Parenting,Self-Control,and Delinquency

Abstract

Limited studies have examined whether self-control fully mediates the effect of parenting on deviant behavior beyond Western cultures. Using a sample of 882 South Korean middle and high schools students, this article examines the applicability of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s argument about the role of parenting in self-control theory in the context of Asian culture. Results of structural equation modeling (SEM) suggest the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency hold in South Korean culture: Parenting has only an indirect effect through self-control on delinquency. The findings of multigroup SEM, however, indicate that gender differences exist in the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency. This study provides support for cultural invariance of self-control theory but suggests that more studies examining gender differences and interaction between gender and race in the theory are required.

Keywords

self-control theory parenting gender differences South Korea structural equation modeling

Introduction

Since its publication, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime has attracted a great deal of attention from criminologists. The authors contend that all criminal and analogous behavior can be explained by the levels of self-control, and that the influence of self-control on deviant behavior is invariant across different ethnicity/race, age, and gender groups. A large number of empirical studies have tested the impact of self-control on deviant behavior, and provided support for that argument (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000 among others).

Research on self-control theory has been extended by examining the role of parenting in this theory. A more recent movement on testing self-control theory concentrates on analyzing the impact of genetic and environmental factors on self-control. A body of behavioral genetic research revealed that in addition to parental socialization, genetic factors had significant effects on the development of self-control (Beaver, 2011; Beaver, Ratchford, & Ferguson, 2009; Boisvert, Wright, Knopik, & Vaske, 2012; Wright, Schnupp, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2012). Limited by the availability of genetic information in the current data set, this study focuses on the examination of the conventional parental socialization and its relationship with self-control and delinquency.

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), children receiving inadequate parenting possess low self-control, which, in turn, leads to high involvement in criminal and analogous behavior. That is, the effect of parenting on deviance is mediated by self-control. Some studies suggest self-control completely mediate the relationship between parenting and deviant behavior (Boisvert, Vaske, Taylor, & Wright, 2012; Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, & Lin, 2007). Other studies, however, indicate while parenting affects deviance partially through the effects on self-control, it also affects deviance directly (Hay, 2001; Kort-Butler, Tyler, & Melander, 2011; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008).

Among these studies, a few studies have examined the structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviance across different ethnicity/race, age, and gender groups. Findings are inconsistent. Some studies have provided support for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s proposition of invariant relationships across subgroups (Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006), while others suggest that the relationships among the variables varied across gender and race/ethnicity (Chapple & Johnson, 2007; Mason & Windle, 2002; Morris, Wood, & Dunaway, 2007; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007). Very few studies tested the association among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior in Asian culture (Hwang & Akers, 2003, Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Wang, Qiao, Hong, & Zhang, 2002). These studies have found that the effect of parenting on deviant behavior was partially mediated by self-control. Even fewer studies explored gender difference in these relationships beyond American culture.

Limitations also exist with respect to the analytical methods used in previous studies. Most studies have used either regression or path analysis models to analyze the relationships among these variables with few exceptions (Simons et al., 2007; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008). While path analysis is more advanced than multiple regression models in examining the structural relationships among variables, regression and path models fail to capture measurement errors that exist in complicated constructs of variables.

The current study contributes to the literature of self-control theory in two ways. First, this study examines the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior in Asian culture by using a South Korean adolescent sample. Second, the current study investigates whether these associations are invariant across males and females. There is hardly a study that examined gender difference in the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior in Asian culture yet. These two research hypotheses were tested by using structural equation modeling (SEM), a method that allows not only for testing the structural relationships among multiple variables but also for explicitly capturing the unreliability of measurement in the model (Kline, 1998; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).

Literature Review

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) asserted that the primary factor predicting deviant behavior is low self-control. Variation in criminal and analogous behavior results from individual differences in the levels of self-control. While individuals with ample self-control are more likely to restrain themselves from committing crimes, people who lack self-control have fewer constraints and are more involved in delinquent behavior. The authors suggest effective parenting be the primary source of self-control, consisting of three components: monitoring, recognition, and punishment. Omission of any components results in low self-control which, in turn, leads to involvement in deviant behavior.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) also argued that their theory can be generalized to different subgroups, saying that “people with high self-control are less likely under all circumstances throughout life to commit crime” (p. 118). More specifically, they posited that self-control theory is cross-cultural, emphasizing that

cultural variability is not important in the causation of crime, that we should look for constancy rather than variability in the definition of and causation of crime, and that a single theory of crime can encompass the reality of cross-cultural differences in crime rates. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 175)

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), gender differences in crime rates stems from gender differences in level of self-control that is a result of divergent child care for girls and boys. Put another way, females are assumed to be more vulnerable to danger from deviant behavior than males; therefore, parents tend to monitor daughters more closely, recognize girls’ deviant behavior more readily, and are more willing to punish females’ misbehavior than males’, all of which result in females having higher level of self-control than males (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, pp. 144-149 for a complete explanation of gender difference in crime and child-rearing).

After the publication of A General Theory of Crime (1990), most scholars have mainly examined the relationship between self-control and criminal and analogous behavior, and reported significant effect of low self-control on crime and delinquency, imprudent and antisocial behavior, school misconduct, and criminal victimization. Studies also showed significant association between self-control and deviant behavior across ethnicity (LaGrange & Silverman, 1999), nation/culture (Hwang & Akers, 2003; Jo, 2012; Jo & Zhang, 2012; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing, 2001; Wang et al., 2002), and gender (Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006; Mason & Windle, 2002; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003).

