Keenan

Kasza

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

Bean

(2008) Reciprocal influences between girls’ conduct problems and depression, and parental punishment and warmth: A six year prospective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36(5): 663–677. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9206-4.

20.

Hirschi

(1969) Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

21.

Hoeve

Blokland

Dubas

J. S.

Loeber

Gerris

J. R.

van der Laan

P. H.

(2008) Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36(2): 223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x.

22.

Hoeve

Dubas

Eichelsheim

van der Laan

Smeenk

Gerris

J. M.

(2009) The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 37(6): 749–775. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8.

23.

Hoffmann

J. P.

Erickson

L. D.

Spence

K. R.

(2013) Modeling the association between academic achievement and delinquency: An application of interactional theory. Criminology 51(3): 629–660. doi: 10.1111/crim.2011.51.issue-3/issuetoc.

24.

Hong

Han

Lee

D. H.

(2014) The role of gender dynamics in the relationship between parental maltreatment and juvenile theft in South Korea. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 3: 309–318. doi: /10.6000/1929-4409.2014.03.26.

25.

Huh

Tristan

Wade

Stice

(2006) Does problem behavior elicit poor parenting? A prospective study of adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Research 21(2): 185–204. doi: 10.1177/0743558405285462.

26.

Huh

(2004) A Study for the development and validation of an inventory for parenting behavior perceived by adolescents. The Korean Journal of Youth Counseling 12(2): 170–189.

27.

Institute of Justice. (2012). Criminal justice statistics in Korea: The white paper on crime 2012. Legal Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea Retrieved from https://www.lrti.go.kr/homepage/information/DataAction.do?method=view.

28.

Jang

S. J.

Smith

C. A.

(1997) A test of reciprocal causal relationships among parental supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(3): 307–336. doi: 10.1177/0022427897034003002.

29.

Kaplan

Maehr

M. L.

(1999) Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24: 330–358. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.0993.

30.

Kim

G. H.

(2008) Male delinquents’ theft and masculinities. Journal of Adolescent Welfare 10(3): 167–182.

31.

Kim

Y. J.

Baek

Y. M.

(2000) The relationships of perceived parental rearing attitudes, Self - concept, and depression of normal and delinquent juveniles. The Korean Journal of East West Mind Science 3(1): 139–160.

32.

Kovacs

(1981) Rating scales to assess depression in school aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica 46: 305–315.

33.

KOSTAT. (2009). Time Survey. Statistics Korea.

34.

Lee

D. H.

Kim

B. J.

Kim

S. J.

Ahn

Y. B.

M. Y.

Lee

J. H.

Bang

S. H.

(2010) Research on adolescent theft behavior. Busan Metropolitan Youth Counseling & Support Center.

35.

Lee

D. H.

Kim

S. J.

M. Y.

Lee

J. H.

Bang

S. H.

(2011) Understanding adolescents’ theft behaviors: A review of the literature. Korean Journal of Youth Counseling 19(1): 23–48.

36.

Lee

Lea

(2012) The effects of perceived parenting attitude on problem behavior of adolescence: Focused on mediating effect. The Korean Journal of Youth Counseling 20(1): 55–70.

37.

Lee

Nam

Lee

(2009) Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Analysis of item-level validity. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy 21(1): 173–189.

38.

J. C. M.

(2009) Preventing juvenile theft in Hong Kong: A four-level strategy. Journal of Comparative Asian Development 8(2): 397–420. doi: 10.1080/15339110903326681.

39.

Liu

(2004) Childhood externalizing behavior: Theory and implications. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 17(3): 93–103.

40.

Mann

M. M.

Hosman

C. M.

Schaalma

H. P.

de Vries

N. K.

(2004) Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research 19(4): 357–372. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg041.

41.

Marsh

H. W.

(1996) Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 810–819. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.0993.

42.

Moon

(2001) A structural analysis of the social and psychological variables related to adolescents’ school adjustment behaviors. Doctoral dissertation manuscript. Chungnam National University, Daejon, Korea.

43.

Moretti

M. M.

Craig

S. G.

(2013) Maternal versus paternal physical and emotional abuse, affect regulation and risk for depression from adolescence to early adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect 37(1): 4–13. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.09.015.

44.

Nam, J. M., Sung, H. R., & Gwon, S. Y. (2014). Effects of psychological control and affective parenting on internalized and externalized behaviors in junior midddle schoolers. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 147–167.

45.

Nelson

S. M.

Rubin

(1997) Sex differences, parental attachment, and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 12(2): 28–34. doi: 10.1007/BF02806699.

46.

(1990) A study on the peer conformity development of child. Master thesis manuscript. Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul, Korea.

47.

Park

E. J.

(2004) Depression and kleptomania–sorry!. Counseling and Christian Education: Child Counseling 17: 64–67.

48.

Park

E. M.

Choi

J. A.

(2011) Police diversion program active plan for juvenile delinquency repeat prevention. Journal of the Korean Contents Association 11(6): 311–325.

49.

Park

Y.-K.

Park

Y.-S.

Kim

U.-C.

(2010) A comparative analysis of generational and psychological differences between Korean adolescents and their parents: With a specific focus on life-goals, family values, academic aspirations and self-efficacy. Studies on Korean Youth 21(4): 79–113.

