deviant behavior b - ahmrei behavior publication details, ... the general theory of crime and social...

This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University]On: 07 March 2012, At: 14:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Deviant BehaviorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Coercion Theory, Self-Control,and Social InformationProcessing: UnderstandingPotential Mediators for HowParents Influence DeviantBehaviorsJennifer M. Crosswhite a & Jennifer L. Kerpelman ba Department of Family Studies and InteriorDesign, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney,Nebraska, USAb Department of Human Development and FamilyStudies, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

Available online: 12 Aug 2009

To cite this article: Jennifer M. Crosswhite & Jennifer L. Kerpelman (2009): CoercionTheory, Self-Control, and Social Information Processing: Understanding PotentialMediators for How Parents Influence Deviant Behaviors, Deviant Behavior, 30:7,611-646

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620802589806

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620802589806

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

coercion theory, self-control,and social informationprocessing: understandingpotential mediators for howparents influence deviantbehaviors

Jennifer M. CrosswhiteDepartment of Family Studies and InteriorDesign, University of Nebraska at Kearney,Kearney, Nebraska, USA

Jennifer L. KerpelmanDepartment of Human Development andFamily Studies, Auburn University, Auburn,Alabama, USA

Research has demonstrated that (in)effectiveparenting influences whether a child=adolescentengages in deviant behaviors; however, research ismixed regarding whether that influence is direct.After a review of theoretical and empiricalevidence, parenting factors outlined by severaltheories appear important in explaining theassociation between parenting and deviance. Moreimportantly, however, is that the parental influencemay not be direct, but rather mediated through achild=adolescent’s level of self-control andsocial information processing skills. As such,

Received 14 February 2008; accepted 28 August 2008.Address correspondence to Jennifer M. Crosswhite, Assistant Professor of Family Studies,

University of Nebraska at Kearney, OTOL 205B, Kearney, NE 68849, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

Deviant Behavior, 30: 611–646, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-9625 print=1521-0456 online

DOI: 10.1080/01639620802589806

611

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

evidence suggests that to fully understand thecomplex association between parenting anddeviance, parenting and mediating factors frommultiple theories must be explored simultaneously.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the encouraging trend that overall juvenile arrestshave decreased between 1994 and 2004, adolescents are stillengaging in criminal behaviors (Snyder 2006). For example, in2004 2.2 million adolescent arrests occurred, as well as anincrease in arrests for simple assault and disorderly conduct.Given how prevalent deviant behaviors still are among adoles-cents, understanding the etiology of deviance is crucial. Assuch, a number of factors have been examined, such as biolo-gical predisposition (e.g., neurological deficits; Moffitt 1997),contextual factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status; Sampson2000), an association with deviant peers (e.g., Dishion andSkaggs 2000), and parenting (e.g., Capaldi and Patterson1996). While there are many different factors that influencethe development of adolescent deviance, evidence indicatinga parental influence on adolescent deviance is quite robustand has been demonstrated for decades (see e.g., Loeber andStouthamer-Loeber 1986). With such knowledge, understand-ing exactly how parents influence deviant behaviors, and spe-cifically whether there are mechanisms that mediate thisinfluence, would be an especially fruitful path to explore.

Three theories will be explored that offer explanationsregarding how ineffective parenting is associated withchild=adolescent deviance: coercion theory (Dishion andPatterson 1997; Patterson 1996, 1997; Patterson and Bank1989; Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson1987), Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) A General Theoryof Crime (i.e., self-control), and social information proces-sing as detailed by Dodge et al. (1986), and more recently,Crick and Dodge (1994). Coercion theory provides an initialorganizing framework as it offers the coercion process; abidirectional coercion process between parent and childthat impacts the child’s engagement of deviant behaviors.Coercion theory also provides a developmental perspectivefor understanding differences as to when children or adoles-cents begin to engage in deviant behaviors (i.e., early and

612 J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

late onset trajectories). Further, the theory outlines fiveparenting practices theorized to protect against the coercionprocess and thus deviant behaviors. These practices areeffective discipline, monitoring, problem solving practices,positive parenting, and positive reinforcement. The coerciontheory, therefore, describes the direct association betweenparenting and child=adolescent deviance, but does notprovide any ‘‘person’’ variables, or potential mediating mech-anisms, that explain the association between ineffectiveparenting and deviance (Snyder et al. 2003). Snyder et al.offer self-regulation as a possible mediating mechanism,and also suggest that an individual’s cognitive system isimportant and may be related to self-regulation. Therefore,it is necessary to explore self-regulation and cognitive skillsas potential mediating mechanisms that may help to explainthe parenting–deviance association.

Two theories that provide such mediating mechanisms arethe general theory of crime and social information proces-sing. The general theory of crime (GTC) suggests self-control,defined as an individual difference characteristic, whereassocial information processing (SIP) provides a series of cog-nitive skills, both of which may mediate the parenting–deviance link. Limited research has indicated that bothself-control and SIP partially mediate the relation betweenineffective parenting and adolescent deviance, and couldpotentially explain how ineffective parenting influencesdeviance (Hay 2001; Weiss et al. 1992). By examining bothself-control and SIP, it may be possible to determine whetherindividual differences and cognitive skills are responsible forthe link between parents and deviance, and whether self-control (i.e., self-regulation) and cognitive skills are indeedassociated with one another. Furthermore, the GTC and SIPoffer additional parenting practices not theorized by coerciontheory (e.g., attachment, communication), but also appear tobe influential in the parenting–deviance association. Takentogether, the three theories provide a new integrative per-spective on understanding exactly how parents may influencewhether a child or adolescent engages in deviant behaviors,and should provide a more comprehensive understandingof the true etiology of adolescent deviance. The current con-ceptualization is intended solely as a theoretical contribution,and is designed to encourage future research in this area.

Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance 613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

COERCION THEORY

According to coercion theory (Dishion and Patterson 1997;Patterson 1982, 1996, 1997; Patterson and Bank 1989;Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson1987), whether an individual engages in deviant behaviorsas a child or an adolescent depends on a bidirectionalcoercion process that occurs between the parent and child.Coercion is defined by an aversive event that leads to reinfor-cement of a negative behavior, and the coercion process is aseries of feedback loops that escalates over time. For exam-ple, when a parent tries to discipline his or her child, thechild responds in an aversive manner (e.g., whining, crying,throwing a temper tantrum). The parent returns with anescalated attempt at disciplining the child (e.g., scolding,threats). However, the child also returns in an escalated aver-sive manner. This process continues until the parent desistsin trying to discipline the child. As time goes on, the parentterminates discipline attempts at the first sign of the childengaging in aversive behaviors. Eventually, the parentignores aversive behaviors altogether, allowing the childto get away with both the initial inappropriate and theaversive behaviors. The coercive behaviors are further eli-cited, maintained, and exacerbated through positive andnegative reinforcement each time this sequence of behaviorsoccurs. Positive reinforcement occurs as the parent providesa cue to which the child responds aversively. In this case, theparents’ attempt to discipline is the child’s cue to begin enga-ging in the aversive behaviors. Negative reinforcementoccurs when the parents desist in the discipline attempt inthe face of the child’s aversive response. In essence, becauseof ineffective parenting, a child learns that it is acceptable toengage in aversive behaviors to get what she or he wants.

Two points about the coercion process should be noted.First, some level of coercion occurs within every family;however, those children who engage in the coercion processat high rates are reinforced for aversive behaviors and typi-cally engage in deviant behaviors within and outside of thefamily context (Kiesner et al. 2001). Second, when the childis young (i.e., under age 12), she or he engages in overt aver-sive behaviors such as whining, crying, and throwing tempertantrums. However, as the child becomes older (i.e., after


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

age 12), the behaviors change from overt to covert behaviorsthat are considered more serious (e.g., theft, vandalism, drugand alcohol use; Patterson and Yoerger 1993, 2002; Snyderet al. 2003). Coercion within the family appears to influenceall rather than specific types of deviant behaviors (Capaldiand Patterson 1996). Thus, for the current conceptualizationsuch behaviors will be broadly referred to as deviantbehaviors.

Depending on when the coercion process begins, the pathto adolescent deviance can occur on two differenttrajectories—early and late onset. According to Pattersonand colleagues (Dishion and Patterson 1997; Patterson andYoerger 1997, 2002), early onset offenders begin to engagein deviant behaviors during early childhood (i.e., often iden-tified as ‘‘problem children’’ at a young age), and continue toengage in chronic and serious forms of deviant=criminalbehaviors throughout adulthood (Kiesner et al. 2001;Patterson 1996; Patterson and Yoerger 1993). Late onsetoffenders, however, do not start engaging in deviant beha-viors until adolescence, and desist in deviant behaviors nearthe end of adolescence when prosocial behaviors are morereinforcing than deviant behaviors (Patterson and Yoerger2002). Levels of disrupted parenting differ between parentsof early versus late onset offenders. The parents of late onsetoffenders do not engage in disruptive parenting or the coer-cion process as severely as the parents of early onset offen-ders, and engage in some degree of effective parentingpractices (Dishion and Patterson 1997; Patterson andYoerger 1993, 2002). The problem for late onset offendersoccurs during adolescence when a breakdown of effectiveparental management skills takes place (Kiesner et al. 2001).Parents of early onset offenders, however, are generally lesscompetent parents and begin engaging in the coercionprocess while the child is very young. It should be notedhowever, that variability can occur within this phenomenon.

