Crime in the Kingdom

Abstract

Low self-control has emerged as a ubiquitous predictor of a range of behaviors and life outcomes, including criminal and analogous behaviors. Evidence linking self-control to criminal conduct, moreover, has also emerged from several cross-cultural studies. While important, cross-cultural studies remain limited in number and in scope. Extending empirical investigations into the effects of self-control cross-culturally, we present findings from data collected from Saudi Arabian high school youth. Low self-control was a substantive predictor of self-reported delinquency, violent behavior (VB), victimization, and delinquent peer associations for males and females. The effects of low self-control were found to be substantive, general, and invariant across sex within a culture that practices sex segregation and one that embraces harsh punishments for violent conduct.

Keywords

low self-control culturally invariant delinquency victimization delinquent peers

Introduction

Self-control has emerged as a powerful predictor of criminal and analogous behaviors (Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursick, 1993; Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Dunaway, 1994; Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999; Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). Indeed, the range of outcomes predicted by self-control, such as drug use (de Wit, 2009; Madden, Petry, Badger, & Bickel, 1997), seat belt use (Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993; Longshore, 1998; Nakhaie, Silverman, & LaGrange, 2000; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003), obesity (Elfhag & Morey, 2008; Gormally, Black, Daston, & Rardin, 1982), educational performance (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), and a variety of imprudent behaviors (Forde, & Kennedy, 1997; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Reisig & Pratt, 2011), remains empirically impressive. Not only is self-control related to a diversity of variables, the magnitude of the association between self-control and these variables is often nontrivial. From a range of empirical studies, it is clear that self-control is deeply implicated in a full battery of life outcomes (de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Holtfreter, Reisig, & Pratt, 2008; Koenen, Caspi, Moffitt, Rijsdijk, & Taylor, 2006; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Unnever, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003).

Almost every aspect of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory has received unparalleled empirical attention. Scholars, for example, have examined the impact of self-control on crime, drug use, deviance, and a host of other variables (Buker, 2011; de Ridder et al., 2012; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). They have examined the genetic and environmental origins of self-control (Beaver, Wright, & DeLisi, 2007; Boutwell & Beaver, 2010; Buker, 2011; Moffitt, 1993; Ratchford & Beaver, 2009; Vaughn, Delisi, Beaver, & Wright, 2009; Wright & Beaver, 2005), stability and change in self-control (Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008; Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Coyne & Wright, 2014; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Jo & Zhang, 2012; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993), and the generality of self-control (Pratt & Cullen, 2000).

The empirical regularities found by criminologists linking self-control to a battery of life outcomes are also mirrored by findings from psychologists who have examined the connection between risk taking, impulsivity, and particularly “effortful control” on life outcomes (Davis, Bruce, & Gunnar, 2002; Simons, Maisto, & Wray, 2010). Studies on “effortful control,” for example, find that individuals who can marshal greater psychological resources to regulate emotive states, stressful situations, or the potentially negative influence of peers are generally less involved in problem behavior and enjoy a life less burdened by the consequences of low impulse control (Carroll et al., 2006; Caspi et al., 2003; Hofer, Eisenberg, & Reiser, 2010; Mischel et al., 2010). Taken collectively, there can be little doubt that self-control and other closely related concepts play an important role in the life chances and life experiences of individuals.

Cross Cultural Studies on Self-Control

Unlike tests of other criminological theories, self-control theory has also been tested on a wide and growing range of samples drawn from a variety of Western and, increasingly, non-Western countries (Paternoster & Brame, 1998; Polakowski, 1994; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing, 2001; Vazsonyi, Wittekind, Belliston, & Van Loh, 2004; White et al., 1994;). One of the first cross-cultural studies on the effects of self-control was conducted by Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, and Hessing (2001). A relatively large number (N = 6,914) of high school students, community college students, and university students (aged 15–19 years ) from the Netherlands, Hungary, Switzerland, and the United States were surveyed. Later, Vazsonyi, Wittekind, Belliston, and Van Loh (2004) examined a sample of university students located in the United States and Japan. The relationship between low self-control and deviant behavior was robust within and across samples, with self-control predicting variation in vandalism, school misconduct, theft, and assault. Low self-control, however, was not significantly associated with alcohol use for Japanese males. The authors speculated that cultural differences regarding the consumption of alcohol may have a greater impact on alcohol consumption than low self-control stating, “In Japan, alcohol consumption, even prior to the age of 20, is not considered an imprudent or risky act … the evidence suggests that alcohol consumption is very customary, perhaps even socially encouraged” (Vazsonyi et al., 2004, p. 22).

In a similar but more recent study, Smith and Crichlow (2013) analyzed the influence of self-control on deviance in a sample of university students from the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Trinidad & Tobago, and North America. Using Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev’s (1993) measure of self-control, the authors’ found that self-control significantly predicted variation in deviant behavior across the four nations, although the effects varied significantly in magnitude.

The majority of cross-cultural studies have involved the use of university samples—samples that are highly selected—drawn typically from 2 to 4 countries. In the largest and broadest cross-cultural study on self-control and criminal behavior, Rebellon, Straus, and Medeiros (2008) collected self-report data from over 20,000 university students dispersed across 32 different countries including Western and non-Western countries. Rebellon et al. (2008) found that self-control significantly predicted violent criminal behavior in all 32 countries, with the magnitude of effects ranging from β = .13 to β = .40. Moreover, their results revealed that self-control was a more powerful predictor of violent criminal behavior than was delinquent peer associations in 75% of the countries surveyed and that self-control was also significantly associated with involvement in property crimes. Overall, self-control was found to be a substantive predictor of crime in Western and non-Western cultural settings, although the magnitude of the effect varied across cultures (Rebellon, Straus, & Medeiros, 2008). We also note that of the 32 nations included in the study, several are well known for their adherence to strict cultural norms including China, Japan, Korea, and Iran.