Research on self-control theory has been extended by examining the effect of parenting on self-control and deviant behavior. There are two types of research testing the role of parenting in self-control theory. One type of research has primarily focused on the effect of parenting on self-control and showed significant association between these two variables in general. The other type of research has explored the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior. Studies in this type of research have provided inconsistent findings. Some studies found that the influence of parenting on deviant behavior disappeared when self-control measures were included in analyses (Boisvert, Vaske, et al., 2012; Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wilkerson, & Chamlin, 1998; Gibbs et al., 1998; Simons et al., 2007). Using a university student sample, Gibbs et al. (1998), for example, concluded that “parental management on behavior are indirect through self-control . . . the influence of parental management on deviance after controlling for self-control is negligible and not statistically significant” (p. 61). In a recent study, Boisvert, Vaske, et al. (2012) showed that the effect of maternal rejection on delinquency became nonsignificant when self-control was included in the analyses.

Other studies, however, revealed that the effect of parenting on deviant behavior remained significant even after measures of self-control were controlled (Blackwell & Piquero, 2005; Jones, Cauffman, & Piquero, 2007; Kort-Butler et al., 2011; Morris et al., 2007; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008; Wright et al., 2008). These results indicate that the effect of parenting on deviant behavior is partially mediated by self-control. For instance, Kort-Butler et al. (2011) found that parenting, measured by monitoring, physical abuse, and neglect, held direct effects on criminal behavior, substance use, affiliation with deviant peers, or physical victimization after controlling for self-control.

Among studies that have examined the association among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior, very limited studies have explored these relationships in different cultures/nations and genders. Using a sample of White and Native American high school students, Morris et al. (2007) found that the influence of parenting on property offending and vandalism were partially mediated by self-control for Caucasians and American Indians. Research, examining association among these variables with Asian samples, showed similar results. When parenting and self-control were included simultaneously in models, the effect of parenting on substance use remained significant in South Korean and Chinese adolescents (Hwang & Akers, 2003; Wang et al., 2002).

Regarding gender issues in self-control theory, most studies focused heavily on gender differences in the levels of parenting, self-control, and/or deviant behavior (Boisvert, Vaske, et al., 2012; Daigle, Cullen, & Wright, 2007; Gibson, Ward, Wright, Beaver, & DeLisi, 2010; Kort-Butler et al., 2011). While these studies have provided evidence that females tended to exhibit higher levels of parenting and self-control, and lower involvement in crime than males in general, they did not explore whether the structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior were invariant across males and females except limited studies (Chapple & Johnson, 2007; Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006; Mason & Windle, 2002).

For example, Higgins and Tewksbury (2006) found that the relationship between self-control and delinquency were invariant across males and females. However, Mason and Windle (2002) found this relationship varied across gender. Chapple and Johnson (2007) examined the structural relationship between parenting measures and impulsivity, and showed that the relationship between these two variables differed across males and females. The main limitation of these studies is that they did not include all the key variables of self-control theory, parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior, simultaneously in their models.

In addition to the mixed results in the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviance, previous studies possess several statistical limitations. Most studies used multiple/logistic regression, which cannot accurately measure structural relationships among variables. Other studies utilized path models that fail to estimate measurement errors in latent variables. Therefore, studies using either regression or path analyses may limit “the potential for the discovery of the true effect sizes” (Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007, p. 507) and cause biased parameter estimates (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).

To overcome these analytical shortcomings, Gibbs, Giever, and Higgins (2003) used SEM that estimates direct and indirect relationships among variables as well as measurement errors. Gibbs and colleagues found that parental management had direct and indirect effects through self-control on deviance. Using the same technique, Vazsonyi and Belliston (2007) tested the association among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior in multiple cultures. They found that family support and monitoring had direct and indirect effects on deviance, and these relationships held across nations, including Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, and Switzerland.

The South Korean Context

As discussed previously, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that the relationship between self-control and delinquent behavior is invariant across different cultures. Studies examining self-control theory in different social-culture context, however, suggest that cultural characteristics may impact the level of self-control and the relationships of variables in self-control theory (Hwang & Akers, 2003; Jo & Zhang, 2012; Wang et al., 2002).

Two distinct cultural values that manifest in East Asian countries, in particular in South Korea, are collectivism and Confucianism. Collectivism emphasizes group goals and needs over individuals’ personal desires. In most situations, the “we” comes before the “I.” As a result, South Korean people tend to excessively consider other people’s responses to their behavior, and limit their individual freedom to maximize group interests. People who are careless about other people or pursue heavily their personal goals are blamed for their irresponsibility as a member of a group or the society (Cho, 1995; Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Lee & Larson, 2000; Moon, Morash, & McCluskey, 2010; Morash & Moon, 2007; Yun, 2008). While Confucianism as an ethical and philosophical system is complicated and beyond the discussion of the current article, one of the core beliefs concerns the family. Father to son, husband to wife, and elder brother to younger brother have specific duties. Parents (fathers) have enormous power over and responsibility toward their children (Yao, 2000). Parents in South Korea take a high responsibility for socializing their children. Children’s misbehavior is attributed to the faults of their parents. It is a pride and demonstration of prosperity of families to socialize their child to behave in a good manner and to support them to achieve academic and occupational success (Cho, 1995; Kim et al., 1999; Lee & Larson, 2000; Yun, 2008).