Parental Influences

At the core of the coercion theory is the coercion process,which demonstrates how parenting is influential in the devel-opment of deviant behaviors. Several investigators havesuggested that effective family management is the key to eli-minating, or protecting against, coercion within a family, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

thus substantially reducing deviant behaviors (Dishionand Patterson 1997; Patterson 1996; Patterson and Bank1989; Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson1987). For example, Patterson and colleagues suggest par-ents must use effective discipline, monitoring, and problem-solving practices in addition to positive parenting andreinforcement to protect against the development of deviantbehaviors. First, effective discipline consists of recognizinginappropriate or deviant behaviors, consistently trackingbehaviors across settings, and using consistent appropriatediscipline when deviant behaviors are performed. Ineffec-tive discipline techniques consist of lax, inconsistent, andharsh discipline (Snyder and Patterson 1987). Second, moni-toring involves parental awareness of the child’s where-abouts, peer group affiliations, and free time activities(Patterson and Yoerger 1997; Snyder and Patterson 1987).Monitoring also involves communication regarding rules,regulations, and consequences. Third, teaching appropriatesocial problem-solving skills is necessary. Ineffective socialproblem-solving skills are observable during verbal andphysical conflicts, such as a lack of communication, poorcompromising strategies, rejection of responsibilities, poorproblem solving, and increased anger, blaming, and defen-siveness (Snyder and Patterson 1987). Fourth, positive par-enting practices involve communication that is positiveand indicates interest, caring, and support of the child, andan emotional attachment between parent and child, as wellas allowing age-appropriate autonomy (Patterson 1996;Snyder and Patterson 1987). Fifth, it is important for parentsto consistently acknowledge prosocial behaviors with posi-tive reinforcement (Patterson 1996). Patterson and Yoerger(1993) suggest that families that do not reinforce positivebehaviors, do not effectively punish deviant behaviors, andreinforce deviant behaviors are more likely to engage incoercion within the family.

Empirical Research

Overall, empirical research supports coercion theory in that(a) varying levels of coercion experienced within the familyinfluence when an individual begins engaging in deviantbehaviors, and for how long (i.e., early and late starters;Patterson et al. 1998), (b) the coercion process is bidirectional


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

and escalates over time (Patterson et al. 1990), and (c) thecoercion process appears to be influential in the develop-ment of deviant behaviors (e.g., assault, aversive behaviors,robbery, rape, externalizing behaviors; Capaldi andPatterson 1996; Fagot and Leve 1998). Additional empiricalresearch supports the relevance for most of these five parent-ing practices. In the only study to examine the relationamong all five parenting practices and the development ofdeviant behaviors, Patterson et al. (1992) found that monitor-ing, discipline, positive reinforcement, and problem solvingwere negatively associated with deviant behaviors. Parentalinvolvement (i.e., positive parenting), however, was notassociated with deviant behaviors. Additionally, a numberof empirical studies have found evidence linking ineffectivemonitoring and discipline with an increase in deviantbehaviors (e.g., argues, lies, physical fighting, vandalism,substance abuse) and coercion within the family (Banket al. 1993; Fletcher et al. 1995; Patterson et al. 1984).Unfortunately, the majority of empirical work has been con-ducted solely on the association between monitoring anddiscipline with deviant behaviors. Future work should con-tinue to examine whether positive reinforcement and pro-blem solving are associated with deviance, and elucidatewhether positive parenting also is associated with deviance.

Finally, as Snyder et al. (2003) suggested, coercion theoryresearch has focused only on the direct, observable influ-ences ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors. Whilethese processes are paramount to the coercion theory, theauthors suggested that the theory could be considered an‘‘empty organism’’ or having a ‘‘black box’’; that is, thereappear to be no person variables (i.e., mediating mechan-isms) that demonstrate the link between ineffective parentingand adolescent deviance. Snyder et al. further suggested thatself-regulation could be a potential mediating link betweenineffective parenting and deviance. Self-regulation includesexecutive attentional control (i.e., guides planful goal direc-ted behavior), motivational inhibition (i.e., suppression ofbehaviors), and negative emotion reactivity (i.e., negativedysregulation); all of which involve the cognitive system.However, because self-regulation has only recently beenintroduced into coercion theory, no known empiricalwork has addressed whether self-regulation and cognitive


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

skills, within the context of coercion theory, account for theparenting–deviance association (see for exception Unneveret al. 2006). Therefore, future research should assess whetherand how self-regulation and cognitive skills may mediate theparenting–deviance relation. In the following section, twopotential mediators will be explored that could fill the‘‘black box’’; self-control and SIP. As will be demonstrated,the definition of self-control is similar to the definitionSnyder et al. provides for self-regulation. There also appearsto be a link between coercion theory and SIP. Thus, bothself-control and SIP offer promising mediating mechanismsto fill the ‘‘black box.’’

MEDIATING MECHANISMS

Self-Control as a Mediating Mechanism

Putting forward A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson andHirschi (1990) hypothesized that whether an individualengages in deviance can be explained by low levels ofself-control. The authors contended that (a) an individual’slevel of self-control influences the level of deviance in whichshe or he engages, (b) a lack of effective parenting influenceswhether an individual will engage in deviant behaviors dueto low self-control, and (c) low self-control mediates therelation between parenting and deviance. The authors alsosuggested that these associations exist regardless of sex andcultural background. Furthermore, individuals with lowself-control are likely to engage in a variety of deviant beha-viors from crime-analogous behaviors (e.g., alcohol or druguse, smoking, aggression) to more serious forms of deviance(e.g., theft, property or violent offenses).

In describing self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)suggested that self-control is an individual difference charac-teristic that ranges from low to high. Further, they argued thatan individual with low self-control engages in behaviorsthat (a) provide immediate and simple ways to receive grati-fication, (b) are exciting, risky, or thrilling, (c) require littlethought processing, (d) result in the victim(s) feeling painor discomfort, and (e) lack long-term goals. WhereasGottfredson and Hirschi discuss the concept of self-control,recall that coercion theory discusses the concept of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

self-regulation (Snyder et al. 2003). These two conceptsoverlap considerably, particularly with executive attentionalcontrol and motivational inhibition in that individuals areable to control or suppress inappropriate responses and sus-tain behaviors as needed (Snyder et al. 2003). Self-regulationhas been further defined as the ability to set and attain goals,plan actions, refrain from engaging in problematic behaviors,and focus on long-term goals (Brody et al. 2002; Brody andGe 2001; Weinberger and Schwartz 1990). Similarly, some-one who has self-control is able to problem solve, have afuture orientation, have planful goal-directed behavior,restrain their behaviors, and delay responding for largerreinforcements (Moffitt 1997; Snyder et al. 2003; Vollmeret al. 1999; Wills et al. 2002). Finally, both self-regulationand self-control are thought to form at an early age. Thus,self-control appears synonymous with self-regulation. Forconsistency, the term self-control will be used throughoutthe remainder of this article.

Parental Influences

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) hypothesized that fourparenting practices are influential in the development ofself-control: (1) the attachment between parent and child,(2) parental supervision, (3) recognition of deviant behaviors,and (4) punishment of deviant acts. According to Gottfredsonand Hirschi, if all four elements of effective parentingoccur, an adequate level of self-control is likely to develop,resulting in a decreased probability of the child engaging indeviant behaviors. However, if one of the four elements ismissing, the child is less likely to form an adequate level ofself-control, and in turn, more likely to engage in deviantbehaviors. Looking in depth at the four elements of effectiveparenting, attachment is viewed as a parental concern for thechild’s well-being, the level of warmth parents feel towardtheir child, and time spent with their child (i.e., parentalinvestment). Additionally, the higher the levels of communi-cation and affectional identification between parent andchild (i.e., love, respect), the stronger the parent–child att-achment will be (Hirschi 1969). Second, parental supervi-sion not only keeps a child from engaging in deviantbehaviors, but also teaches the child how to avoid engagingin deviant behaviors when she or he is not under direct


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

supervision (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Third, parentsalso must recognize deviant behaviors when they occur,and at all ages (e.g., talking back, yelling, pushing versusvandalism, theft). Fourth, effective punishment includessetting limits, having age-appropriate consequences, andenforcing the consequences when a rule is broken. In addi-tion, the most effective form of punishment is disapprovalby individuals close to the child (Hirschi 1969). Thus, whenparents feel indifference or hostility toward the child, havelax, inadequate, or poor supervision skills, fail to recognizeearly forms of deviant behaviors, or are too lenient, inconsis-tent, or harsh with discipline, they are more likely to havechildren with low self-control, who in turn, engage indeviant behaviors.

