The Influence of Culture-Specific Personality Traits on the Development of Delinquency in At-Risk Youth

Abstract

The association between culture-specific personality variables and family factors, and juvenile delinquency, was assessed in a sample of 402 adolescents of Chinese ethnicity between 12 and 17 years of age (M_age = 15.13, SD = 1.41; 135 girls), a subgroup of whom were considered at risk for juvenile delinquency owing to addictive behavior tendencies. Culture-specific personality variables were assessed using the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory–Adolescent version Interpersonal Relatedness factor. The General Function subscale of the Chinese version of the Family Assessment Device was utilized to assess the influence of perceived levels of family functioning. Both culture-specific personality variables and non-culture-specific familial factors were significantly and negatively associated with self-reported juvenile delinquency (p < .001). However, in a sample of at-risk adolescents, only a culture-specific variable measuring orientation toward the family was able to predict self-reported juvenile delinquency (p < .001). Implications of the current results are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile delinquency China harmony aggression

Although juvenile delinquency is a global concern, rates of juvenile delinquency can vary considerably across cultures. In Chinese culture in particular, rates of juvenile delinquency are often lower than those observed elsewhere. For instance, in 2010, approximately 4% of individuals below the age of 19 were arrested for a criminal offense in the United States (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2013). In contrast, in the same year, less than 1% of individuals between 10 and 20 years of age were arrested for a criminal offense in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Police Force). Data similar to those reported in Hong Kong were recorded in 2009 in Macao, which like Hong Kong is designated as a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Education and Youth Affairs Bureau, 2013). The difference becomes even more striking when rates of violent crimes are considered. In the United States in the year 2000, about 100,000 juveniles were arrested for serious crimes, including aggravated assault (e.g., attempting to cause serious injury to another, often using a deadly weapon), homicide, or rape (Snyder, 2002). In contrast, the overwhelming majority of crimes committed by juveniles in Macao consist of non-violent offenses, such as crimes against property (Education and Youth Affairs Bureau, 2013). In general, crimes consisting of antisocial behavior, such as homicide and gang violence, tend to be rather uncommon in Chinese societies (Chen, 2010).

Etiological factors involved in the development of juvenile delinquency in Hong Kong are similar to those found in non-Chinese cultures, namely, variables related to the family (e.g., parent–child conflict), and peer influence (Lau & Leung, 1992; Ma, Shek, Cheung, & Lee, 1996). However, research into the nature and etiology of juvenile delinquency in Chinese societies is somewhat limited in scope, and prior studies could be best described as exploratory. Thus, for example, excepting a study by Y. Deng, Dou, and Zhang (2000), very little work has been conducted on personality and its relationship to juvenile delinquency, and even less focusing on culture-specific personality traits. This is a glaring omission, as criminal behavior has long been connected to personality traits (Cloninger, 1987; Eysenck, 1977; Zuckerman, 1989). Essential trait models, which focus on those traits most central to the understanding of personality (Funder, 2013), have contributed substantially to the understanding of juvenile delinquency. Essential trait approaches are among the models with the greatest degree of empirical support, and studies have been rather consistent in showing a link between specific essential traits and criminal behavior (Cale, 2006; Miller & Lynam, 2001). In addition, higher order trait dimensions are posited to underlie not only delinquent behavior but also more specific traits, which might yield additional predictive power (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Reynolds & Clark, 2001).

Studies with Eyesenck’s Big Three model (Cale, 2006) and the Five-Factor Model (Miller & Lynam, 2001) have found that personality traits linked to criminal behavior tend to be a manifestation of either low agreeableness or low conscientiousness. These traits are manifested more specifically in a tendency toward heightened sensitivity to aversive emotional states, an indifference to others, and impulsivity (Blonigen, 2010). Importantly, crime, and low levels of conscientiousness and high levels of disagreeableness are connected across socioeconomic strata (Caspi et al., 1994; Moffitt, Caspi, Silva, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1995) and across the life span (Krueger et al., 1994; Lynam et al., 2000; Raine, Reynolds, Venables, Mednick, & Farrington, 1998). This connection holds regardless of the methodological approach utilized (Blonigen, 2010), and is found even after controlling for overlapping item content between personality and deviance assessment measures (Krueger et al., 1994). Of note, implied in essential trait theories is that essential traits are rooted in biology and genetics (Ebstein et al., 1996; Finkel & McGue, 1997; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998; Tellegen et al., 1988), biology which manifests in behavioral tendencies that extend beyond traits (Meehl, 1986; Tellegen, 1991), and are thus able to predict a host of outcomes. In this respect, traits possess potential causal explanatory power.

Clearly, the study of personality has proven helpful in the understanding of delinquency. However, the utility of an essential approach to personality traits in explaining behavior may be limited by culture. Although the Five-Factor Model possesses cross-cultural validity (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005), questions nonetheless remain about the viability of this model in Asian cultures. For instance, Yang and Bond (1990), utilizing the lexical hypothesis and an essential trait approach, found five essential factors in a sample from Taiwan, labeled social orientation, competence, expressiveness, self-control, and optimism. These terms overlapped with the Five-Factor Model traits but possessed no one-to-one correspondence. The authors were thus forced to conclude that at most, central attributes of personality could be said to be similar, but also different, across cultures.

