ix life-course perspectivesperspectives of … · section ix life-course perspectives of...

599

S E C T I O N

IXLIFE-COURSELIFE-COURSEPERSPECTIVESPERSPECTIVESOF CRIMINALITYOF CRIMINALITY

The introduction of this section will discuss the development of the life-courseperspective in the late 1970s and its influence on modern research on criminaltrajectories. The introduction will focus on explaining the various concepts in the

life-course perspective, such as onset, desistence, and frequency, as well as the argumentsagainst this perspective. Finally, the introduction of this section will review the currentstate of research regarding this perspective.

yy IntroductionThis introduction will present one of the most current and progressive approaches towardexplaining why individuals engage in criminal activity, namely developmental theories ofcriminal behavior. Developmental theories are explanatory models of criminal behaviorthat follow individuals throughout their life course of offending, thus explaining the devel-opment of offending over time. Such developmental theories represent a break with pasttraditions of theoretical frameworks, which typically focused on the contemporaneouseffects of constructs and variables on behavior at a given point in time. Virtually no theo-ries attempted to explain the various stages (e.g., onset, desistence) of individuals’ crimi-nal careers, and certainly no models differentiated the varying factors that are importantat each stage. Developmental theories have been prominent in modern times, and webelieve that readers will agree that developmental theories have added a great deal to ourunderstanding and thinking about why people commit criminal behavior.

yy Developmental TheoriesDevelopmental theories, which are also to some extent integrated, are distinguished by theiremphasis on the evolution of individuals’ criminality over time. Developmental theoriestend to look at the individual as the unit of analysis, and such models focus on the variousaspects of the onset, frequency, intensity, duration, desistence, and other aspects of the indi-vidual’s criminal career. The onset of offending is when the offender first begins offending,and desistence is when an individual stops committing crime. Frequency refers to how oftenthe individual offends, whereas intensity is the degree of seriousness of the offenses he orshe commits. Finally, duration is the length of an individual’s criminal career.

Experts have long debated and examined these various aspects of the development ofcriminal behavior. For example, virtually all studies show an escalation from minor sta-tus offending (e.g., truancy, underage drinking, smoking tobacco) to petty crimes (e.g.,shoplifting, smoking marijuana) to far more serious criminal activity, such as robberyand aggravated assault, and then murder and rape. This development of criminality isshown across every study that has ever been performed and demonstrates that, with veryfew exceptions, people begin with relatively minor offending and progress toward moreserious, violent offenses.

Although this trend is undisputed, other issues are not yet resolved. For example,studies have not yet determined when a police contact or arrest becomes “early” onset.Most empirical studies draw the line at age 14, so that any arrest or contact prior to thistime is considered early onset.1 However, other experts would disagree and say that thisline should be drawn earlier (say 12 years old) or even later (such as 16 years old). Still,however it is defined, early onset is one of the most important predictors of future crim-inality and chronic offending of any of the measures we have in determining who is mostat risk for developing serious, violent offending behavior.

Perhaps the most discussed and researched aspect of developmental theory is that ofoffender frequency, which has been referred to as “lambda.” Estimates of lambda, or aver-age frequency of offending by criminals over a year period, vary greatly.2 Some estimatesof lambda are in the high single digits and some are in the triple digits. Given this largerange, it does not do much good in estimating what the frequency of most offenders are.Rather, the frequency depends on many, many variables, such as what type of offenses theindividual commits. Perhaps if we were studying only drug users or rapists, it would makesense to determine the average frequency of offending (or lambda), but given the generalnature of most examinations of crime, such estimates are not useful. Still, the frequencyof offending even within crime type varies so widely across individuals that we questionits use in understanding criminal careers.

Before we discuss the dominant models of developmental theory, it is important todiscuss the opposing viewpoint, which is that of complete stability in offending. Suchcounterpoint views assume that the developmental approach is a waste of time because

600 CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY: A TEXT/READER

1For more discussion, see Stephen Tibbetts and Alex Piquero, “The Influence of Gender, Low Birth Weight, andDisadvantaged Environment in Predicting Early Onset of Offending: A Test of Moffitt’s Interactional Hypothesis,”Criminology 37 (1999): 843–78; Chris L. Gibson and Stephen Tibbetts, “A Biosocial Interaction in Predicting EarlyOnset of Offending,” Psychological Reports 86 (2000): 509–18.

2For a review, see Samuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs: A Policy Guide, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA:Wadsworth, 2001).

Section IX � Life-Course Perspectives of Criminality 601

the same individuals who show antisocial behavior at early ages (before age 10) are thosewho will exhibit the most criminality in the teenage years, their 20s, their 30s, 40s, and soon. This framework is most notably represented by the theoretical perspective proposedby Gottfredson and Hirschi in their model of low self-control.

Antidevelopmental Theory: Low Self-Control Theory

In 1990, Travis Hirschi, along with his colleague Michael Gottfredson, proposed ageneral theory of low self-control as the primary cause of all crime and deviance; this isoften referred to as the general theory of crime.3 This theory has led to a significantamount of debate and research in the field since its appearance, more than any other con-temporary theory of crime.

Like other control theories of crime, this theory assumes that individuals are bornpredisposed toward selfish, self-centered activities and that only effective child-rearingand socialization can create self-control. Without such adequate socialization (i.e., socialcontrols) and reduction of criminal opportunities, individuals will follow their naturaltendencies to become selfish predators. The general theory of crime assumes that self-control must be established by age 10. If it has not formed by that time, then, accordingto the theory, individuals will forever exhibit low self-control. This assumption of the for-mation of low self-control by age 10 or before is the oppositional feature of this theory tothe developmental perspective. Once low self-control is set by age 10, there is no way todevelop self-control afterward, the authors assert. In contrast, developmental theoryassumes that people can indeed change over time.

Like others, Gottfredson and Hirschi attribute the formation of controls to socializa-tion processes in the first years of life; the distinguishing characteristic of this theory is itsemphasis on the individual’s ability to control himself or herself, which is formed beforeage 10. That is, the general theory of crime assumes that people can take a degree of con-trol over their own decisions and, within certain limitations, “control” themselves. Thegeneral theory of crime is accepted as one of the most valid theories of crime.4 This isprobably due to the parsimony, or simplicity, of the theory because it identifies only oneprimary factor that causes criminality—low self-control. But low self-control may actuallyconsist of a series of personality traits, including risk-taking, impulsiveness, self-centeredness, short-term orientation, and quick temper. Recent research has supported theidea that inadequate child-rearing practices tend to result in lower levels of self-controlamong children and that these low levels produce various risky behaviors, includingcriminal activity.5 It is important to note that this theory has a developmental component,

3Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990).

4For an excellent review of studies regarding low self-control theory, see Travis Pratt and Frank Cullen, “The EmpiricalStatus of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis,” Criminology 38 (2000): 931–64. Forcritiques of this theory, see Ronald Akers, “Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime,” Journal of QuantitativeCriminology 7 (1991): 201–11. For a study that demonstrates the high popularity of the theory, see Anthony Walshand Lee Ellis, “Political Ideology and American Criminologists’ Explanations for Criminal Behavior,” TheCriminologist 24 (1999): 1, 14.

5Carter Hay, “Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory,” Criminology 39 (2001): 707–36;K. Hayslett-McCall and T. Bernard, “Attachment, Masculinity, and Self-Control: A Theory of Male Crime Rates,”Theoretical Criminology 6 (2002): 5–33.

602

Ass

umes

all

indi

vidu

als

are

born

lack

ing

self-

cont

rol a

nd a

re s

elfis

h

Bad

Ch

ild-R

eari

ng

Go

od

Ch

ild-R

eari

ng

• Fa

ir an

d co

nsis

tent

disc

iplin

e•

Con

sist

ent m

onito

ring

• E

mot

iona

l sup

port

• B

uild

ing

resp

onsi

bilit

y

and

acco

unta

bilit

y•

Goo

d ro

le m

odel

s

Lo

w S

elf-

Co

ntr

ol

(iden

tifia

ble

befo

re a

ge 1

0)

• S

elf-

cent

ered

ness

• S

hort

-ter

m o

rient

atio

n•

Failu

re to

con

side

r

futu

re c

onse

quen

ces

of

act

ions

• A

void

ance

of d

iffic

ult

ta

sk a

nd h

ard

wor

k•

Sho

rt te

mpe

r/im

puls

ive

• R

isk

taki

ng•

Giv

es in

rea

dily

whe

n

oppo

rtun

ities

for

cr

ime

aris

e

Crim

inal

offe

ndin

gan

d al

l for

ms

ofde

vian

t beh

avio

r

Abl

e to

res

ist

tem

ptat

ions

to c

omm

it cr

ime

and

othe

r fo

rms

of d

evia

nce

• In

cons

iste

nt d

isci

plin

e•

Neg

lect

/lack

of

su

perv

isio

n•

Phy

sica

l abu

se•

Pro

vidi

ng b

ad m

odel

s

of b

ehav

ior

• E

mot

iona

l/

men

tal a

buse

• A

bilit

y to

wor

k ha

rd

and

dela

y gr

atifi

catio

n•

Inhi

bite

d by

pot

entia

l

cons

eque

nces

of

act

ions

• Lo

ng-t

erm

orie

ntat

ion

• N

ot a

s te

mpt

ed b

y

oppo

rtun

ities

to c

omm

it

crim

e

Hig

h S

elf-

Co

ntr

ol

(mus

t be

esta

blis

hed

byag

e 10

)

Figure 9.1

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low

Self-C

ontro

l


in the sense that it proposes that self-control develops during early years from parentingpractices; thus, even this most notable antidevelopment theory actually includes a strongdevelopmental aspect.

In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s model, one of the most dominant andresearched frameworks of the last 20 years, another sound theoretical model shows thatindividuals can change their life trajectories in terms of crime. Research shows thatevents or realizations can occur that leadpeople to alter their frequency or inci-dence of offending, sometimes to zero. Toaccount for such extreme transitions, wemust turn to the dominant life-coursemodel of offending, which is that ofSampson and Laub’s developmental modelof offending.

Sampson and Laub’sDevelopmental Model

Perhaps the best known and researcheddevelopmental theoretical model to date isthat of Robert Sampson and John Laub.6

Sampson and Laub have proposed a devel-opmental framework that is largely basedon a reanalysis of original data collected bySheldon and Eleanor Glueck in the 1940s.As a prototype developmental model, indi-vidual stability and change is the primaryfocus of their theoretical perspective.

Most important, Sampson and Laubemphasized the importance of certainevents and life changes, which can alter anindividual’s decisions to commit (or notcommit) criminal activity. Althoughbased on a social control framework, thismodel contains elements of other theo-retical perspectives. First, Sampson andLaub’s model assumes, like other develop-mental perspectives, that early antisocialtendencies among individuals, regardlessof social variables, are often linked to lateradult criminal offending. Furthermore,

6Robert Sampson and John Laub, “Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds,”American Sociological Review 55 (1990): 609–27; Robert Sampson and John Laub, “Turning Points in the Life Course:Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime,” Criminology 31 (1993): 301–26; Robert Sampson and John Laub, Crimein the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

� Photo 9.1 Life-course theories attempt to uncover points ofdesistance, critical events that may change a person’s life path fromdeviant behavior back to law-abiding status. Getting married isconsidered one of those events. Once one is married, free time to hangout with one’s friends tends to disappear.

some social structure factors (e.g., family structure, poverty, etc.) also tend to lead to problemsin social and/or educational development, which then leads to crime. Another key factor inthis development of criminality is the influence of delinquent peers or siblings, which furtherincreases an individual’s likelihood for delinquency.

However, Sampson and Laub also strongly emphasize the importance of transitions, orevents that are important in altering trajectories toward or against crime, such as marriage,employment, or military service, drastically changing a person’s criminal career. Sampsonand Laub show sound evidence that many individuals who were once on a trajectory or pathtoward a consistent form of behavior, in this case, serious violent crime, suddenly (or grad-ually) halted their path due to such a transition or series of such transitions. In some ways,this model is a more specified form of David Matza’s theory of drift, which we discussed inSection VII, in which individuals tend to grow out of crime and deviance due to the socialcontrols imposed by marriage, employment, and so on. Still, Sampson and Laub’s frameworkcontributed much to the knowledge of criminal offending by providing a more specified andgrounded framework that identified the ability of individuals to change their criminal tra-jectories via life-altering transitions, such as the effect that marriage can have on a man orwoman, which is quite profound. In fact, recent research has consistently shown that mar-riage and full-time employment significantly reduced the recidivism of California parolees,and other recent studies have shown similar results from employment in later years.7

Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy

Another primary developmental model that has had a profound effect on the currentstate of criminological thought and theorizing is Terrie Moffitt’s developmental theory/taxonomy, proposed in 1993.8 Moffitt’s framework distinguishes two types of offenders:adolescence-limited and life-course persistent offenders. Adolescence-limited offen -ders make up most of the general public and include all persons who committedoffenses when they were teenagers and/or young adults. Their offending was largelycaused by association with peers and a desire to engage in activities that were exhibited bythe adults that they are trying to be. Such activities are a type of rite of passage and quitenormal among all people who have normal social interactions with their peers in teenageor young adult years. It should be noted that a very small percentage (about 1 to 3%) ofthe population are nonoffenders, who quite frankly do not have normal relations withtheir peers and therefore do not offend at all, even in adolescence.

On the other hand, there exists a small group of offenders, referred to in this model aslife-course persistent offenders. This small group, estimated to be 4 to 8% of offenders—albeitthe most violent and chronic—commit the vast majority of the serious violent offenses inany society, such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. In contrast to the adolescence-limitedoffenders, the disposition of life-course persistent offenders toward offending is causedby an entirely different model: an interaction between neurological problems and thedisadvantaged/criminological environments in which they are raised.


7Alex Piquero, Robert Brame, Paul Mazzerole, and Rudy Haapanen, “Crime in Emerging Adulthood,” Criminology 40(2002): 137–70; Chris Uggen, “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age,Employment, and Recidivism,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000): 529–46.

8Terrie Moffitt, “Adolescence Limited and Life Course Persistent Antisocial Behavioral: A Developmental Taxonomy,”Psychological Review 100 (1993): 674–701.


For example, if an individual had only neurological problems or only a poor, disad-vantaged environment, then that individual would be unlikely to develop a life-coursepersistent trajectory toward crime. However, if a person has both neurological problemsand a disadvantaged environment, then that individual would have a very high likelihoodof becoming a chronic, serious, violent offender. This proposition, which has been sup-ported by empirical studies,9 suggests that it is important to pay attention to what hap-pens early in life. Because illegal behaviors are normal among teenagers or young adults,more insight can be gained by looking at the years prior to age 12 to determine who ismost likely to become chronic, violent offenders. Life-course persistent offenders beginoffending very early in life and continue to commit crime far into adulthood, even mid-dle age, whereas adolescence-limited offenders tend to engage in criminal activity onlyduring teenage and young adult years. Moffitt’s model suggests that more than one typeof development explains criminality. Furthermore, this framework shows that certaintypes of offenders commit crime due to entirely different causes and factors.

yy Policy ImplicationsThere are many, perhaps an infinite number, of policy implications that can be derivedfrom developmental theories of criminality. Thus, we will focus on the most important,which is that of prenatal and perinatal stages of life because the most significant and effec-tive interventions can occur during this time. If policymakers hope to reduce early riskfactors for criminality, they must insist on universal health care for pregnant women, aswell as their newborn infants through the first few years of life. The United States is oneof the few developed nations that does not guarantee this type of maternal and infantmedical care and supervision. Doing so would go a long way to avoiding the costly dam-ages (in many ways) of criminal behavior among youth at risk.10

Furthermore, there should be legally mandated interventions for pregnant women whoare addicted to drugs or alcohol. Although this is a highly controversial topic, it appears to bea “no-brainer” that women who suffer from such addictions may become highly toxic to thechild(ren) they carry and should receive closer supervision and more health care. There may beno policy implementation that would have as much influence on reducing future criminalityin children as making sure their mothers do not take toxic substances while they are pregnant.11

Other policy implications include assigning special caseworkers for high-risk preg-nancies, such as those involving low birth weight or low Apgar scores. Another advisedintervention would be to have a centralized medical system that provides a “flag” for high-risk infants who have numerous birth or delivery complications, so that the doctors whoare seeing them for the first time are aware of their vulnerabilities.12 Finally, universalpreschool should be funded and provided to all young children; studies have shown thisleads to better performance once they enter school, both academically and socially.13

9See Tibbetts and Piquero, “Influence of Gender.”10John P. Wright, Stephen G. Tibbetts, and Leah Daigle, Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), chapter 11.11Ibid.12Ibid.13Ibid.