Empirical Research

Empirical research guided by the GTC has found that lowself-control is predictive of deviant behaviors in youngchildren, adolescents, adults, and cross-nationally (Burtonet al. 1999; Normandeau and Guay 1998; Vazsonyi andCrosswhite 2004; Vazsonyi et al. 2001). Low self-controlalso is predictive of a number of different types of deviantbehaviors, such as vandalism, theft, alcohol=drug use,assault, school misconduct, and rape in adolescents, larceny,shoplifting, and gambling in college students and criminalbehaviors in adults (Arneklev et al. 1993; Burton et al.1999; LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Nagin and Paternoster1993; Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Vazsonyi and Crosswhite2004; Vazsonyi et al. 2001). Thus, there appears to be robustempirical evidence suggesting that self-control is associatedwith whether an individual engages in deviant behaviors.However, much of the empirical work that has been con-ducted using the GTC has focused on the relation betweenlow self-control and deviance. Limited empirical work hasexamined (a) whether the four hypothesized elementsof effective parenting influence self-control or whetheradditional parenting practices not originally conceptualizedalso are influential and (b) the extent to which self-controlmediates the parenting–deviance association.

Empirical examination of the parenting–self-controlassociation suggests a number of hypothesized and non-hypothesized parenting practices influence the etiology of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

self-control. For example, parental attachment, monitoring,supervision, recognition of deviant behaviors, discipline,consistency in punishment, poor parental efficacy (i.e., lowattachment, as well as a lack of recognition and punishmentof deviant behaviors), and parental management (i.e.,monitoring, as well as a lack of recognition and punishmentof deviant behaviors) have been found to be associatedwith the development of self-control (Cochran et al. 1998;Gibbs et al. 1998; Hay 2001; Hope and Chapple 2005;Latimore et al. 2006; Perrone et al. 2004; Pratt et al.2004; Unnever et al. 2003). However, other evidence sug-gests that parental supervision and punishment are not asso-ciated with self-control (Cochran et al. 1998; Latimore et al.2006), and parenting factors not originally conceptualizedalso have been found to be important in the developmentof self-control such as psychological autonomy, effectiveparenting (i.e., commitment, involvement, conventionalqualities), parental support, parenting (i.e., consistency,child-centered), family functioning (i.e., effective problemsolving, cohesion), and parenting (i.e., inductive reasoning,problem solving, positive reinforcement; Burt et al. 2006;Feldman and Weinberger 1994; Hay 2001; Jones et al.2007; Polakowski 1994).

Additionally, when examining the mediation hypothesis,mixed results emerged regarding whether self-control par-tially or fully mediated the relation between parenting anddeviance. For example, self-control fully mediated the asso-ciations between deviance and (a) parenting, (b) parentalmanagement, and (c) consistency in punishment (Feldmanand Weinberger 1994; Gibbs et al. 1998; Unnever et al.2003), whereas self-control only partially mediated therelations between deviance and (a) ineffective parenting, (b)parental support, (c) parental management, and (d) parentalmonitoring (Burt et al. 2006; Gibbs et al. 2003; Hay 2001;Jones et al. 2007; Perrone et al. 2004; Unnever et al. 2003).Finally, evidence suggests that associations among parenting,self-control, and deviance are more complex than originallyconceptualized. For example, Hope and Chapple (2005) indi-cated that self-control partially mediated the associationbetween attachment and risky sexual behaviors, butself-control did not mediate the relation between monitoringand risky sexual behaviors. Similarly, Chapple et al. (2005)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

discovered that self-control fully mediated the relationbetween attachment and adolescent substance abuse, butonly partially mediated the association between parentalmonitoring and adolescent substance abuse.

Thus, evidence is provided that all four elements of effectiveparenting (i.e., attachment, supervision, recognition of deviantbehaviors, and punishment of deviant behaviors) appearto influence the development of self-control. However,additional parenting variables beyond what Gottfredson andHirschi (1990) theorized also are responsible for the develop-ment of self-control (e.g., psychological autonomy, parentalefficacy; Hay 2001; Perrone et al. 2004). Research alsoappears to suggest that self-control at least partially mediatesthe link between ineffective parenting and deviance. How-ever, because so few studies have been conducted to examinethe links among effective parenting, self-control, anddeviance, conclusions regarding how parents influence thedevelopment of self-control, and the full extent to whichself-control mediates the parenting–deviance associationcan only be speculative.

Research conducted by Brody and colleagues (Brody et al.2002; Brody and Ge 2001; Brody et al. 1996; Brody et al.1999; Wills et al. 2000) provides additional evidence that(in)effective parenting does influence the development ofself-control, and that self-control fully mediates the linkbetween (in)effective parenting and deviance. For example,parental involvement, support, monitoring, family cohesion,close family relationships, and appropriate disciplinepositively influence the development of self-control, whereasinterparental conflict and harsh parent–child conflict nega-tively influence the development of self-control. Further,each of the constructs that Brody and colleagues havestudied can be linked to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)theoretical ideas of how to teach self-control. First, involved-supportive parenting, family cohesion, and family supportcan be identified as parents who are involved, and thereforeattached, to their child. Second, monitoring and supervisionprovide support for the second step in teaching self-control.Third, the discussion of appropriate discipline and harsh-conflicted parent–child relationships can provide empiricalevidence for the final step in teaching self-control; punish-ment. Thus, the work of Brody and colleagues lends support


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theoretical conceptualizations thatparents are influential in the development of self-control, andthat self-control fully mediates relations. However, low self-control is not the only possible mediating mechanism for thelink between ineffective parenting and deviance. Researchhas suggested that SIP deficits also mediate this link (Dodgeet al. 1990; Dodge et al. 1995; Weiss et al. 1992).

Social Information Processing as a Mediating Mechanism

Information-processing theories provide information regard-ing how behaviors are transformed into memory, which inturn guide future processing and behaviors (Dodge 1993;Huesmann 1998). Huesmann (1998) suggests that informa-tion processing theories are a description of cognitive datastructures that individuals utilize through a sequence ofsteps executed to generate cognitions regarding behaviors.However, with work conducted by Dodge and colleagues(Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge et al. 1986), information-processing theories, such as SIP, are now used as a cognitiveheuristic to help understand how and why individualsengage in deviant behaviors.

According to Dodge et al. (1986) and Crick and Dodge(1994), six steps are involved in SIP: encoding social cues,interpretation of social cues, clarification of goals, responseaccess=generation, response evaluation, and behavioralenactment. In the first step, encoding social cues, an indivi-dual must scan and attend to environmental cues. However,because a large number of environmental cues are simulta-neously being produced, an individual will selectively attendto, and focus on, a limited number of environmental cues.Next, the child must interpret the meaning behind the socialcues. Meaning is assigned to social cues through inferencesabout the motives or intent of the behavior, and is relatedto the individual’s emotional needs, goals, and physiologicalarousal (e.g., angry, using drugs; Crick and Dodge 1994;Dodge 1993; Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Huesmann 1998).Third, the individual must select a goal or desired outcomefor the current situation. Such goals are instrumental (e.g.,solving a problem) or interpersonal (e.g., retaliation), exter-nal (e.g., obtaining an object), or internal (e.g., feelinghappy), and can be influenced by the individual’s personalityor emotional state (Dodge and Schwartz 1997). Fourth, an


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

individual must access all possible behavioral responsesfrom his or her long-term memory. Some individuals accessmultiple responses, whereas for others the first responseaccessed is the behavior enacted. Fifth, the individual mustevaluate each response to determine whether the accessedresponse will help reach a potential goal, and whether sheor he can perform that behavior effectively (i.e., has self-efficacy). Further, if self-control functions are not properlyin place, the individual is less likely to fully evaluate allbehavioral responses and will engage in the first behavioralresponse accessed (Dodge 1993; Dodge and Schwartz 1997).Finally, behavioral responses are chosen based on the indivi-dual’s goals and self-efficacy regarding the behavior. In mostcases, this is an automatic and ongoing process. If, however,the individual is involved in a new social situation, theprocess can be very rational and conscious.

Concurrent and longitudinal research suggests that childrenand adolescents who engage in deviant behaviors are morelikely to have the following SIP deficits: encoding and inter-preting social cues, response generation, aggressive conflictproblem-solving skills, hostile attributions under ambiguousand accidental situations, hypervigilance to threatening cues,and hold more self-efficacy beliefs and positive evaluationstoward aggression (Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge et al.2003; Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Fontaine et al. 2002; Slabyand Guerra 1988; Webster-Stratton and Lindsay 1999).Further, while research has predominantly explored the asso-ciation between SIP deficits with aggression, some empiricalresearch has suggested that SIP deficits are related to multipletypes of deviant behaviors such as vandalism, theft, murder,rape, assault, dating violence, and using a weapon (Brendgenet al. 2002; Fontaine et al. 2002; Slaby and Guerra 1988).Although there appears to be robust evidence linking SIP def-icits with deviant behaviors, little research has explainedwhy some children, but not others, have SIP deficits. In orderto understand how deficits are formed, early parentalexperiences must be examined.