Evidence suggests that personality traits may differ between Western and Asian cultures, and may perhaps require a more nuanced approach in measurement in the latter. In fact, variables related to social relationships, such as those within the family, and those within society at large, have been reworked into personality traits in one of the more widely used scales for assessing personality across cultures, the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; F. M. Cheung, Leung, Fan, Song, & Zhang, 1996). In this measure, personality constructs for the normal personality scales were selected specifically in consideration of Chinese culture, leading to the construction of CPAI personality scales not necessarily available in other personality scales, and a combined emic and etic approach to personality assessment. Factor analytic work yielded four personality factors, Dependability, Interpersonal Relatedness (IR), Social Potency, and Individualism, in addition to two clinical factors (F. M. Cheung & Leung, 2005). In a joint factor analytic study between the CPAI and the NEO-Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the IR factor was unique to the CPAI, failing to load on any of the Five-Factor Model facets (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). Similarly, correlations between Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) scales and the IR factor were practically non-existent in one report (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, & Zhang, 2004). The IR factor consists of scales purposely derived for Chinese culture, such as Harmony, Face, and Ren Qing (Relationship Orientation). According to Cheung, these scales add predictive value beyond those contributed by the Five-Factor Model in explaining a variety of Chinese social behaviors, including filial piety, trust, persuasion tactics, and group communication styles (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). Thus, not only are these variables purported to reflect “traditional” values, but an orientation toward instrumental relationships in a collectivistic culture. High IR factor scores, when interpreted in conjunction with other CPAI scales, have been shown to explain variance on the CPAI clinical Antisocial Behavior Scales (S. F. Cheung, Gan, & Lo, 2003).

Can culture-specific personality variables contribute to the understanding of juvenile delinquency? One way of examining the role of such personality variables is to investigate their connection with delinquency in youth who may be predisposed to delinquent behavior, that is, those considered “at-risk.” This may be particularly fruitful in a Chinese society, in which the prevalence and severity of offending is lower than what is commonly observed elsewhere. In the current report, one risk factor for juvenile delinquency was examined, a tendency toward addictive behaviors. Addictive behavior tendencies are clearly risk factors for juvenile delinquency (Wanner, Vitaro, Carbonneau, & Tremblay, 2009), although their inclusion in the current report was guided by culture-specific concerns relating to the way such behaviors are manifested. That is, the percentage of individuals of Asian descent who refrain from consumption of alcohol and drug use is often higher than the percentages observed in samples of Whites (Sakai, Ho, Shore, Risk, & Price, 2005). However, there is evidence that in those individuals of Asian descent who are exposed to alcohol and illicit drugs, the risks for abuse and dependence may be comparable (Sakai et al., 2005), while of greater significance is the fact that there is some evidence suggesting that among Asian Americans who abuse substances, abuse is more frequent and intense compared with American Whites (G. M. Barnes & Welte, 1986). Pathological gambling represents another potential behavioral manifestation of addictive behavior tendencies, one with particular relevance for Macao. The region is the sole legal gaming destination in Asia, and is also uniquely situated in a region in which the majority of the population (i.e., individuals of Chinese ethnicity) attaches less stigma to this behavior than is observed elsewhere (Loo, Raylu, & Oei, 2008). However, it is becoming clear that pathological gambling is problematic in Chinese adolescents, perhaps even more so than in adults when comparisons of the cognitive biases associated with pathological gambling are measured (Tang & Wu, 2012). Of even greater concern is that juvenile delinquency is more frequent not only in adolescents who engage in pathological gambling but also in those who are at risk for pathological gambling, and even in those who simply hold strongly permissive attitudes toward gambling (N. W. Cheung, 2014). Thus, the use of this specific at-risk group can further illuminate the strength of the relationship between Chinese culture-specific personality variables, and juvenile delinquency, in a community sample, and in adolescents in the community who may be at risk for offending behavior.

Thus, personality variables, and potentially, culture-specific personality variables, can contribute significantly to the understanding of criminal behavior. To examine the relationship between personality variables and delinquency, these variables were measured in conjunction with a construct oft utilized in studies of juvenile delinquency cross-culturally, and one with relevance in Chinese cultures: family. Family variables indisputably contribute to the likelihood of delinquent behavior. Across cultures, family support, and the support of parents in particular, aid psychological adjustment and social behavior (Branje, Hale, & Meeus, 2008; Jessor et al., 2003). A perception of family support is associated with lower delinquency and also predicts less delinquency over time (G. M. Barnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2006). On the other hand, a weakening of a major societal institution such as the family is thought to create a natural path toward juvenile delinquency (Hirschi, 1969; Reckless, 1970). In Hong Kong and China, low family support and conflict between children and parents may contribute to the development of delinquency (Wei & Yang, 2011; Zhang & Messner, 1995). Family factors may additionally represent a viable area of research when measured in conjunction with personality factors given that their influence may wax and wane across the life span (Compas & Phares, 1991), whereas personality is thought to be more stable.

The goal of the current report was to measure the correlation between culture-specific personality variables and juvenile delinquency, and determine whether this correlation held any explanatory power once non-culture-specific family variables were controlled. Thus, the current study followed Jessor’s (2008) call for greater attention to explaining, and not just describing, the factors behind adolescent development, particularly the etiology of behaviors, both adaptive and maladaptive, in research conducted in different cultures. In the current report, it was hypothesized that culture-specific personality variables and non-culture-specific family variables would be negatively correlated with self-reported delinquency. The association between addictive behavior tendencies and delinquency was also measured, and it was predicted that higher levels of addictive behavior tendencies would be associated with higher levels of self-reported delinquency. The correlations between age, gender, and school year, and self-reported delinquency, was assessed, because rates of delinquency are often higher in males relative to females (Cohn & Modecki, 2007), and it was thus expected that males would report significantly higher rates of delinquency than females. Last, to test whether there are culture-specific personality traits and non-culture-specific family factors that are associated with delinquency, this association was measured in participants having high and low levels of addictive behavior tendencies. This latter investigation was considered exploratory and no hypotheses were put forth.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of a total of 402 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 (M_age = 15.13, SD = 1.41; 135 girls). All participants were of Chinese ethnicity and had been residing in Macao for at least 7 years. At the time of the current report, all participants were attending secondary school (junior high school or a high school equivalent in the United States). None of the participants reported suffering from a medical or psychiatric disorder. Participants completed all study protocols between December 2011 and March 2012.