Ultimately, as the many developmental theories have shown, there are many conceptsand stages of life that can have a profound effect on the criminological trajectories thatlives can take. However, virtually all of these models propose that the earlier stages of lifeare likely the most important in determining whether an individual will engage in crim-inal activity throughout life or not. Therefore, policymakers should focus their efforts onproviding care and interventions in this time period.

yy ConclusionThis introduction presented a brief discussion of the importance of developmental, life-course theories of criminal behavior. This perspective is relatively new, becoming popu-lar in the late-1970s, compared to other traditional theories explored in this text.Ultimately, this is one of the most “cutting-edge” areas of theoretical development, andlife-course theories are likely to be the most important frameworks in the future of thefield of criminological theory.

Then we examined the policy implications of this developmental approach, whichemphasized the need to provide universal care for pregnant mothers, as well as their new-born children. Other policy implications included legally mandated interventions formothers who are addicted to toxic substances (e.g., alcohol, drugs) and assignment ofcaseworkers for high-risk infants/children, such as those with birth or delivery complica-tions. Such interventions would go a long way toward saving society the many problems(e.g., financial, victimization, etc.) that will persist without such interventions. Ultimately,a focus on the earliest stages of intervention will pay off the most and will provide the“biggest bang for the buck.”

yy Section Summary� Developmental or life-course theory focuses on the individual and following such

individuals throughout life to examine their offending careers. In-depthconsideration of such changes during the life course is of the highest concern,especially regarding general conclusions that can be made about the factors thattend to increase or decrease the risk that they will continue offending.

� Life-course perspectives emphasize such concepts as onset, frequency ofoffending, duration of offending, seriousness of offending, desistence of offen -ding, and other factors that play a key role in when individuals offended and whythe did so—or didn’t do so—at certain times of their lives.

� There are many critics of the developmental/life-course perspective, particularlythose who buy into the low self-control model, which is antidevelopmental in thesense that this model assumes that propensities for crime do not change over timebut rather remain unchanged across life.

� One of the developmental models that has received the most attention is that bySampson and Laub, which emphasizes transitions in life (e.g., marriage, militaryservice, employment, etc.) that alter trajectories either toward or away fromcrime.



� Moffitt’s developmental theory of chronic offenders (which she labeled life-course persistent offenders) versus more normal offenders (which she labeledadolescence-limited offenders) is the developmental model that has received themost attention over the last decade, and much of this research is supportive of theinteractive effects of biology and environment combining to create chronic,habitual offenders.

K E Y T E R M S

Adolescence-limited offenders

Developmental theories

Life-course persistent offenders

Moffitt’s developmental theory/taxonomy

Trajectory

Transitions

D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S

1. What characteristic distinguishes developmental theories from traditional theoreticalframeworks?

2. What aspects of a criminal career do experts consider important in such a model? Describe allof the aspects they look at in a person’s criminal career.

3. Discuss the primary criticisms regarding the developmental perspective, particularly that pre-sented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. Which theoretical paradigm do you consider the mostvalid? Why?

4. What transitions or trajectories have you seen in your life or your friends’ lives that supportSampson and Laub’s developmental model? What events encouraged offending or inhibited it?

5. Given Moffitt’s dichotomy of life-course persistent offenders and adolescence-limited, which ofthese should be given more attention by research? Why do you feel this way?

W E B R E S O U R C E S

Developmental Theories of Crime

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory06.htm

Terrie Moffitt’s Theory

www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/famhist/PDF_Articles/APA/BF16.pdf

Sampson and Laub’s Model

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/03/twigs-bent-trees-go-stra.html

608 SECTION IX LIFE-COURSE PERSPECTIVES OF CRIMINALITY

Similar to the observed strong and positiverelationship between past and future offending(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Nagin andPaternoster, 1991; Paternoster et al., 1997;Robins, 1966, 1978; Wilson and Herrnstein,1985), the age at which a first offense occurs(i.e., onset) is an important factor inpredicting the future offending of individuals.Studies have consistently found that earlyonset is one of the best predictors of serious,

high-rate offending in adolescence and adult -hood (Blumstein et al., 1986; Dunford andElliott, 1984; Elliott et al., 1984; Farrington,1986; Farrington et al., 1990; LeBlanc andFréchette, 1989; Loeber and LeBlanc, 1990;Nagin and Farrington, 1992a, 1992b; Pattersonet al., 1992; Reiss and Roth, 1993; Sampsonand Laub, 1993; Tolan, 1987; Wolfgang, 1983;Wolfgang et al., 1987). Furthermore, theassociation between early onset and persistent

SOURCE: Adapted from Stephen G. Tibbetts and Alex R. Piquero, “The influence of Gender, Low Birth Weight, andDisadvantaged Environment in Predicting Early Onset of Offending: A Test of Moffitt’s Interactional Hypothesis,” Criminology37, no. 4 (1999): 843–78. Reprinted by permission of the American Society of Criminology.

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Stephen Tibbetts and Alex Piquero present one of the first empirical testsof Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis, which predicts life-course persistent offending, as mea-sured by one of Moffitt’s key predictors, namely early onset of offending (a well-known pre-dictor of chronic offending by all longitudinal studies). Using an inner-city sample of closeto 1,000 youths, it was found that early onset of offending was predicted by the interactionbetween biosocial variables (in this case, low birth weight) and early social factors (in thiscase, weak family structure and lower income levels).

As readers examine this selection, they should focus on the propositions and concepts pre-sented by Moffitt’s theory, as well as the concepts and variables that are used to test her the-oretical model. Furthermore, readers should concentrate on the interaction between thebiosocial variable and the social/developmental variables that are used in this study, partic-ularly the interaction effects that occur between biological factors and social/developmentalaspects of their environment.

The Influence of Gender, Low Birth Weight, and Disadvantaged Environment in

Predicting Early Onset of Offending

A Test of Moffitt’s Interactional Hypothesis

Stephen G. Tibbetts and Alex R. Piquero

Reading 32 � Influence of Gender, Low Birth Weight, and Disadvantaged Environment 609

offending appears across historical periods,geographical areas (e.g., London, Philadelphia,Boston, Racine, Montreal, and Dunedin), variousforms of measuring deviant behavior (e.g.,official, retrospective, prospective, etc.), andvarious methods of operationalizing onset (e.g.,first offense, first arrest, first conviction, etc.).

Understanding early onset has profoundimplications for the study of juvenile, as well asadult, offending. By identifying the unique fac-tors contributing to early onset, researchers andpolicy makers may better understand theoffending patterns of some of the most seriousoffenders in society, as well as develop effectiveintervention strategies (Farrington and Hawkins,1991; Loeber et al., 1991; Moffitt, 1993;Patterson et al., 1992).

Although understanding that early onsetis important for the explanation of futureoffending, what determines early onset is anentirely different question. Knowledge of suchdeterminants would enable researchers andpolicy makers to more accurately predict whois most at risk for early onset and persistentoffending (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, the ability toidentify determinants and processes in thedevelopment of early onset has profoundimplications for the prevention and control ofa large portion of serious offending. Althoughfew question these implications, Farringtonet al.’s (1990) recent review of the literaturesurrounding early onset concluded that little isknown about the causes of early onset.

In an attempt to fill this void, recentresearch has examined the influence of variousfactors on the development of early antisocialbehavior, including neuropsychological prob-lems (Gorenstein, 1990; Moffitt, 1990), antiso-cial predisposition (Patterson et al., 1992),poor psychomotor skills (Farrington andHawkins, 1991), as well as family characteris-tics and economic deprivation (Farringtonand Hawkins, 1991; Farrington et al., 1986;Moffitt, 1990).1 Recently, some studies haveexamined biosocial interactions among someof the aforementioned psychological and

environmental determinants in concert withvarious biological and physiological character-istics, such as low birth weight, heart rate, andpre/perinatal complications in predicting earlydeviant behavior (Brennan et al., 1995; Moffitt,1993; Raine et al., 1997b), as well as persistentand violent offending (Brennan et al., 1997;Denno, 1990; Kandel et al., 1990; Kandel andMednick, 1991; Piquero and Tibbetts, 1999;Raine et al., 1994, 1997a; Reiss and Roth,1993). The results of these studies imply thatthe development of early onset and seriousoffending is predicted by interactions amongthe determinants more so than the indepen-dent influence of each (e.g., Brennan et al.,1995:87). In a summary statement of this liter-ature, Moffitt (1993:682) stated: “It is nowwidely acknowledged that personality andbehavior are shaped in large measure by theinteractions between the person and the envi-ronment.” Although similar claims have beenmade by other biosocial theorists (e.g., Raineet al., 1994), the recently convened Panel onthe Understanding and Control of ViolentBehavior (Reiss and Roth, 1993:380) con-cluded that little is known about how and whyindividual and environmental factors influ-ence behavior.

In an effort to shed light on this issue,Moffitt (1993) recently presented a develop-mental taxonomy to establish a theoreticalframework that distinguishes the etiology ofearly onset (i.e., “life-course-persistent”) fromthat of late onset (i.e., “adolescence-limited”).Life-course-persistent offenders begin theirparticipation in antisocial behavior duringearly childhood and continue their participa-tion in crime throughout the life course whenmost other offenders desist. The cause of anti-social behavior for the life-course persisters,according to Moffitt, is the result of an interac-tion between neuropsychological impairmentsand poor social environments. This “doublehazard” of perinatal risk and social disadvan-tage increases the risk for deviant behavioraloutcomes (Brennan and Mednick, 1997:272).

For Moffitt, a defining characteristic of life-course-persistent offenders is their early onsetof offending.2

Adolescence-limited offenders, on the otherhand, become antisocial for the first time duringadolescence, but desist by young adulthood. Forthese offenders, the causes of crime coincidewith the physical changes occurring aroundpuberty, which to these youngsters signal thatthey should be entitled to adult social status. Inessence, their delinquency is caused by the“social mimicry” of the antisocial style of life-course-persistent youths (Moffitt, 1993:686).3

The present study seeks to test Moffitt’s(1993) interactional hypothesis for the devel-opment of early onset. First, we examine if therisk of neuropsychological deficit-disadvan-taged environment interaction predicts earlyonset, as anticipated by Moffitt. Second, weexamine Moffitt’s (1993, 1994) prediction thatlife-course-persistent patterns of offending arelimited almost exclusively to males (e.g.,Moffitt et al., 1994:283, 296). Although Moffitt(1994) suggests the causal process leading tomembership in the life-course-persistentgroup should be the same for both sexes, fewerearly onset girls than early onset boys shouldexist because of differences in the prevalenceor degree of exposure to the predictors.

yy Moffitt’s InteractionalHypothesis

The Causes of Early Onset

Moffitt (1993:679) claims early offendingis caused by an increased vulnerability to neu-ropsychological problems in early childhoodinteracting with disadvantaged environments.In the outline of her theory, Moffitt (1993:680)theorizes that perinatal complications, such aslow birth weight, produce neuropsychologicaldeficits in the infant’s central nervous system.These deficits manifest themselves in a varietyof ways, including temperament difficulties,

cognitive deficits, and poor test scores. Often,these children find themselves in deficient socialenvironments. They are theorized to be at high-est risk for persistent antisocial behavior.

This hypothesis is consistent with recentfindings that show support for biosocial inter-actions in predicting offending patterns, ingeneral, and violent offending, in particular(Brennan et al., 1997; Kandel et al., 1990;Kandel and Mednick, 1991; Lewis et al., 1979;McGauhey et al., 1991; Moffitt, 1990; Piqueroand Tibbetts, 1999; Raine et al., 1994, 1997b;Ross et al., 1990). In fact, to date, there is noevidence that contradicts this hypothesis(Brennan and Mednick, 1997:276). Earlyresults from Moffitt’s (1990) ongoing NewZealand study showed that young boys withboth low neuropsychological test scores andadverse home environments had a meanaggression score more than four times greaterthan that of boys with either neuropsycholog-ical problems or adverse homes alone (see alsoMoffitt et al., 1994). In the only longitudinaltest of her theory, in which prospective mea-sures of neuropsychological status were usedto predict antisocial outcomes, Moffitt et al.(1994) found that poor neuropsychologicalscores were associated with early onset ofdelinquency for males, and predicted high lev-els of offending thereafter. However, poor neu-ropsychological scores were not related to late(i.e., adolescence) onset of offending. In arelated piece, Moffitt et al. (1996) found thatlife-course-persistent path males differed fromadolescence-limited path males in convictionsor violent crime, personality profiles, schoolleaving, and bonds to family. For each of thesemarkers, the life-course-persistent path malesfaired worse (i.e., the life-course-persistentmales had more convictions for violent crime,had worse personality profiles, left schoolearly, and had lower bonds to family than theadolescence-limited path males).

To reemphasize, for Moffitt, it is the inter-action between a child’s vulnerabilities to neu-ropsychological disorders and poor social



environments that produces early onset, andnot necessarily the independent influence ofthese determinants. The strongest predictors ofearly onset are measures of individual and fam-ily characteristics: cognitive abilities, schoolachievement, mental disorders, familial factors,socioeconomic status, temperament, lack ofcontrol, and so on (e.g., Henry et al., 1996).Vulnerability to neuropsychological problems islikely caused by such factors as heritability, lowbirth weight, early brain injury, complicationsat birth, etc. (Coren, 1993; Denno, 1990;Moffitt, 1993; Raine et al., 1994). Vulnerabilitiesto neuropsychological disorders are often per-petuated by the poor social environments inwhich many of these individuals reside(Chomitz et al., 1995; Hughes and Simpson,1995; Moffitt, 1993, 1997).

Moffitt et al. (1994) claim that problembehavior begins early in childhood becauseneuropsychological dysfunctions disrupt nor-mal development, and these deficits increasevulnerability to the criminogenic aspects of dis-advantaged rearing environments. According toMoffitt (1993:682), these children “evoke a chal-lenge to even the most loving and patient fami-lies.”4 This assertion is consistent with studiesshowing that low birth weight infants negativelyinfluence the behavior of their caretakers(Tinsley and Parke, 1983).

With regard to low birth weight children,they are often clustered in lower social classesand in families with dismantled social struc-tures, both of which increase their risk of expe-riencing higher rates of physical health problems,mental disorders, and depression (Hack et al.,1995; National Research Council, 1993:42). Asa result, the parents of these children often lackthe resources, time, cognitive abilities, and ade-quate disciplining practices “high-risk” chil-dren require (Moffitt, 1993). Although Moffitt(1993:681) uses the term “criminogenic envi-ronment” for most of her discussion, sheimplies that this is synonymous with a disad-vantaged environment: “Vulnerable infants aredisproportionately found in environments

that will not be ameliorative because manysources of neural maldevelopment co-occurwith family disadvantage.” In addition, Moffitt(1993:680–685) claims that important mea-sures of this type of disadvantaged environ-ment include socioeconomic status and familystructure. In fact, studies predicting earlyonset or persistent, serious, and violentoffending, or both, have used both socioeco-nomic status (Patterson et al., 1992) and poorfamilial environment (Raine et al., 1997b;Werner, 1987) as indicators for disadvantagedenvironments.

In the current investigation, low birthweight serves as a proxy for neuropsychologi-cal deficit. To be used in research assessingMoffitt’s theory, low birth weight must first beassociated with negative life outcomes, espe-cially outcomes that take the form of criminalbehavior. To the extent that this is true, anargument must be made for considering lowbirth weight an adequate proxy for risk of neu-ropsychological deficit. We now turn to a briefsynopsis of this literature, particularly in itsrelation to Moffitt’s theory, in general, andcriminal/aggressive behavior, in particular.

Low Birth Weight

One strong and consistent indicator ofincreased risk for neuropsychological disor-ders is low birth weight. For many years, lowbirth weight has been considered a majorobstetrical and pediatric problem (Taylor,1976:108; see also Behrman e al., 1971; Paneth,1995). Cigarette smoking by the mother, lackof prenatal care, drug/alcohol use by themother during pregnancy, low socioeconomicstatus, poor diet, and mother’s low educationallevel have all been found to be determinants oflow birth weight (Coren, 1993; Denno, 1990;Moffitt, 1993; Shiono and Behrman, 1995).Low birth weight has been found to be associ-ated with other birth complications, such asbleeding during pregnancy, placenta previa,abortion and still-birth history, etc. (Coren,

1993; Denno, 1990; Hardy et al., 1979;Niswander and Gordon, 1972).