Parental Influences

Although not part of the SIP heuristic, several researchershave suggested, theoretically, that ineffective parentinginfluences the development of SIP deficits. Reviews have


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

suggested that parenting practices, such as ineffective=harshdiscipline, physical abuse, effective monitoring=supervision,emotional involvement=warmth (i.e., attachment), commu-nication, and witnessing aggression may influence the devel-opment of SIP, and in turn, influence the development ofdeviant behaviors (Dodge 1993; Dodge and Pettit 2003;Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Pettit 1997). For example, physi-cal abuse is associated with the development of hypervigi-lance toward hostile cues and hostile attribution biases,witnessing parental aggression is thought to teach childrento evaluate positively the use of aggression, and attachmentis thought to influence SIP through (in)secure attachmentsand (mal)adaptive schemas (Dodge et al. 1990; Huesmann1998; Dodge and Schwartz 1997). SIP researchers have sug-gested that monitoring=supervision and communication alsoare important in the development of deviant behaviors.However, these constructs have not been tested in relationto SIP. Overall, ineffective=harsh discipline and physicalabuse are the most extensively studied. Further, very littleempirical work has been conducted to fully understand theorigins of SIP (Dodge and Schwartz 1997), and whether theaforementioned hypothesized parenting practices do influ-ence the development of SIP.

Empirical Research

In the limited empirical work that has been conducted, evi-dence suggests that physical abuse, punishment=discipline,parent-to-child aggression, and maternal support and controldo influence the development of SIP deficits (e.g., encodingerrors, accessing aggressive responses, increased hostileattribution bias, positive evaluations of aggression, positiveattitudes toward violence, sensitivity toward hostile cues,aggressive response selection; Brendgen et al. 2002; Dodgeet al. 1990; Dodge et al. 1995; Gomez and Gomez 2000;Gomez et al. 2001; Weiss et al. 1992). However, much morework is needed to fully examine the origins of SIP. Further-more, evidence suggests that SIP deficits partially mediatethe relation between ineffective parenting and deviant beha-viors (e.g., aggression, externalizing behavior problems, phy-sical violence [e.g., fighting, using a weapon], and datingviolence). However, there are mixed results regarding whichSIP steps mediate the ineffective parenting–aggression link.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

For example, encoding errors and accessing aggressiveresponses mediated the relation between physical abuse andexternalizing behavior problems, whereas hostile attributionsand positive evaluations of aggression did not (Dodge et al.1995). Therefore, future research needs to be conducted toexamine the full extent to which SIP may mediate associationsbetween parenting and deviance.

Finally, it is noteworthy that low self-control appears to belinked with SIP. For example, Dodge et al. (1997) found evi-dence suggesting that impulsivity (i.e., low self-control) wasrelated to encoding errors (SIP step 1), and that encodingerrors were associated with reactive aggression (i.e., whenan individual responds angrily or defensively without thoughtwhen frustrated or provoked) rather than proactive aggression(i.e., when an individual deliberately behaves aggressively toachieve a goal). Therefore, SIP deficits may mediate the linkbetween self-control and reactive aggression. Further, Dodge(1993) argued that individuals who engage in reactive aggres-sion are less likely to fully evaluate all possible behavioralchoices (step 5) and engage in the first response accessed.This sounds like a lack of self-control in that the individualfails to stop and think about other possible choices. Thus, itseems that self-control also would be related to step 5(response evaluation) and, in turn, related to reactive aggres-sion. Although only speculative, it appears that self-controlcan be linked to SIP through two SIP steps: step 1 (encodingsocial cues) and step 5 (response evaluation). However, noknown empirical work has been conducted to examinewhether self-control is linked with any of the SIP steps. Inter-estingly, Guerra (1993) suggested that self-control is related toproblem-solving skills (i.e., SIP), and Gibbs et al. (1996) notedthat low self-control may not lead to aggression or otherdeviant behaviors unless some form of cognitive deficit is pre-sent. Thus, it appears that self-control and SIP are linked, andfuture work should examine theorized associations betweenself-control and SIP, as well as how such associationsinfluence the development of deviant behaviors.

DISCUSSION

Twopossiblemechanisms (i.e., self-control andSIP) havebeenpresented that may mediate the link between ineffective


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

parenting (e.g., coercion theory) and deviant behaviors. Atpresent, there appears to be some empirical evidencesuggesting that self-control and SIP partially mediate theinfluence ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors. Inthe section that follows, a proposed integrated model willbe presented by beginning with a discussion of three areasin which coercion theory, GTC, and SIP converge, followedby a discussion of the research implications for the integratedmodel including research questions and data collection pro-cedures. Finally, limitations and contributions the modelprovides to the field will be considered.

Areas of Convergence

Parenting Practices

There appear to be eight main parenting variables thatshould be assessed when examining how parents influencethe development of self-control, SIP, or deviant behaviors:attachment, supervision=monitoring, discipline=punishment,communication, recognition of deviant behaviors, problemsolving, positive parenting, and positive reinforcement.Coercion theory, GTC, and SIP scholars appear to agree thatattachment, supervision=monitoring, discipline=punishment,and communication are important influences on self-control,SIP, and deviant behaviors. Recognition of deviant behaviorsis found within two of the theories: coercion theory and GTC.Finally, coercion theory offers three additional parentingvariables that GTC and SIP researchers do not consider:problem solving, positive parenting, and consistent positivereinforcement for socially appropriate and competentbehaviors.

Mediating Mechanisms

The second area in which coercion theory, GTC, and SIPconverge is in the area of mediating mechanisms. First,self-control appears to fill the ‘‘black box,’’ as discussed bySnyder et al. (2003), linking ineffective parenting withdeviant behaviors. It seems likely that if a parent engagesin ineffective parenting practices (e.g., coercive parenting),self-control would be underdeveloped resulting in an increa-sed likelihood of engaging in deviant behaviors. In fact,Unnever et al. (2006) found that coercive parenting negatively


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

influenced self-control, and that self-control partiallymediated coercive parenting and deviance. The authorssuggested that when parents engage in a coercive style ofparenting, parents are likely to be modeling low self-controlin that the parents are punishing their children angrily anderratically, and potentially in an impulsive manner, in turn,suggesting that the parents themselves have low levels ofself-control.

Second, SIP also may help to fill the ‘‘black box’’ (Snyderet al. 2003). For example, effective parenting, according tocoercion theory, is responsible for teaching a child how tomaintain positive social interactions with others, regulateemotions within social interactions, problem solve, and haveinternal or cognitive resources (Peterson and Leigh 1990;Snyder et al. 2003). SIP involves generating and evaluatingpossible ways to respond in social situations with the endresult of maintaining positive social interactions with others.Throughout this process, the individual must ‘‘problemsolve’’ to decide the most appropriate response. Further, itis implied that the individual regulates his or her emotionsso as not to engage in socially unacceptable behaviors.Therefore, it is possible that effective parenting, as demon-strated by coercion theory, also may be influential in thedevelopment of socially relevant SIP skills. As a result, SIPwould mediate the association between parenting anddeviant behaviors. One such possible ineffective parentingstrategy is that of coercive parenting. In fact, Unnever et al.(2006) found that coercive parenting was associated withthe development of SIP deficits (i.e., holding aggressiveattitudes), and that SIP deficits partially mediated the associa-tion between coercive parenting and deviant behaviors.

Third, research appears to suggest that low self-control isinfluential in the development of SIP deficits (i.e., encodingerrors [step 1]; evaluating all possible behavioral choices[step 5]), and that SIP deficits partially mediate the linkbetween low self-control and reactive aggression (Dodge1993; Dodge et al. 1997). Individuals with low self-controlseem to have deficits while encoding social cues and havean inability to fully evaluate all behavioral choices. Thus,such individuals are more likely to view social cues inapp-ropriately and engage in deviant responses quickly. Addi-tionally, Snyder et al. (2003) suggested that self-regulation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

(i.e., self-control) processes were associated with cognitiveskills. Having a cognitive deficit is likely to decrease anindividual’s ability to plan behaviors or ability to suppressinappropriate behaviors. Moffitt (1993) further suggestedwhen an individual has difficulties with self-control, she orhe is likely to have deficits within the cognitive system(i.e., the ‘‘executive’’ functions). Therefore, it appears thatself-control and cognitive skills (i.e., SIP) are associated insome manner, and are associated with an increase in deviantbehaviors.