Taken in total, these studies provide evidence that the effects of self-control on a range of criminal and deviant behaviors are robust and are not necessarily dependent on the broader sociopolitical context. Self-control was found to be a significant predictor of a range of problem behaviors in countries as diverse as Belgium, China, and Trinidad. Even so, we note that the magnitude of effects varied significantly across countries. Variation in the magnitude of effects may be caused by a variety of factors, including unique aspects of the sample, variation in the range of scores associated with the dependent variables, and confounding caused by other unmeasured variables. Fortunately, several cross-national studies were designed to assess the connection between self-control and problem behavior controlling for the influence of a range of other important variables.

In a series of studies, for example, Botchkovar, Tittle, and Antonaccio (2009) examined the relationship between morality, self-control, and crime in their sample of 500 Ukrainian households. Using self-report surveys containing measures of self-control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993) and measures of moral beliefs, the authors’ found that while moral beliefs exerted a strong and independent effect on violent criminal behavior so too did self-control (see also, Antonaccio & Tittle, 2008; Schoepfer & Piquero, 2006; Wikström & Svensson, 2010). Similarly, Svensson, Pauwels, and Weerman (2010) examined the associations between self-control, morality, and offending behavior across samples drawn from Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Using a total sample of 5,467 adolescent students ranging in age from 13 to 15 years, the authors’ found that self-control and moral beliefs generated independent effects on offending behaviors across countries and that self-control interacted with moral beliefs across each country.

Finally, Hwang and Akers (2003) examined the extent to which self-control explained substance abuse in South Korea. Hwang and Akers compared the effects of self-control to measures from social learning and social bonding/attachment theories. Using self-report surveys from a sample of 1,012 high school students in Pusan, South Korea, the authors found that self-control explained 12% of the variation in substance abuse, whereas measures from social bonding variables accounted for 15% of the variance, while social learning measures explained 58% of the variation in Korean adolescent substance abuse. The effects of self-control on substance abuse were not statistically eliminated by the inclusion of social learning and social control measures.

It is clear and unusual that disparate lines of research in criminology and psychology have converged to show the importance of self-control in the lives of individuals. Equally unusual is the fact that criminologists have conducted several cross-cultural studies on the effects of self-control. While still limited in number and in scope, these studies have consistently revealed a linkage between self-control and a variety of problematic outcomes in culturally diverse settings. We note, however, that most cross-cultural studies on self-control have used samples of college students, have included a limited range of outcome variables, and that the majority have included countries primarily from Europe and Asia. Our study extends this growing body of cross-cultural research by examining data from high school youth attending schools in a large city in Saudi Arabia—a country that differs in important ways from Western and Asian populations and a country that heretofore has remained inaccessible to criminologists.

Saudi Arabian Culture and the Potential Suppression of Individual Differences

In Western countries, self-control competes with individualism and other cultural values that may increase variance in life outcomes—variance that self-control can partially explain. In other cultures, however, a greater emphasis is placed on collectivist values that emphasize conformity and homogeneity over other values (Leonardsen, 2004). Homogenous societies, especially those that merge formal mechanisms of social control with deeply ingrained religious beliefs, may reduce variance in life outcomes and thus may reduce the influence of self-control and other individual differences. This may be especially true for countries in the Middle East, where conformity is strongly tied to religious convictions that are codified into Islamic law and that are strictly enforced by State and religious authorities (Shah, 2010; Souryal, 1987). Nowhere in the Middle East is this more obvious than in Saudi Arabia.

Culturally, Saudi Arabia is known for strict adherence to conservative traditions and for strict adherence to Islam. In Saudi Arabia, Islam is not merely a religious doctrine practiced by adherents. The tenets of Islam are woven into the legal, economic and cultural fabric of the society. They organize and govern relationships, economic transactions, the creation of law, and the consequences for violating the law. Laws are enforced by the Kingdom’s National police force—a force given broad legal latitude in their investigation of alleged crimes against the Kingdom. Where Saudi Arabia departs dramatically from other Islamic countries, however, is in the Kingdom’s enforcement of Scriptural and Islamic codes—codes that are enforced by “religious police” commonly referred to as the Mutaween. Mutaween enforce dress codes, gender relationships, and other religious dictates. Mutaween are not trained as police officers but are instead educated in the principles of Islam found mainly in the Quran (Souryal, 1987, 1988).

Saudi Arabia remains a monarchy and a religious theocracy (Souryal, 1987). Combined, these forces play an important role in Saudi society and may work to mute or blunt the impact of individual traits. Perhaps the most glaring difference between Saudi Arabian society and the West, however, is the legal and cultural restraints placed on women. Saudi Arabian society remains segregated by sex, with varying legal and cultural standards imposed on each gender. In particular, women in Saudi society attend female-only schools, they have their own banks and shopping malls, and they are restricted in dress and their ability to associate freely with men. Indeed, if culture is capable of blunting individual factors, then we expect the effects would be especially pronounced for females—females who are subject to substantially more social control than men (Budhwar, Mellahi, Elamin, & Omair, 2010; Shah, 2010).

Our study presents the first results to date examining a relationship between commonly used measures of low self-control and a variety of life outcomes and experiences drawn from a sample of high school students in Saudi Arabia. Social science data from Saudi Arabia are in short supply, as the Kingdom has only recently started efforts to usher in a thriving social science. Indeed, because Saudi Arabia has historically not allowed scholarly investigation into domains of Saudi life, virtually nothing is known about the prevalence and distribution of problem behavior in the Kingdom or whether empirical regularities detected in other countries apply to Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, data from Saudi Arabia and other countries that are culturally dissimilar from the West can potentially shed light not only on the behaviors of a diversity of youth never before studied but can also address broader theoretical questions, such as whether culture can fully suppress individual variability. Moreover, since Saudi society remains one of the only countries in the world that formally segregates the sexes, our data also present us a rare opportunity to investigate gender differences in a culture, where separation of the sexes is mandated by law and enforced vigorously.