In summary, the influences of these cultural values on South Korean society are characterized by prioritizing public interests before that of individuals, high filial piety and familism, and parental enthusiasm for children’s success (Cho, 1995; Kim et al., 1999; Lee & Larson, 2000; Moon et al., 2010; Morash & Moon, 2007; Yun, 2008).

These characteristics may influence the development of self-control and the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency differently in the South Korea context. First, South Korean youths may develop higher level of self-control than American youths due to unceasing socialization and close supervision by parents. Second, even if both groups have same levels of self-control, South Korean adolescents may be less likely to get involved in delinquency than American adolescents due to the tendency of sacrificing individual interests for a group’s goals.

The Current Study

The current study tests the relationships among these key variables of self-control theory in South Korean culture. On the basis of self-control theory, two hypotheses are tested: (a) the effect of parenting on delinquency is fully mediated by self-control in South Korean youths and (b) the relationship among parenting, self-control, and delinquency is invariant across males and females.

Method

Data

This study uses data from a sample of students who were at the ages of 13 to 18 and attended middle schools (7th grade-9th grade) or high schools (10th grade-12th grade) in Seoul, South Korea. Kim and Hong (2006) collected the data in May of 2006. To ensure representativeness, they divided the city into four regions based on financial status. Proportionate to the number of schools in that region, 4 to 8 middle and high schools were randomly selected from each region, resulting in 22 schools. One or two classes were then randomly selected in each school based on school type and students’ gender.¹ After receiving instruction of the survey from the researchers, teachers of each school distributed and collected the questionnaire. Among the 1,200 students in these selected classes, 1,122 students participated in the survey (93.5% response rate; Kim & Hong, 2006).

The data screening process found several variables that had missing cases. For each variable, the missing cases were deleted when the proportion of the missing cases was less than 1%, resulting in 92 deleted cases. Two indicators of socioeconomic status (SES; father’s educational level and mother’s educational level) had missing cases more than 1%. The portion of the missing cases for father’s educational level and mother’s educational level were 2.5% and 2.3% of the total sample, respectively. The missing values in these two variables were replaced by estimated values using expectation maximization (EM) technique (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). Of the missing cases for the punishment variable, 103 were completely random and were therefore deleted. After deleting 45 additional cases of multivariate outliers, the final sample included 882 cases.

Measures

Parenting

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that parenting be composed of three elements: monitoring, recognition, and punishment. In the current analysis, parenting was a first-order latent variable, constructed by monitoring, recognition, and punishment. Monitoring was a composite variable, measured by three five-point scale items asking, “Do your parents know where you are when you are away from home?”; “Do your parents know who you are with when you are away from home?”; and “Do your parents know what you are doing when you are away from home?” The Cronbach’s alpha for these three items was .876. Recognition was measured by a single item asking, “If I do something wrong, my parents will know that immediately” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Punishment was a dichotomous variable, recoded from one item asking, “When you do not follow parents’ discipline or do something wrong, do your parents punish you?” (1 = sometimes or never and 2 = always) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Analyses and t Test.

	Male (n = 422)			Female (n = 460)
Variables	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range	t test
SES
Father’s educational level	3.57	0.82	4	3.66	0.77	4	−1.61
Mother’s educational level	3.36	0.81	4	3.41	0.72	4	−0.99
Family income	2.94	0.78	4	2.96	0.66	4	−0.36
Parenting
Monitoring	9.72	2.92	12	11.07	3.02	12	−6.72**
Recognition	3.16	1.06	4	3.25	1.04	4	−1.30
Punishment	0.54	0.50	2	0.60	0.49	2	−1.73†
Self-control
Impulsivity	6.47	1.58	8	6.39	1.61	8	0.79
Risk-seeking	12.93	2.84	16	13.02	3.09	16	−0.48
Short-sighted	18.68	4.18	16	18.58	4.45	20	0.33
Delinquency
Substance	0.70	0.13	.57	0.68	0.12	.60	2.05*
Property	0.50	0.07	.48	0.49	0.06	.48	3.05**
Interpersonal	0.51	0.08	.48	0.50	0.06	.48	3.17**
Internet-related	0.77	0.17	.63	0.65	0.10	.60	12.65**

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Self-control

There are two controversial issues regarding self-control measurement: whether self-control is a unidimensional or multidimensional construct; whether behavioral items (e.g., drinking and drug use) can be used to measure self-control. Some studies suggest it is unidimensional (Arneklev, Grasmick, & Bursik, 1999; Piquero & Rosay, 1998) while others indicate it is multidimensional (Baron, Forde, & Kay, 2007; DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy, 2003; Piquero, MacIntosh, & Hickman, 2000). Based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) assertion, self-control is assumed to be unidimensional in this article.

While Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) clearly suggested that behavioral items may capture the concept of self-control more accurately than attitudinal items, previous research has criticized that behavioral measures of self-control may cause the problem of tautology—independent variables (e.g., behavioral items) are very similar, if not the same, as dependent variables (e.g., deviance; Akers, 2000); therefore, the current article used attitudinal items to measure self-control.