Types of Deviant Behaviors

The third and final area in which coercion theory, GTC,and SIP converge pertains to the types of deviant behaviorsin which individuals engage. Although research conductedon coercion theory, self-control, and SIP has included differ-ent age participants, has used different methodologies, andthe majority of SIP research has examined aggression only(see e.g., Capaldi and Patterson 1996; Dodge et al. 1990;Vazsonyi et al. 2001; Weiss et al. 1992), it appears, overall,that coercion theory, GTC, and SIP address many similartypes of deviant behaviors. For example, all three theoriesare predictive of vandalism, physical aggression=assault,sexual assault (e.g., rape), and theft=stealing (Capaldi andPatterson 1996; Dishion 1990; Fontaine et al. 2002;LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Slaby and Guerra 1988;Vazsonyi et al. 2001). In addition, there are many similaritiesbetween at least two of the three theories. For example, bothcoercion theory and SIP address externalizing behaviors(Dodge et al. 1995; Fagot and Leve 1998), both coercion the-ory and GTC address verbal aggression and alcohol=drug use(Brody et al. 1996; Dishion 1990; Vazsonyi et al. 2001), andboth GTC and SIP address whether an individual carries aweapon (Brendgen et al. 2002; Burton et al. 1999). There-fore, it appears that the same types of deviant behaviorsare all associated with the coercion theory, GTC, and SIP.

Research Implications

From the research examined and discussed thus far, it isapparent there are many areas in which coercion theory,the GTC, and SIP overlap that offer avenues for potentialintegration and future research. It should be noted that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

traditionally Patterson et al. (1992) have held the positionthat internal cognitive structures do not mediate the linkbetween parenting and deviance, and Gottfredson andHirschi (1990) have argued against theoretical integrationand that self-control solely mediates the parenting–deviancelink. However, empirical evidence suggests that bothself-control and SIP mediate the association between ineffec-tive parenting and deviance, and that coercive parenting isassociated with both self-control and SIP. As such, possibletheoretical integration should be explored.

Recently, Simons et al. (2007) supported the notion ofstudying factors that may mediate the association betweenparenting and deviance, and alluded to the idea of integrat-ing theories. Specifically, the authors examined whetherself-control (GTC), anger=frustration (strain theory), hostileview of relationships (SIP), and deviance acceptability andconventional goals (social learning and social control the-ories) mediated the parenting–deviance association. Resultsindicated that self-control and deviance acceptability media-ted the association between monitoring=discipline anddeviance, and self-control and anger=frustration mediatedthe association between harsh=rejecting parenting and devi-ance. Results also indicated that self-control and hostileviews were correlated. The authors concluded that theoriesthat have historically been thought of as competing mayactually be complementary. Overall, the study points tothe importance of examining various mediating mechanismsfrom multiple theories to understand the parenting–devianceassociation, and provides empirical evidence that multipletheories may work together in the explanation of deviance.Additionally, the study provides some correlational evidencethat self-control and SIP are associated. However, the studyis limited in that only a few parenting practices were exam-ined; the very limitation that the authors argue with respectto past research. Secondly, the authors only examined hostileviews of relationships, a SIP deficit in the interpretation ofsocial cues (step 2). The proposed integration of coerciontheory, GTC, and SIP will help to address many of the deficitsin past theorizing about the etiology of deviance, offers anumber of novel research questions that generally have beenuntested, and provide advancement in the theoretical under-standing regarding the etiology of deviance.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Research Questions

Figure 1 offers a guide for testing six novel research ques-tions. First, what specific parenting practices are influentialin the development of self-control, SIP, and deviance? Areadditional parenting practices involved in the etiology ofself-control and SIP beyond the original conceptualizations?On the left side of Figure 1, an effective parenting constructis defined by eight parenting variables theorized acrosscoercion theory, GTC, and SIP. The figure suggests that anoverall effective parenting construct is associated with thedevelopment of self-control, SIP, and deviance. Originally,

FIGURE 1 Final Integrated Model.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that all four of thehypothesized parenting practices must be present in order foran adequate level of self-control to be developed, andresearch has found that overall effective parentingconstructs are influential in the etiology of self-control anddeviance (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2003, 1998; Perrone et al.2004). However, it is possible that the eight parenting con-structs may each individually impact the etiology ofself-control, SIP, and deviance, as past research also hasdemonstrated. The question then arises as to whether all par-enting practices impact self-control, SIP, and deviance in thesame manner, as theoretically implied, or do some parentingpractices matter more than others for the development ofself-control, SIP, or deviance. Therefore, future researchshould elucidate whether and how, uniquely or additively,these parenting variables influence self-control, SIP, anddeviance. Furthermore, is possible that additional parentingvariables not theorized may still be influential in the devel-opment of self-control, SIP, and deviance (e.g., psychologi-cal autonomy; Hay 2001). As such, future research alsoshould examine non-theorized parenting variables to deter-mine their association with self-control, SIP, and deviance.

Second, are self-control and SIP correlated? Does self-control impact how an individual encodes social cues (step 1)and evaluates responses (step 5)? Is self-control also asso-ciated with the remaining steps of SIP? Lines are indicated inFigure 1 from self-control to SIP suggesting that self-controlimpacts SIP. Thus far, it seems that self-control and SIP steps1 and 5 are theoretically associated. Furthermore, empiricalevidence has indicated that self-control was correlated withhostile views of relationships and holding aggressive atti-tudes (deficits in step 2: interpretation of social cues andstep 5: response evaluation as the child positively evaluatedaggressive responses; Simons et al. 2007; Unnever et al.2006). Given that past research has suggested possible linksbetween self-control and SIP, future research needs to fullyexamine the interrelationship between self-control and SIP.

Third, to what extent do both self-control and SIP mediatethe association between parenting and deviance? As indi-cated in Figure 1, self-control and SIP both demonstrate anindirect link between parenting and deviance. As pastresearch has demonstrated, self-control and SIP at least


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

partially mediate the parenting–deviance link. However,given the possibility that self-control and SIP are associated,would the inclusion of this association and, thus, both vari-ables in a model help to explain more variance in the devel-opment of deviance? Future research should exploresimultaneously how the inclusion of both self-control andSIP in the model explains the parenting–deviance associa-tion. Additionally, it is possible that self-control and SIPmay mediate the association between specific types of par-enting practices with specific types of deviant behaviorsdifferently. For example, Hope and Chapple (2005) andChapple et al. (2005) provide one illustration of the complex-ities regarding how parenting and deviance factors are asso-ciated. Recall in their analyses, self-control fully mediatedthe relation between maternal attachment and adolescents’substance abuse, but only partially mediated the relationbetween attachment and adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors.Additionally, self-control partially mediated the relationbetween parental monitoring and substance abuse, but didnot mediate the relation between monitoring and riskysexual behaviors. Thus, it is possible that self-control fullymediates the relation between some parenting–deviancerelations, but only partially between other parenting–deviance relations, and this idea may be extrapolated toSIP. As such, future research should examine how self-control and SIP mediate the associations between varioustypes of parenting and deviant behaviors.

Fourth, does the proposed model explain all types ofdeviance? An overall deviance construct is indicated inFigure 1 to suggest that the etiology of all types of deviantbehaviors (i.e., crime analogous behaviors, aggression, crim-inal behaviors, etc.) would be explained. Thus far, empiricalresearch conducted on coercion theory, GTC, and SIP allallude to similar types of deviant behaviors being explained.However, more research is needed to determine whether theproposed parenting variables and mediating mechanismsexplain varied types of deviance in similar ways. As such,to fully test the theory, all types of deviant behaviors shouldbe included in that conceptualization.

Fifth, how does the bidirectional coercion processbetween parent and child impact the development of self-control and SIP? Figure 1 demonstrates a bidirectional arrow


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

between effective parenting and deviance indicative of thebidirectional coercion process between parent and child.Given the theoretical and empirical support for the bidirec-tional coercion process, future research should examinewhether this bidirectional process also helps to explain thedevelopment of self-control and SIP. It seems that the coer-cion process would negatively impact the development ofself-control and increase the likelihood of SIP deficits result-ing in deviant behaviors. That is, because of ineffective par-enting, the child would develop lower levels of self-controland higher levels of SIP deficits. In fact, Unnever et al.(2006) empirically validated this assumption. Furthermore,because the coercion process is bidirectional, the child’sbehaviors also would impact the specific parenting practices.Therefore, it seems that as the child engages in the deviantbehaviors, the parents would change their parenting to morenegative parenting practices. As a result, self-control and SIPwould be further negatively impacted. This assumption see-mingly falls in line with how the coercion process occurs;however, future research does need to explore whetherand how self-control and SIP are associated with the bidirec-tional coercion process.