Method

Sample

As part of the Kingdom’s efforts to reform Saudi society through the development of a vibrant social science, the Kingdom has invited Western scholars to collaborate with Saudi academics to create research programs that shed light on important theoretical and practical issues. This project was born between that union.

Survey construction was crafted through the joint participation of Saudi academics and their American counterparts. Because so little is known about the behavior of Saudi youth, the decision was made early on to use only measures that have been previously used in Western studies—measures that are well known and have been proven reliable. Use of validated measures provides comparative data between Western youth and Saudi youth and reduces the likelihood that the pattern of results we report here are the product of unique measures. The survey was produced in English, translated to Arabic, and provided to students who primarily spoke Arabic.

Subjects from this sample were drawn from a large city in Saudi Arabia, with a population of over 3 million. To create the sampling frame, we first developed a list of all public and religious high schools in the city and then stratified the list by geography. Over 200 public and religious high schools were on the initial list. Collectively, these schools contain more than 100,000 students. We divided schools based on their geographic location within the city because the geography of the city corresponds to socioeconomic differences within the city. We then identified schools based on their sex segregation. Eight schools for boys and another eight schools for girls were selected randomly from the four geographic areas in the city: the North, the South, the Central, and the East. Two schools from each area were randomly selected, one randomly chosen for data collection and one placed on reserve.

King Abdulaziz University (KAU) faculty approached the administration of identified schools and requested permission for the implementation of this survey. No principal refused this request. KAU faculty then randomly selected “homeroom” teachers from within each school and sought their support. Again, none declined. There were no objections raised by any officials nor did officials in the schools or the Saudi government influence the creation or implementation of the survey.

Five hundred survey questionnaires were distributed to 10th- through 12th-grade male students and another 500 to female students. Participation in the survey was optional. Confidentiality and anonymity was assured to students and to schools alike—no identifying information on the student or the school was collected. Surveys were distributed during a 50-min block of class time. Trained KAU staff were present during the homeroom times and oversaw the students.

KAU staff noted that no student refused participation. While we did not have access to youth not present on the day the survey was administered, the response rate for students in attendance was 100%. KAU staff also evaluated each survey for completeness and for indicators that the student provided inaccurate responses. In most cases, students went as far as to provide written comments to provide greater insight into their answers. Even so, we cannot say with any certainty that our sample is free of selection bias, as Saudi Arabia does not routinely collect extensive social science data.

Of the 1,000 students included in our sample, exactly 50% were male and 50% were female. Missing data appears to be at random, and subsequent analyses indicated that missing data did not bias our estimates. Twenty-six respondents failed to provide their age, and a total of 133 respondents did not answer how many members resided in their household. Male respondents had more missing data than female respondents, particularly on the measure of age.

Measures

Self-Control

We employed two measures of self-control. The first measure was modified from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) created by Earls, Brooks-Gunn, Raudenbush and Sampson (2005). It is a 9-item measure using Likert-type scale responses ranging from 1 to 3 (1 = not true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true). The PHDCN measure has been used before and has been shown to be both valid and reliable (Gibson, 2009; Gibson, Sullivan, Jones, & Piquero, 2010). Our measure had an acceptable reliability score of .74.

We also employed a modified version of the well-known Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale. This scale has been subject to substantial psychometric investigation (Piquero, MacIntosh, & Hickman, 2000) and has been found to be predictive of a broad range of criminal and imprudent behaviors (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Reisig & Pratt, 2011). The original Grasmick et al. (1993) scale contained 24 items that included six subscales measuring impulsivity, risk-seeking behavior, simple task completion, self-centered views, temper, and a preference for physical activity. Our 15-item modified self-control scale did not include items measuring a preference for physical activities because prior studies have found this dimension of self-control to be unrelated to measures of delinquent behavior (Arneklev et al., 1993; Piquero & Rosay, 1998). Our modified Grasmick scale used the same Likert-type response set as the PHDCN measure, formed a unitary scale, and was reliable (α = .81).

The two scales were moderately correlated (r = .54). As a result, we combined the scales into a comprehensive measure of low self-control, similar to other researchers (Burton et al., 1999; Brownfield & Sorenson, 1993; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). Likert-type scale responses were summed with higher values reflecting lower levels of self-control. This composite measure of self-control formed a unitary factor and was highly reliable (α = .85).

Delinquency

Delinquent behavior was assessed in our study using modified measures of delinquency taken from the PHDCN and the National Youth Survey (NYS). The NYS delinquency measure is a 27-item delinquency scale using Likert-type responses ranging from 1 to 3 (1 = not true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true). The NYS delinquency scale has been used extensively in prior studies and includes items that measure relatively trivial behaviors, such as making obscene phone calls, to relatively serious behaviors, such as robbery, drug dealing, and physical violence (Huizinga & Elliott, 1986, 1987; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991). Cronbach’s α for the NYS measure of delinquency equaled .92.

The PHDCN delinquency scale contains 14 items and has also been used extensively (Fagan & Wright, 2012; Molnar, Cerda, Roberts, & Buka, 2008). Prior research has found the scale to be valid and reliable (Sampson, 1997). We employed a 3-point Likert-type response set ranging from 1 = not true, 2 = sometimes true, to 3 = often true. The PHDCN measure of delinquency was also highly reliable (α = .90). Compared to the NYS measure of delinquency, however, the PHDCN measure captures variation in relatively minor types of problem behaviors, including threatening people, disobeying teachers at school, and having a difficult temper. Items in the PHDCN and NYS measures of delinquency were intercorrelated (r = .60), a reflection of the fact that items in each scale were tapping into similar concepts.