An additional 14 participants were recruited from a residential facility for youthful criminal offenders (M_age = 15.86, SD = 1.17; 8 girls). These participants were not included in the final analyses, but were utilized for the purposes of providing external validity data for the dependent variable measure administered in the current report.

Procedures

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, from the principals of the participating academic institutions, and from the director of the facility for youthful criminal offenders. Principals of participating schools informed parents, and participants themselves were notified on the consent form of the purpose of the study, as well as their rights to anonymity, confidentiality, and withdrawal. Parental informed consent was not obtained as the research involved only anonymous questionnaires, which were completed during regular class time, although parents were notified of the intended research project and permitted to refuse or withdraw. In this study, no identifying information was contained on any self-report form. An interdepartmental review processes approved the study procedures.

Measures

Culture-specific personality traits

Two personality traits—Family Orientation and Harmony—were measured, using the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory–Adolescent version (CPAI-A; F. M. Cheung & Leung, 2005). The CPAI-A is an indigenous personality assessment measure developed and standardized among adolescents of Chinese ethnicity residing in Hong Kong. The Family Orientation subscale (12 items) measures the importance and value an individual places on family relationships. In traditional Chinese cultures, family, and parents in particular, are valued as an important part of an individual’s life, and efforts must be made to obey parents and maintain the harmony of the family (Sun, 2008). This subscale can be said to measure the sense of family solidarity, that, according to F. M. Cheung et al. (1996, p. 187), forms the “inner core of interpersonal relationships.” Broadly speaking, items may query an individual’s feelings regarding their family, and more specifically, some items query perspectives regarding the content and methods of parental control, even when parental control is viewed as somewhat harsh. On the CPAI-A, Harmony represents the “interdependent relational orientation that is emphasized in traditional Chinese relationships” (F. M. Cheung et al., 2004, p. 101) and was found to be a personality characteristic specific to Chinese culture (F. M. Cheung et al., 2004). Under the considerable influence of Confucianism, social harmony is strongly emphasized in any kind of social situation (Sun, 2008), and non-confrontational communication is necessary to preserve harmony and prevent others from losing face. Thus, some items query an individual’s attempts to avoid offending others in a social interaction. On the CPAI-A, items are summed, or reverse scored where appropriate, so that higher scores indicate higher levels of indicated personality traits. In the current report, Cronbach’s α was .72 and .69, on the Family Orientation and Harmony subscales, respectively.

Perception of family functioning

The General Function (GF) subscale of the Family Assessment Device (FAD; Ryan, Epstein, Keiter, Miller, & Bishop, 2005) consists of 12 items, which, when summed, measure global perceptions of family functioning. Respondents indicate their agreement to statements such as “in times of crisis we can turn to each other for support,” on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Higher scores represent more positive perceptions of family functioning. In the current report, the Chinese version of the FAD was utilized. This version was translated by Shek (2002a), and has been shown to possess good test–retest reliability and external validity (Shek, 2002b). It correlates well with the FAD, and resulted in good internal consistency when used with Hong Kong Chinese adolescents (Shek, 2001). In the present study, Cronbach’s α was .83.

Addictive behavior tendency

Pathological Dependence (PAT) is a clinical subscale of the CPAI-A used to assess addictive behavior tendencies. This 18-item scale was originally developed to measure addictive behaviors common in Chinese societies, such as gambling, and alcohol and drug use (F. M. Cheung et al., 2004). As in the personality subscales, the PAT clinical scale uses a “yes (coded 1)/no (coded 0)” format. Sample items query excitement experienced from gambling, and impulses to gamble and use substances. Higher scores indicate higher levels of addictive behavior tendencies. Cronbach’s α was .76 in the current sample.

Self-reported delinquent behavior

A 31-item questionnaire was used to assess levels of delinquency (Kim & Kim, 2000). This scale consists of a three-factor structure, described in a report detailing the scale’s construction (Kim & Kim, 2000). The scale has been shown to possess adequate psychometric properties (Kim & Kim, 2008) and was utilized in the current report in an attempt to measure delinquent behaviors that might be observed in a sample of Asian adolescent respondents. Participants answered “true” (coded 1) or “false” (coded 0) to statements such as “I ran away from my home for over 2 days before I was 15 years old,” and “I was suspended or expelled from school when I was a middle-or high school student.” The original items of this scale are in Korean. The items were translated by a professional Korean translator into English, and then edited for accuracy by one of the authors, a native English speaker. The items were subsequently translated into traditional Chinese characters by the first author, a native speaker of Chinese. Items were then back-translated into English by a bilingual research assistant. Discrepancies between the Korean-to-English translation and the Chinese-to-English back-translation were evident in grammatical style only, and not reflected in item content. Thus, the Chinese translation was unchanged. Cronbach’s α was .86 in the present study.

To provide further evidence of the validity of the delinquent behavior scale used in the current report, a comparison group, consisting of 14 residents of a facility for juvenile offenders, was recruited. Their score was compared with the mean score of a subsample of the overall sample at large: approximately 3% of the overall sample was randomly selected, resulting in 14 cases for comparison. The mean age of the subsample selected (M_age = 15.43, SD = 1.17) was comparable with that of the group of offenders (M_age = 15.86, SD = 1.17). Using independent-samples t tests, a significant difference in self-reported delinquent behaviors was found between the subsample (M = 6.07, SD = 6.21) and the group of offenders (M = 19.29; SD = 6.04); t(26) = −5.71, p < .01.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the means (SD) of, and inter-correlations among, the main variables Harmony, Family Orientation, Family Functioning, PAT tendency, and self-reported delinquent behaviors, and the demographic variables of age, gender, and school year. Delinquency was negatively correlated with the two personality traits, Harmony and Family Orientation, rs = −.32 and −.40, both ps < .001, and Family Functioning, r = −.20, p < .001. None of the demographic variables correlated with delinquency at the bivariate level. A multiple regression showed that the two personality traits and family functioning were significant predictors of delinquency. After entering age, gender, and school year in Step 1, Harmony, Family Orientation, and Family Functioning were added to the regression model in Step 2. The final model was highly significant, F(5, 357) = 15.43, p < .001, accounting for 20.6% of the variance in delinquency. Age (β = .15, p = .04), school year (β = −.15, p = .05), Harmony (β = −.17, p = .02), Family Orientation (β = −.41, p < .001), and Family Functioning (β = −.14, p = .03) were all significant predictors of delinquency (Table 2).