Sixth and finally, do levels of self-control and SIP deficitschange in accordance with the early and late onset trajec-tories? Given that the developmental trajectories individualsfollow are influenced by the coercion process and the coer-cion process has been empirically linked with self-controland SIP, it seems possible that levels of self-control and SIPdeficits may change in accordance with the developmentaltrajectories. Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) donot specify developmental trajectories, they have suggestedthat varying levels of deviance are a result of varying levelsof self-control, which are initially formed by varying levelsof ineffective parenting. Therefore, it seems that adolescentswho have parents that are highly ineffective would engage indeviance for longer durations (i.e., early onset offending) andadolescents who have parents with moderate levels ofeffective parenting would engage in deviance for shorterdurations (i.e., late onset offending). Furthermore, it seemsthat individuals who follow the early onset trajectory areindividuals with the least amount of self-control and thehighest levels of SIP deficits, and individuals who follow


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

the late onset trajectory are individuals with a moderate levelof self-control and SIP deficits. As such, it seems important toascertain whether various levels of self-control and SIP defi-cits exist between the early and late onset trajectories, andhow various levels of ineffective parenting influence thedevelopment of self-control and SIP.

Research Agenda

Overall, a number of novel research questions emergewith the proposed integrated model. As such, it is importantto consider methods for testing it. It seems that to best ana-lyze this model, a multi-trait multi-method data collectionprocedure should be utilized to collect new cross-sectionaland longitudinal data. By utilizing a multi-trait multi-methoddata collection procedure, common method variance, multi-collinearity, and interrater biases can be reduced, and thereliability and validity of results should be increased. Forboth the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, obser-vational and self-report data should be collected from thechildren, as well as the parents, care-providers, and teachers.Observational data will be particularly important for childrenwho are younger, and cannot complete a self-report ques-tionnaire, as well as for parent–child interactions.

Initially, cross-sectional data could be collected fromchildren of various ages to begin examining the correlationalrelations within the model until longitudinal data can beobtained. Simultaneously, a longitudinal data collectionstudy could begin with the youngest of the cross-sectionalparticipants with the intentions of following the participantsthrough young adulthood. At a minimum level, data wouldneed to be collected on the eight parenting variablesdescribed in the model, self-control, the first five steps ofSIP, the coercion process, and several types of deviance.When collecting data, the conceptualization of eachconstruct should be consistent with the definitions providedearlier. As such, it is possible that some constructs may needto be developed while other previously established measuresmay be adopted. For example, Grasmick et al.’s (1993)self-control measure assesses an individual’s self-controlaccording to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-controldescription. Of course, all measures utilized must be ageand informant appropriate.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

A number of longitudinal datasets are available forempirically examining some of the aforementioned ques-tions, such as the National Longitudinal Youth Survey andthe NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Develop-ment. However, the problem with conducting secondarydata analysis is that the data generally do not capture all con-structs that one would like to examine, and when a constructcan be created, the construct generally does not measurethe variables entirely consistent with theory. As such, care-fully designed original data collection remains important totesting the proposed integrated model.

Supporting the Proposed Model

It is anticipated that support would be found for the pro-posed model. Specifically, it is expected that more variancein deviance would be explained compared to prior investiga-tions, and fewer direct relations between parenting anddeviance will result from self-control and SIP mediating theparenting–deviance association. Additional support for themodel would include finding that (a) self-control does indeedimpact the development of SIP, at least with regard to steps 1and 5, (b) the coercion process is associated with self-controland with SIP, (c) the eight hypothesized parenting variablesare uniquely or additively associated with self-control, SIP,and deviance, and (d) self-control and SIP deficits followalong early and late onset trajectories. One note of cautionthough with respect to mediation: if self-control and SIP donot together fully mediate the association between parentingand deviance in all instances, it does not mean a lack of sup-port for the model. Rather it would suggest that additionalmediating mechanisms may be important for the parent-ing–deviance association, or that mediation may dependon the specific parenting and deviance constructs measuring.

CONCLUSION

The proposed model has potential to make a number of con-tributions to the current field. First, eight main parenting vari-ables (i.e., attachment=investment, supervision=monitoring,discipline=punishment, communication, recognition of devi-ant behaviors, problem solving, positive parenting, and posi-tive reinforcement) appear to be influential in development


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

of self-control, SIP, and deviant behaviors. Second, lowself-control appears to be influential in the development ofSIP deficits. Third, it is possible that both self-control andSIP could fill the ‘‘black box’’ of coercion theory as discussedby Snyder et al. (2003). Fourth, it is apparent that coerciontheory, self-control, and SIP are all predictive of similar typesof deviance. Fifth, the coercion process may be influential inthe etiology of self-control and SIP. Sixth and finally, self-control and SIP deficits may follow along the early and lateonset trajectories of deviance.

LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL MODEL EXPANSIONS

While pushing the field forward in a number of ways, thecurrent conceptualization is not without its limitations. First,the present conceptualization only explored the possibility oftwo mediating mechanisms. There is a possibility that addi-tional mediating mechanisms exist. For example, accordingto Strain Theory, anger=frustration is thought to influencethe engagement of deviance when parents produce strainby rejecting, neglecting or abusing the child, as well as utiliz-ing strict, harsh, or inconsistent supervision=discipline(Agnew 2001). In fact, given that anger impacts the meaningindividuals assign to social cues (step 2 of SIP), anger is notinconsistent with the proposed model. Additionally, Hirschi(1969) suggested that the social bond an individual feels withsociety is influential in the development of deviant beha-viors. While the theory does not outright predict that an indi-vidual’s social bond would mediate the link betweenineffective parenting and deviance, the possibility does existas parents are responsible to a certain extent for the develop-ment of their child’s social bond with society. As such, theideas of anger=frustration and having a social bond withsociety do imply that there may be other variables beyondself-control and SIP that mediate the link between ineffectiveparenting and deviance. As such, future research and theoryexpansion should continue to explore the possibility ofadditional mediating mechanisms.

Second, constructs typically associated with social learn-ing theory have not been considered within the currentconceptualization. As coercion theory has roots within sociallearning theory (Patterson 1982), it seems plausible to also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

include constructs such as modeling and positive reinforce-ment of deviant behaviors. In fact, Unnever et al. (2006)found that parental reinforcement of aggression was directlyassociated with delinquency, as well as indirectly viaself-control. Therefore, including social learning theory con-structs within empirical examinations of the current modelwould not be outside the realm of the current conceptualiza-tion, and could be further explored.

Third, the current conceptualization only explores howparenting influences the development of self-control, SIP,and deviant behaviors. The current conceptualizationdoes not explore the extent to which peers are influentialin the development of deviance. However, as observedwithin both the early and late onset trajectories, peers areinfluential in child and adolescent deviance (Kiesner et al.2001). Further, research has indicated that peers were asso-ciated with SIP deficits and deviance (Dishion and Skaggs2000; Dodge et al. 2003). Thus, it is necessary to examinehow peers and ineffective parenting uniquely and additivelyinfluence the development of self-control, SIP, and deviantbehaviors.

Fourth and finally, the present conceptualization has notexplored the possibility that sex may influence how parent-ing influences self-control, SIP, or deviance. Research hassuggested, in some cases, there does appear to be differencesbetween males and females in how the coercion process andSIP influence deviance (Dishion and Skaggs 2000; Fontaineet al. 2002); however, sex does not appear to moderate therelation between self-control and deviance (see e.g., Burtonet al. 1999). Thus, it remains a possibility that the presentmodel may be moderated by sex warranting examinationin future research.

Despite these limitations, the current conceptualizationand integrated model does push theory and research forwardby demonstrating that coercion theory, GTC, and SIP can beintegrated to gain a better understanding of the etiology ofdeviance. By conducting research according to the proposedmodel, researchers should have a deeper, more enrichingdevelopmental perspective as to how parenting influencesthe etiology of deviance. With a more complete understand-ing of how ineffective parenting influences deviance, inter-vention and prevention efforts could be tailored to better


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

meet the needs of children, adolescents, and families andtruly decrease child and adolescent deviance.

REFERENCES

Agnew, Robert. 2001. ‘‘Building on the Foundation of General StrainTheory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crimeand Delinquency.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency38:319–361.

Arneklev, Bruce J., Harold G. Grasmick, Charles R. Tittle, and Robert J.Bursik. 1993. ‘‘Low Self-Control and Imprudent Behaviors.’’ Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 9:225–247.

Bank, Lew, Marion S. Forgatch, Gerald R. Patterson, and Rebecca A.Fetrow. 1993. ‘‘Parenting Practices of Single Mothers: Mediators ofNegative Contextual Factors.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family55:371–384.

Brendgen, Mara, Frank Vitaro, Richard E. Tremblay, and Brigitte Wanner.2002. ‘‘Parent and Peer Effects on Delinquency-Related Violence andDating Violence: A Test of Two Mediational Models.’’ Social Devel-opment 11:225–244.