Violent Behavior

Violent behavior (VB) was measured using 5 items taken from the overall NYS measure of delinquency. The items included in the violent delinquent behavior measure captured various forms of unambiguous VB including attacking another person with the intention of inflicting serious bodily injury or even death as well as purposefully striking a parent with the intention of doing harm. The scale was right skewed, with 68% of all cases reporting no involvement in VB (60% of males and 77% of females). Cronbach’s α equaled .71.

Delinquent Peers

Exposure to delinquent peers was captured using the NYS peer delinquency measure, using a Likert-type 3-point scale where 1 = none of them, 2 = some of them, and 3 = most of them. Participants responded to 11 items assessing how many of their friends have participated in behaviors such as selling illegal drugs, damaging property, and engaging in acts of violence. The NYS measure of delinquent peers was also highly reliable (α = .88).

Victimization

We measured respondent victimization using a 7-item scale taken from the Boston Youth Survey (BYS; Sparks, 1981). Responses were coded using a 3-point scale ranging from 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often. Items inquired whether the respondent had ever been physically assaulted (punched, choked, kicked, or beaten), bullied, or if unwanted sexual advances had ever been made (α = .80).

Control Variables

Several demographic variables were controlled for in our study, including respondent’s age, father’s level of education (1 = less than high school; 2 = high school; 3 = university level), gender (0 = female; 1 = male), and household size.

Appendix contains a comprehensive list of items included in each scale used to measure each variable. In light of the unique cultural context in Saudi Arabia, items were revised for language and applicability. For instance, items regarding motor vehicle use were not asked to females, since females in Saudi Arabia do not drive. Additionally, we modified some items to tap information regarding involvement with the religious police and drug use specific to the Middle East, such as fenethylline (Captagon).

Results

Because data from a Middle Eastern sample of youth have never been available, we first examine descriptive statistics, t-tests by sex, and bivariate correlations to make certain the patterns reported by Saudi youth are similar to patterns found in other samples. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the analytic sample. The sample is equally divided with 50% male and 50% female respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 18, with an average family household size of 7 family members. Father’s level of education was almost equally distributed across two categories, with 37% of fathers successfully completing their high school education and 38% obtaining university level education.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information Including Means, Standard Deviations, and Scale α’s.

Independent Variables	Minimum	Maximum	Alpha	Mean	SD	t-Value
Self-control	25	75	.85	44.32	8.10	−4.25*
Control variables
Age	15	23	—	17.78	0.99	7.60*
Father’s level of education	1	3	—	2.13	0.78	−2.03*
Family size	1	26	—	6.88	2.58	0.91
Dependent variables
PHDCN delinquency	14	42	.90	20.61	5.79	1.37
NYS delinquency	27	77	.92	30.80	6.09	6.55*
NYS violent behavior	5	15	.71	5.67	1.35	5.83*
Victimization	7	21	.80	9.45	2.65	2.78*
Delinquent peers	12	36	.88	15.81	4.26	1.03*

Note. NYS = National Youth Survey; PHDCN = Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.

t-Values male = 1, female = 0.

*p < .05, two tailed.

Included in Table 1 are t-test results for the sample disaggregated by sex. Females reported significantly higher levels of self-control than males, were significantly younger than males, and their fathers were comparatively better educated. Results for our dependent variables showed that males and females scored similarly on the PHDCN measure of delinquency, but that males scored significantly higher on the NYS measure of delinquency, on the measure of VB, on the measure of victimization, and on the measure of delinquent peers. Overall, our results largely parallel results reported in other studies of self-control drawn from geographically different samples (Bui, 2014; Jo & Zhang, 2012; Smith & Crichlow, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2001, 2004).

Bivariate correlations between self-control and the dependent variables are shown in Table 2. Similar to results reported in Western samples, low self-control was significantly correlated with each dependent variable within and across sex. Differences in the magnitudes of the correlations between low self-control and the PHDCN measure of delinquency (Z = −2.27, p < .05) and victimization (Z = −2.50, p < .05) were statistically significant compared to males. However, differences in the magnitude of the correlations between the sexes (Clogg, Petkova, & Haritou, 1995; Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998) were statistically insignificant for the measure of delinquent peers, the NYS delinquency measure, and the measure of VB.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations of Dependent and Independent Variables.

	Self-Control
	Combined	Male	Female	Age	Father’s Education	Family Size	Gender
NYS delinquency	.30*	.34*	.36*	.15*	−.07*	.02	.20*
PHDCN delinquency	.46*	.43*	.54*	.07*	−.01	.01	.04
NYS violent behavior	.27*	.30*	.30*	.11*	−.04	−.01	.18*
Victimization	.30*	.27*	.41*	.10*	.02	−.05	.09*
Delinquent peers	.29*	.34*	.42*	.11*	−.04	.08*	.33*

Note. NYS = National Youth Survey; PHDCN = Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.

*p < .05.

Age was also significantly and positively correlated with all of the outcome measures. We note that sex correlated significantly with the NYS measure of delinquent behavior but did not correlate with the PHDCN measure of delinquent behavior. Sex was weakly but significantly correlated with victimization (r = .09) and modestly correlated with delinquent peers (r = .33).

Table 3 presents the findings of our multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression of self-control on delinquency. Both measures of delinquency (NYS and PHDCN) are included. Looking first at the total sample, we found that low self-control is predictive of variation in each measure of delinquent behavior net of controls. However, the standardized coefficient for low self-control associated with the PHDCN measure (β = .54) was substantively stronger compared to the NYS delinquency measure (β = .37). Age of the respondent and sex were significantly associated with NYS delinquency scores. However, the only control variable significantly predictive of variation in the PHDCN measure was sex. Overall, low self-control was a strong predictor of each measure of problem behavior.

Table 3.

OLS Regression of Self-Control on Delinquency.