Table 1.

Intercorrelations Between Variables.

			Correlations
	n	M (SD)	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	402	15.13 (1.41)	.08	.05	.05	.05	.04
2. Gender			.00	−.01	−.05	.02	−.03
Males (coded 0)	135
Females (coded 1)	267
3. School year			−.02	−.00	.13*	−.08	−.08
Year 7	65
Year 8	60
Year 9	79
Year 10	142
Year 11	44
Year 12	10
Missing	2
4. Delinquency		4.29 (4.46)		−.20***	−.32***	−.40***	.42***
5. Family functioning		2.23 (0.49)			.35***	.64***	−.08
6. Harmony		10.30 (2.69)				.47***	−.32***
7. Family orientation		7.31 (2.83)					−.18***
8. Pathological dependency		1.44 (2.12)

p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .001.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression of Effects of Family Functioning and Personality Traits on Adolescent Delinquency.

	Whole sample			Non-PAT group			PAT group
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Step 1
Gender	0.00	0.50	0.00	0.19	0.46	0.03	−0.13	0.91	−0.01
Age	0.68	0.26	0.21	0.42	0.25	0.19	0.62	0.46	0.16
School year	−0.58	0.27	−0.17*	−0.19	0.28	−0.08	−0.60	0.47	−0.15
Step 2
Gender	−0.15	0.45	−0.02	0.19	0.40	0.03	−0.43	0.86	−0.04
Age	0.49	0.23	0.15*	0.50	0.22	0.23*	0.32	0.43	0.08
School year	−0.49	0.25	−0.15*	−0.30	0.24	−0.13	−0.46	0.45	−0.11
Family functioning	−1.20	0.55	−0.14*	−0.80	0.50	−0.14	−1.56	1.03	−0.14
Harmony	−0.32	0.09	−0.17**	−0.37	0.08	−0.32***	−1.56	1.03	−0.11
Family orientation	−0.64	0.10	−0.41***	−0.38	0.09	−0.36***	−0.87	0.19	−0.44***

Note. For the whole sample, R² = .019 for Step 1; ΔR² = .187 for Step 2, p < .001. For the non-PAT group, R² = .019 for Step 1; ΔR² = .256 for Step 2, p < .001. For the PAT group, R² = .013 for Step 1; ΔR² = .150 for Step 2, p < .001. PAT = Pathological Dependence; 1 = males; 2 = females.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

As hypothesized, the tendency toward pathological dependency was related to adolescent delinquency, r = .42, p < .001, with participants with higher levels of pathological dependency being more likely to report engagement in delinquent behaviors. To further explore the effect of addictive behavior tendencies on delinquency, participants were divided into two groups by their scores on the Pathological Dependency scale. Two hundred and seventeen participants (54%) scored zero on this scale, and were therefore classified as having no addictive behavior tendencies (non-PAT group). The remaining 185 reported at least one instance of addictive behavior (e.g., drug abuse, alcoholism, and/or gambling; range = 1-15, M = 2.52, SD = 2.18, median = 2). These participants were classified as showing some addictive behavior tendencies (PAT group). The two groups differed significantly on self-reported delinquent behaviors, t(254.89, equal variance not assumed) = −4.75, p < .001, with the non-PAT group (M = 3.29, SD = 2.97) reporting a significantly lower level of delinquency than the PAT group (M = 5.50, SD = 5.54). A multiple regression showed that, for the non-PAT group, at Step 2, significant predictors of delinquency were age (β = .23, p = .02), Harmony (β = −.32, p < .001), and Family Orientation (β = −.36, p < .001). Together, the model is able to explain 27.5% of the variance in delinquency, F(6, 192) = 12.14, p < .001. For the PAT group, however, only Family Orientation (β = −.44, p < .001) significantly predicted delinquency, explaining 16.3% of the variance of delinquency, F(6, 158) = 5.14, p < .001 (Table 2).

To further evaluate the moderation effects of pathological dependency on delinquency, a series of two-group path analysis models were tested with the non-PAT and PAT groups. In Model 1, Harmony, Family Orientation, and Family Functioning were modeled as predictors of delinquency, and demographic variables (age, gender, and school year) as control variables. The error residuals of the three predictors, and the ones between age and school year, were allowed to covary. Fit indices showed that the model fit the data well, χ²(22) = 43.770, p = .004, comparative fit index (CFI) = .968, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .064, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .052 (95% CI = [.029, .075]), and the patterns of parameters replicated the results of the multiple regression analyses reported above. Family Orientation was a significant and negative predictor of delinquent behaviors in both groups (βs = −.35 and −.44, both ps < .001, for the non-PAT and the PAT groups respectively). Harmony and age were only significant among the non-PAT group (βs = −.32 and .23, both ps < .01), and perceived family functioning was not significant in either group (Figure 1). To test for moderation effects, the parameters from the three predictors were constrained to delinquency to be equal one by one (Models 2-4). The added constraints between Harmony and delinquency, and between perceived family functioning and delinquency, did not change the model fit significantly. However, when the path from Family Orientation to delinquency was set to be equal (Model 4), the model fit deteriorated, Δχ²(1) = 5.723, p = .02, demonstrating a significant moderation effect of PAT tendency on the relationship between Family Orientation and delinquency.

Figure 1.

A two-group path model of delinquency, Chinese personality traits, and family functioning.