Limited by the availability of variables in the data set, self-control in the current article was measured by three components: impulsiveness, risk-seeking, and short-sighted (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).² Impulsiveness was measured by two items (e.g., “I tend to consider long-term effects of an act”), and the Cronbach’s alpha for the two items was .628. Risk-seeking was measured by four items (e.g., “I enjoy risky activities”), and the Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .655. Shorted-sighted was measured by five items (e.g., “What I learn at school is meaningless”), and the Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .841 (see Appendix A for these items). Impulsive and risk-seeking scales have relatively low Cronbach’s alphas. Ideally, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of a scale should be above .7 (DeVellis, 2003). However, this value is sensitive to the number of items in the scale. Scales with fewer than 10 items tend to show low Cronbach’s alpha values (e.g., .5). In this case, mean interitem correlation for the items should be reported with an acceptable minimal value of .2 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). The mean interitem correlations of impulsiveness scale and risk-seeking scale are .448 and .315, respectively. Therefore, we consider the reliability of each component is adequate in this study.

Gender

Gender is a dichotomous variable with male coded as 1 and female coded as 0.

Ses

Four main correlates of crime are age, gender, race, and SES. Prior studies showed that SES had significant influence on the relationships among parenting, low self-control, and delinquency (e.g., Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008); it was therefore controlled in the current analysis. The effect of gender was examined through analyzing the group differences of the relationships. Race was not included in the models because all the participants in the current study are South Koreans. Previous studies did not suggest age had a significant impact on the relationships among parenting, low self-control, and delinquency. In addition, as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested in their original work, self-control level is stabilized since its development at the early age of 8 to 10. Therefore, the age variable was omitted from the current analysis.

SES was a latent variable, measured by three items commonly used for assessing SES (e.g., Vazsonyi & Klanjsek, 2008): father’s educational level, mother’s educational level, and family income. For parents’ educational levels, five-point scales were used: 1 = finishing elementary school, 2 = finishing middle school, 3 = finishing high school, 4 = finishing college/university, and 5 = finishing graduate school.³ Family income was assessed by a five-point scale: 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = middle, 4 = rich, and 5 = very rich.

Delinquency

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that self-control is a predictor of minor and serious crimes, but many studies have failed to include different types of crimes simultaneously. This article measures delinquency using four different types of deviant behavior, including substance use, property crime, interpersonal violence, and Internet-related delinquency. Substance use was measured by four items (e.g., “During last year, did you ever smoke?” Answers to these questions are at ordinal level: 1 = never, 2 = 1 or 2 times per 6 months, 3 = 1 or 2 times per month, 4 = 1 or 2 times per week, and 5 = 3 or 4 times per week. This is also applied to questions measuring other type of delinquent behavior), and the Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .702. Property delinquency was measured by three items (e.g., “During last year, did you ever take things that did not belong to you in stores?”), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .862. Interpersonal delinquency was measured by three items (e.g., “During last year, did you ever beat up on anyone or hurt anyone?”), and the Cronbach’s alpha was .749. Internet-related delinquency was measured by four items (e.g., “During last year, did you ever visit porno websites?”), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .716. These four deviance variables were highly positively skewed. Values in these variables were transformed using logarithmic transformations to address nonnormality (Osgood, McMorris, & Potenza, 2002). Delinquency is a latent variable, measured by these four types of crimes (see Appendix B for the all items).

Analysis

First, descriptive statistics were conducted for indicators of SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency variables across gender. Second, using LISREL 8.80, a series of measurement and structural equation models were conducted to examine the relationships among SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency. More specifically, SEM was applied to investigate whether parenting has only an indirect effect on delinquency through self-control as presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory (1990). Third, multigroup SEM was conducted to examine gender differences in measurement models as well as structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency.

As mentioned earlier, while multiple regression and path analysis are limited in several aspects, SEM instead allows not only examining complex theoretical relationships among variables (e.g., direct and indirect relationships) but also taking “measurement error into account when statistically analyzing data” (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004 p. 7). The core research question in the current study reflects structural relationships among three major concepts: parenting, self-control, and delinquency. The mediating effect of self-control cannot be adequately analyzed using conventional multiple regression analysis. In addition, SEM provides a mechanism that can estimate a model across different samples simultaneously. By specifying constraints across groups, group variations of parameters can be tested (Kline, 1998). As indicated previously, the current study examines not only the structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency but also the gender variances of the structural relationships. Therefore, SEM is an optimal method of the current study.

Results

Descriptive Analyses and t Test

Table 1 presents t test results of group differences and descriptive statistics (SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency variables) by gender groups. The results showed that females live in more affluent families than males, but the differences were not significant. Also, parents are more likely to monitor girls’ behavior (mean = 11.07 vs. 9.72), recognize girls’ misconduct (mean = 3.25 vs. 3.16), and punish girls’ undesirable behavior than boys’ (mean = 0.60 vs.0.54). Girls are less impulsive (mean = 6.39 vs. 6.47) and short-sighted than boys (mean = 18.58 vs.18.68), while boys are more likely to avoid risky behavior than girls (mean = 12.93 vs. 13.02). Males are more likely to use substances (mean = 0.70 vs. 0.68), commit property (mean = 0.50 vs. 0.49) and violent crimes (mean = 0.51 vs. 0.50), and be involved in Internet-related misbehavior (mean = 0.77 vs. 0.65) than females.