The developmental sequelae for many lowbirth weight infants are varied. In fact, onereview of the literature documented that lowbirth weight infants were three times morelikely than controls to evidence neurologicalsequelae (McCormick, 1985). Adverse manifes-tations of low birth weight include problems incognition, attention, neuromotor functioning,temperament, subnormal growth, illnesses,neurodevelopmental problems, learning diffi-culties hyperactivity, behavioral problems,visual defects, low intelligence, poor academicachievement, central nervous system damage,neurological abnormalities, psychiatric disor-ders, cerebral palsy, and so forth (Brand andBignami, 1969; Brennan et al., 1997; Brennanand Mednick, 1997; Broman et al., 1975; Chessand Thomas, 1987; Coren, 1993; Denno, 1990;Fitzhardinge and Steven, 1972; Hack et al., 1994,1995; Hardy et al., 1979; Hertzig, 1983; Kandelet al., 1990; Marlow et al., 1989; McCormicket al., 1990; McGauhey et al., 1991; Ross et al.,1990; Thomas and Chess, 1977; Werner andSmith, 1977; Whitaker et al., 1997). Many of theproblems arising from a low birth weight con-dition have been implicated in the developmentof crime, in general, and violence, in particular(Moffitt, 1990, 1997; Raine et al., 1997b; Reissand Roth, 1993:383; Szatmari et al., 1986).

In addition, low birth weight is commonlycorrelated with low socioeconomic status andlevel of parents’ education (Denno, 1990;Hughes and Simpson, 1995; Penchaszadehet al., 1972; Taylor, 1976). These two problemsare overrepresented among minority, particu-larly African-American, populations (Chomitzet al., 1995), such that African-Americanwomen in the United States experience anespecially high prevalence of low birth weightbabies relative to other races and ethnicities inthe United States and other parts of the world(Paneth, 1995; Shiono et al., 1986).

Although low birth weight has been linkedwith various adverse developmental implications,

including neuropsychological problems, thelink between low birth weight and criminal/aggressive behavior has not been extensivelystudied. However, the existing research on thisrelationship has documented that low birthweight, often in concert with inadequate socialenvironments, is related to criminal andaggressive behavior.

Even though direct measures of neuropsy-chological deficits are difficult to come by, par-ticularly with secondary data, there appears tobe ample evidence that the association betweenlow birth weight and behavioral problems/criminal behavior may be linked to early cen-tral nervous system dysfunction or develop-ment, neurological abnormalities, andneurodevelopmental problems and deficits(Brennan and Mednick, 1997; Breslau et al.,1988; Denno, 1985:719; Drillien et al., 1980;Lewis et al., 1979; Szatmari et al., 1990).Although the current research has no directmeasure of neuropsychological deficit, we fol-low a strategy similar to the one recentlyemployed by Brennan and Mednick (1997 p. 273; see also Brennan et al,, 1997), in whichan assumption was made that neuropsycholog-ical deficit/central nervous system dysfunctionis likely a mediating factor between pre/perina-tal complications (i.e., low birth weight) andadverse outcomes (i.e., criminal behavior).

It is assumed that perinatal factorsinfluence antisocial behavior throughthe mediating factor of neurological orcentral nervous system dysfunction. Itis important to note that this assump-tion is never directly tested in thestudies linking perinatal factors andantisocial outcome. . . . This researchprovides support for the theory thatperinatal factors influence antisocialoutcomes through the mediating factorof central nervous system dysfunction.

This assumption is consistent with pre -viously documented research, as well as Moffitt’s



(1993) hypothesis that medical and congenitalrisk factors, such as low birth weight, producecentral nervous system damage (i.e., neuro -psychological deficits), which, in turn, hasbeen shown to increase the risk of criminaloffending (see also Moffitt et al., 1994:282).Given that low birth weight is strongly associatedwith early and long-term neuropsychologicaldevelopment (Brennan and Mednick, 1997;Denno, 1990:156; Hack et al., 1995; McCor mick,1985), low birth weight appears to be areasonable proxy for increased risk of neuro -psychological disorders, brain injury, and earlycentral nervous system dysfunction (Moffitt,1995; see also Brennan et al., 1997:164; Brennanand Mednick, 1997:273; Denno, 1985:719;Pasamanick et al., 1956:613).

What Should the Early Onset Group Look Like?According to Moffitt (1993), less than 10% of thepopulation are early onset offenders, but thisgroup is large enough to be distinguished fromother offenders. Although they represent arelatively small amount of the overall population,early onset offenders commit a relatively largeportion of the more serious offenses in society(Moffitt, 1993). This finding is consistent withlongitudinal studies reporting that persistent,serious offenders comprise less than 10% of birthcohorts (Farrington et al., 1990; Shannon, 1980;Wolfgang, 1983; Wolfgang et al., 1987).

Given that prior research has shown thatlife-course-persistent offenders are very rarelyfemale (Denno, 1990; Moffitt, 1993, 1994;Moffitt et al., 1994; Wolfgang, 1983), it is no sur-prise that Moffitt (1993:674) concentrates onboys for the early onset group (i.e., life-coursepersisters): “chronic offending is . . . found amonga relatively small number of males whosebehavior problems are quite extreme.” Towardthis end, little effort has been made to examinethe impact of the neuropsychological-environ-mental interaction hypothesis for girls. In oneof their most recent investigations, Moffitt et al.(1994:283) failed to find evidence for the pres-ence of girls in the life-course-persistent group.

To account for this, they (1994:283) offeredthree reasons: (1) neuropsychological disordersare rarer among females than among males, (2) childhood-onset conduct problems arevery rare in girls, and (3) female delinquencylacks stability in relation to male delinquency(e.g., Denno, 1990:17; Reinish et al., 1979; Singeret al., 1968).

In sum, Moffitt is quite clear about thedeterminants of early onset. Aside from theinteraction between neuropsychological andenvironmental characteristics, Moffitt (1994:39)states that much of the gender difference in thelife-course-persistent group is attributable tosex differences in the exposure to risk factorsfor life-course-persistent antisocial behavior.For Moffitt, the causal process does not neces-sarily differ between males and females; rather,the difference in the prevalence or degree ofexposure to predictors differs.

yy HypothesesFrom the preceding discussions, we developthe following hypotheses:

H1: The risk of neuropsychological deficit-disadvantaged environment interactionwill predict early onset.

H2: Although boys and girls follow thesame path toward the development of earlyonset of offending, or membership in thelife-course-persistent group of offenders,this neurological deficit-disadvantagedenvironment interaction will be magnifiedfor boys.

The first hypothesis is grounded inMoffitt’s (1993) work concerning the etiologicalcorrelates of the life-course-persistent offender.The second hypothesis is grounded in Moffitt’s(1994:39) claim that girls are less likely thanboys to encounter all of the putative links in thecausal chain for the development of life-course-persistent behavior, and Moffitt et al.’s

(1994:292,296) finding that neuropsycho -logical effects were limited to males.

As a result, although the process of cumu-lative continuity can apply to girls, it does so ata lower rate than it does for boys. Also, if theanalysis uncovers that fewer girls than boys areat risk, but they develop the same early onsetoutcome, this finding would not be inconsis-tent with Moffitt’s theory. Such a finding wouldreplicate research completed by other scholarswho found that high levels of perinatal riskwere related to serious delinquency amongfemales (Shanok and Lewis, 1981; Werner andSmith, 1992). On the other hand, if the analysisfinds that there are girls at risk, but they do notdevelop the early onset outcome, this would besomething not necessarily expected by Moffitt’stheory, but interesting and important neverthe-less (e.g., Stanton et al., 1991:958). Regardlessof the outcome, little is known about the devel-opment of female risk, in general, and the cor-relates of an early onset of offending forfemales, in particular. While problems associ-ated with a low base rate of offending and/orearly onset are common with female samples(Brennan et al., 1997:164), information on thisfront is sorely needed for a better understand-ing of female crime.

yy Data and MethodsThe data used in this study were collected for the Longitudinal Study of Biosocial Fac-tors Related to Crime and Delinquency inPennsylvania (Denno, 1990). Data were col-lected from three sources. The first data sourcewas the Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP).Initiated in Philadelphia in 1959, the CPP was,at the time, one of the most ambitious andcostly medical projects undertaken. Designedto obtain baseline data on birth defects, itincludes a vast array of measures, includingrisk of neurological conditions, birth compli-cations associated with cognitive abilities,familial conditions and socioeconomic status,

all of which are key constructs in Moffitt’s(1993) theory. Furthermore, the CPP measuresfollow the subjects from birth to age 7, allow-ing researchers to trace the development of theindividuals over time. The second and thirdsources of the data collected by Denno werefrom the Philadelphia public schools and thePhiladelphia Police Department. School andpolice measures applied to the children fromages 7 to 14 and 7 to 18, respectively.

Detailed data have been organized and ana-lyzed on the subsample of 987 youths who con-stitute the subjects selected by Denno (1990:29)from a larger sample of 2,958 black motherswho participated in the first four cohorts(1959–1962) of the CPP. Denno (1982; 1990:30)reports on comparisons made between the finalsample and the excluded sample of subjects, theresults of which showed no significant differ-ence on a number of key variables.6

These data are appealing for the currentstudy because the CPP was designed to mea-sure the effects of family background anddevelopmental variables on the offending of acohort of black, inner-city youths followedfrom birth to late adolescence (Denno, 1990).

The 987 subjects used for Denno’s studywere infants of mothers who participated inthe CPP and, therefore, reflect the characteris-tics of families who would be interested inreceiving inexpensive maternity care providedby a public clinic at Pennsylvania Hospitalbetween 1959 and 1962 (Denno, 1990). The987 cases of the original sample were made upof children who: (1) had a black mother, (2) were located in a Philadelphia public school,(3) stayed in Philadelphia from ages 10 to 17,(4) were not among sibling members excludedfrom the sample to prevent possible biases inmultiple family membership, and (5) receivedselected intelligence tests at age 7 and 14.

Given that inner-city, black youth arc ahigh-risk population for violent and persistentoffending (National Research Council, 1993;Reiss and Roth 1993; Wolfgang et al., 1987),Moffitt (1994: 38–39) has observed:



life-course-persistent antisocials maybe anticipated at elevated rates amongBlack Americans because the putativeroot causes of this type are elevated byinstitutionalized prejudice and bypoverty. . . . Moreover, among poorblacks, prenatal care is less available,infant nutrition is poorer, and theincidence of fetal exposure to toxicand infectious agents is greater, plac-ing infants at high risk for the nervoussystem problems that research hasshown to interfere with prosocialchild development.

Relatedly, research has shown that African-American women are more likely to give birth tolow birth weight babies relative to other racesand minorities (Paneth, 1995:19). These twopoints, taken with the recent assertion by Moffitt(1997:126) that these problems are magnified ininner-cities, suggest that the Denno data appearvaluable, and perhaps unique to testing Moffitt’sinteractional hypothesis.

From the 987 subjects in the publiclyavailable data, a subsample was extracted thatincluded the 220 subjects who had at least onerecorded offense by age 18. In the presentstudy, it is reasonable to study only offendersbecause Moffitt’s hypothesis specifies an etio-logical distinction within the population ofoffenders. Because of missing data, 13 of thesecases were removed. The resulting sample con-sisted of 207 offenders (144 boys and 63 girls)for which sufficient data were available.

yy Measurement of Variables

Dependent Variable

Early Onset. The dependent variable for thisstudy—early onset—was measured by the ageat first offense as recorded by the PhiladelphiaPolice Department. Age at first offense was theage an offender first experienced a policecontact that resulted in an official arrest or a

remedial disposition. In the current sample,age at first offense ranged from 8 to 18.Although there is no clear consensus fordetermining age of onset (Dean et al., 1996;Mazerolle, 1997; Nagin and Farrington, 1992a,1992b; Paternoster et al., 1997; Simons et al.,1994), we use age 14 in determining early/lateonset for several reasons, First, findings fromresearch report the highest hazard rates foronset of offending before age 14 (Blumstein et al.,1986; Patterson et al., 1992). Second, thiscutoff age was used in one of the most recenttests of Moffitt’s theory (Moffitt et al., 1994) aswell as Patterson’s developmental theory(Simons et al., 1994).8 In the present analysis,onset was recoded as 0 (age at first offense was14 or older) or 1 (age at first offense was 13 oryounger). The latter group of cases (N = 70)represents the early onset group, while theformer group of cases (N = 137) represents thelate onset groups.9 It is also important to notethat the number of offenders (70) who fit thecriterion for early onset make up about 7.1%of the original sample of 987. This is consistentwith Moffitt’s (1993) claim that early offendersmake up about 5% to 10% of the population.

Independent Variables

Low Birth Weight. Low birth weight wasmeasured immediately upon delivery by thehospital staff in Philadelphia. Responsesoriginally ranged from 3 to 12 pounds, but thevariable was recoded as 1 (less than 6 pounds)or 0 (6 pounds or more).10 In the presentanalysis, 67 (32%) of the 207 offenders wereclassified as having low birth weight.

Disadvantaged Environment. In this paper, weutilize two different measures of disadvantagedenvironment. The first is concerned with aweak familial structure; the second deals with apoor socioeconomic status. We examined thesetwo measures of disadvantaged environmentfor two reasons. First, we are interested inperforming sensitivity analysis to determine if

the conclusions we draw from our operationa -lization of disadvantaged environment aresensitive to varying measurement strategies.Second, Moffitt’s theory of the life-course-persistent offender does not prefer one of thedisadvantaged environment measures over theother. In fact, in various places, Moffitt(1993:684, 1997:153) has argued or shown thatboth weak familial structure and poor socio -economic status are likely to exacerbate neuro -psychological or neurological abnormalities.

For example, in the initial presentation of her theory, Moffitt (1993:682) notes:“Vulnerable children are often subject toadverse homes and neighborhoods becausetheir parents are vulnerable to problems too.”Notice that in this particular passage, bothadverse homes (weak family structure) andadverse neighborhoods (weak socioeconomicstatus) are discussed. In one of her most recentstatements, Moffitt (1997:126; see also Moffitt,1994:38) states:

Neuropsychological vulnerable chil-dren might be found at elevated ratesin inner-city neighborhoods becausethe sources of poor brain health arelinked with institutionalized prejudiceand poverty. . . . Among the inner-city poor, prenatal care is less avail-able, low birth weight is morecommon, infant nutrition is poorer,and the incidence of fetal exposure totoxic and infectious agents is greater,placing infants at high risk for thenervous system problems that researchhas shown to interfere with optimalchild development.11

Socioeconomic Status. SES is believed tobe a powerful influence on the development ofearly offenders (Moffitt, 1993; Patterson et al.,1992; Patterson and Yoerger, 1993). Moffitt(1993:682) claims that one of the best measuresof a disadvantaged environment is SES. Intheir review of familial predictors of juvenile

offending, Henry et al. (1993) found that lowSES is widely associated with stable andpervasive antisocial behavior in late childhood.In the current research, SES was measured by asingle-item, general SES score that is acomposite measure comprising three indicatorscollected at age 7 for each child: education ofhead of household, income of head ofhousehold, and the occupation of the head ofhousehold. Higher scores are indicative of ahigher SES.12

We should bear in mind, however, that thismeasure of SES should be viewed cautiously. Asindicated by Denno (1990:30–31), the presentsample exerts very little variation in SESbecause they were predominantly of lower SESwhen the CPP began. As such, “high” scores onthe SES composite may still reflect high SES, butsince the sample is relatively homogenous withregard to SES a “high”SES may give a somewhatfalse impression of a true high SES. We addressthis issue in further detail later in the text.

Family Structure. Research shows that thefamily structure of a child is an importantfactor in the development of early onset andserious offending (Denno. 1990; Henry et al.,1996; Kandel et al., 1990; Kolvin et al., 1988;Moffitt, 1993; Patterson et al., 1992; Smith andJarjoura, 1988). Moffitt (1993) claims that aweak family structure is one of the primaryfeatures of a disadvantaged environment.Weak family structure was measured bysumming the standardized scores of threeindicators collected at age 7: the number ofchanges in mother’s marital status, with whomthe child lives, and whether the husband/fatherof the child was present in the household.13

Higher scores on the scale indicated a weak,family structure. The reliability coefficient(Cronbach’s α = .83) estimated for theseindicators revealed that the family structureindex was internally consistent.

Low Birth Weight ×Disadvantaged Environment.In this study, we place particular emphasis on



the biosocial interaction between low birthweight and the two measures of disadvantagedenvironment. Two interaction terms werecreated: low birth weight × family structure andlow birth weight × SES. The raw scores of thecomponent factors were mean-centered inorder to rid the measures of nonessential ill-conditioning (the multicollinearity between thecomponent variables produced by noncentered -ness, which would inevitably cause multicolli -nearity between the component variables andtheir product terms (Aiken and West, 1991;Jaccard et al., 1990). When we examined thezero-order correlations, multicollinearity did notappear to be a problem.