Discussion

The current results show that personality factors associated with a culture-specific interpersonal style, along with positive perceptions of family functioning, which are not culture-specific in nature, are associated with lower levels of self-reported juvenile delinquency. That there is a relationship between perceived levels of family functioning and juvenile delinquency is not surprising. Family factors are correlated with levels of juvenile delinquency in all cultures measured, and Chinese culture is no exception (Zhang & Messner, 1995). Less commonly reported is the manner in which a more traditional Chinese personality style concerned with family relations and high in concern for maintaining social hierarchies correlates with a lack of delinquent behaviors. These results confirm the results of prior research using the CPAI (S. F. Cheung et al., 2003), and also confirm the results of reports finding that adherence to Chinese culture, and in particular, the practice of Chinese customs, lowers the risk of minor offending in adolescents (Wong, 1997). In Macao, traditional Chinese cultural and family values are still strongly held (e.g., surveys show that nearly 90% of adolescents in Macao believe it is the eventual responsibility of children to support their families; Education and Youth Affairs Bureau, 2009). These results might be considered in the context of, and contrasted with, work on the seemingly opposite effect of other cultures. That is, in the United States, much work has been done to show that first-generation, foreign-born immigrants are less likely to offend than subsequent generations (Bersani, Loughran, & Piquero, 2014), who tend to become more acculturated and assimilated. Furthermore, even when similar risk factors for offending are found in identical ethnic groups residing in two separate cultures, higher levels of offending are found in the group residing in the United States (Jennings et al., 2010; Maldonado-Molina, Piquero, Jennings, Bird, & Canino, 2009). Interestingly, within the United States, the interaction of acculturation and immigrant generation status, and the subsequent influence on offending, was not observed in a group of immigrants from Asia in one report (Powell, Perreira, & Harris, 2010), perhaps hinting at the strength of some cultures over others in protecting against delinquency.

The current results also show that in a group of children at risk for juvenile delinquency, owing to addictive behavior tendencies, only one of the culture-specific personality variables predicts delinquency. In this high-risk group, non-culture-specific family variables are no longer significant. Typically, in children specifically at risk for juvenile delinquency, there is an association between families who place a great emphasis on supportive and caring relationships, and children who are more resilient (Werner, 1993). The current results are unique in showing that resiliency may be tied to adherence to traditional Chinese family values reflected in personality styles, and not just the perception of family functioning. Thus, adolescents who adhere to traditional Chinese family values, even when some of these values could potentially be viewed as somewhat more extreme in other cultures (e.g., strict parental control and discipline), are less likely to engage in juvenile delinquency, even when at risk for doing so. Interestingly, an emphasis on traditional family values but not a focus on interpersonal harmony correlated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency in the at-risk group. This is consistent with how family orientation is operationalized as being a core component of all interpersonal relationships (F. M. Cheung et al., 1996).

That adherence to traditional Chinese family values is associated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency, even in the face of specific risks for delinquency, is a finding that has implications for research in this area. One of the most well replicated findings in juvenile delinquency concerns the significant increase in deviant behaviors in mid-adolescence, and subsequent decline in early adulthood (Nagin & Land, 1993). Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy (Moffitt, 1993) is one that has received the most support in the conceptualization of this trend. Accordingly, two potential types of offending are delineated, a pattern of antisocial behaviors predating adolescence, suggesting a lifelong course and a neurocognitive basis, and a pattern of offending limited to adolescence, consisting of less serious delinquent behaviors. In this respect, Moffitt and others have proposed that adolescent-limited offending is almost normative in its prevalence (J. C. Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Moffitt, 1993), and it has been suggested that minor transgressions in this developmental stage are not only common, but likely (Hasking, Scheier, & Abdallah, 2011). However, much less attention has been paid to another group of adolescents described by Moffitt, one who refrain entirely from either age normative or chronic forms of antisocial behavior (Boutwell & Beaver, 2008). According to Moffitt, these abstainers do not take part in such behaviors owing to the presence of certain personality traits that would by their very nature preclude antisocial behavior, including variables related to constraint and shyness. What if any relationships these personality traits have in common with the culture-specific personality traits measured in the current report cannot be ascertained. Nonetheless, Moffitt’s description of abstainers would appear relevant to the study of adolescents in some Asian cultures, such as in China. In the current report, adolescents whose personality style favored a focus on maintaining social balance in interpersonal interactions reported lower levels of delinquency, and even in those adolescents with addictive behavior tendencies, a traditional family orientation was still associated with lower levels of delinquency.

The work on culture-specific personality factors, specifically those factors unique to Asian cultures, and Chinese culture in particular, and the relationship of these factors to delinquency are, in their nascent stages. Work in this area was, until recently, generally exploratory in nature and lacking theoretical grounding. However, several recent reports have confirmed the utility of theories derived from criminology, most notably, social bond theory, or its variants, in youth from Chinese societies. Social bond theory, broadly defined, focuses on the bonds one makes and how these predict the likelihood of criminal behavior. These bonds consist of attachment (e.g., one’s interest in others), commitment (e.g., commitment to mores and laws), involvement (e.g., participation in positive activities), and beliefs. Zhang and Messner (1995) found support for the relationship between family deviance and delinquency using social control theory with delinquent and non-delinquent youth in China. S. Deng and Roosa (2007) similarly found good fit for a model based on an offshoot of social bond theory, Social Development Theory (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996), in predicting delinquency in a non-offending sample of children in China. The culture-specific personality factors measured in the current report assess in part, an adherence to a traditional family value system. Thus, the action of adherence may specifically reflect an aspect of self-regulation, which potentially overlaps with aspects of social control theory, perhaps most specifically and notably in the interest one expresses in others and their subsequent commitment to mores and social laws. However, the Chinese culture-specific personality constructs measured in this report, Harmony and Family Orientation, contain additional elements that appear, at least on the surface, at least somewhat distinct from social control. These constructs do focus on attachment, but perhaps more importantly emphasize avoidance of conflict and maintenance of equilibrium. This avoidance of conflict is manifested in contentment and peace of mind. That is, individual items from the personality assessment measure explicitly focus on the sustenance of a peaceful state of mind and the dominant role that concern over offending others takes in interpersonal interactions. Thus, in any interpersonal interaction, tolerance, above all else, is given precedence. Empirical research demonstrates the relevance of these constructs. For instance, for individuals of Chinese ethnicity, establishment and maintenance of relationship harmony actually supersedes self-esteem in the prediction of life satisfaction (Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997). Thus, based on the extant literature, it can perhaps be said that there is some overlap in content between the theoretical personality constructs measured in the current report and those from some of the most well-validated theoretical approaches from criminology. Most importantly, both are able to predict outcomes in delinquency. Clearly more work is needed in this area.