Structural Equation Models

Before examining whether the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency are invariant across gender, a model including girls and boys was investigated to test the applicability of self-control theory to a South Korean sample. All SEMs were computed in a two-step procedure: measurement and structural models (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). First, the measurement model (see Figure 1) of the total sample was analyzed, indicating an adequate goodness-of-fit. The model’s chi-square is χ² = 146.566 with a degree of freedom of 59 (p < .00), the model’s goodness-of-fit indices (GFI) include GFI = .98, adjusted GFI (AGFI) = .96, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96 and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04.⁴ Although the value of χ² indicated the residual of the predicted model was statistically significant, it may be caused by the large sample size. In this case, the critical N statistic should be used as an alternative indicator, and a model with the critical N of 200 or more is acceptable (Hoelter, 1983). Considering the critical N of this measurement model (528), it appeared that this measurement model was an adequate fit. Figure 1 presents the measurement model with unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates, and shows the measurement model was statistically significant at p < .05⁵ (Kline, 1998). These results indicate that the observed indicators appropriately measure their latent variables.

Figure 1.

Measurement model for total sample.

Next, a structural equation model examining the structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency was constructed. Two structural models were created to compare their relative model fitness. In the first model, only an indirect path from parenting to delinquency through self-control was set, assuming the effect of parenting on delinquency was fully mediated by the level of self-control. In the second model, a direct path from parenting to delinquency was added to examine the direct effect of parenting on delinquency along with the indirect path from parenting to delinquency through self-control. This model assumed that the effect of parenting on delinquency was partially mediated by self-control. The goodness-of-fit statistics of the first structural model indicates that the model was acceptable, χ² = 148.054 (df = 60, p < .00, critical N = 530), GFI = .975, AGFI = .962, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .040. The second model, which added a parameter from parenting to delinquency, was also acceptable, χ² = 146.566 (df = 59, p < .00, critical N = 528), GFI = .975, AGFI = .962, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .041.⁶ The direct path from parenting to delinquency, however, was insignificant (t value was .913). The χ² difference between these two models (1.488), with degree of freedom 1, was not significant, which indicates the first model is more parsimonious, and fits the data better than the second model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The first model was therefore selected. Figure 2 presents the selected structural model that shows parenting indirectly influenced delinquency through its effect on self-control. The effects of SES on parenting and self-control were controlled in the model. The results supported Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory that parenting had only an indirect effect on delinquency through self-control. The standardized structural coefficients (values in parentheses) indicated relatively strong relationships between parenting and self-control (.75) and self-control and delinquency (−.65), and moderate relationships between SES and parenting (.23) and SES and self-control (−.18).

Figure 2.

Structural model for total sample.

SEM—Multigroup Models

Multiple-group models were created to examine whether Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is invariant across gender. First, a series of measurement models were examined to find the best fit model. Table 2 shows the GFIs for each model.

Table 2.

Measurement Model: Model Comparisons and Summary of Multiple Group Analyses.

Model	χ²	df	p	χ² difference	RMSEA	CFI	NNFI
Default	480.18	150	.000		0.071	0.82	0.82
Model 2 (factor loading difference)	437.43	141	.000	42.75***	0.069	0.84	0.82
Model 3 (error variance difference)	232.24	137	.000	247.94***	0.040	0.95	0.94

Note. The interpretation of CFI and NNFI is similar. Value greater than .90 reflects a good model fit (Gibbs, Giever, & Higgins, 2003, p. 451). RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index.

***

p < .001.

The default model assumed that three sets of parameters would be the same across gender (factor loadings, error variances of the observed variables, and correlations between the latent variables). The global model fit indices indicated that model modification was required to achieve a better data-to-model fit (global χ² = 480.18, df = 150, p < .00, global RMSEA = .071, GFI for males = .93 and for females = .92). Two alternative models were then examined: Model 2 allowed the measurement factor loadings to be different between males and females, and Model 3 allowed the error variances to be different across two groups, while other parameters were set to be equal. The GFIs of Model 2 indicated this model was not adequate (RMSEA = .069, CFI = .84, nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = .82), even if the chi-square change between Model 2 and the default model was statistically significant. The GFIs of Model 3 were adequate and fitted well across both groups of data (RMSEA = .040, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94). The comparison of model chi-square also suggests a substantial decrease between the default model and Model 3 (χ² difference between these two models are 247.94, with df = 13). Therefore, Model 3 was selected as the best fit measurement model. In this model, equal factor loadings of latent variables and factor correlations were assumed, while error variances were set as different. These findings suggest that measurement invariance for the two gender groups could be accepted.

As the measurement invariance for the two groups had been established, the next step was to examine the structural relationships among the latent variables across male and female juveniles. Five multigroup structural models were compared to find the best fit structural relationship model. Table 3 shows the results of GFIs for each model. The default model (Model a) set the correlation coefficients of all paths among SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency to be the same across both groups. The model fit indices indicated this model fitted well: (global χ² = 231.85, df = 137, p < .00), global RMSEA = .040, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, GFI for males = .96 and for females = .96. Even though the default model is acceptable, alternative models still need to be examined to see if a better fitted model exists (Gibbs et al., 2003). Model b allowed only the paths from SES to parenting, to self-control, and to delinquency to be different across gender; Model c allowed only the paths from parenting to self-control and to delinquency to be different; Model d allowed only the path from self-control to delinquency to be different; and Model e allowed all paths among SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency to be different across gender.