	Genders Combined						Male						Female
	NYS Delinquency			PHDCN Delinquency			NYS Delinquency			PHDCN Delinquency			NYS Delinquency			PHDCN Delinquency
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Independent variables
Self-control	0.28	.02	.37*	0.39	.02	.54*	.34	.04	.40*	.40	.03	.54*	.18	.02	.33*	.36	.03	.52*
Control variables
Age	0.63	.20	.10*	0.16	.18	.03	1.13	.42	.12*	.49	.34	.06	.24	.16	.07	−.05	.19	−.01
Father’s education	−0.45	.23	−.06	0.00	.21	.00	−1.35	.42	−.15*	−.44	.34	−.06	.46	.21	.10*	.46	.25	.07
Family size	0.05	.07	.02	0.04	.06	.02	.14	.13	.05	.08	.10	.03	−.01	.07	−.01	.01	.08	.01
Gender	3.54	.39	.29*	2.23	.35	.19*
	R² = .22			R² = .30			R² = .22			R² = .31			R² = .12			R² = .27
	n = 863						n = 397						n = 466

Note. NYS = National Youth Survey; PHDCN = Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.

*p < .05.

Our next analyses examine the effects of self-control within sex. For males we found that low self-control was strongly predictive of variation in the NYS measure of delinquency (β = .40). Moreover, all of the control variables except family size were predictive of the NYS measure. For the PHDCN measure of delinquent behavior, we again found that low self-control was a strong predictor (β = .54) within males. The control variables were statistically unrelated to scores on the PHDCN measure.

A similar pattern was found for females. Low self-control was strongly predictive of female delinquency for both the NYS delinquency measure (β = .33) and the PHDCN measure (β = .52). The only other control variable to be significantly associated with delinquency in the female models was the father’s level of education. A test of the equality of slope estimates (Clogg et al., 1995; Paternoster et al., 1998) between males and females revealed a statistically significant difference (Z = 4.02, p < .05) indicating that self-control was more strongly associated with scores on the NYS delinquency measure for males than for females. No difference was found between the sexes on the PHDCN measure of delinquency.

Table 4 presents the findings of our OLS regression of self-control on VB. Results indicate that low self-control is substantively predictive of VB in the overall sample (β = .33), within males (β = .37), and within females (β = .26). A test of the equality of slope estimates (Clogg et al., 1995; Paternoster et al., 1998) between males and females revealed that slope estimates were not statistically significant (Z = 1.2, p > .05).

Table 4.

OLS Regression of Self-Control on Violent Behavior.

	Genders Combined			Male			Female
	Violent Behavior			Violent Behavior			Violent Behavior
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Independent variables
Self-control	.06	.01	.33*	.07	.01	.37*	.04	.01	.26*
Control variables
Age	.10	.05	.07*	.18	.09	.09	.04	.04	.04
Father’s education	−.06	.05	−.04	−.22	.09	−.11*	.09	.06	.07
Family size	−.00	.02	−.00	.03	.03	.05	−.03	.02	−.07
Gender	.71	.09	.26*
	R² = .17			R² = .18			R² = .08
	n = 863			n = 397			n = 466

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

*p < .05.

Table 5 presents the findings of our OLS regression of self-control on our measures of victimization and delinquent peers. Examining the total sample first, we found that low self-control is predictive of victimization (β = .38) and delinquent peer associations (β = .38). Gender was significantly associated with our measure of victimization, whereas family size and gender were significantly associated with delinquent peers. Low self-control was also a substantive predictor of variation in delinquent peer associations within males (β = .42) and within females (β = .39), with only family size significantly associated with delinquent peers for males. We also found that low self-control was strongly predictive of variation in victimization within males (β = .37) and within females (β = .40). Moreover, a test of differences in slope estimates (Clogg et al., 1995; Paternoster et al., 1998) between males and females revealed the slope estimates associated with delinquent peers were significantly different (Z = 3.05) but the estimates associated with victimization were not.

Table 5.

OLS Regression of Self-Control on Victimization and Delinquent Peers.

	Genders Combined						Male						Female
	Victimization			Delinquent Peers			Victimization			Delinquent Peers			Victimization			Delinquent Peers
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Independent variables
Self-control	0.13	.01	.38*	0.19	.02	.38*	.13	.02	.37*	.23	.03	.42*	.12	.01	.40*	.13	.02	.39*
Control variables
Age	0.15	.09	.06	0.06	.12	.01	.05	.18	.01	.23	.27	.04	.21	.09	.10*	−.10	.10	−.04
Father’s education	0.09	.10	.03	−0.14	.15	−.03	.00	.18	.00	−.51	.27	−.09	.19	.12	.07	.21	.13	.07
Family size	−0.05	.03	−.05	0.13	.05	.09*	−.11	.05	−.09	.23	.08	.13*	.03	.04	.03	.05	.04	.05
Gender	1.12	.18	.21*	3.41	.25	.42*
	R² = .18			R² = .29			R² = .15			R² = .21			R² = .17			R² = .16
	n = 863						n = 397						n = 466

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

*p < .05.

Collectively, our findings largely parallel the results found in other cross-cultural studies. In our sample of Saudi youth, self-control was found to be strongly predictive of two measures of problem behavior and a related measure of VB, of a measure of victimization, and of a measure of delinquent peers. The effects of low self-control were ubiquitous and substantive. This overall pattern was mirrored when we disaggregated our sample by sex. Self-control was significantly and substantively associated with all of our outcome variables within each sex, although the effects of self-control appear generally to be statistically stronger for males. We discuss this finding further in the following discussion.

Discussion

Few criminological theories have received as much empirical attention as has Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory on self-control. Virtually every study finds an association between low self-control and criminal behavior (Arneklev et al., 1993; Burton et al., 1994, 1998, 1999; Evans et al., 1997; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993), imprudent behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Reisig & Pratt, 2011), and a range of other life outcomes (de Ridder et al., 2012; Holtfreter et al., 2008; Koenen, Caspi, Moffitt, Rijsdijk, 2006; Winfree, Taylor, He, & Esbensen, 2006; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Unnever et al., 2003). The degree of empirical support connecting variation in self-control to criminal and analogous conduct is impressive and is reflected in various meta-analyses (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Walters, 2001). Indeed, the pervasive influence of self-control on a variety of life outcomes has been documented across disciplines (Mischel et al., 2011) and does not appear to be dependent on the measure used (Caspi et al., 2003; Caspi, Moffitt, Newman, & Silva, 1996; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2015). Few criminological theories are accompanied by so much confirmatory evidence.