Brody, Gene H., Shannon Dorsey, Rex Forehand, and Lisa Armistead.2002. ‘‘Unique and Protective Contributions of Parenting andClassroom Processes to the Adjustment of African AmericanChildren Living in Single-Parent Families.’’ Child Development73:274–286.

Brody, Gene H. and Xiaojia Ge. 2001. ‘‘Linking Parenting Processes andSelf-Regulation to Psychological Functioning and Alcohol Use DuringEarly Adolescence.’’ Journal of Family Psychology 15:82–94.

Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman, and Douglas Flor. 1996. ‘‘ParentalReligiosity, Family Processes, and Youth Competence in RuralTwo-Parent African American Families.’’ Developmental Psychology32:696–706.

Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman, Trellis Smith, and Nicole M. Gibson.1999. ‘‘Sibling Relationships in Rural African American Families.’’Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:1046–1057.

Burt, Callie H., Ronald L. Simons, and Leslie G. Simons. 2006. ‘‘A Long-itudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting and the Stability ofSelf-Control. Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime.’’Criminology 44:353–396.

Burton, Velmer S., T. David Evans, Francis T., Cullen, Kathleen M.Olivares, and R. Gregory Dunaway. 1999. ‘‘Age, Self-Control, andAdults’ Offending Behaviors: A Research Note Assessing A GeneralTheory of Crime.’’ Journal of Criminal Justice 27:45–54.

Capaldi, Deborah M. and Gerald R. Patterson. 1996. ‘‘Can ViolentOffenders be Distinguished from Frequent Offenders: Predictions from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Childhood to Adolescence.’’ Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33:206–231.

Chapple, Constance L., Trina L. Hope, and Scott W. Whiteford. 2005.‘‘The Direct and Indirect Effects of Parental Bonds, Parental DrugUse, and Self-Control on Adolescent Substance Use.’’ Journal of Childand Adolescent Substance Abuse 14:17–38.

Cochran, John K., Peter B. Wood, Christine S. Sellers, Wendy Wilkerson,and Mitchell B. Chamlin. 1998. ‘‘Academic Dishonesty and LowSelf-Control: An Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime.’’Deviant Behaviors 19:227–255.

Crick, Nicki R. and Kenneth A. Dodge. 1994. ‘‘A Review and Reformula-tion of Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children’s SocialAdjustment.’’ Psychological Bulletin 115:74–101.

Dishion, Thomas J. 1990. ‘‘The Family Ecology of Boys’ Peer Relations inMiddle Childhood.’’ Child Development 61:874–892.

Dishion, Thomas J. and Gerald R. Patterson. 1997. ‘‘The Timing andSeverity of Antisocial Behavior: Three Hypotheses within an Ecologi-cal Framework.’’ Pp. 205–217. In Handbook of Antisocial Behavior,edited by David M. Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack D. Maser.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Dishion, Thomas J. and Nani M. Skaggs. 2000. ‘‘An Ecological Analysisof Monthly ‘Bursts’ in Early Adolescent Substance Use.’’ AppliedDevelopmental Science 4:89–97.

Dodge, Kenneth A. 1993. ‘‘Social-Cognitive Mechanisms in the Devel-opment of Conduct Disorder and Depression.’’ Annual Review ofPsychology 44:559–584.

Dodge, Kenneth A., John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1990.‘‘Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence.’’ Science 250:1678–1683.

Dodge, Kenneth A., Jennifer E. Lansford, Virginia S. Burks, John E. Bates,Gregory S. Pettit, Reid Fontaine, and Joseph M. Price. 2003. ‘‘PeerRejection and Social Information-Processing Factors in the Develop-ment of Aggressive Behavior Problems in Children.’’ Child Develop-ment 74:374–393.

Dodge, Kenneth A., John E. Lochman, Jennifer D. Harnish, John E.Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1997. ‘‘Reactive and ProactiveAggression in School Children and Psychiatrically ImpairedChronically Assaultive Youth.’’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology106:37–51.

Dodge, Kenneth A. and Gregory S. Pettit. 2003. ‘‘A BiopsychosocialModel of the Development of Chronic Conduct Problems in Adoles-cence.’’ Developmental Psychology 39:349–371.

Dodge, Kenneth A., Gregory S. Pettit, John E. Bates, and Ernest Valente.1995. ‘‘Social Information-Processing Patterns Partially Mediate theEffect of Early Physical Abuse on Later Conduct Problems.’’ Journalof Abnormal Psychology 104:632–643.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Dodge, Kenneth A., Gregory S. Pettit, Cynthia L. McClaskey, and MelissaM. Brown. 1986. ‘‘Social Competence in Children.’’ Monographs ofthe Society for Research in Child Development 51:1–85.

Dodge, Kenneth A. and David Schwartz. 1997. ‘‘Social Information Pro-cessing Mechanisms in Aggressive Behavior.’’ Pp. 171–180. In Hand-book of Antisocial Behavior, edited by David M. Stoff, James Breiling,and Jack D. Maser. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Fagot, Beverly I. and Leslie D. Leve. 1998. ‘‘Teacher Ratings of Exter-nalizing Behavior at School Entry for Boys and Girls: Similar EarlyPredictors and Different Correlates.’’ Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry 39:555–566.

Feldman, S. Shirley and Daniel A. Weinberger. 1994. ‘‘Self-Restraint asa Mediator of Family Influences on Boys’ Delinquent Behavior. ALongitudinal Study.’’ Child Development 65:195–211.

Fletcher, Anne C., Nancy Darling, and Laurence Steinberg. 1995.‘‘Parental Monitoring and Peer Influences on Adolescent SubstanceUse.’’ Pp. 259–271. In Coercion and Punishment in Long-TermPerspectives, edited by Joan McCord. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fontaine, Reid G., Virginia S. Burks, and Kenneth A. Dodge.2002. ‘‘Response Decision Processes and Externalizing BehaviorProblems in Adolescents.’’ Development and Psychopathology14:107–122.

Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and George E. Higgins. 2003. ‘‘A Test ofGottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory using Structural EquationModeling.’’ Criminal Justice and Behavior 30:441–458.

Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin. 1998. ‘‘ParentalManagement and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson andHirschi’s General Theory.’’ Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 35:40–70.

Gibbs, John C., Granville B. Potter, Alvaro Q. Barriga, and Albert K. Liau.1996. ‘‘Developing the Helping Skills and Prosocial Motivation ofAggressive Adolescents in Peer Group Programs.’’ Aggression andViolent Behavior 1:283–305.

Gomez, Rapson and Andre Gomez. 2000. ‘‘Perceived Maternal Controland Support as Predictors of Hostile-Biased Attribution of Intentand Response Selection in Aggressive Boys.’’ Aggressive Behavior26:155–168.

Gomez, Rapson, Andre Gomez, Lesley DeMello, and Ron Tallent. 2001.‘‘Perceived Maternal Control and Support: Effects on Hostile BiasedSocial Information Processing and Aggression Among Clinic-ReferredChildren with High Aggression.’’ Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry 42:513–522.

Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory ofCrime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik, and Bruce J.Arneklev. 1993. ‘‘Testing the Core Empirical Implications ofGottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.’’ Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 30:5–29.

Guerra, Nancy G. 1993. ‘‘Cognitive Development.’’ Pp. 45–62. InHandbook of Clinical Research and Practice with Adolescents, editedby Patrick H. Tolan and Bertram J. Cohler. Oxford, England: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc.

Hay, Carter. 2001. ‘‘Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test ofSelf-Control Theory.’’ Criminology 39:707–736.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Hope, Trina L. and Constance L. Chapple. 2005. ‘‘Maternal Characteris-tics, Parenting, and Adolescent Sexual Behavior: The Role ofSelf-Control.’’ Deviant Behavior 26:25–45.

Huesmann, L. Rowell. 1998. ‘‘The Role of Social Information Processingand Cognitive Schema in the Acquisition and Maintenance ofHabitual Aggressive Behavior.’’ Pp. 73–109. In Human Aggression:Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy, edited byRussell Geen and Edward Donnerstein. San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Jones, Shayne,, Elizabeth Cauffman, and Alex R. Piquero. 2007. ‘‘TheInfluence of Parental Support among Incarcerated Adolescent Offen-ders. The Moderating Effects of Self-Control.’’ Criminal Justice andBehavior 34:229–245.

Kiesner, Jeff,, Thomas J. Dishion, and Francois Poulin. 2001. ‘‘A Reinfor-cement Model of Conduct Problems in Children and Adolescents:Advances in Theory and Intervention.’’ Pp. 264–291. In Conduct Dis-orders in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Jonathan Hill andBarbara Maughan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

LaGrange, Teresa C. and Robert A. Silverman. 1999. ‘‘Low Self-Controland Opportunity: Testing the General Theory of Crime as an Explana-tion for Gender Differences in Delinquency.’’ Criminology 37:41–72.

Latimore, T. Lorraine, Charles R. Tittle, and Harold G. Grasmick. 2006.‘‘Childrearing, Self-Control, and Crime: Additional Evidence.’’ Socio-logical Inquiry 76:343–371.