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics fortwo sets of groups: the original cohort and theoffender-only group. Within the originalcohort, we report descriptive information forthe nonoffenders (N = 734) and offenders(N = 207). Within the offender-only group, wereport descriptive statistics for females, coded2 (N = 63), and males, coded 1 (N = 144). Bypresenting the descriptive data in such a for-mat, one can compare not only the distribu-tion of male offenders versus female offenders,but also the study sample vs. the original

cohort. Compared to the original cohort,offenders are significantly more likely to bemale, to come from lower SES, and to have aweaker family structure. In the offender-onlygroup, the only significant difference to emergeacross gender concerns SES: males were morelikely to come from higher SES. Interestingly, asimilar percentage of early onset offenders wereidentified among boys (34%) and girls (33%).Of the 70 offenders who fit the study’s criteriafor early onset, 49 were boys and 21 were girls.Low birth weight did not vary significantlyacross the four groups.14 We now turn to theresults of our analysis.

yy ResultsAs stated earlier, Moffitt’s hypothesis specifiesan etiological distinction within the popula-tion of offenders; thus, it is appropriate tostudy only offenders. Table 2 presents theresults of three models; a full model that con-tains all 207 offenders and two gender-specificmodels, one for females and one for males. Inall three models, the dependent variable isearly onset (0 = late onset, 1 = early onset).15

Original Cohort Offenders Only

Non-Offenders Offenders Females Males (N == 734)a (N == 207)b (N == 63) (N == 144)

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD

Low birth weight .34 .47 .32 .47 .33 .48 .32 .47

SES 39.65 16.87 36.38* 17.10 32.49 15.29 38.08* 17.61

Weak family structure −.13 2.57 .35* 2.61 .71 2.47 .19 2.66

Gender 1.56 .50 1.30* .46 — — — —

Early onset — — — — .33 .48 .34 .48

a. Because of removal of cases with missing data, 33 cases were discarded from the original group of 767 nonoffenders.

b. Because of removal of cases with missing data, 13 cases were discarded from the original group of 220 offenders.

*p < .05, one-tailed.

Table 1Comparison of Means on All Measures for Non-Offenders Versus Offenders and FemaleOffenders Versus Male Offenders

We also present the log odds of the coefficients,found in the column exp(B), in which a valuegreater than 1 indicates an increase in earlyonset, a value less than 1 indicates a decrease inearly onset, and a value of 1 suggests no effecton early onset.

In examining the additive effects in the fullsample model, it can be seen that individualsborn at low birth weight were more likely tohave an early onset of offending, and individu-als from a higher SES were less likely to incuran early onset. Though in the correct direction,neither weak family structure nor gender had asignificant effect on early onset.

Although an inspection of the additiveeffects is informative, the central focus of thisstudy concerns the hypothesis outlined byMoffitt that risk of neuropsychological deficit

(indicated in the present study by low birthweight) interacts with disadvantaged homeenvironment. Both interactions have a signifi-cant effect on early onset. Both low birthweight × SES and low birth weight × weak fam-ily structure have a significant and positiveeffect on early onset. Thus when low birthweight is met with a weak family structure anda higher SES, individuals are more likely toincur an early onset of offending.16

So far, some evidence has emerged in sup-port of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis.However, the question remains whether thisinteraction operates equally across gender.Turning to the gender-specific estimations inTable 2, some curious results emerge. In thefemale model, only one of the five variablesexerts a significant effect (p = .06) on early onset.


Full Model Gender-Specific Models

(n == 207) Females (n == 63) Males (n == 144)

Variable B S.E Wald exp(b) B S.E. Wald exp(b) B S.E. Wald exp(b)

Low birth .79 .34 5.57* 2.21 1.00 .69 2.15 2.73 .71 .40 3.17 2.03weight

SES −.03 .01 6.05* .97 −.05 .03 3.33 .95 .02 .01 3.18 .98

Weak family .04 .07 .37 1.04 .16 .15 1.06 1.17 .00 .08 .00 1.00structure

Gender −.27 .35 .62 .76 – – – – – – – –

Low birth .05 .02 5.92* 1.06 .08 .06 2.07 1.09 .05 .02 3.93* 1.05weight × SES

Low birth .44 .15 7.96* 1.55 .37 .35 1.14 1.45 .44 .17 6.41* 1.56weight × Weakfamily structure

Constant −.43 .48 .82 −.99 .35 8.23* .73 .19 14.76*

X 2 24.63 14.29 13.81

Df 6 5 5

P .001 .013 .016

Model 68% 73% 67%prediction rate

* p < .05, one-tailed.

Table 2 Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting Early Onset: Full Model and Gender-Specific Models


Females who come from a higher SES are lesslikely to incur an early onset of offending. Interms of the other additive effects, neither lowbirth weight nor weak family structure signifi-cantly predicted early onset. Notably, in terms ofthe interaction effects, neither interaction termsignificantly predicted early onset for females.This result is consistent with Hypothesis 2,which specified Moffitt’s prediction that the neuropsychological-environmental interactionshould not be important for females.

Turning to the male sample, two of the threeadditive effects are significant (p < .07). Lowbirth weight had a positive effect on early onset,and higher SES exerted a negative effect on earlyonset. Weak family structure failed to signifi-cantly predict early onset. In contrast to theresults for females, however, both interactionterms were significant for males.17 The first inter-action, low birth weight × SES, had a positiveeffect on early onset.18 Consistent with Moffitt,the second interaction term, low birth weight ×weak family structure, had a positive effect onearly onset, suggesting that individuals residingin a weak family structure and born at low birthweight are more likely to incur an early onset.

The counterintuitive result we observedfor the low birth weight × SES interaction may

have much to do with the nature of the sampleunder investigation. Recall that mothers inter-ested in inexpensive maternal care for the firstseven years of life selected themselves (andsubsequently their children) in the study proj -ect. As Denno (1990:30–31) reports, the sam-ple was predominantly low SES. Thus,individuals scoring “high” on the SES indicatormay still be of low SES relative to the generalpopulation, but give the somewhat cloudedimpression that they are of higher SES.

One reviewer suggested that the neuropsy-chological deficit-poor SES environment interac-tion could be interpreted to suggest that amongthose with lower SES, in our case very low SES, itis only those with neuropsychological deficits,such as low birth weight, that have risk for anearly onset (e.g., Ross et al., 1990). In otherwords, the reviewer was asserting that low birthweight is a risk factor conditional on low SES.

To further explore the moderating effectof SES on the relationship between low birthweight and early onset, we partialed the SESmeasure into two groups: low SES (thosescoring at the 25th percentile or below, N =50) and high SES (those scoring above the25th percentile, N = 157).19 In Table 3, wepresent the results of two separate logistic

Table 3 Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting Early Onset by Level of SES

Low SES (N == 50) High SES (N == 157)

Variable B SE(B) Wald Exp(B) B SE(B) Wald Exp(B)

Low birth weight 1.64 .69 5.53* 5.13 .58 .38 2.32 1.78

SES −.11 .07 2.43 .90 −.03 .01 5.51* .97

Weak family structure .23 .15 2.13 1.25 .02 .07 .06 1.02

Gender .64 .65 .97 1.90 −.56 .41 1.79 .57

Constant −.392 1.74 5.06* 1.14 .11 .55 .04 .57

X 2 11.26 10.19

Df 4 4

P .02 .04

Model prediction rate 72% 69%

* p < .05, one-tailed.

regressions, one for the low SES group, andone for the high SES group which includesgender, SES, weak family structure, and lowbirth weight.

In the first column, we present the resultsfor those individuals in the low SES group.The important coefficient for present pur-poses is the effect of low birth weight on earlyonset. The effect of this variable is positiveand significant, suggesting that those individ-uals born at low birth weight are more likelyto incur an early onset. Turning to the secondcolumn, among those high in SES, the effectof low birth weight on early onset was posi-tive, but not statistically significant.20 Figures1 and 2 graphically present these results.Figure 1 shows the relationship between lowbirth weight and early onset for the low SESgroup, and Figure 2 shows the same relation-ship for the high SES group, When selectingon those low on SES (Figure 1), individuals

born at low birth weight have a mean onset of.611 and those individuals not born at lowbirth weight have a mean onset of .281 (F =5.599, p = .02). When selecting on high SES(Figure 2), those born at low birth weight hada mean onset of .388 while those not born atlow birth weight had a mean onset of .287 (F= 1.571, p = .21).

Taken together, these results appear tosuggest that the effect of low birth weight onearly onset is conditional on (low) SES.21

When we consider these results in the contextof Moffitt’s theory, the initially apparent con-tradictory result obtained earlier for the lowbirth weight × SES interaction, with the orig-inal continuous coding for SES, appears to bea function of the fact that the sample is rela-tively homogenous with regard to SES. Thus,we view the supplementary results as beingconsistent with Moffitt’s interactionalhypothesis.


1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

Mea

n o

f E

arly

On

set

Low Birth Weight

Above 6 pounds Below 6 pounds

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Figure 1 Low SES


yy Discussion and Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this study pro-vides the first attempt to examine a prospectivelink between the interaction of neuropsycho-logical risk and disadvantaged environment inexplaining early onset in a longitudinal con-text, when the measurement of neuropsycho-logical deficit is not composed of test scores,psychological assessments, or both (cf. Moffittet al., 1994, 1996). This attempt is importantbecause one of the neglected areas of biosocialresearch has been the examination of interac-tions between biological and environmentalfactors within a major, urban U.S. city(Brennan et al., 1997; Piquero and Tibbetts,1999; Raine et al., 1997b).

The results of this study appear supportiveof Moffitt’s (1993, 1994) interactional hypoth-esis concerning the development of early onsetof offending and further demonstrate that

influences of biosocial interaction are underway in early childhood (e.g., Brennan et al.,1995). Consistent with our first hypothesis,findings showed that (1) low birth weightinteracts with a disadvantaged familial envi-ronment to predict early onset, and (2) lowbirth weight combined with low SES signifi-cantly increases the risk of an early onset.When gender-specific models were estimated,the results appeared to be in line with our sec-ond hypothesis that the neuropsychologicalrisk-disadvantaged environment interactionswere important for males, but not forfemales.22 In terms of the additive effects, theresults showed that across a variety of models,low SES poses a risk for early onset of offend-ing, and the aggravating effect of low birthweight on early onset was more important formales than for females.

We should note that the data utilized inthis study suffer from a few limitations. First,

.1

Below 6 pounds

Mea

n o

f E

alry

On

set

Low Birth WeightAbove 6 pounds

0.0

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0

Figure 2 High SES

only one indicator of increased risk for neu-ropsychological deficit—low birth weight—was used. Future studies should examine otherpotential predictors of risk for neuropsycho-logical deficits, such as birth complications,head injuries, mother’s drug use/abuse,mother’s health, and so on. This is importantbecause we assumed: that low birth weightserved as an adequate proxy for neuropsycho-logical deficit. Although we are in the main-stream in this regard (Brennan and Mednick,1997), we should point out that more directmeasures of neuropsychological deficit areneeded for a more direct test of the etiology ofMoffitt’s life-course-persistent offender.

Second, age at first officially recordedoffense was used to measure early onset.Although many researchers have employed offi-cial measures for identifying early onset (Moffittet al., 1994; Patterson et al., 1992; Simons et al.,1994), such indices would probably best be usedin conjunction with other measures such as self-reported offending in future studies (e.g.,Bartusch et al., 1997). Confidence in the resultsof the present study would be increased if theresults of this study are confirmed, with differentoperationalizations of early onset.

Third, the sample comprised inner-city,black youths, and as a result, some generaliz-ability problems may emerge. Inclusion in thesample was, in part, based on characteristics ofthe families who would be interested in receiv-ing inexpensive maternity care provided by apublic clinic (Denno, 1990:30). Moreover,given that low birth weight rates differ betweenAfrican-Americans and whites, and thatAfrican-American babies usually weigh about9 ounces less than white babies (Paneth,1995:24), this subtle difference could have ademonstrable impact when infants are catego-rized into low and regular birth weight groups.However, our analysis focused on a single race,African-Americans. This potential limitationcan also be viewed as a beneficial characteristicof the study because black youth are a high-risk

population for violent and persistent offend-ing (National Research Council, 1993; Reissand Roth, 1993; Wolfgang et al., 1987), as wellas membership in the life-course-persistentgroup of offenders (Moffitt, 1994). Neverthe -less, because our analyses were based on a sin-gle ethnicity predominantly of lower SES,without other ethnic groups and/or African-Americans of a variety of different types of SESlevels, the present analysis cannot articulatethe role that (poor) ethnic background plays inthe development of early onset. As a result,future studies should examine the validity ofMoffitt’s interactional hypothesis for otherpopulations of youth (i.e., rural, white, etc.)and of varying levels of SES in order to furtherdisentangle the interplay between individualand structural forces.

In addition to the future research direc-tions just addressed, we also see potential for afew promising lines of inquiry with regard tobirth weight. First, future studies may want topartial out the low birth weight categories intofiner distinctions, such as very low birthweight and extremely low birth weight,because it is conceivable that infants in thelowest categories could suffer more damagingconsequences compared with higher birthweight infants (e.g., Hack et al., 1994;McCormick et al., 1990, 1996; The ScottishLow Birthweight Study Group, 1992), and thusincur an early onset of offending.

Toward this end, we performed some pre-liminary, albeit crude, analyses that attemptedto examine if the proportions of early onsetwere greater for those lowest in birth weight.Specifically, we created three groups of indi-viduals: (1) those born over 6 pounds, (2) thoseborn at low birth weight (between 5 and 6pounds), and (3) those born at very low birthweight (between 3 and 4 pounds). We then cal-culated the mean of early onset across thethree groups. Interestingly, the mean of earlyonset (X2 = .857) was highest for the sevenindividuals who weighed 3 or 4 pounds at



birth when compared to the 69 individualswho weighed between 5 and 6 pounds at birth(X2 = .449) and the 144 individuals whoweighed above 6 pounds at birth (X2 = .292).The differences between the groups was statis-tically significant (F = 6.718, p = .001).

Measures of low birth weight could also berefined by incorporating information on ges-tational age. Although not directly expressed inher theory, it is possible that Moffitt’s biosocialinteraction may be magnified for those infantsin the lowest of all possible birth weightgroups. Also, additional measures of disadvan-taged environment, such as parent-child inter-actions, could be incorporated into indicesmeasuring this component of Moffitt’s theoryto create a more comprehensive estimate ofdisadvantaged environment (for a similarapproach, see Raine et al., 1997b).

Our results also have some import for pub-lic policy. Although many avenues exist in termsof preventing low birth weight from occurringin the first place by targeting prenatal care(Alexander et al., 1995) and mother’s lifestyle(Chomitz et al., 1995), the presence of a lowbirth weight infant should not be viewed as adooming consequence. Recent evidence suggeststhat a substantial portion of the adverse out-comes of low birth weight reflects modifiableenvironmental factors (McCormick et al., 1996).Therefore, even with recent gains in medicaltechnology that have allowed for the positivedevelopment of low birth weight infants, there isstill room for work in the social, familial, andeconomic environment of the infant that couldhelp alleviate the impact of low birth weight.Reviews of the literature surrounding the ame-lioration of perinatal and other related birthconsequences suggest that supportive environ-ments and early interventions stand a fightingchance at diminishing the consequences ofbirth-related difficulties (Brennan and Mednick,1997), and such approaches may have an evenmore demonstrable impact on inner-city youths(Guerra et al., 1997).

yy Notes1. To be sure, the emphasis placed on early

onset has not been wholeheartedly accepted by thecriminological community. For some, early onset ofoffending is simply a behavioral manifestation ofcriminal propensity, such that individuals experienc-ing an early onset have higher criminal propensitythan individuals experiencing onset later (i.e., personshaving a lower criminal propensity) (Gottfredson andHirschi, 1990; Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983:574–77).

2. Some commonality exists with Moffitt’s(1993) life-course-persistent offender and Gottfredsonand Hirschi’s (1990) low self-control offender. For boththeories, early evidence of antisocial behavior, includingan early age of onset, usually sets the stage for persistentoffending throughout life. Where the theorists diverge,however, is in the attribution of the cause of this time-stable behavior. For Moffitt, it lies in the interaction ofindividual differences in neuropsychological develop-ment and poor environment. For Gottfredson andHirschi, it is in low self-control and opportunity.

3. Some research appears to find support forthe position that at least two (if not more) types ofoffenders exist (e.g., Bartusch et al., 1997; Caspi et al.,1994; D’Unger et al., 1998; Land et al., 1996; Land andNagin, 1996; Moffitt et al., 1994: Nagin et al., 1995;Nagin and Land, 1993; Patterson et al., 1992; Simons et al., 1994).