One aspect to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory that has been relatively less explored is the universality of the effect of self-control on crime. This is an important component of the theory and one that, if confirmed, would further bolster self-control as a leading individual difference in the equation of criminal behavior. Several studies from outside North America and Europe lend support to the universal effect of self-control on crime and other behaviors (Smith & Crichlow, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2004). Collectively, these studies, while still limited in number, sample size, and scope, seemingly suggest that self-control is an important predictor of criminal behavior across and within cultures and across and within sexes within divergent cultures (Bui, 2014).

Our study adds to a growing list of cross-cultural empirical investigations on the universality of self-control. We were, to the best of our knowledge, the first to collect delinquency and crime data on youth in Saudi Arabia. As a politically prominent country in the Middle East, and one that fully embraces a legal and social system that diverges substantially from those found in Western countries, virtually nothing is known about the behavior of Saudi Arabian youth. Indeed, our initial concern prior to data collection was that Saudi youth would not report accurately their misbehavior or that they would, quite simply, have little misbehavior to report. Saudi Arabia is not known for its tolerance of antisocial behavior nor is it known to have substantial problems with serious criminal behavior. For instance, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2015) reported that the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in Saudi Arabia during 2012 was only 0.8—nearly 6 times smaller than the United States rate of 4.7 in the same year—and lower than many other developed Western nations.

However, our data clearly show that Saudi youth will report their involvement in delinquent and imprudent behaviors. While we cannot juxtapose their self-reports against official data on arrests, we can note that the measures of NYS self-reported delinquency and the measure of VB correlated positively and significantly with self-reports of involvement with the Saudi police (SRD [self-report delinquency] r = .53, VB r = .43), with being stopped and question by the Mutaween (SRD r = .49, VB r = .37), and with arrest and penetration into the Saudi legal system (SRD r = .34, VB r = .25). Although not the focus of our study, we discuss these issues to show that involvement in a range of imprudent, delinquent, and even criminal behaviors also appears universal. Although a more thorough analysis is necessary, it appears that Saudi youth are, at least behaviorally, similar to many Western youth. Moreover, we note the bivariate differences and the pattern of correlations we report here adhere to the global pattern reported by other researchers.

Saudi Arabian authorities regularly point out the Kingdom’s relatively low rates of VB. While there is reason to believe that rates of VB are relatively lower than rates reported in Western countries for some crimes, such as murder, there are also reasons to believe that much VB goes unreported or underreported. Violence in Saudi Arabia, such as simple assaults, robberies, and domestic violence incidents are not uncommon, and the Kingdom has recently experienced serious incidents of terrorism and armed revolt resulting from the forced removal of foreign workers from the Kingdom. Interpersonal conflicts, moreover, are often never reported to the authorities, in part because such conflicts are often informally settled and in part because the punishment for certain crimes can be very harsh. Domestic violence, moreover, remains a central concern. The first shelters for domestic victims were not established until 2008 and only in 2013 was domestic violence criminalized.

With that said, it appears that self-control is also a potent predictor of self-reported delinquency in our sample. Using two different validated measures of delinquent involvement and an extensive measure of self-control, we found that the association between low self-control, delinquency, and violent forms of delinquent behavior was substantial. The association was significantly stronger (β = .54) for the PHDCN delinquency measure than for the NYS delinquency measure (β = .37) and NYS measure of VB (β = .33). One possibility for these differences is that the NYS measure captures a full range of behaviors, from nonserious to very serious, compared to the limited range of mostly nonserious behaviors assessed by the PHDCN measure. Low self-control may be more frequently expressed in behaviors that are less serious and thus may be an important trait that differentiates individuals in their daily life habits and their social exchanges.

To test the generality of effects associated with low self-control, we included analyses of the effect of self-control on victimization and on delinquent peers. Similar to other studies, we found that variation in low self-control was a substantive predictor of having delinquent peers and of victimization experiences. These findings provide more evidence that the effects of low self-control are general even in countries that vary considerably from Western standards. Youths who reported higher levels of low self-control were significantly more likely to also report having delinquent peers and to be victims of crime, bullying, and unwanted sexual advances. The general effects of low self-control were found across and within sex.

As we stated earlier, Saudi society is highly sex segregated. Owing to tradition and religious custom, school-aged females are not allowed to be educated with males. The sexes attend different schools and are taught by same-sex teachers. Male and female contact, moreover, is closely guarded. Legal and cultural barriers, barriers enforced by agents of the Saudi state and by religious authorities, should act to more effectively control or to suppress female misbehavior—at least according to Western feminist theorizing (Cook, 2011). The effect of external social control should be to moderate or to eliminate criminogenic individual differences, especially for females. Our results suggest this conclusion should be tempered.

Low self-control was a substantive predictor of delinquency across sex. However, the regression coefficients associated with self-control and NYS delinquency, self-control and NYS VB, and self-control and delinquent peers were statistically larger for males than for females. There are at least two ways to interpret these findings. First, that the greater variance in self-reported offending in males, a universal finding, is partially the product of greater variance in self-control relative to females. Recall that females reported significantly increased levels of self-control compared to males. Thus etiological differences—differences not influenced by culture—in the development of self-control between males and females may drive variation in a range of life outcomes, including serious misbehavior.