Loeber, Rolf and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. 1986. ‘‘Family Factors asCorrelates and Predictors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delin-quency.’’ Crime and Justice 7:29–149.

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. ‘‘The Neuropsychology of Conduct Disorder.’’Development and Psychopathology 5:135–151.

———. 1997. ‘‘Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Offend-ing: A Complementary Pair of Developmental Theories.’’ Pp. 11–54.In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, edited byTerence P. Thornberry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Nagin, Daniel S. and Raymond Paternoster. 1993. ‘‘Enduring IndividualDifferences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.’’ Law and SocietyReview 27:467–496.

Normandeau, Sylvie and Frederic Guay. 1998. ‘‘Preschool Behaviorand First-Grade School Achievement: The Mediational Role ofCognitive Self-Control.’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 90:111–121.

Patterson, Gerald R. 1982. Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR:Castalia Publishing Company.

———. 1996. ‘‘Some Characteristics of a Developmental Theory forEarly-Onset Delinquency.’’ Pp. 81–124. In Frontiers of Developmen-tal Psychopathology, edited by Mark F. Lenzenweger and Jeffrey J.Haugaard. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1997. ‘‘Performance Models for Parenting: A Social Inter-actional Perspective.’’ Pp. 193–226. In Parenting and Children’sInternalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory,edited by Joan E. Grusec and Leon Kuczynski. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc.

Patterson, Gerald R., John B. Reid, and Thomas J. Dishion. 1992.Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company.

Patterson, Gerald R. and Karen Yoerger. 1993. ‘‘Developmental Modelsfor Delinquent Behavior.’’ Pp. 140–172. In Mental Disorder andCrime, edited by Sheilagh Hodgins. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

———. 1997. ‘‘A Developmental Model for Late-Onset Delinquency.’’Pp. 119–177. In Motivation and Delinquency, edited by D. WayneOsgood. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

———. 2002. ‘‘A Developmental Model for Early- and Late-OnsetDelinquency.’’ Pp. 147–172. In Antisocial Behavior in Childrenand Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis and Model for Inter-vention, edited by John B. Reid, Gerald R. Patterson, and JamesSnyder. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Patterson, Gerald R. and Lew Bank. 1989. ‘‘Some Amplifying Mechan-isms for Pathologic Processes in Families.’’ Pp. 167–209. In Systemsand Development, edited by Megan R. Gunnar and Esther Thelen.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Patterson, Gerald R., Lew Bank, and Mike Stoolmiller. 1990. ‘‘ThePreadolescent’s Contributions to Disrupted Family Process.’’Pp. 107–133. In From Childhood to Adolescence: A TransitionalPeriod, edited by Raymond Montemayor, Gerald R. Adams, andThomas P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patterson, Gerald R., Marion S. Forgatch, Karen L. Yoerger, and MikeStoolmiller. 1998. ‘‘Variables that Initiate and Maintain an Early-Onset Trajectory for Juvenile Offending.’’ Development andPsychopathology 10:531–547.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Patterson, Gerald R., Thomas J. Dishion, and Lew Bank. 1984. ‘‘FamilyInteraction: A Process Model of Deviancy Training.’’ AggressiveBehavior 10:253–267.

Perrone, Dina, Christopher J. Sullivan, Travis C. Pratt, and SatenikMargaryan. 2004. ‘‘Parental Efficacy, Self-Control, and Delinquency:A Test of a General Theory of Crime on a Nationally RepresentativeSample of Youth.’’ International Journal of Offender Therapy andComparative Criminology 48:298–312.

Peterson, Gary W. and Geoffry K. Leigh. 1990. ‘‘The Family and SocialCompetence in Adolescence.’’ Pp. 97–138. In Developing SocialCompetency in Adolescence, edited by Thomas P. Gullotta, GeraldR. Adams, and Raymond Montemayor. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Pettit, Gregory S. 1997. ‘‘The Developmental Course of Violenceand Aggression.’’ Anger, Aggression, and Violence 20:283–299.

Piquero, Alex and Stephen Tibbetts. 1996. ‘‘Specifying the Direct andIndirect Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offen-ders’ Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of RationalOffending.’’ Justice Quarterly 13:481–510.

Polakowski, Michael. 1994. ‘‘Linking Self- and Social Control withDeviance: Illuminating the Structure Underlying a General Theoryof Crime and its Relation to Deviant Activity.’’ Journal of QuantitativeCriminology 10:41–78.

Pratt, Travis C., Michael G. Turner, and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. ‘‘ParentalSocialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of theStructural Sources of Low Self-Control.’’ Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 41:219–243.

Sampson, Robert J. 2000. ‘‘A Neighborhood-Level Perspective on SocialChange and the Social Control of Adolescent Delinquency.’’ Pp. 178–188. In Negotiating Adolescence in Times of Social Change, edited byLisa J. Crocket and Rainer K. Silbereisen. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Simons, Ronald L., Leslie G. Simons, Yi-Fu Chen, Gene H. Brody, andKuei-Hsiu Lin. 2007. ‘‘Identifying the Psychological Factors thatMediate the Association Between Parenting Practices and Delin-quency.’’ Criminology 45:481–517.

Slaby, Ronald G. and Nancy G. Guerra. 1988. ‘‘Cognitive Mediators ofAggression in Adolescent Offenders: 1. Assessment.’’ DevelopmentalPsychology 24:580–588.

Snyder, Howard. 2006. ‘‘Juvenile Arrests 2004.’’ Washington, DC:Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp) (accessed January 11, 2008).

Snyder, James and Gerald Patterson. 1987. ‘‘Family Interaction andDelinquent Behavior.’’ Pp. 216–243. In Handbook of Juvenile


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

Delinquency, edited by Herbert C. Quay. Oxford, England: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc.

Snyder, James, John Reid, and Gerald Patterson. 2003. ‘‘A SocialLearning Model of Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior.’’Pp. 27–48. In Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency,edited by Benjamin B. Lahey, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Avshalom Caspi.New York: Guilford Press.

Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Robert Agnew. 2006. ‘‘Why is‘Bad’ Parenting Criminogentic? Implications from Rival Theories.’’Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:3–33.

Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Travis C. Pratt. 2003. ‘‘ParentalManagement, ADHD, and Delinquent Involvement: ReassessingGottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.’’ Justice Quarterly20:471–500.

Vazsonyi, Alexander T. and Jennifer M. Crosswhite. 2004. ‘‘A Test ofGottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime in AfricanAmerican Adolescents.’’ Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 41:407–432.

Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Lloyd E. Pickering, Marianne Junger, and DickHessing. 2001. ‘‘An Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime: AFour-Nation Comparative Study of Self-Control and the Predictionof Deviance.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:91–131.

Vollmer, Timothy R., John C. Borrero, Joseph S. Lalli, and Dency Daniel.1999. ‘‘Evaluating Self-Control and Impulsivity in Children withSevere Behavior Disorders.’’ Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis32:451–466.

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn and Deborah W. Lindsay. 1999. ‘‘SocialCompetence and Conduct Problems in Young Children: Issues inAssessment.’’ Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 28:25–43.

Weinberger, Daniel A. and Gary E. Schwartz. 1990. ‘‘Distress andRestraint as Superordinate Dimensions of Self-reported Adjustment:A Typological Perspective.’’ Journal of Personality 58:381–417.

Weiss, Bahr, Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit.1992. ‘‘Some Consequences of Early Harsh Discipline: ChildAggression and a Maladaptive Social Information Processing Style.’’Child Development 63:1321–1335.

Wills, Thomas A., Frederick X. Gibbons, Meg Gerrard, and Gene H.Brody. 2000. ‘‘Protection and Vulnerability Processes Relevant forEarly Onset of Substance Use: A Test among African AmericanChildren.’’ Health Psychology 19:253–263.

Wills, Thomas A., James M. Sandy, and Alison M. Yaeger. 2002.‘‘Moderators of the Relation Between Substance Use Level andProblems: Test of a Self-Regulation Model in Middle Adolescence.’’Journal of Abnormal Psychology 111:3–21.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

JENNIFER M. CROSSWHITE, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Family Studies at theUniversity of Nebraska at Kearney. Her current research interests include understandingthe etiology of deviance. Specifically, examining how parents are influential in child andadolescent deviance, what processes may mediate the parenting–deviance association,and the theoretical advancement regarding these associations.

JENNIFER L. KERPELMAN, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Human Develop-ment and Family Studies at Auburn University. She conducts basic and applied research inthe areas of adolescent identity development and adolescents’ relationships with parents,peers, and romantic partners. She also has created multiple resources designed to promotepositive youth development, and is directing a 5-year, federally funded evaluation study of ayouth-focused relationship education curriculum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aub

urn

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

07

Mar

ch 2

012

deviant behavior b - ahmrei behavior publication details, ... the general theory of crime and social...

Documents