4. Another recently proposed taxonomy(Patterson et al., 1992; Patterson and Yoerger, 1993;Simons et al., 1994) also claims that children with defi-ant orientations often overwhelm the efforts ofauthority figures to nurture or discipline them in theirdevelopment.

6. Denno selected the 987 subjects from thelarger sample of 2,958. Although she reports that therewere no significant differences between the 987 sub-jects and the larger sample of 2,958, we do not haveaccess to the larger sample. Our data on the 987 sub-jects were taken from the Inter-University Consortiumfor Political and Social Research (ICPSR) secondarydata analysis archive. Nowhere in the publicly availabledata, nor in any of Denno’s works (1984, 1985, 1990),is there information on the 2,958 subjects to which wecan compare the 987 subjects. Thus, we have to assumethat the publicly available data, on which the currentanalyses are based, are representative of the largesample of 2,958 subjects, as Denno indicates.

8. In preliminary analysis not shown here, weestimated the onset dependent variable in a continu-ous fashion. Both the continuous and dichotomiesindicators were highly correlated (r = .75). When onsetwas specified in a contiguous fashion, the results weresubstantively similar to the dichotomous indicatorof onset. As such, we only report the results for thedichotomous indicator of onset. Moreover, we pointout that, for theoretical reasons, previous examina-tions of the determinants of early and late onset ofoffending have utilized age 14 as the marker of dis-tinction (cf. Moffitt et al., 1994: Simons et al., 1994).Such an approach is consistent with using this age as amarker for the transition between childhood and ado-lescence (Bartusch et al., 1997; Tanner, 1978).

9. Although age at first recorded police contactmay not be as accurate a measure of onset as self-reported offending, it has several advantages over othercommonly used measures of onset of offending (e.g.,age at first arrest, age at first conviction, etc.). Whilerecent empirical examinations of early onset have usedarrest and conviction data (e.g., Moffitt et al., 1994;Simons et al., 1994), age at first police contact providesa more sufficient measure of onset because many firstcontacts with police do not result in an arrest or con-viction. The likelihood of a police contact to result inan arrest may be influenced by several factors includ-ing: police discretion, demeanor, demographic charac-teristics of offender/victim, characteristics of thecommunity, etc (e.g., Smith, 1984).

10. This cutoff for low birth weight was chosenbecause most medical researchers use a cutoff of justbelow 6 pounds (i.e., low birth weight is actually iden-tified in the literature as 5 pounds, 8 ounces) (Coren,1993; Denno, 1990; Paneth, 1995:19; Shiono andBehrman. 1995:17). This cutoff was adopted by theWorld Health Organization (1950), who was interestedin adopting a universal definition for low birth weight.Since the WHO’s adoption of this cutoff, most studieshave used the 6-pound marker for low birth weight.Although modern obstetric/pediatric research hasimproved the precision for the measurement of lowbirth weight (e.g., accounting for gestational age), ourmeasure is limited to the medical technology of the1950s, the time period within which the data were col-lected. There exists no separate cutoff for low birthweight between the sexes; thus, the 6 pound marker forlow birth weight is used for both males and females.

One reviewer noted that this cutoff for low birthweight is rather liberal, and that it is at severe low birth

weight that risk is really carried. Although this is cer-tainly plausible, we offer two reasons as to why we donot explore this possibility in the present study. First,Moffitt’s theoretical argument does not make any dis-tinctions between the various types of low birth weight(i.e., low, very low, extremely low). For her theory, it isthe presence of low birth weight per se that matters.Second, and more practically, our sample was made ofonly 207 cases. To partial birth weight into smaller cat-egories would create problems associated with reducedsample sizes in birth weight categories that could havea detrimental impact on the power of the analysis, aproblem that has plagued other researchers(McGauhey et al., 1991).

11. In her own work, Moffitt (1997:155–57) hasbegun to examine the joint influence of neuropsycho-logical problems and poor neighborhood structure (i.e.,in an inner-city context) in predicting delinquency andpoor cognitive test outcomes. Using data from thePittsburgh Youth Study, Moffitt identified two neigh-borhoods. “Bad” or disadvantaged neighborhoods werethose in the worst 25% in measures of median house-hold income, unemployment, families below thepoverty level, density of males aged 10–14, female-headed households, or rate of separation/divorce, and“good” neighborhoods were those that were notextreme on any of these factors. Her preliminary resultssuggested that “good” neighborhoods seemed to protectboys from delinquency, but only if the boys were neu-ropsychologically healthy. Moreover, cognitive impul-sivity scores were significantly worse, and delinquencyscores significantly higher, among boys from disadvan-taged or “bad” neighborhoods.

12. Although we view our usage of the age 7measure of socioeconomic status as adequate, somemay suggest that early (i.e., birth) SES indicators aremore relevant to Moffitt’s theory than those obtainedlater in childhood. We chose to retain the age 7 measureof socioeconomic status as the principle SES measure for several reasons. First, in her own work, Moffitthas utilized birth (Henry et al., 1996) and/or childhood/early adolescence (Moffitt et al., 1994; Moffitt, 1997)measures of SES and, thus, does not appear to preferSES at one age over another. Second, because the fam-ily structure variables were obtained at age 7, wethought that keeping the environmental indicatorsmeasured concurrently would be more valid thanmeasuring one of them early in life and the other laterin life. Third, we also thought that the composite indexof SES was a more internally valid indicator of SES



because it takes into consideration income, education,and employment rather than just income. Nevertheless,we also performed the interactional analyses with anindicator of SES measured solely as the mother’sincome in dollars while she was three months preg-nant. The results (reported later) for the birth SES vari-able were substantively the same as those for the age 7SES measure.

13. The number of changes in mother’s maritalstatus was coded 0 to 6 (number of changes in maritalstatus) or 7 (seven or more changes in marital status). Theliving situation of the child was coded 0 (child liveswith mother and father/stepmother and father/ motherand stepfather) or 1 (child lives with mother only/father only/adoptive home/foster home/miscellaneous).Husband or father present in household was coded 0(yes) or 1 (no). All responses were standardized beforesummation for the family structure scale.

14. Preliminary bivariate analysis showed thatbirth weight and early onset were significantly related.Of the 67 individuals born with low birth weight, 30 ofthem incurred an early onset (�χ2 = 5.316, df = 1, p = 0.2). Of the 144 males, 46 were born with low birthweight. Of the 46 cases, 20 had an early onset, but thisresult was not statistically significant (�χ2 = 2.689, df = 1, p =.10).Of the 63 females. 21 were born withlow birth weight. Of these 21 cases, 10 had an earlyonset. Similar to males, this result was not statisticallysignificant (�χ2 = 2.892, df = 1, p = .09).

15. We also estimated the models with a contin-uous age of onset, as well as several other age cutoffs(e.g., age 13 and age 15). In all cases, the coefficientestimates were substantively the same.

16. The coding of the SES variable (i.e., highervalues connote higher SES) makes the interpretationof this interaction term counterintuitive. We willreturn to this issue shortly.

17. A test (e.g., Clogg et al., 1995) of the differ-ence of the interactions across gender failed to detectany significant difference. Results are available onrequest.

18. Similar to the full sample results, the interac-tion between low birth weight and SES is statisticallysignificant, but the sign is in the opposite direction tothat predicted.

19. We recognize that our usage of 25% as a cut-off for low SES is somewhat arbitrary. However, insome of her most recent work, Moffitt (1997) used asimilar cutoff to signify poor environment. In relatedwork, Escalona (1982) also utilized a 25th percentile

cutoff for low SES. To examine the robustness of ourfindings, we performed sensitivity analysis by definingthe low SES group as those individuals at or below the20th percentile, and the high SES group as those indi-viduals above the 20th percentile. The results weresubstantively the same for both percentile cutoffs.

20. A coefficient comparison test failed to evi-dence a statistically significant difference between thelow birth weight coefficients across SES groups (z = 1.34)at conventional levels of significance (p < .05).However, this result must be viewed in the context of arelatively small sample size, in general, and across SESgroups, in particular.

21. Though not presented here, we also com-pleted a similar analysis, but with a slightly differentstrategy. We created a dummy variable that was coded1 when individuals were born at low birth weight andlow in SES. When this variable was entered into alogistic regression equation predicting early onset, itevidenced a positive and statistically significant effectin predicting onset.

22. The null interaction effect observed forfemales may be caused by the small number of femaleoffenders included in the analysis. As such, the differ-ence in significance of the interaction terms acrossgender may be a spurious artifact of statistical power.It is entirely possible that the interaction proposed byMoffitt is salient for females; however, it may not havebeen different enough among boys and girls in thepresent sample to be detected at the relatively smallsample size. We encourage future research endeavors toobtain a sample size larger than the one in the presentstudy to give this hypothesis a better assessment.

yy ReferencesAiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West. 1991. Multiple

Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.London: Sage.

Alexander, Greg R., and Carol Korenbrot. 1995. Therole of parental care in preventing low birthweight. The Future of Children: Low Birth Weight(Center for the Future of Children) 5:103–20.

Bartusch, Dawn R. J., Donald R. Lynam, Terrie E.Moffitt, and Phil A. Silva. 1997. Is age important?Testing a general versus a developmental theory ofantisocial behavior. Criminology 35:13–48.

Berhman, Richard E., Gorham S. Babson, and RichardLessel. 1971. Fetal and neonatal mortality in white

middle class infants: Mortality risks by gestationalage and weight. American Journal of Diseases ofChildren 121:486–89.

Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth,and Christy A. Visher. 1986. Criminal Careers and“Career Criminals.” Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Brand, M., and A. Bignami. 1969. The effects ofchronic hypoxia on the neonatal and infantilebrain. Brain 92:233–54.

Brennan, Patricia A., and Sarnoff A. Mednick. 1997.Medical histories of antisocial individuals. InHandbook of Antisocial Behavior, ed. D. M. Stoff, J.Breiling, and J. D. Maser. New York: John Wiley.

Brennan, Patricia A., Sarnoff A. Mednick, and AdrianRaine. 1997. Biosocial interactions and violence: Afocus on perinatal factors. In Biosocial Bases ofViolence, ed. Adrian Raine, Patricia A. Brennan,David P. Farrington, and Sarnoff A. Mednick. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Brennan, Patricia A., Sarnoff A. Mednick, and JanVolavka. 1995. Biomedical factors in crime. InCrime, ed. James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia. SanFrancisco: ICS Press.

Breslau, Naomi, Nancy Klein, and Lida Allen. 1988.Very low birthweight: Behavioral sequelae at nineyears of age. Journal of the American Academy ofChild and Adolescent Psychiatry 27:605–12.

Broman, Sarah H., Paul L. Nichols, and Wallace A.Kennedy. 1975. Preschool IQ: Prenatal and EarlyDevelopmental Correlates. New York: John Wiley.

Caspi, Avshalom, Terrie E, Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, MagdaStouthamer-Loeber, Robert Krueger, and PamelaSchmutte. 1994. Are some people crime-prone?Replications of the personality-crime relationshipacross countries, genders, races, and methods.Criminology 32:163–96.

Chess, Stella and Alexander Thomas. 1987. Origins andEvolution of Behavior Disorders: From Infancy to Early Adult Life. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Chomitz, Virginia Rail, Lilian W. Y. Cheung, and EliceLieberman. 1995. The role of lifestyle in preventinglow birth weight. The Future of Children: LowBirth Weight (Center for the Future of Children)5:121–38.

Clogg, Clifford C., E. Petkova, and Admantios Haritou.1995. Statistical methods for comparing regressioncoefficients between models. American Journal ofSociology 100:1261–93.

Coren, Stanley. 1993. The Left-Hander Syndrome.New York: Vintage.

Dean, Charles W., Robert Brame, and Alex R. Piquero.1996. Criminal propensities discrete groups ofoffenders, and persistence in crime. Criminology34:547–74.

Denno, Deborah. 1982. Sex differences in cognitionand crime: early developmental, biological, andsociological correlates. PhD diss., University ofPennsylvania.

———. 1984. Neuropsychological and early environ -mental correlates of sex differences in crime.International Journal of Neuroscience 23:199–214.

———. 1985. Sociological and human developmentalexplanations of crime: Conflict or consensus?Criminology 23:711–41.

———. 1990. Biology and Violence. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Drillien, C. M., A. J. M. Thompson, and K. Burgoyne.1980. Low birthweight children at early school age:A longitudinal study. Developmental Medicine andChild Neurology 22:26–47.

Dunford Franklyn, and Delbert Elliott. 1984. Identi -fying career offenders with self-reported data.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency21:57–86.

D’Unger, Amy V., Kenneth C. Land, Patricia McCall,and Daniel S. Nagin. 1998. How many latentclasses of delinquent/criminal careers? Resultsfrom mixed poisson regression analyses of theLondon, Philadelphia, and Racine cohort studies.American Journal of Sociology 103:1593–1630.

Elliott, Delbert, Suzanne Ageton, David Huizinga,Brian Knowles, and Rachelle Canter. 1984. ThePrevalence and Incidence of Delinquent Behavior:1976-1980 (The National Youth Survey Report No.26). Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

Escalona, Sibylie K. 1982. Babies at double hazard:Early development of infants at biologic and socialrisk. Pediatrics 70:670–76.

Farrington, David P. 1986. Age and crime. In Crimeand Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 7,ed. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, 189–250.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, David P., B. Gallagher, Lynda Morley,Raymond Ledger, and Donald J. West. 1986.Unemployment, school leaving and crime. BritishJournal of Criminology 26:335–56.

Farrington. David P., and J. David Hawkins. 1991.Predicting participation, early onset, and later



persistence in officially recorded offending. CriminalBehavior and Mental Health 1:1–33.

Farrington, David P., Rolf Loeber, Delbert S. Elliott, J.David Hawkins, Denise Kandel, Malcolm Klein,Joan McCord, David Rowe, and Richard Tremblay.1990. Advancing knowledge about the onset ofdelinquency and crime. In Advances in Clinical andChild Psychology, Vol. 13, ed. B. Lahey and A. Kazdin.New York: Plenum.

Fitzhardinge, P., and E. Steven. 1972. The small-for-date infant: II. Neurological and intellectualsequelae. Pediatrics 50:50–57.

Gorenstein, E. 1990. Neuropsychology of juveniledelinquency. Forensic Reports 3:15–48.

Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1990. AGeneral Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Guerra, Nancy G., Beth Attar, and Roger P. Weissberg.1997. Prevention of aggression and violenceamong inner-city youths. In Handbook of AntisocialBehavior, ed. D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, and J. D. Maser.New York: John Wiley.

Hack, Maureen, H. Gerry Taylor, Nancy Klein, RobertEiben, Christopher Schatschneider, and NoriMercuri-Minich. 1994. School-age outcomes inchildren with birth weights under 750g. NewEngland Journal of Medicine 331:757–59.

———. 1995. Long-term developmental outcomes oflow birth weight infants. The Future of Children:Low Birth Weight (Center for the Future ofChildren) 5:176–96.

Hardy, Janet B., Joseph S. Drags, and Esther C. Jackson.1979. The First Year of Life. Baltimore, Md.: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Henry, Bill, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil A.Silva. 1996. Temperamental and familial predictors ofviolent and nonviolent criminal convictions: Age 3 toage 18. Developmental Psychology 32:614–23.

Henry, Bill, Terrie E. Moffitt, Lee Robins, Felton Earls,and Phil A. Silva. 1993. Early familial predictors ofchild and adolescent antisocial behavior: Who arethe mothers of delinquents? Criminal Behaviorand Mental Health 3:97–118.

Hertzig, Margaret E. 1983. Temperamental andneurological status. In Developmental Neuro -psychiatry, ed. Michael Rutter. New York: GuilfordPress.

Hirschi, Travis, and Michael Gottfredson. 1983. Ageand the explanation of crime. American Journal ofSociology 89:552–84.

Hughes, Dana, and Lisa Simpson. 1995. The role ofsocial change in preventing low birth weight. TheFuture of Children: Low Birth Weight (Center forthe Future of Children) 5:87–102.

Jaccard, James, Robert Turrisi, and Choi K. Wan. 1990.Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Kandel, Elizabeth, Patricia A. Brennan, and Sarnoff A.Mednick. 1990. Minor physical anomalies andparental modeling of physical aggression predictadult violent offending. Unpublished manuscript,University of Southern California.

Kandel, Elizabeth, and Sarnoff A. Mednick. 1991.Perinatal complications predict violent offending.Criminology 29:519–30.

Kolvin, I., F. Miller, M. Fleeting, and P. Kolvin. 1988.Social and parenting factors affecting criminal-offense rates. British Journal of Psychiatry 152:80–90.