Second, the hypothesis that patriarchal societies mute or blunt individual differences, especially for women, remains suggestive (Messerschmidt, 1993). Clearly, self-control was a substantive predictor of our outcome variables for sample females. At first glance this finding may be taken as evidence in support of the sex-general cultural invariance in self-control. While possible, if not likely, we note that feminist theorizing would predict that the social controls placed on females in Saudi Arabia, and not necessarily placed on males, would lead to significant reductions in offending behaviors relative to males and females in less patriarchal countries (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). However, another possibility is that patriarchy may increase the variance in scores for males on measures of misbehavior and, conversely, may reduce the variance in scores for females. A complete test of this possibility would require samples drawn from countries that vary substantively on dimensions indicative of patriarchal control. We cannot rule out this possibility and suggest further research related to the possible suppression effects associated with patriarchal systems.

Most criminological theories have been constructed by Western scholars, and most delinquency studies have collected data from samples of Western youth. The limitations of this approach are obvious: cultural contexts, values, and priorities may vary systematically across cultures. If so, theories developed in the West may not adequately capture the processes that lead to delinquent and criminal behavior in other countries—especially countries that contrast sharply with Western social, economic, and legal contexts. However, if data collected in other countries reveal similar patterns of covariance and predictions found in Western data, then scholars can reasonably conclude that cultural context is unimportant and that the theory being tested or the core construct under study is culturally invariant. This appears to be the case with low self-control. While we did not provide a comprehensive test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory, the core construct of the theory—that is, low self-control—appears to be a ubiquitous predictor and a predictor of substantial magnitude in a sample of male and female Saudi Arabian youth. Low self-control thus appears to be an important and culturally invariant variable related to crime causation and other criminogenic domains.

We would be remiss if we did not note the theoretical and methodological limitations of our study. First, Hirschi (2004) offered a reconceptualization of the concept of self-control. His reconceptualized version views self-control as the tendency to weigh the full costs of any behavioral action, with the salience of variance bonds and situational inducements taken into consideration. The empirical evidence is mixed whether Hirschi’s reformulated concept is empirically distinct from attitudinal measures of self-control (Bouffard, Craig, & Piquero, 2015; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2015). Our choice to use the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale was based primarily on the broad use of the scale and the number of studies documenting the internal reliability and external validity of the scale. Even so, readers should be aware that Hirschi, in particular, does not advocate for the use of attitudinal measures of self-control.

Second, we can make no definitive statement as to the generalizability of the male and female samples to broader Saudi society. Saudi Arabia does not routinely collect information that would allow such comparisons. Even so, we note the patterns that we report here are almost identical to the patterns reported from various samples with Western countries—giving us some degree of assurance that our results are not biased. Additionally, our sample was not obtained through a random selection of individuals but through the random selection of schools and homerooms within schools within a single large city in the Kingdom. Schools outside this city may differ in important ways as may the youth who attend those schools. Jeddah, for example, is considered more politically progressive than Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the country’s capital. Further research with an expanded sampling frame including a broader number of youth drawn from across the country appears in order.

Footnotes

Appendix

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: This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under Grant no. 2-125-1434/2013. The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and financial support.

References

Antonaccio

Tittle

C. R.

(2008). Morality, self-control, and crime. Criminology, 46, 479–510.

Arneklev

B. J.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225–247.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

DeLisi

(2007). Self-control as an executive function reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1345–1361.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

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

Botchkovar

E. V.

Tittle

C. R.

Antonaccio

(2009). General strain theory: Additional evidence using cross-cultural data. Criminology, 47, 131–176.

Bouffard

Craig

J. M.

Piquero

A. R.

(2015). Comparing attitudinal and situational measures of self-control among felony offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25, 112–125.

Boutwell

B. B.

Beaver

K. M.

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

Brownfield

Sorenson

A. M.

(1993). Self-control and juvenile delinquency: Theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243–264.

Budhwar

P. S.

Mellahi

Elamin

A. M.

Omair

(2010). Males’ attitudes towards working females in Saudi Arabia. Personnel Review, 39, 746–766.

10.

Bui

(2014). Examining the relationship between parenting, risk-taking, and delinquency in Japan: Context and empirical applicability. Asian Journal of Criminology, 9, 171–187.

11.

Buker

(2011). Formation of self-control: Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime and beyond. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 265–276.

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 Evans

T. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Olivares

K. M.

Dunaway

R. G.

(1999). Age, self-control, and adults’ offending behaviors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45–54.

14.

Burton

V. S.

Jr Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Dunaway

R. G.

(1994). Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 213–239.

15.

Burton

V. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Alarid

L. F.

Dunaway

R. G.

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

16.

Carroll

Hemingway

Bower

Ashman

Houghton

Durkin

(2006). Impulsivity in juvenile delinquency: Differences among early-onset, late-onset, and non-offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 517–527.

17.

Caspi

Harrington

Milne

Amell

J. W.

Theodore

R. F.

Moffitt

T. E.

(2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71, 495–514.

18.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Newman

D. L.

Silva

P. A.

(1996). Behavioral observations at age 3 years predict adult psychiatric disorders: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 1033–1039.

19.

Clogg

C. C.

Petkova

Haritou

(1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1261–1293.

20.

Cook

R. J.

(2011). Human rights of women: National and international perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

21.

Coyne

M. A.

Wright

J. P.

(2014). The stability of self-control across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 144–149.

22.

Daly

Chesney-Lind

(1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–538.

23.

Davis

E. P.

Bruce

Gunnar

M. R.

(2002). The anterior attention network: Associations with temperament and neuroendocrine activity in 6-year-old children. Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 43–56.

24.

de Ridder

D. T.

Lensvelt-Mulders

Finkenauer

Stok

F. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

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

25.

de Wit

(2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: A review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14, 22–31.

26.

Duckworth

A. L.

Seligman

M. E.

(2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.

27.

Earls

F. J.

Brooks-Gunn

Raudenbush

S. W.

Sampson

R. J.

(2005). Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods (PHDCN): Generalized anxiety disorder (subject), Wave 2, 1997-2000 (2005-12-06.). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

28.