Table 3.

Structural Model: Model Comparisons and Summary of Multiple Group Analyses.

Model	χ²	df	p	χ² difference	RMSEA	CFI	NNFI
Default (Model a; all path same)	231.85	137	.000		0.040	0.95	0.94
Model b (path SES to p, s, and d difference)	230.37	134	.000	1.87	0.040	0.95	0.94
Model c (path p to s and d difference)	230.65	135	.000	−0.28	0.040	0.95	0.94
Model d (path s to d difference)	230.33	136	.000	0.32	0.040	0.95	0.95
Model e (all path difference)	207.29	131	.000	24.56***	0.036	0.96	0.95

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index. p = parenting, s = self-control, d = deviance; SES = socioeconomic status.

***

p < .001.

The best fit model is Model e, which set the correlation coefficients of all paths among SES, parenting, self-control, and delinquency to be different across gender groups (global χ² = 207.29, df = 131, p < .00), global RMSEA = .036, CFI = .96, NNFI = .95, GFI for males = .96 and for females = .97. Comparing with the default model, the model chi-square was reduced by 24.56 with df = 6, which suggests a significant improvement from the default model. These findings suggest that even though Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory was supported in a Korean sample, gender differences existed in the relationships among, parenting, self-control, and delinquency controlling for SES.

Figures 3 and 4 present standardized structural path coefficients of the best fitted model for males and females, respectively. The results indicate SES had direct effects on parenting, self-control, and delinquency only among males but none among females. Parenting had a significant and direct effect on self-control for both genders, while self-control was found to be a significant predictor of delinquency only among males. For males, parenting affected delinquency directly and indirectly through its effect on self-control. These relationships, however, did not hold for females. The only significant path in the female model is from parenting to self-control.

Figure 3.

Structural model for males.

Figure 4.

Structural model for females.

Discussion and Conclusion

Many studies, testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory, have found self-control to be a significant predictor of criminal and analogous behavior, while studies, examining the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior, have been shown to produce inconsistent findings. Some studies have indicated that parenting had only an indirect effect on deviant behavior, while others have found that parenting had direct and indirect effects through self-control on deviant behavior. One important issue that was relatively neglected is the generalizability of these relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior to different cultures/nations. In addition, previous studies, investigating the structural association among these self-control key variables, have been limiting themselves to use either regression or path models. The current article examined whether the parenting–self-control–deviance association is applicable to Asian culture, and if the relationships among these variables are invariant across males and females using a South Korean adolescent sample.

Several key findings were established in the current article. First, the results supported Gottfredson and Hirschi’s argument regarding the role of parenting in the relationship between self-control and delinquency in which parenting had only an indirect effect through self-control on delinquency. This finding is consistent with some of prior studies (Boisvert, Vaske, et al., 2012; Cochran et al., 1998; Gibbs et al., 1998; Simons et al., 2007). For instance, in Gibbs et al. (1998), the model with only an indirect relationship between parental management and deviance was found to be a better model than the others assuming a direct effect of parental management on deviance. In a recent study, Boisvert, Vaske, et al. (2012) showed that the effect of maternal rejection on delinquency was fully mediated by self-control.

Moreover, the current study reaffirms Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) argument and previous findings that self-control theory is cross-cultural/national (Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing, 2001). Employing five nation samples, for example, Vazsonyi and Belliston (2007) concluded that the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviance were invariant across international as well as national samples.

Second, gender differences exist in parenting, level of self-control, and criminal involvement. As assumed, girls were more likely to be monitored, recognized, and punished for their misbehavior than boys, resulting in girls having higher levels of self-control and lower involvement in delinquency than boys. These results correspond to the findings of previous studies that reported distribution of low self-control and delinquency differed between males and females (Gibbs et al., 1998; Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). Inconsistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s argument that “variables related to differences in criminality among boys are the same as those for girls” (1990, p. 148), the results of the multigroup SEM indicated gender differences in the structural relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency. Parenting had direct and indirect effects on delinquency, and self-control had a direct effect on delinquency for males. Conversely, for females, only the relationship between parenting and self-control was significant, but other associations, such as parenting-delinquency, and self-control-delinquency, were not statistically significant. These results suggest that self-control theory might be more appropriate to explain the variance in crime for males than for females in South Korea.

Another approach would be to pay more attention to criminal opportunities though Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) minimized the effect of criminal opportunities on crime by arguing that opportunities are ubiquitous. Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, and Dunaway (1998), for example, found that self-control was a significant predictor of crime for males but not for females. They also found that interaction between self-control and criminal opportunity significantly impacted criminal involvement for both genders, concluding that criminal opportunities might be sufficiently ubiquitous only for males but not for females. Hence, self-control might emerge as the main factor of criminal behavior for males, while criminal involvement for females might be impacted by the interaction of self-control and opportunity. Using multigroup SEM, Higgins and Tewksbury (2006) supported these assertions by providing gender differences in the relationships among self-control, opportunity, and delinquency.

Criminal opportunities are becoming more important issues in South Korea due to recent significant social and cultural change. Up until 1980s, parents expected daughters to spend most of their time at home with doing housework instead of attending college. Therefore, girls were prevented from committing even minor misconduct. For instance, parents felt shameful if their daughters were involved in undesirable behavior (e.g., hanging out with boys). In those days, parents, however, supported sons’ academic success and encouraged boys to defend themselves and be “men” (e.g., even fighting).