The current report does raise some questions. One unexpected finding was the lack of a difference between self-reported levels of delinquency across gender. Across cultures, gender is consistently found to be a risk factor for delinquent behaviors (C. K. Cheung, Ngai, & Ngai, 2007; Cohn & Modecki, 2007). Males are generally more likely than females to develop delinquency (Cohn & Modecki, 2007; Fagan, Van Horn, Hawkins, & Arthur, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2008). It is not clear why this trend was not found in the current report. The number of cases of adolescent delinquency in females has increased, in areas such as the United States (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). One explanation put forth for such an increase has been the greater exposure to risk factors for delinquency now occurring in females (e.g., substance abuse; Fagan et al., 2007). However, in a Chinese society such as Macao, in which crime is low, there may be less exposure to risk factors across both genders. In addition, given the Chinese cultural emphasis on restraint, an emphasis not limited to girls and women, but also apparent in boys and men, there may be less pressure for the latter to engage in stereotypically male behaviors. Thus, not only are rates of juvenile crime lower in Chinese societies than in their Western counterparts (Education and Youth Affairs Bureau, 2013; Puzzanchera & Kang, 2013), but in some research reports, the prevalence of some specific behaviors associated with juvenile delinquency are low enough that their exclusion from investigative analyses is warranted (N. W. Cheung, 2014). Nonetheless, this is an area needing further exploration as there is little research about gender differences in adolescent delinquency in China.

There are several limitations evident in the current report. The variables utilized were rather narrow in scope. The intention of the current study was to compare a circumscribed set of variables in a manner allowing comparison of culture-specific personality traits and non-culture specific family factors in self-reported delinquency. Thus, other commonly reported risk factors for juvenile delinquency, such as peer associations (Henry, Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Schoeny, 2012), were omitted. While peer effects have perhaps been overestimated, owing to the preponderance of cross-sectional designs and projection from adolescents (Kandel, 1996), and in some reports are either predicted by family factors (Goebert et al., 2012) or limited in their influence to specific developmental periods (Compas & Phares, 1991), they are nonetheless generally believed to provide context for delinquency (G. M. Barnes, Welte, Hoffman, & Dintcheff, 2005). More of a concern in the current report is that the socializing influences which were not measured, specifically parental monitoring, and affiliation with offending peers, are thought to interact bi-directionally with personality traits, in a manner that could influence offending behavior (G. M. Barnes et al., 2005). Similarly, the current report did not incorporate other risks for criminal behavior, risks that have been well replicated, such as socioeconomic status and childhood trauma. Thus, even though our sample was relatively homogeneous in ethnicity and, presumably socioeconomic variables, there is little information on how culture-specific personality variables may interact with (or potentially be overwhelmed by) extreme variations in socioeconomic status or variables associated with trauma in childhood/adolescence to predict the likelihood of delinquency. This issue has been raised by others, who argue that risk factors will vary depending on the sample under study, the sampling technique utilized, and the specific characteristics of the respondents within individual reports (Asscher, Wissink, Dekovic, Prinzie, & Stams, 2013; Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000), and the current report is in no way immune to such concerns. Thus, the generalizability of the current results is questionable.

Of note, in the past, criticisms have been levied at research utilizing personality traits in studies of delinquency owing to assessment measure item overlap between predictors and criteria (Tennenbaum, 1977). However, more recent work has found that such relationships exist even after controlling for overlapping item content between measures of personality and measures of deviance (Krueger et al., 1994). In addition, there is data consistently showing that specific essential traits are associated with deviant behavior (Cale, 2006; Miller & Lynam, 2001), and also associated with many other psychological and behavioral outcomes, when separated or combined with other personality traits (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Krueger, 2000; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). These results would appear to suggest that personality traits are not necessarily simply measuring delinquency itself. This interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that although there is a general correlation between personality traits and behavior, the correlation is modest enough in strength to argue that these constructs are separate, if related, entities (Nisbett, 1980). More of a concern in the current report is the overlap between culture-specific personality variables and non-culture-specific familial variables. In the current report, non-culture-specific perceptions of family functioning lose explanatory power once culture-specific personality variables are considered. Item response theory may be needed to further delineate what is, and what is not culture-specific in a predictive capacity.

Regardless, the current results have practical relevance. The identification of personality traits in high-risk children that are associated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency not only lead to greater understanding of developmental processes but are also crucial in helping to design prevention and intervention approaches. Future research will need to investigate further such factors and how they might vary across regions of China (Ngai, Cheung, & Ngai, 2007). Regardless, juvenile delinquency is a social problem on the rise in China (Curran & Cook, 1993; Xiang, 1999), and additional research is needed to determine the factors that contribute to, or help prevent, the onset of delinquent behaviors, and how these factors vary across cultures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Fanny Cheung and her colleagues for granting permission to use the CPAI-A.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The current research was supported by funding from a University of Macau Grant: MYRG106(Y1-L2)-FSH11-CMZ.