Elfhag

Morey

L. C.

(2008). Personality traits and eating behavior in the obese: Poor self-control in emotional and external eating but personality assets in restrained eating. Eating Behaviors, 9, 285–293.

29.

*Evans

T. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

Dunaway

R. G.

Benson

M. L.

(1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–504.

30.

Fagan

A. A.

Wright

E. M.

(2012). The effects of neighborhood context on youth violence and delinquency does gender matter? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 64–82.

31.

Forde

D. R.

Kennedy

L. W.

(1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 265–294.

32.

Gibson

C. L.

Sullivan

C. J.

Jones

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). Does it take a village? Assessing neighborhood influences on children’s self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 31–62.

33.

Gibson

C. L.

(2009). An investigation of neighborhood disadvantage, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 41–63. doi:10.1177/1541204011423767

34.

Gormally

Black

Daston

Rardin

(1982). The assessment of binge eating severity among obese persons. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 47–55.

35.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

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

36.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

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

37.

*Hay, C., & Forrest, W. (2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739–774.

38.

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: Guildford Press.

39.

Hofer

Eisenberg

Reiser

(2010). The role of socialization, effortful control, and ego resiliency in French adolescents’ social functioning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 555–582.

40.

*Holtfreter

Reisig

M. D.

Pratt

T. C.

(2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189–220.

41.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293–327.

42.

Huizinga

Elliott

D. S.

(1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 206–223.

43.

Hwang

Akers

R. L.

(2003). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime, 11, 39–63.

44.

Zhang

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

45.

Keane

Maxim

P. S.

Teevan

J. J.

(1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30–46.

46.

Koenen

K. C.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Rijsdijk

Taylor

(2006). Genetic influences on the overlap between low IQ and antisocial behavior in young children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 787.

47.

*Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

48.

Leonardsen

(2004). Japan as a low-crime nation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

Longshore

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

50.

Madden

G. J.

Petry

N. M.

Badger

G. J.

Bickel

W. K.

(1997). Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using control patients: Drug and monetary rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256.

51.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

52.

Mischel

Ayduk

Berman

M. G.

Casey

B. J.

Gotlib

I. H.

Jonides

… Shoda

. (2010). ‘Willpower’ over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 252–256.

53.

Moffitt

T. E.

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

54.

Molnar

B. E.

Cerda

Roberts

A. L.

Buka

S. L.

(2008). Effects of neighborhood resources on aggressive and delinquent behaviors among urban youths. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1086–1093.

55.

Nagin

D. S.

Paternoster

(1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467–496.

56.

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/Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, 25, 35–59.

57.

*Paternoster

Brame

(1998). The structural similarity of processes generating criminal and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 36, 633–670.

58.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859.

59.

*Piquero

A. R.

MacIntosh

Hickman

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

60.

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, 157–173.

61.

Polakowski

(1994). Linking self-and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41–78.

62.

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.

63.

Ratchford

Beaver

K. M.

(2009). Neuropsychological deficits, low self-control, and delinquent involvement: Towards a biosocial explanation of delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 147–162.

64.

Rebellon

C. J.

Straus

M. A.

Medeiros

(2008). Self-control in global perspective an empirical assessment of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory within and across 32 national settings. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 331–361.

65.

Reisig

M. D.

Pratt

T. C.

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

66.

Sampson

R. J.

(1997). Collective regulation of adolescent misbehavior validation results from eighty Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 227–244.

67.

Schoepfer

Piquero

A. R.

(2006). Self-control, moral beliefs, and criminal activity. Deviant Behavior, 27, 51–71.

68.

Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

69.

Shah

S. J.

(2010). Re-thinking educational leadership: Exploring the impact of cultural and belief systems. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13, 27–44.

70.

Simons

J. S.

Maisto

S. A.

Wray

T. B.

(2010). Sexual risk taking among young adult dual alcohol and marijuana users. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 533–536.

71.

Smith

T. R.

Crichlow

V. J.

(2013). A cross-cultural validation of self-control theory. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 37, 175–193.

72.

Souryal

S. S.

(1987). The religionization of a society: The continuing application of Shariah law in Saudi Arabia. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 429–449.

73.

Souryal

S. S.

(1988). The role of Shariah law in deterring criminality in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 12, 1–25.

74.

Sparks

R. F.

(1981). Surveys of victimization-an optimistic assessment. Crime and Justice, 3, 1–60.

75.

Svensson

Pauwels

Weerman

F. M.

(2010). Does the effect of self-control on adolescent offending vary by level of morality? A test in three countries. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 732–743.

76.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

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

77.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333–365.

78.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2015). Global Study on homicide: Homicide counts and rates, time series 2000-2012 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.unode.org/gsh/en/data.html

79.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Pratt

T. C.

(2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 20, 471–500.

80.

Vaughn

M. G.

DeLisi

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

(2009). DAT1 and 5HTT are associated with pathological criminal behavior in a nationally representative sample of youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1113–1124.

81.

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 and Delinquency, 38, 91–131.

82.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Wittekind

J. E. C.

Belliston

L. M.

Van Loh

T. D.

(2004). Extending the general theory of crime to “the east:” Low self-control in Japanese late adolescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 189–216.

83.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Huang

(2015). Hirschi’s reconceptualization of self-control: Is truth truly the daughter of time? Evidence from eleven cultures. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 59–68.

84.

Walters

G. D.

(2001). Behavioral self-control training for problem drinkers: A meta-analysis of randomized control studies. Behavior Therapy, 31, 135–149.

85.

White

J. L.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Bartusch

D. J.

Needles

D. J.

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192.

86.

Wikström

P. H.

Svensson

(2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 395–410.

87.

Winfree

L. T.

Taylor

T. J.

Esbensen

(2006). Self-control and variability over time: Multivariate results using a 5-year, multisite panel of youths. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 253–286.

88.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

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