Since the 1980s, South Korea has experienced rapid social change, including globalization, industrialization, urbanization, utilization of birth-control, feminism, sharp increase in the number of working women, and an economic downturn (Yang, Kim, Kim, Shin, & Yoon, 2006). With respect to socialization of children, these events have begun to ease rigid application of Confucianism. As a result, females spend more time out of houses and have more chances to be involved in social activities. These changes in lifestyles may lead to an increase in criminal opportunities for females though these opportunities are in the same level for males.

The gender differences in the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency might stem from the interaction of gender and ethnicity. Nakhaie, Silverman, and LaGrange (2000) showed that ethnicity and gender retained significant effects on criminal behavior after controlling for self-control. Moreover, Vazsonyi and Crosswhite (2004) found significant differences in the effect of self-control on school misconduct between African American males and Caucasian males, and significant differences in the effects of self-control on alcohol use, drug use, and school misconduct between African American females and Caucasian females. These findings may imply that the self-control–deviance relationship is conditioned by the interaction of gender and ethnicity although the relationship has not been fully examined (Morris et al., 2007; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007). Future studies should examine the interactional effects of gender and ethnicity on the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency.

Third, the findings indicate that SES interacts with gender. SES was found to be an important predictor of parenting, self-control, and delinquency for male adolescents, while there was no significant relationship between SES and the other variables for females. These outcomes are consistent with the results of Vazsonyi and Klanjsek’s (2008) study in which the magnitudes of relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviance varied depending on the interactions between SES and gender. For example, the relationship between parental closeness and delinquency and the relationship between self-control and delinquency were conditioned by family SES for males, while only the link between paternal closeness and delinquency was moderated by family SES for females.

The current article has its shortcomings. First, the current study tested developmental relationships with cross-sectional data. In particular, the measure of parenting is assumed to be antecedent to that of self-control, while parenting and self-control were measured at the same time. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), however, doubt the benefits of using longitudinal data by arguing that “comparisons of longitudinal and cross-sectional research lead to the same conclusion: the common assumption that longitudinal research, study for study, has had greater impact than cross-sectional research is not supported by the evidence” (p. 222; also see Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1993 for a complete discussion of causal order). Studies, also, showed that the relationships among key self-control theory variables could be tested with cross-sectional data (Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007). Second, there are some issues relevant to the measurements. One of them is that only three out of six characteristics of self-control were measured. LaGrange and Silverman (1999) argued that each subscale of Self-Control had different magnitudes of effects on different types of delinquency. Present-Oriented, for example, had significant effects on property, violent, and drug offenses, while Risk-Seeking and Short-Temper significantly affected only property offenses. Thus, using all six subscales of Self-Control may produce different results on the relationships among parenting, self-control, and criminal involvement. Also, limited by the availability of variables collected in the original data, we could not provide a better or multi-item measure of recognition and punishment. Finally, variations may exist between schools and regions because the data were collected by using multistage stratified cluster sampling. Unfortunately, we cannot address this issue because the data set does not provide the school identification or regional identification information. Third, researchers have recently studied other factors that may influence the relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviant behavior. These factors include biological, school, peer, community factors (Beaver & Wright, 2007; Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008; Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Meldrum, 2008; Pratt, Turner, & Piquero, 2004; Turner, Piquero, & Pratt, 2005; Wright & Beaver, 2005). Including those factors may yield somewhat different results in the association among parenting, self-control, and deviance.

Despite these limitations, the findings present evidence that self-control theory could explain South Korean youth’s delinquency. However, gender differences in the relationships among parenting, self-control, and delinquency should not be overlooked. Moreover, the interactional effects of gender and ethnicity and gender and SES on delinquency should be subject to more scrutiny to sustain the argument that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is a general theory of crime. Understanding of the relationships among these key variables of self-control theory will be extended by including other biological, psychological, and sociological factors.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B.

Delinquency Variables.

Substance use (α = .702)

During last year, did you ever smoke?

During last year, did you ever drink alcohol?

During last year, did you ever visit a bar?

During last year, did you ever use inhalant?

Property (α = .862)

During last year, did you ever take things that did not belong to you in stores?

During last year, did you ever take things that did not belong to you without the owner’s permission?

During last year, did you ever rob anyone of things that did not belong to you?

Interpersonal (α = .749)

During last year, did you ever beat up on anyone or hurt anyone?

During last year, did you ever participate in a gang fight?

During last year, did you ever bully anyone?

Internet-related (α = .716)

During last year, did you ever visit porno websites?

During last year, did you ever use lewd language on the websites?

During last year, did you ever use abusive language on websites?

During last year, did you ever use other people’s social security number illegally?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Akers

R. L.

(2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Arneklev

Grasmick

Bursik

(1999). Evaluating the dimensionality and invariance of “low” self-control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 307-331.

Baron

S. W.

Forde

D. R.

Kay

F. M.

(2007). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of opportunity and context in the general theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 119-136.

Beaver

(2011). The effects of genetics, the environment, and low self-control on perceived maternal and paternal socialization: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 85-105.

Beaver

Ratchford

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). Evidence of genetic and environmental effects on the development of low self-control. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36, 1158-1172.