50.

Parker

Tupling

Brown

L. B.

(1979) A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology 52: 1–10.

51.

Perris

Jacobsson

Lindström

Von Knorring

Perris

(1980) Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 61: 265–274. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1980.tb00581.x.

52.

Pullmann

Allik

(2000) The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences 28: 701–715. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00132-4.

53.

Regnerus

M. D.

(2002) Friends’ influence on adolescent theft and minor delinquency: A developmental test of peer-reported effects. Social Science Research 31(4): 681–705. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00010-8.

54.

Ritakallio

Koivisto

A.-M.

von der Pahlen

Pelkonen

Marttunen

Kaltiala-Heino

(2008) Continuity, comorbidity and longitudinal associations between depression and antisocial behaviour in middle adolescence: A 2-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of Adolescence 31(3): 355–370. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.06.006.

55.

Rosenberg

(1965) Society and the adolescent self-image, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

56.

Rosenberg

Schooler

Schoenbach

(1989) Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review1004–1018.

57.

Saylor

C. F.

Finch

A. J.

Spirito

(1984) The Children’s Depression Inventory: A systemic evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52: 955–967. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.52.6.955.

58.

Snyder

(2002) Reinforcement and coercion mechanisms in the development of antisocial behavior: Peer relationships. In: Reid

J. B.

Gerald

Snyder

(eds) Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

59.

StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: Release 13, College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

60.

Steinberg

(1990) Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In: Shirley Feldman

Glen

Elliott Glen

(eds) At the threshold: The developing adolescent, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 255–276.

61.

Steinberg

Monahan

K. C.

(2007) Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology 43(6): 1531. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531.

62.

Stolz

H. E.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005) Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4): 1076–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00195.x.

63.

Supreme Prosecutor’s Office (2008) Crime analysis, Seoul: Namilmoonhwasa.

64.

Thornberry

T. P.

(1987) Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology 25(4): 863–892. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x.

65.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Pickering

L. E.

(2003) The importance of family and school domains in adolescent deviance: African American and Caucasian youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32(2): 115–128. doi: 10.1023/A:1021857801554.

66.

White

Renk

(2012) Externalizing behavior problems during adolescence: An ecological perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies 21(1): 158–171. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9459-y.

67.

Whiteside-Mansell

Corwyn

R. F.

(2003) Mean and covariance structures analyses: An examination of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among adolescents and adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement 63: 163–173. doi: 10.1177/0013164402239323.

68.

Wiesner

Kim

H. K.

(2006) Co-occurring delinquency and depressive symptoms of adolescent boys and girls: A dual trajectory modeling approach. Developmental Psychology 42(6): 1220. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1220.

69.

Yon

Han

Yoon

(2011) The influences of childhood abuse experiences, perceived parenting behavior, and self-control on psychopathic traits of male adolescent inmates. Korean Journal of Mental Health and Social Work 38(1): 141–171.

Variable	Non-theft adolescents (N = 180)		Theft adolescents (N = 176)		Test statistic^a	p-value
Variable	M(%)	SD	M(%)	SD	Test statistic^a	p-value
Experience of theft
First time	–	–	66%	–	–	–
Repeated	–	–	34%	–	–	–
Place of occurrence (multiple responses allowed)
Department store, grocery, stationary store, or clothing store	–	–	39%		–	–
Burglary	–	–	16%	–	–	–
Own home	–	–	14%	–	–	–
Pickpocketing	–	–	20%	–	–	–
Demographic factors
Age	14.94	0.14	15.85	0.10	−5.10	<0.001
Male	86%	–	84%	–	0.13	0.72
Psychological factors
Self-esteem	2.92	0.04	2.83	0.04	1.66	0.10
Depression	1.51	0.02	1.59	0.02	−2.78	0.01
Family factors
Maternal positive parenting behaviors	3.56	0.05	3.15	0.06	4.89	<0.001
Paternal positive parenting behaviors	3.25	0.05	2.98	0.06	3.25	<0.001
Social factors
Peer conformity	3.33	0.05	3.46	0.05	−1.85	0.07
School adjustment	3.05	0.03	2.73	0.05	5.64	<0.001

Variable	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Variable	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Demographic factors
Gender (Female = 1, Male = 0)	1.36	[0.71, 2.63]	1.50	[0.76, 2.95]	1.50	[0.75, 2.98]
Age	1.43***	[1.25, 1.65]	1.44***	[1.25, 1.66]	1.39***	[1.20, 1.61]
Psychological factors
Self-esteem	0.85	[0.51, 1.43]	1.03	[0.60, 1.76]	1.05	[0.60, 1.83]
Depression	3.05*	[1.09, 8.55]	2.64+	[0.92, 7.57]	1.45	[0.47, 4.48]
Family factors
Maternal positive parenting behaviors			0.51**	[0.36, 0.74]	0.52**	[0.36, 0.76]
Paternal positive parenting behaviors			1.08	[0.73, 1.60]	1.2	[0.80, 1.80]
Social factors
Peer conformity					0.9	[0.62, 1.31]
School adjustment					0.43**	[0.26, 0.71]
McFadden’s Adjusted Pseudo -R²	0.053		0.081		0.096