Land, Kenneth C., Patricia McCall, and Daniel S.Nagin. 1996. A comparison of Poisson, negativebinomial, and semiparametric mixed poissonregression models with empirical applications tocriminal careers data. Sociological Methods andResearch 25:387–442.

Land, Kenneth C. and Daniel S. Nagin. 1996. Micro-models of criminal careers: A synthesis of thecriminal careers and life course approaches viasemiparametric mixed poisson regression models,with empirical applications. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 12:163–91.

LeBlanc, Marc, and Marcel Fréchette. 1989. MaleCriminal Activity From Childhood Through Youth.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lewis, Dorothy D., Shelley S. Shanock, and David A.Balla. 1979. Perinatal difficulties, head and facetrauma, and child abuse in the medical histories ofseriously delinquent children. American Journal ofPsychiatry 136:419–23.

Loeber, Rolf, and Marc LeBlanc. 1990. Toward adevelopmental criminology. In Crime and Justice:An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 12, ed. MichaelTonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Loeber, Rolf, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Welmoet VanKammen, and David P. Farrington. 1991.Initiation, escalation, and desistance in juvenileoffending and their correlates. Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology 82:36–82.

Marlow, N., B. L. Roberts, and R. W. I. Cooke. 1989.Motor skills in extremely low birthweight children

at the age of 6 years. Archives of Disease inChildhood 64:839–47.

Mazerolle, Paul. 1997. Delinquent definitions andparticipation age: Assessing the invariancehypothesis. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention6:151–67.

McCormick, Marie C. 1985. The contribution of lowbirth weight to infant mortality and childhoodmorbidity. New England Journal of Medicine312:82–90.

McCormick, Marie C., Steven L. Gortmaker, and ArthurM. Sobol. 1990. Very low birth weight children:Behavior problems and school difficulty in anational sample. Journal of Pediatrics 117:687–93.

McCormick, Marie C., Kathryn Workman-Daniels,and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1996. The behavioraland emotional well-being of school-age childrenwith different birthweights. Pediatrics 97:18–25.

McGauhey, Peggy J., Barbara Starfield, CherylAlexander, and Margaret E. Ensminger. 1991.Social environment and vulnerability of low birthweight children: A social-epidemiologicalperspective. Pediatrics 88:943–55.

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1990. The neuropsychology ofdelinquency: A critical review of theory and research.In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research,Vol. 12, ed. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, 99–169.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-coursepersistent antisocial behavior: A developmentaltaxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674–701.

———. 1994. Natural histories of delinquency. InCross-National Longitudinal Research on HumanDevelopment and Criminal Behavior, ed. E. Weitekampand H. Kerner. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.

———. 1995. Personal communication. June 1995.———. 1997. Neuropsychology, antisocial behavior,

and neighborhood context. In Violence andChildhood in the Inner City, ed. Joan McCord.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, Terrie E., Avshalom Caspi, Nigel Dickson, PhilA. Silva, and Warren Stanton. 1996. Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conductproblems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology8:399–424.

Moffitt Terrie E., Donald Lynam, and Phil A. Silva. 1994.Neuropsychological tests predicting persistent maledelinquency. Criminology 32:277–300.

Nagin, Daniel S., and David P. Farrington. 1992a Theonset and persistence of offending. Criminology30:501–23.

———. 1992b. The stability of criminal potentialfrom childhood to adulthood. Criminology30:235–60.

Nagin, Daniel S., David P. Farrington, and Terrie E.Moffitt. 1995. Life-course trajectories of differenttypes of offenders. Criminology 33:111–39.

Nagin, Daniel S., and Kenneth C. Land. 1993. Age,criminal careers, and population heterogeneity:Specification and estimation of a nonparametric,mixed poisson model. Criminology 31:327–62.

Nagin, Daniel S., and Raymond Paternoster. 1991. Onthe relationship of past to future delinquency.Criminology 29:163–189.

National Research Council. 1993. Losing Generations:Adolescents in High-Risk Settings. Washington, DC:National Research Council.

Niswander, Kenneth R., and Myron Gordon. 1972. TheWomen and Their Pregnancies. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare.

Paneth, Nigel S. 1995. The problem of low birthweight. The Future of Children: Low Birth Weight(Center for the Future of Children) 5:19–34.

Pasamanick, Benjamin, Martha E. Rogers, and Abraham M.Lilenfeld. 1956. Pregnancy experience and thedevelopment of behavior disorder in children.American Journal of Psychiatry 112:613–18.

Paternoster, Raymond, Charles W. Dean, Alex R.Piquero, Paul Mazerolle, and Rober Brame. 1997.Continuity and change in offending careers.Journal of Quantitative Criminology 13:231–66.

Patterson, Gerald, L. Crosby, and S. Vuchinich. 1992.Predicting risk for early police arrest. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 8:335–55.

Patterson, Gerald, and Karen Yoerger. 1993. A modelfor early onset of delinquent behavior. In Crimeand Mental Disorder, ed. S. Hodgins. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Penchaszadeh, Victor B., Janet B. Hardy, E. DavidMellits, Bernice Cohen, and Victor A. McKusick.1972. Growth and development in an “inner city”population: An assessment of possible biologicaland environmental influences: I. Intra-uterineGrowth. Johns Hopkins Medical Journal 131:384–97.

Piquero, Alex R., and Stephen G. Tibbetts. 1999. Theimpact of pre/perinatal disturbances and dis -advantaged familial environments in predicting



criminal offending. Studies on Crime and CrimePrevention 8(1):52–70.

Raine, Adrian, Patricia A. Brennan, David P. Farrington,and Sarnoff A. Mednick. 1997a. Biosocial Bases ofViolence. New York: Plenum Press.

Raine, Adrian, Patricia A. Brennan, and Sarnoff A.Mednick. 1994. Birth complications combinedwith early maternal rejection at age 1 year predisposeto violent crime at age 18 years. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 51:984–88.

———. 1997b. Interaction between birth compli -cations and early maternal rejection in pre -disposing individuals to adult violence: Specificityto serious, early-onset violence. American Journalof Psychiatry 154:1265–71.

Reinish, Juan M., Ronald Gandelman, and Frances S.Spiegel. 1979. Prenatal influences on cognitiveabilities: Data from experimental animals andhuman genetic and endocrine syndromes. In Sex-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning:Developmental Issues, ed. Michelle Wittig andAnne Petersen. New York: Academic.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr., and Jeffrey Roth. 1993. Understandingand Preventing Violence.Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Robins, Lee. 1966. Deviant Children Grown Up.Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

———. 1978. Sturdy childhood predictors of adultantisocial behavior: Replications from longitudinalstudies. Psychological Medicine 8:611–22.

Ross, Gail, Evelyn G. Lipper, and Peter A. Auld. 1990.Social competence and behavior problems inpremature children at school age. Pediatrics86:391–97.

Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime inthe Making: Pathways and Turning Points ThroughLife. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Scottish Low Birthweight Study Group. 1992. TheScottish Low Birthweight Study: II. Language andattainment, cognitive status, and behavioral problems.Archives of Disease in Childhood 67:682–86.

Shannon, Lyle. 1980. Assessing the reliability of adultcriminal careers to juvenile careers. In Problems inAmerican Social Policy, ed. C. Abt. Cambridge: AbtBooks.

Shanok, Shelley S., and Dorothy O. Lewis. 1981.Medical histories of female delinquents. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 38:211–13.

Shiono, Patricia H., and Richard E. Behrman. Lowbirth weight: Analysis and recommendations. The

Future of Children: Low Birth Weight (Center forthe Future of Children) 5:14–18.

Shiono, Patricia H., Mark A. Klebanoff, Barry I.Graubard. Heinz W. Bersendes, and George G.Rhoads. 1986. Birth weight among women ofdifferent ethnic groups. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 255:48–52.

Simons, Ronald L., Chyi-In Wu, Rand D. Conger, andFrederick D. Lorenz. 1994. Two routes todelinquency: Differences between early and latestarters in the impact of parenting and deviantpeers. Criminology 32:247–76.

Singer, Judith E., Milton Westphal, and Kenneth R.Niswander. 1968. Sex differences in the incidenceof neonatal abnormalities and abnormal pre -dictors in early childhood. Child Development39:103–12.

Smith, Douglas A. 1984. The organizational context oflegal control. Criminology 22:19–38.

Smith, Douglas A., and G. Roger Jarjoura. 1988. Socialstructure and criminal victimization. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 25:27–52.

Stanton, Warren, Rob McGee, and Phil A. Silva. 1991.Indices of perinatal complications, familybackground, child rearing, and health as predictorsof early cognitive and motor development.Pediatrics 88:954–59.

Szatmari, Peter, Marge Reitsma-Street, and David R.Offord. 1986. Pregnancy and birth complicationsin antisocial adolescents and their siblings.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 31:513–16.

Szatmari, Peter, Saroj Saigal, Pete Rosenbaum, DugalCampbell, and Susanne King. 1990. Psychiatricdisorders at five years among children withbirthweights < 1000g: A regional perspective.Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology32:954–62.

Tanner, J. M. 1978. Fetus into Man: Physical Growthfrom Conception to Maturity. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Taylor, E. 1976. Beck’s Obstetrical Practice and FetalMedicine. 10th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams andWilkins.

Thomas, Alexander, and Stella Chess. 1977. Tempera -ment and Development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Tinsley, Barbara R., and Ross D. Parke. 1983. Theperson-environment relationship: Lessons fromfamilies with preterm infants. In Human Develop -ment: An Interactional Perspective, ed. David

Magnuson and Vernon R. Allen. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Tolan, Patrick. 1987. Implications of age of onset fordelinquency risk. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology 15:47–65.

Werner, Emmy E. 1987. Vulnerability and resiliency inchildren at risk for delinquency: A longitudinalstudy from birth to young adulthood. In Pre -vention of Delinquent Behavior, Vol. 10, ed. John D.Burchard and Sara N. Burchard. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Werner, Emmy E., and Ruth S. Smith. 1977. Kauai’sChildren Come of Age.Honolulu: The University ofHawaii Press.

———. 1992. Overcoming the Odds: High RiskChildren from Birth to Adulthood. London: CornellUniversity Press.

Whitaker, Agnes H., Ronon Van Rossem, Judith F.Feldman, Irvin Sam Schonfeld, Jennifer A.

Pinto-Martin, Carolyn Torre, David Shaffer, andNigel Penth. 1997. Psychiatric outcomes in low-birth-weight children at age 6 years: Relation toneonatal cranial ultrasound abnormalities.Archives of General Psychiatry 54:847–56.

Wilson, James Q., and Richard Herrnstein. 1985.Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Wolfgang, Marvin. 1983. Delinquency in two birthcohorts. In Prospective Studies of Crime andDelinquency, ed. K. Van Dusen and Sarnoff A.Mednick. Boston: KIuwer-Nijhoff.

Wolfgang, Marvin, Terence Thornberry, and RobertFiglio. 1987. From Boy to Man, From Delinquencyto Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

World Health Organization, Expert Committee onMaternal and Child Health. 1950. Public HealthAspect of Low Birthweight (WHO Technical ReportSeries, No. 27). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.


�

R E V I E W Q U E S T I O N S

1. Which factor in this study represents Moffitt’s high-risk factor for neuropsychological problems? Do youagree with the use of this measure as an indicator of this risk?

2. For which groups does this study seem to indicate Moffitt’s theory is most applicable?

3. Knowing the results of this study, what would you recommend in terms of reducing chronic offendersin our society?

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Alex Piquero, David Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein provide a compre-hensive review of the concepts, issues, and propositions presented by the criminal careerframework, on which developmental theories are based. The developmental paradigm is, bydefinition, based on following the criminal activity of individuals over time and exploringthe reasons why they offend when they do, as well as why these individuals don’t offend atcertain times. The authors explore the history of the criminal career perspective, as well asthe key concepts of participation, offending frequency, duration, and co-offending patterns.Piquero et al. also explore the policy implications that can be gathered, given the currentstate of research on these various dimensions.

SOURCE: Adapted from Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein, “Criminal Career Paradigm: Background,Recent Developments, and the Way Forward,” International Annals of Criminology 41 (2003): 243–69. Copyright © 2003Chicago University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Reading 33 � Criminal Career Paradigm 631

Then the authors explore the issues related to chronic offenders, who are the small percent-age of society (approximately 5% to 8% of the population) who commit the vast majorityof violent and serious offenses. Piquero et al. also provide policy recommendations, espe-cially regarding implications for incarceration policies. Finally, the authors review the extantresearch on career length and desistence (or the ceasing of offending in an individual’s life),as well as prescribing issues that future research should examine.

While reading this selection, readers should consider the various concepts, such as frequencyand duration, regarding their own offending careers, or the offending careers of people theyknow well. Furthermore, readers should examine the incarceration policies suggested byPiquero et al., and to consider whether they agree or disagree with their suggestions.

Criminal Career Paradigm

Background, Recent Developments, and the Way Forward

Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein

Researchers have long been interested in thepatterning of criminal activity throughout thecourse of criminal careers. Early on, Quetelet(1831) recognized that the age was closelyrelated to the propensity for crime. Using dataon crimes committed against persons andproperty in France from 1826 to 1829,Quetelet found, that crimes peaked in thelate teens through the mid twenties. SinceQuetelet’s findings, a number of researchershave pursued the relationship between age andcrime, across cultures and historical periods,and for a number of different crime types(Hirschi and Gottfredson 1983). Research onthe relationship between age and crime hasbeen one of the most studied issues withincriminology (Farrington, 1986; Steffensmeieret al. 1989; Tittle and Grasmick 1993).

The relationship between age and crimeraises the question of the degree to which theaggregate pattern displayed in the age/crimecurve is similar to—or different from—thepattern of individual careers and whether con-clusions about individuals can be validlydrawn from aggregate data. For example, how

far does the observed peak of the aggregateage/crime curve reflect changes within indi-viduals as opposed to changes in the composi-tion of offenders? In other words, is the peakin the age/crime curve a function of activeoffenders committing more crime, or is it afunction of more individuals actively offend-ing during those peak years?

Within individuals, to what extent is theslowing past the peak age a function of decel-eration in continued criminal activity or stop-ping by some of the individuals? Acrossindividuals, how much of the age/crime curvecan be attributed to the arrival/initiation anddeparture/termination of different individu-als? How about the role of co-offending? Howmuch of the continuation of offending bylone/solo offenders is attributable to identify-ing theirs as the key criminal careers of longduration, with their co-offenders servingmerely as transients with shorter careers? Howmuch of the age/crime curve for any particularcrime type is a consequence of individuals per-sisting in offending, but switching from lessserious crime types early in the career to more

serious crime types as they get older? Whatabout the relationship between past and futureoffending? Is it due to some causal factors orchanges in causal factors (state dependence),unobserved individual differences (persistentheterogeneity), or some combination?

These questions are central to theory, aswell as policy, especially those policies that aregeared toward incapacitative effects of criminalsanctions, as well as to changes in the criminalcareer (e.g., rehabilitation or criminalizationpatterns as a result of actions by the criminaljustice system). For example, if crime commis-sion and arrest rates differ significantly amongoffenders and over the career, the effect of sen-tence length on overall crime will depend onwho is incarcerated, and for how long (Petersilia1980:325). Addressing these and related issuesrequires knowledge about individual criminalcareers, their initiation, their termination andthe dynamic changes between these end points(Blumstein et al. 1986).

In 1983, a Panel on Research on CriminalCareers was convened by the National Academyof Science at the request of the U. S. NationalInstitute of Justice and was charged with evalu-ating the feasibility of predicting the futurecourse of criminal careers, assessing the effectsof prediction instruments in reducing crimethrough incapacitation, and reviewing the con-tribution of research on criminal careers to thedevelopment of fundamental knowledge aboutcrime and criminals. This report outlined anovel approach of asking questions regardingthe longitudinal patterning of criminal activityover the life course, i.e., the criminal career par-adigm (Blumstein et al. 1986).

Since publication of the report, numeroustheoretical, empirical, and policy issues havesurfaced regarding the longitudinal patterningof criminal careers. One concerned the rele-vance (or lack thereof) of criminal careerresearch for criminology generally, and publicpolicy in particular. Gottfredson and Hirschi(1990) levied a series of critiques against thecriminal career approach in which they

claimed that attempts to identify career crimi-nals and other types of offenders were doomedto failure. Perhaps the most important issuethey raised concerns causality. Although thecriminal career paradigm necessitates a longi-tudinal focus in order to study both thebetween- and within-individual patterning ofcriminal activity, Gottfredson and Hirschiquestioned whether longitudinal researchdesigns could actually resolve questions ofcausal order. They also argued that, since cor-relations with offending were relatively stableover the life-course, cross-sectional designswere suitable for studying the causes of crime.