Beaver

Wright

(2007). The stability of low self-control from kindergarten through first grade. Journal of Crime & Justice, 30(1), 63-86.

Beaver

Wright

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

(2008). Genetic influences on the stability of self-control: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 478-485.

Blackwell

Piquero

(2005). On the relationship between gender, power control, self-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 1-17.

Boisvert

Vaske

Taylor

Wright

(2012). The effects of differential parenting on sibling differences in self-control and delinquency among brother-sister pairs. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 5-23.

10.

Boisvert

Wright

Knopik

Vaske

(2012). Genetic and environmental overlap between low self-control and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 477-507.

11.

Briggs

S. R.

Cheek

J. M.

(1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.

12.

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.

13.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Alarid

L. F.

Dunaway

R. G.

(1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 123-147.

14.

Chapple

Johnson

(2007). Gender differences in impulsivity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 221-234.

15.

Cho

(1995). Examinations of war in South Korea: A cultural analysis. In Stephens

(Ed.), Children and the politics of culture (pp. 141-168). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

16.

Cochran

Wood

Sellers

Wilkerson

Chamlin

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

17.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Wright

(2007). Gender differences in the predictors of juvenile delinquency: Assessing the generality-specificity debate. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 254-286.

18.

DeLisi

Hochstetler

Murphy

D. S.

(2003). Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale. Justice Quarterly, 20, 241-264.

19.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Higgins

G. E.

(2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441-458.

21.

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.

22.

Gibson

Ward

Wright

Beaver

DeLisi

(2010). Where does gender fit in the measurement of self-control? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 883-903.

23.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

24.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

25.

Hay

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

26.

Higgins

Tewksbury

(2006). Sex and self-control theory: The measures and causal model may be different. Youth & Society, 37, 479-503.

27.

Hirschi

(2004). Self-control and crime. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537-552). New York, NY: Guilford.

28.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

(1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 47-54.

29.

Hoelter

(1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods Research, 11, 325-344.

30.

Hwang

Akers

R. L.

(2003). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Akers

R. L.

Jensen

G. F.

(Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new century (pp. 39-61). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

31.

(2012). The development of self-control: Source and stability of self-control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University.

32.

Zhang

(2012). The stability of self-control: A group-based approach. Asian Journal of Criminology, 7, 173-191.

33.

Jones

Cauffman

Piquero

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

34.

Kim

B. S.

Atkinson

Yang

(1999). The Asian Values Scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 342-352.

35.

Kim

Hong

(2006). Comprehensive plans for juvenile misbehavior: Family and school. Seoul, Korea. National Youth Policy Institute.

36.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

37.

Kort-Butler

Tyler

Melander

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

38.

LaGrange

T. C.

Silverman

R. A.

(1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.

39.

Lee

Larson

(2000). The Korean “examination hell”: Long hours of studying, distress, and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 249-271.

40.

Mason

W. A.

Windle

(2002). Gender, self-control, and informal social control in adolescents: A test of three models of the continuity of delinquent behavior. Youth & Society, 33, 479-514.

41.

Meldrum

R. C.

(2008). Beyond parenting: An examination of the etiology of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 244-251.

42.

Moon

Morash

McCluskey

(2010). General strain theory and school bullying: An empirical test in South Korea. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 827-855.

43.

Morash

Moon

(2007). Gender differences in the effects of strain on the delinquency of South Korean youth. Youth & Society, 38, 300-321.

44.

Morris

G. D.

Wood

P. B.

Dunaway

R. G.

(2007). Testing the cultural invariance of parenting and self-control as predictors of American Indian delinquency. Western Criminology Review, 8, 32-47.

45.

Nakhaie

M. R.

Silverman

R. A.

LaGrange

T. C.

(2000). Self-control and social control: An examination of gender, ethnicity, class, and delinquency. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 25, 35-59.

46.

Osgood

D. W.

McMorris

B. J.

Potenza

(2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 267-296.

47.

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, 897-929.

48.

Piquero

A. R.

Rosay

A. B.

(1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s Self-Control Scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-174.

49.

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.

50.

Pratt

T. C.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 219-243.

51.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

52.

Simons

Chen

Brody

Lin

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

53.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40, 426-453.

54.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Pratt

T. C.

(2005). The school context as a source of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 327-339.

55.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Belliston

A. 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.

56.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Crosswhite

J. M.

(2004). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime in African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 407-432.

57.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Klanjsek

(2008). A test of self-control theory across different socioeconomic strata. Justice Quarterly, 25, 101-131.

58.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Pickering

L. E.

Junger

Hessing

(2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 91-131.

59.

Wang

G. T.

Qiao

Hong

Zhang

(2002). Adolescent social bond, self-control, and deviant behavior in China. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 39, 52-68.

60.

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, 544-469.

61.

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, 1169-1198.

62.

Wright

J. P.

Schnupp

Beaver

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

(2012). Genes, maternal negativity, and self-control: Evidence of a Gene × Environment interaction. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 10, 245-260.

63.

Yang

Kim

Shin

Yoon

(2006). Bullying and victimization behavior in boys and girls at South Korean primary schools. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 69-77.

64.

Yao

(2000). An introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

65.

Yun

(2008). Wengu Zhisxin: Review the old and know the new. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 6, 3-23.