References

Asscher

J. J.

Wissink

I. B.

Dekovic

Prinzie

Stams

G. J. J. M.

(2013). Delinquent behavior, poor relationship quality with parents, and involvement with deviant peers in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents: Different processes, informant bias, or both? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1001-1019.

Barnes

G. M.

Hoffman

J. H.

Welte

J. H.

Farrell

M. P.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1084-1104.

Barnes

G. M.

Welte

Hoffman

J. H.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2005). Shared predictors of youthful gambling, substance use and delinquency. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 165-174.

Barnes

G. M.

Welte

J. W.

(1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7-12th grade students in New York State. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 53-62.

Barnes

J. C.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). An empirical examination of adolescence-limited offending: A direct test of Moffitt’s maturity gap thesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1176-1185.

Bersani

B. E.

Loughran

T. A.

Piquero

A. R.

(2014). Comparing patterns and predictors of immigrant offending among a sample of adjudicated youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1914-1933.

Blonigen

D. M.

(2010). Explaining the relationship between age and crime: Contributions from the developmental literature on personality. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 89-100.

Bogg

Roberts

B. W.

(2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887-919.

Boutwell

B. B.

Beaver

K. M.

(2008). A biosocial explanation of delinquency abstention. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18, 59-74.

10.

Branje

S. J. T.

Hale

W. W.

III Meeus

W. H. J.

(2008). Reciprocal development of parent-adolescent support and adolescent problem behaviors. In Kerr

Stattin

Engels

C. M. E.

(Eds.), What can parents do?: New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior (pp. 135-162). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

11.

Cale

E. M.

(2006). A quantitative review of the relations between the “Big 3” higher order personality dimensions and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 250-284.

12.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Krueger

R. F.

Schmutte

P. S.

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

13.

Catalano

R. F.

Hawkins

J. D.

(1996). The Social Development Model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Hawkins

J. D.

(Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Chen

(2010). Socio-emotional development in Chinese children. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 37-52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

15.

Cheung

C. K.

Ngai

N. P.

Ngai

S. Y.

(2007). Family strain and adolescent delinquency in two Chinese cities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 626-641.

16.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

Zhang

(2004). Convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Preliminary findings with a normative sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 92-103.

17.

Cheung

F. M.

Gan

Y. Q.

P. M.

(2003). Personality and psychopathology: Insights from Chinese studies. In Teng

W. S.

(Ed.), Asian culture and psychotherapy: Implications for East and West (pp. 21-39). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

18.

Cheung

F. M.

Leung

(2005). The Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent version (CPAI-A). Hong Kong, China: F. M. Cheung, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

19.

Cheung

F. M.

Leung

Fan

R. M.

Song

Zhang

(1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181-199.

20.

Cheung

F. M.

Leung

Zhang

J. X.

Sun

H. F.

Gan

Y. Q.

Song

W. Z.

Xie

(2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407-433.

21.

Cheung

N. W.

(2014). Low self-control and co-occurrence of gambling with substance use and delinquency among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 105-124.

22.

Cloninger

C. R.

(1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classifications of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

23.

Cohn

E. S.

Modecki

K. L.

(2007). Gender differences in predicting delinquent behavior: Do individual differences matter? Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 359-374.

24.

Compas

B. E.

Phares

(1991). Stress during childhood and adolescence: Source of risk and vulnerability. In Cummings

E. M.

Greene

A. L.

Karraker

K. H.

(Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 111-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

26.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. Y.

Campbell

S. B.

(2000). Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

27.

Curran

D. J.

Cook

(1993). Growing fears, rising crime: Juveniles and China’s justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 296-315.

28.

Deng

Roosa

M. W.

(2007). Family influences on adolescent delinquent behaviors: Applying the Social Development Model to a Chinese sample. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 333-344.

29.

Deng

Dou

Zhang

(2000). A study of the basic personality traits of juvenile criminals and related factors. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 160-162.

30.

Ebstein

R. P.

Novick

Umansky

Priel

Osher

Blaine

. . . Belmaker

R. H.

(1996). Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12, 78-80.

31.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. (2009). Youth Indicators of Macau 2008, Macau, Youth Indicators of Macao, 2009.

32.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. (2013). Juvenile crime and delinquency. Retrieved from http://www.dsej.gov.mo/ijm/stat/pdf/yim_07.pdf.

33.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1977). Crime and personality. London, England: Routledge.

34.

Fagan

A. A.

Van Horn

M. L.

Hawkins

J. D.

Arthur

M. W.

(2007). Gender similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self-reported serious delinquency. Prevention Science, 8, 115-124.

35.

Finkel

McGue

(1997). Sex differences and nonadditivity in heritability of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 929-938.

36.

Funder

D. C.

(2013). The personality puzzle (6th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

37.

Goebert

Chang

J. Y.

Chung-Do

Else

Hamagami

Helm

. . . Sugimoto-Matsuda

J. J.

(2012). Social ecological determinants of youth violence among ethnically diverse Asian and Pacific Islander students. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 188-196.

38.

Hasking

P. A.

Scheier

L. M.

Abdallah

A. B.

(2011). The three latent classes of adolescent delinquency and the risk factors for membership in each class. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 19-35.

39.

Henry

D. B.

Tolan

P. H.

Gorman-Smith

Schoeny

M. E.

(2012). Risk and direct protective factors for youth violence: Results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Multisite Violence Prevention Project. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(Suppl.), S67-S75.

40.

Hirschi

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

41.

Jennings

W. G.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Piquero

A. R.

Odgers

C. L.

Bird

Canino

(2010). Sex differences in trajectories of offending among Puerto Rican youth. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 327-357.

42.

Jessor

(2008). Description versus explanation in cross-national research on adolescence. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 527-528.

43.

Jessor

Turbin

M. S.

Costa

F. M.

Dong

Zhang

Wang

(2003). Adolescent problem behavior in China and the United States: A cross-national study of psychosocial protective factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 329-360.

44.