This paper summarizes background andrecent developments regarding the criminalcareer paradigm. Section I provides a briefreview of the criminal career paradigm, as wellas an overview of the empirical findings gener-ated by criminal careers research, with a con-centration on the dimensions of criminalcareers. Section II presents a discussion ofselected policy implications including the iden-tification of career criminals and policies asso-ciated with sentence duration. Section III offersan agenda for future theoretical, empirical, andmethodological research. The full conclusionof our report may be found in the essay “TheCriminal Career Paradigm,” published inCrime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume30 (Piquero; Farrington, and Blumstein 2003).

yy I. The Criminal Career Paradigm

At its most basic level, a criminal career is the“characterization of the longitudinal sequenceof crimes committed by an individualoffender” (Blumstein et al. 1986:12). This defi-nition helps to focus researchers’ attention onentry into a career when or before the firstcrime is committed and dropout from thecareer when or after the last crime is commit-ted. The criminal career paradigm recognizesthat individuals start their criminal activity at



some age, engage in crime at some individualcrime rate, commit a mixture of crimes, andeventually stop. Hence, the criminal careerapproach emphasizes the need to investigateissues related to why and when people startoffending (onset), why and how they continueoffending (persistence), why and if offendingbecomes more frequent or serious (escalation)or specialized, and why and when people stopoffending (desistance). The study of criminalcareers does not imply that offenders necessar-ily derive their livelihood exclusively or evenpredominantly from crime; instead, the con-cept is intended only as a means of structuringthe longitudinal sequence of criminal eventsassociated with an individual in a systematicway (Blumstein et al. 1982:5). In sum, thecriminal career approach focuses on bothbetween—and within—individual changes incriminal activity over time.

A. Dimensions of a Criminal Career

1. Participation

The criminal career approach partitionsthe aggregate crime rate into two primary com-ponents: “participation,” the distinction betweenthose who commit crime and those who donot; and “frequency,” the rate of offendingamong active offenders, commonly denoted bythe Greek letter λ (Blumstein et al. 1986:12).Participation is measured by the fraction of apopulation ever committing at least one crimebefore some age or currently active duringsome particular observation period. In anyperiod, active offenders include both newoffenders whose first offense occurs during theobservation period, and persisting offenderswho began criminal activity in an earlier periodand continue to be active during the observa-tion period. Importantly, the longer the averageduration of offending, the greater the contribu-tion of persisters to measured participation insuccessive observation periods.

Estimates of ever-participation in criminalactivity vary across reporting method (they

tend to be much higher with self-report thanwith official records which are a filtered subsetof self-reports), the crimes in which participa-tion is being measured (there is more partici-pation in less serious criminal activity), thelevel of threshold of involvement (police con-tact, arrest, conviction), and the characteristicsand representativeness of the sample (highschool students, college students, general pop-ulation, offender-based, etc.). In general, ever-participation estimates are fairly commonacross data sets and consistent with most crim-inological findings.

There is a relatively high rate of participa-tion among males in criminal activity (Elliottet al. 1987:502). Blumstein et al. (1986) reportedthat about 15 percent of urban males arearrested for an index offense by age eighteen,and about 25 to 45 percent of urban males arearrested for a non-traffic offense by age eigh-teen. Visher and Roth’s (1986) overview of sev-eral longitudinal studies employing police andcourt records indicates a lifetime prevalenceestimate of 40 to 50 percent, with slightly higherrates for blacks and much lower rates amongfemales. Stattin et al.’s (1989) longitudinal studyof Swedish males and females revealed that byage 30, 37.7% of Swedish males and 9% ofSwedish females were registered for a criminaloffense. The cumulative prevalence of self-reported offenses is even more striking. Forexample, in the Cambridge study, Farrington(2003) found that 96 percent of the males hadreported committing at least one of ten speci-fied offenses (including burglary, theft, assault,vandalism, and drug abuse) up to age thirty-two. Kelley et al. (1997) used self-reported dataon serious violence from three longitudinalstudies funded by the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, the Causes andCorrelates studies, and found that 39 percent ofDenver males, 41 percent of Pittsburgh males,40 percent of Rochester males, 16 percent ofDenver females, and 32 percent of Rochesterfemales reported committing at least one seri-ous violent act by age sixteen.

Regardless of whether official or self-reportrecords are used to study prevalence, three mainconclusions emerge. First, male participationrates are typically higher than those for females,and especially so for the more serious offenses.Second, black participation rates are typicallyhigher than those for whites, especially whenparticipation is examined via official records asopposed to self-reports (Hindelang et al. 1981).In self-reports, blacks have also been found toreport continuing their violent offending athigher rates than whites (Elliott 1994). Third,there is a strong relationship between age andparticipation. In particular, the probability ofinitiating a criminal career at a given age is high-est between thirteen and eighteen, on the lowerend for self-report estimates and on the higherend for arrest and conviction records, with littleto no gender difference (Moffitt et al. 2001). Also,evidence on the probability of committing anoffense at a given age is mixed, with someresearch indicating a consistent increase throughthe mid-teens to a peak at age nineteen and thensubsequent decline, while other research indi-cates a decline in self-reported participationthrough the teens (Elliott et al. 1983; Thornberry1989; Lauritsen 1998). Studying demographicdifferences in prevalence remains controversial.For example, Hindelang et al. (1981) argued thatthere is a race difference in the validity of self-reported delinquency measures, which leads to aserious underestimation of black males’ preva-lence rates.

2. Key Dimensions of Active Criminal Careers

The criminal career paradigm encom-passes several dimensions of active criminalcareers including offending frequency, dura-tion, crime type mix and seriousness, and co-offending patterns.

a. Offending Frequency. The offending rate forindividual offenders, λ, reflects the frequencyof offending by individuals who are activelyengaged in crime (Blumstein et al. 1986:55).

Much criminal career research has beenconcerned with estimating the individualoffending frequency of active offenders duringtheir criminal careers (Blumstein and Cohen1979; Cohen 1986; Loeber and Snyder 1990).

Blumstein et al. (1986) summarized varia-tion in �λ for active offenders by gender, age,and race. Regarding gender, they found littlevariation in frequency across males andfemales (i.e., the ratios are generally 2:1 or less)for most crimes (Blumstein at al. 1986:67–68).Thus, if active in a crime type, females commitcrimes at rates similar to those of males (for anexception see Wikström 1985). Regarding age,Blumstein et al. reported little change with agein offense-specific frequency rates for activeoffenders, but when all offense types are com-bined, there tended to be an increase duringthe juvenile years and a decrease during theadult years. In the Rand Inmate surveys, thereappeared to be some evidence of general sta-bility of �λ over age (Chaiken and Chaiken1982). The number of active crime typesdeclined with age in the Rand survery, butcrime-specific frequencies tended to be stable(Peterson and Braiker 1980). Finally, althoughresearch based on official records tends toindicate that there is not a strong relationshipbetween offending frequency and demo-graphic characteristics, some recent self-reportdata on serious violence tends to indicate oth-erwise (Elliott 1994).

Spelman (1994) summarized currentknowledge on offending frequencies. First,there are different values for the averageoffense frequencies across studies becauseresearchers provide different definitions andoperationalizations of the offense rate. Second,most of the variation in offense rates can beattributed to differences in the populationssampled and especially where in the criminaljustice system they are sampled. Third, theaverage offender commits around eight crimesper year, while offenders who are incarceratedat some point in their lives commit thirty tofifty crimes per year, and the average member



of an incoming prison cohort commitsbetween sixty and 100 crimes per year. Fourth,criminals do not commit crimes all the time;in other words, there is evidence that manyoffenders spend long periods of time in whichthey commit no crimes. Fifth, the distributionof offending frequencies is highly skewed, witha few offenders committing crimes at muchhigher than average rates.

b. Duration, the Interval between Initiation andTermination.One aspect of the criminal careerparadigm that has received a great deal ofresearch attention is initiation, or the onset ofantisocial and criminal activity (Farrington et al.1990). Several studies have reported higherrecidivism rates among offenders with recordsof early criminal activity as juveniles (Blumsteinet al. 1986). Although many researchers arguethat individuals who begin offending early willdesist later, and thus have lengthy careers(Hamparian et al. 1978; Krohn et al. 2001),there has been much less research on theduration of criminal careers, or an individual’scriminal career (Piquero, Brame, and Lynam2003). It is more tenable, however, to measurea rate of desistance for an identified group ofoffenders (Bushway et al. 2001). Research ondesistance, or the termination of a criminalcareer, has received even less attention becauseof difficulties in measurement and operationa -lization (Laub and Sampson 2001).

The two most common approaches forstudying career termination have been throughproviding estimates of termination probabilitiesafter each arrest, and estimating the timebetween the first and last crimes committed.Regarding termination probabilities, Blumsteinet al. (1986) calculated persistence probabilitiesfor six different data sets and found that aftereach subsequent event (i.e., police contact,arrest, conviction, etc.), the persistence probabil-ity increases, reaching a plateau of .7 to .9 by thefourth event across all data sets. Farrington,Lambert, and West (1998) used convictiondata to calculate recidivism probabilities for

Cambridge study males through age thirty-twoand found that after the third offense, the recidi-vism probability ranged from .79 to .91 throughthe tenth offense.

A number of studies have attempted toderive estimates of career duration, typicallymeasured as career length in years. Threemajor studies conducted in the 1970s esti-mated career lengths to be between five andfifteen years (Greenberg 1975; Shinnar andShinnar 1975; Greene 1977). In 1982, Blumstein,Cohen, and Hsieh conducted the most detailedstudy of criminal career duration and useddata on arrests rather than on arrestees to esti-mate career lengths, and concluded that crim-inal careers are relatively short, averagingabout five years for offenders who are active inindex offenses as young adults. Residualcareers, or the length of time still remaining incareers, increase to an expected ten years forindex offenders still active in their thirties.Persistent offenders who begin their adultcareers at age eighteen or earlier and who arestill active in their thirties are most likely to bepersistent offenders and are likely to continueto commit crimes for about another ten years(Visher 2000).

Spelman (1994) studied career lengthswith data from the three-state Rand InmateSurvey, and developed estimates of total careerlengths of about six or seven years (Spelman1994). Spelman showed that young and inex-perienced offenders, those in the first five yearsof their career, were more likely than olderoffenders to drop out each year, but after fiveyears the rate of dropout leveled off, risingonly after the twentieth year as an activeoffender. Farrington (2003) examined theduration of criminal careers in the Cambridgestudy using conviction data to age forty andfound that the average duration of criminalcareers was 7.1 years. Excluding one-timeoffenders whose duration was zero, the averageduration of criminal careers was 10.4 years.Piquero, Brame, and Lynam (2003) studied thelength of criminal careers using data from a

sample of serious offenders paroled fromCalifornia Youth Authority institutions in the1970s and found that the average career lengthwas 17.27 years, with little difference betweenwhite (16.7 years) and non-white parolees(17.7 years).

c. Crime Type Mix and Seriousness. The mix ofdifferent offense types among active offendersis another important criminal career dimension.The study of crime-type mix involves studyingseriousness (the tendency to commit seriouscrimes throughout one’s criminal career),escalations (the tendency to move towardmore serious crimes as one’s career progresses),specialization (the tendency to repeat the sameoffense type on successive crimes), and crime-type switching (the tendency to switch types ofcrimes and/or crime categories on successivecrimes).

Diverse methodological techniques havebeen employed to investigate specialization, orthe tendency to repeat the same offense typeon successive crimes. Using official records,some research provides evidence in favor ofsome small degree of specialization (Bursik1980; Rojek and Erickson 1982; Smith andSmith 1984), but most find that generality isthe norm throughout offending careers(Farrington et al. 1988; Wolfgang et al. 1972;Nevares et al. 1990; Tracy et al. 1990). At thesame time, important differences in specializa-tion are observed between adults and juvenilessuch that specialization appears to be strongerin magnitude for adult rather than for juvenileoffenders (Le Blanc and Fréchette 1989;Piquero et al. 1999). On the other hand, self-report data from the Rand studies suggest that,although there is some evidence of propertyspecialization (Spelman 1994), incarceratedoffenders tend to report much more generalitythan speciality (Petersilia et al. 1978; Petersonand Braiker 1980; Chaiken and Chaiken 1982).

Some scholars have investigated special-ization in violence. Using official records,Farrington (1989) and Piquero (2000) reported

little evidence of specialization in violence inthe Cambridge study or the Philadelphia peri-natal cohort, and that the commission of a vio-lent offense in a criminal career is a function ofoffending frequency: frequent offenders aremore likely to accumulate a violent offense intheir career. Similar results have been obtainedby Capaldi and Patterson (1996) with self-report data from the Oregon Youth Study.

Directly related to the specialization issueis the switching that occurs across clusters ofcrime types. Clusters represent natural group-ings of offense types (violence, property,other), and research indicates that adultoffenders display a stronger tendency to switchamong offense types within a cluster and aweaker tendency to switch to offense typesoutside a cluster, but the strong partitioning isnot as sharp among juveniles (Blumstein et al.1986; Cohen 1986). Adult offenders and incar-cerated juveniles are more likely to commitoffenses within a cluster than to switch tooffenses outside a cluster (Rojek and Erickson1982; Blumstein et al. 1988). Drug offenders,however, do not tend to switch to either violentor property offenses.

d. Co-offending Patterns. Another importantcriminal career feature is whether a personcommits on offense alone or with others (Reiss1986). Little empirical work has been completedon co-offending, and even less informationexists regarding the group criminal behavior ofyouths in transition to adult status or of adultoffenders at different ages. In the CambridgeStudy, Reiss and Farrington (1991) report thatthe incidence of co-offending is greatest forburglary and robbery, and that juvenileoffenders primarily commit their crimes withothers, whereas adult offenders primarilycommit their crimes alone. Although thedecline in co-offending may, at first glance, beattributed to co-offenders dropping out, itseems to occur because males change from co-offending in their teenage years to loneoffending in their twenties. In the Swedish



Borlänge study, Sarnecki (1990) found that 45percent of all youths suspected of offense atsome stage during the six-year study periodcould be linked together in a single largenetwork that accounted for most offenses.Recently, Sarnecki (2001) used data from allindividuals aged twenty or less who weresuspected of one or more offenses in Stockholmduring 1991–1995 to study the extent and roleof co-offending and uncovered that 60 percentof the individuals had a co-offender at somepoint. Interestingly, he also found that malestended to co-offend primarily with othermales, but among females, the proportion ofgirls choosing other females was lower thanthe proportion of boys choosing other males asco-offenders. Conway and McCord (2002)conducted the first co-offending study designedto track patterns of violent criminal behaviorover an eighteen-year period (1976–1994)among a random sample of 400 urbanoffenders and their accomplices in Philadelphia.Using crime data collected from court recordsand “rap sheets,” they found that nonviolentoffenders who committed their first co-offensewith a violent accomplice were at increasedrisk for subsequent serious violent crime,independent of the effects of age and gender.

B. Policy Issues

The criminal career paradigm suggeststhree general orientations for crime controlstrategies: prevention, career modification,and incapacitation. Knowledge concerning thepatterning of criminal careers is intimatelyrelated to these policy issues. Preventionstrategies, including general deterrence, areintended to reduce the number of nonoffend-ers who become offenders. Career modifica-tion strategies, including individual deterrenceand rehabilitation, are focused on personsalready known to be criminals and seek toreduce the frequency or seriousness of theircrimes. In addition, these strategies encouragethe termination of ongoing criminal careers

through mechanisms such as job training anddrug treatment. Incapacitative strategies focuson the crimes reduced as a result of removingoffenders from society during their criminalcareers. Two types of incapacitation are gen-eral, or collective and selective which focuseson the highest frequency offenders. Thesethree crime control strategies are intimatelyrelated to specific laws, including habitualoffender statutes, truth-in-sentencing laws,three-strikes laws, and mandatory minimumsentences laws.

1. Crime Control Strategies

Of all crime control strategies, the criminalcareer paradigm has focused extensive atten-tion on incapacitation. General or collectiveincapacitation strategies aim to reduce criminalactivity as a consequence of increasing the totallevel of incarceration while selective incapacita-tion policies focus primarily on offenders whorepresent the greatest risk of future offending.The former approach is consistent with theequal treatment concerns of a just-deserts sen-tencing policy while the latter focuses as muchon the offenders as the offense. Importantly, thedegree to which selective incapacitation poli-cies are effective depends on the ability to dis-tinguish high- and low-risk offenders, and toidentify them early enough before they areabout to terminate criminal activity. Threerelated issues arise: the ability to classify indi-vidual offenders in terms of their projectedcriminal activity; the quality of the classifica-tion rules; and the legitimacy of basing punish-ment of an individual on the possibility offuture crimes rather than only on the crimesalready committed (and the consequent level ofdisparity that is considered acceptable).