Kandel

D. B.

(1996). The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: An algebra of interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 289-315.

45.

Kim

H. S.

Kim

H. S.

(2000). Development of a scale for measuring delinquent behavior. Korean Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11, 79-90.

46.

Kim

H. S.

Kim

H. S.

(2008). The impact of family violence, family functioning, and parental partner dynamics on Korean juvenile delinquency. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 39, 439-453.

47.

Krueger

R. F.

(2000). Personality traits in late adolescence predict mental disorders in early adulthood: A prospective-epidemiological study. Journal of Personality, 67, 39-65.

48.

Krueger

R. F.

Schmutte

P. S.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Campbell

Silva

P. A.

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

49.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

Bond

M. H.

Singelis

T. M.

(1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1938-1951.

50.

Lau

Leung

(1992). Relations with parents and school and Chinese adolescents’ self-concept, delinquency, and academic performance. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 193-202.

51.

Loehlin

J. C.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

John

O. P.

(1998). Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431-453.

52.

Loo

J. M.

Raylu

Oei

T. P.

(2008). Gambling among the Chinese: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1152-1166.

53.

Lynam

D. R.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Wikström

P. O.

Loeber

Novak

(2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563-574.

54.

H. K.

Shek

D. T. L.

Cheung

P. C.

Lee

R. Y. P.

(1996). The relation of prosocial and antisocial behavior to personality and peer relationships in Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 255-266.

55.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Bird

Canino

(2009). Trajectories of delinquency among Puerto Rican children and adolescents at two sites. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 144-181.

56.

McCrae

R. R.

Terracciano

(2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.

57.

Meehl

P. E.

(1986). Trait language and behaviorese. In Thompson

Zeiler

M. D.

(Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 315-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

58.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765-793.

59.

Moffitt

T. E.

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

60.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Silva

P. A.

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1995). Individual differences in personality and intelligence are linked to crime: Cross context evidence from nations, neighborhoods, genders, races, and age-cohorts. In Hagan

(Ed.), Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle (pp. 1-34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

61.

Nagin

D. S.

Land

K. C.

(1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: Specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology, 31, 327-362.

62.

Ngai

N. P.

Cheung

C. K.

Ngai

S. S.

(2007). Cognitive and social influences on gang involvement among delinquents in three Chinese cities. Adolescence, 42, 381-403.

63.

Nisbett

R. E.

(1980). The trait construct in lay and professional psychology. In Festinger

(Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 109-130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

64.

Ozer

D. J.

Benet-Martinez

(2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

65.

Paunonen

S. V.

Ashton

M. C.

(2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.

66.

Powell

Perreira

K. M.

Harris

K. M.

(2010). Trajectories of delinquency from adolescence to adulthood. Youth & Society, 41, 475-502.

67.

Puzzanchera

Kang

(2013). Easy access to FBI arrest statistics 1994-2010. Retreived from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/.

68.

Raine

Reynolds

Venables

P. H.

Mednick

S. A.

Farrington

D. P.

(1998). Fearlessness, stimulation-seeking, and large body size at age 3 years as early predispositions to childhood aggression at age 11 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 745-751.

69.

Reckless

W. C.

(1970). Containment theory. In Wolfgang

Savitz

Johnson

(Eds.), The sociology of crime and delinquency (pp. 287-300). New York, NY: John Wiley.

70.

Reynolds

S. K.

Clark

L. A.

(2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199-222.

71.

Ryan

C. E.

Epstein

N. B.

Keiter

G. I.

Miller

I. W.

Bishop

D. S.

(2005). Evaluating and treating families: The McMaster approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

72.

Sakai

J. T.

P. M.

Shore

J. H.

Risk

N. K.

Price

R. K.

(2005). Asians in the United States: Substance dependence and use of substance-dependence treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 29, 75-84.

73.

Shek

D. T.

(2001). Reliability and factor structure of the Chinese version of the Self-Report Family Inventory in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 375-385.

74.

Shek

D. T.

(2002a). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Family Awareness Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 61-72.

75.

Shek

D. T.

(2002b). Chinese adolescents’ perceptions of family functioning: Personal, school-related, and family correlates. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128, 358-380.

76.

Snyder

H. N.

(2002). Juvenile arrests 2000 (OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

77.

Snyder

H. N.

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report (NCJ178257). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

78.

Sun

T. L.

(2008). Themes in Chinese psychology. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

79.

Tang

C. S. K.

A. M. S.

(2012). Gambling-related cognitive biases and pathological gambling among youths, young adults, and mature adults in Chinese societies. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 139-154.

80.

Tellegen

(1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence, and assessment. In Grove

W. M.

Cicchetti

(Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (pp. 10-35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

81.

Tellegen

Lykken

D. T.

Bouchard

T. J.

Jr. Wilcox

K. J.

Segal

N. L.

Rich

(1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031-1039.

82.

Tennenbaum

D. J.

(1977). Personality and criminality: A summary and implications of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 225-235.

83.

Wanner

Vitaro

Carbonneau

Tremblay

R. E.

(2009). Cross-lagged links among gambling, substance use, and delinquency from midadolescence to young adulthood: Additive and moderating effects of common risk factors. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 91-104.

84.

Wei

Yang

(2011). Social psychological factors contributing to male juvenile delinquency. Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, 13, 904-907.

85.

Werner

E. E.

(1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery—Perspectives from the Kauai longitudinal-study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503-515.

86.

Wong

S. K.

(1997). Delinquency of Chinese-Canadian youth: A test of opportunity, control, and intergeneration conflict theories. Youth & Society, 29, 112-133.

87.

Xiang

(1999). Delinquency and its prevention in China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 61-70.

88.

Yang

K. S.

Bond

M. H.

(1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095.

89.

Zhang

Messner

S. F.

(1995). Family deviance and delinquency in China. Criminology, 33, 359-387.

90.

Zuckerman

(1989). Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 391-418.