Regarding collective incapacitation,Blumstein et al. (1986) suggest that achieving a10 percent reduction in crime may requiremore than doubling the existing inmate popu-lation. However, under selective incapacitationpolicies, long prison terms would be reserved

primarily for offenders identified as mostlikely to continue committing serious crimesat high rates. Blumstein et al. conclude thatselective incapacitation policies could achieve5 to 10 percent reductions in robbery with 10to 20 percent increases in the population ofrobbers in prison, while much larger increasesin prison populations are required for collec-tive incapacitation policies.

2. Relationship to Laws

Both collective and selective incapacitationpolicies are directly influenced by laws and poli-cies that govern criminal justice decisionsregarding the punishment of offenders. Forexample, habitual offender statutes give specialoptions to prosecutors for dealing with repeatoffenders. Truth-in-sentencing laws are intendedto increase incapacitation by requiring offend-ers, particularly violent offenders, to serve a sub-stantial portion of their prison sentence, andparole eligibility and good-time credits arerestricted or eliminated. Three-strikes laws pro-vide that any person convicted of three, typicallyviolent, felony offenses, must serve a lengthyprison term, usually a minimum term oftwenty-five-years-to-life. Mandatory-minimumsentence laws require a specified sentence andprohibit offenders convicted of certain crimesfrom being placed on probation, while otherstatutes prohibit certain offenders from beingconsidered for parole. Mandatory-minimumsentence laws can also serve as sentencingenhancement measures, requiring that offendersspend additional time in prison if they commitparticular crimes in a particular manner (e.g.,committing a felony with a gun). The net effectof these laws is to increase prison populations byincarcerating certain kinds of offenders orincreasing the sentence length of those offendersconvicted for certain types of crimes.

C. “Chronic” Offenders

Criminologists have long recognized thata small group of individuals is responsible for

a majority of criminal activity. Wolfgang et al.(1972) focused attention on the chronicoffender by applying that label to the smallgroup of 627 delinquents in the 1945Philadelphia birth cohort who committed fiveor more offenses by age seventeen (hereafterfive-plus). This group constituted just 6 per-cent of the full cohort of 9,945 males and 18percent of the delinquent subset of 3,475, butwas responsible for 5,305 offenses, or 52 per-cent of all delinquency in the cohort throughage seventeen. The chronic offenders wereresponsible for an even larger percentage of themore serious, violent offenses. The finding thata small subset of sample members are respon-sible for a majority of criminal activity is sup-ported by data from other longitudinal datasets, including the second 1958 Philadelphiabirth cohort (Tracy et al., 1990), the PuertoRico Birth Cohort Study (Nevares et al., 1990),the Dunedin New Zealand MultidisciplinaryHealth Study (Moffitt et al. 2001), thePhiladelphia (Piquero 2000) and Providence(Piquero and Buka 2002) perinatal projects,the Racine, Wl birth cohorts (Shannon 1982),the Cambridge study (Farrington 2003), andalso by cohort studies in Sweden (Wikström1985), Finland (Pulkkinen 1988), andDenmark (Guttridge et al. 1983). The findingis also replicated across gender and race(Moffitt et al. 2001; Piquero and Buka 2002),and emerges from both official and self-reportdata. Research also indicates that chronicoffenders exhibit an early onset, a longercareer duration, and involvement in seriousoffenses—including person/violent-orientedoffenses—than other offenders (Loeber andFarrington 1998).

The five-plus cutoff advanced by Wolfganget al. has been employed in several studies;however, since theoretical and empirical defin-itions of chronicity have yet to be established,questions have been raised about the extent towhich similar definitions of chronicity shouldbe used across gender (Farrington and Loeber1998; Piquero 2000), as well as the relatively



arbitrary designation of five-plus offenses ascharacteristic of chronicity (Blumstein et al.1985). Blumstein et al. (1985) raised otherconcerns with the use of five-plus as thechronicity cut point. They argued that thechronic offender calculation, which was basedon the full cohort, overestimates the chronicoffender effect because many cohort memberswill never be arrested. Instead, they urge thatthe ever-arrested subjects should be the baseused to calculate the chronic offender effect.With the base, the 627 chronics with five-plusarrests represented 18 percent of thosearrested, as opposed to 6 percent of thecohort. Blumstein and colleagues also arguedthat the proportion of chronic offendersobserved by Wolfgang et al. could haveresulted from a homogenous population ofpersisters. Blumstein et al. (1985) tested thehypothesis that all persisters (those with morethan three arrests) could be viewed as havingthe same rearrest probability. Such anassumption could not be rejected. Althoughthose with five-plus arrests accounted for themajority of arrests among the persisters, sucha result could have occurred even if all sub-jects with three or more arrests had identicalrecidivism probabilities. Thus, the chronicoffenders who were identified retrospectivelyas those with five or more arrests could nothave been distinguished prospectively fromnonchronics with three or four arrests.

yy II. Policy Implications

Research on criminal careers has directimport for decision-making in the criminaljustice system. In this section, we address fourimplications of criminal career research: therole of criminal career research in policy andindividual decision-making, individual pre-diction of offending frequencies (λ), sentenceduration, and research on career length anddesistance and its relation to intelligent sen-tencing policy.

A. Role of Criminal Career Research in Policy and Individual Decision-Making

A principal example of the importance ofcriminal career research for criminal justice pol-icy is criminal career length. Three-strikes andselective incapacitation philosophies assumethat high-rate offenders will continue to offendat high rates and for long periods of time if theyare not incarcerated. From an incapacitativeperspective, incarceration is only effective inaverting crimes when it is applied during anactive criminal career. Thus, incarceration afterthe career ends or when a career is abating, iswasted for incapacitation purposes (Blumsteinet al. 1982:70). By identifying career lengths,especially residual career lengths, policymakerscan better target incarceration on offenderswhose expected remaining careers are longest.Incarceration policies should be based on careerduration distribution information. The morehardcore committed offenders with the longestremaining careers are identifiable only after anoffender has remained active for several years(Blumstein et al. 1982). Earlier and later incriminal careers, sanctions will be applied tomany offenders who are likely to drop outshortly anyway (Blumstein et al. 1982:71). Thebenefits derived from incapacitation will varydepending on an individual’s crime rate and thelength of his or her remaining criminal career.Continuing to incarcerate an offender afterhis/her career ends limits the usefulness ofincarceration.

B. Individual Prediction of λλ

Rand’s second inmate survey highlightedthe extreme skewness of the distribution of �λfor a sample of serious criminals (Chaiken andChaiken 1982; Visher 1986). Naturally, the iden-tification of a small number of inmates whoreported committing several hundred crimesper year led to the search for a method to iden-tify these offenders in advance. If high-rate

offenders cannot be identified prospectively,then crime control efforts will be hampered(Visher 1987). In this section, we highlight tworelated issues: the difficulty in identifying high-λindividuals,and the alleviation of the concernover prediction by “stochastic selectivity.”

1. Difficulty in Identifying High-�λ Individuals

Although high-λ individuals emerge inthe aggregate, it has been difficult to identifyspecific individuals. Greenwood and Turner(1987) used data consisting of follow-up crim-inal history information on the Californiainmates who were included in the originalRand survey and who had been out of prisonfor two years to examine the extent to whichGreenwood’s seven-item prediction scale suc-ceeded in predicting recidivism. The scale wasnot very effective in predicting post-releasecriminal activity when the recidivism measurewas arrest. The majority of released inmates,regardless of whether they were predicted to below- or high-rate offenders, were rearrestedwithin two years. Greenwood and Turner alsocreated a measure of the offender’s annualarrest rate (i.e., the number of arrests per yearof street time) for the follow-up sample anddefined high-rate offenders as those inmateswho had an actual arrest rate greater than 0.78.They found that the seven-item scale was lessaccurate in predicting annual arrest rates thanit was in predicting re-incarceration.

There are also concerns related to the falsepositive prediction problem in identifyinghigh-λ individuals. For example, Visher(1986:204-5) reanalyzed the Rand secondinmate survey and found that not only werethe estimates of �λ for robbery and burglarysensitive to choices in computation (i.e., han-dling missing data, street time, etc.), but alsothat some inmates reported annual rates of1,000 or more robberies or burglaries, thusstrongly affecting the distribution of λ, andespecially its mean. Finally, Visher’s analysis ofthe Greenwood scale for identifying high-rate

offenders indicated that 55 percent of the classi-fied high-rate group (27 percent of the totalsample) were false positives who did not com-mit crimes at high rates. In fact, the predictionscale worked better in identifying low-rateoffenders. Recently, Auerhahn (1999) replicatedGreenwood and Abrahams’s (1982) selectiveincapacitation study with a representative sam-ple of California state prison inmates, andfound that the scale’s overall predictive accuracywas 60 percent, indicating a great deal of errorin identifying serious, high-rate offenders.

2. Concern and Need for Prediction Alleviated by “Stochastic Selectivity”

Many analyses of the crime control poten-tial of increasing incarceration rely on a singleestimate of mean �λ derived from prisoninmates and applying it indiscriminately to allrelated populations of offenders (Canela-Cacho et al. 1997). This assumes that alloffenders engage in the same amount (λ�) ofcriminal behavior—regardless of whether theyare in prison or jail, or free in the community—and that the probability of their detection andincarceration is equal. However, measures of λ�derived from arrestee/convictee populationsdisplay a strong selection bias because individ-uals who have gone through the criminal jus-tice process are unlikely to be representative ofthe total offender population. This selectionbias could be because samples of arrestees havea higher propensity for arrest or differentoffending frequencies. A highly heterogeneousdistribution of offending frequency in the totalpopulation of offenders combines with rela-tively low imprisonment levels to lead to sub-stantial selectivity of high-λ offenders amongresident inmates and a correspondingly lowmean value of �λ among those offenders whoremain free (Canela-Cacho et al. 1997).“Stochastic selectivity,” then, draws into prisonnew inmates disproportionately from thehigh end of the λ�distribution of free offend-ers. Further, the higher the incarceration



probability following a crime, the deeper intothe offender pool incarceration will reach, andthe lower will be the incapacitation effect asso-ciated with the incoming cohorts (Canela-Cacho et al. 1997).

Using data from the second Rand inmatesurvey, Canela-Cacho et al. studied the issue ofstochastic selectivity and found that the pro-portion of low-λ� burglars and robbers amongfree offenders was much larger than amongresident inmates, while at the high end of theoffending frequency distribution there was alarger proportion of high-λ burglars and rob-bers among resident inmates than among freeoffenders. Thus, selectivity occurred naturallyas high-λ offenders experienced greater oppor-tunities for incarceration through the greaternumber of crimes they committed (Canela-Cacho el al. 1997:142), thereby obviating theneed for efforts to explicitly identify individualhigh-λ offenders.

C. Sentence Duration

Information about crime rates and careerlengths is particularly useful for incapacitationand incarceration decisions and policies, andsuch knowledge can also provide useful informa-tion regarding the intelligent use of incapacita-tion and may even provide powerful argumentsagainst lengthy incapacitation policies. Principalamong these is the decision regarding sentencelength. Many current sentencing policies arebased on the assumption that high-rate offenderswill continue committing crimes at high ratesand for lengthy periods, and thus prescribelengthy incarceration stints. The extent to whichthis policy is effective however, is contingent onthe duration of a criminal career.

Much debate regarding sentence length hascentered on three-strikes policies. These policiesseverely limit judges’ discretion because theyprescribe a mandatory prison sentence of (typi-cally) twenty-five-years-to-life. The incapacita-tion effectiveness of three-strikes laws, however,depends on the duration of criminal careers. To

the extent that sentencing decisions incarcerateindividuals with short residual career lengths, athree-strikes law will waste incarcerationresources (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio 1997:466).

Stolzenberg and D’Alessio (1997) usedaggregate data drawn from the ten largestcities in California to examine the impact ofCalifornia’s three-strikes law on serious crimerates and found that the three-strikes law didnot decrease serious crime or petty theft ratesbelow the level expected on the basis of preex-isting trends. Zimring et al. (1999) obtained asample of felony arrests (and relevant criminalrecords) in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and SanDiego, both before and after the California lawwent into effect to study the three-strikes issue.Two key findings emerged from their study.First, the mean age at arrest for two strikes andabove was 34.6 years. This is particularlyimportant because: “[O]n average the two ormore strikes defendant has an almost 40 per-cent longer criminal adult career behind him(estimated at 16.6 years) than does the no-strikes felony defendant. All other things beingequal, this means that the twenty-five-years-to-life mandatory prison sentence will preventfewer crimes among the third-strike groupthan it would in the general population offelons because the group eligible for it is some-what older” (Zimring et al. 1999:34). Second,when comparing crime trends in the threecities before and after the law, Zimring et al.found that there was no decline in the crimescommitted by those targeted by the new law. Inparticular, the lower crime rates in 1994 and1995 (just immediately after the three-strikeslaw went into effect) were evenly spread amongtargeted and non-targeted populations, sug-gesting that the decline in crime observed afterthe law went into effect was not due to the law.

D. Research on Career Length and Desistance

Sentencing practices involving lengthysentence durations assume that affected

offenders will continue to commit crime at ahigh rate and for a long period. To the extentthat this is the case, incapacitation policies willavert crimes and thwart continued careers.However, to the extent that offenders retirebefore the expiration of a lengthy sentence,shorter career durations will reduce the effectsof lengthy sentences. Using data from Florida,Schmertmann et al. (1998) concluded that theaging of prison populations under three-strikes policies in that state will underminetheir long-run effectiveness. In particular, theynoted that the policies will cause increases inprison populations due to the addition of largenumbers of older inmates who are unlikely tocommit future offenses.

The key to the sentence duration issue,and why estimates of criminal career durationare so important, rests on the characteristics ofthe person years—not the people—that areremoved from free society as a result of suchpolicies (Schmertmann et al. 1998:458). Suchpolicies will be effective only to the extent thatthey incarcerate offenders during the earlystages of their criminal careers when they arecommitting crimes at a high-rate.

Unfortunately, research on career dura-tion and desistance is in its infancy. Knowledgeon this subject will be important for furtheringcriminal justice policy and the cost-effectiveuse of criminal justice resources.

yy III. Directions for FutureCriminal Career Research

Evidence on criminal career issues cuts to theheart of theory and policy. On the theoreticalside, knowledge on the correlates of criminalcareer dimensions is relevant to the necessityfor general versus typological models. Ifresearch indicates that the correlates of oneoffending dimension are similar to anotheroffending dimension, then more general andnon-dimension-specific theories are war-ranted. If the correlates of one offending

dimension are different from another offend-ing dimension, then the causal process(es)underlying these two particular dimensionsare probably different and different explana-tions and theories are required.

Better knowledge on various criminalcareer dimensions would aid policy initiativesdesigned to prevent initial involvement, curtailcurrent offending, and accelerate the desis-tance process. If research suggests that poorparental socialization is related to early initia-tion, then prevention efforts should includeparent-training efforts. Similarly, if drug use isassociated with continued involvement indelinquent and criminal behavior, then inter-vention efforts should include drug treatment.Finally, if some set of correlates is associatedwith desistance, then policy efforts may wishto provide for specific prevention and inter-vention efforts.

Knowledge on career length and residualcareer length could best inform criminal jus-tice policies because it deals directly with sen-tencing and incapacitation policies that arenow driven more by ideology than by empiri-cal knowledge. For example, if residual crimi-nal career lengths average around five years,criminal justice policies advocating multi-decade sentences waste scarce resources.Similarly, if offenders are incarcerated in lateadulthood when their residual career lengthshave diminished, incarceration space will bewasted, and health care costs will increase,thereby further straining scarce resources.

Empirical study of criminal careersrequires data collection for large samples ofindividuals beginning early in life and contin-uing for a lengthy period into adulthood. Suchdata are needed if questions surrounding initi-ation, continuation, and desistance are to beadequately addressed, and this is especially thecase among serious offenders for which littlelongitudinal data exists (Laub and Sampson2001; Piquero et al. 2002). The use of such lon-gitudinal data, of course, brings with it severalpotential problems that need to be considered



including methodological issues such as streettime (Piquero et al. 2001), mortality (Eggleston,Laub, and Sampson 2003) and sample attrition(Brame and Piquero 2003), as well as statisticalissues that deal with various modeling strategiesand assumptions (Bushway et al. 1999; Nagin1999; Raudenbush 2001). Nevertheless, contin-ued data collection and research are importantto identify and study unaddressed and unre-solved criminal career issues, and to updatethirty-year-old estimates.

Information derived from criminal careerresearch is important to advance fundamentalknowledge about offending and to assist crim-inal justice decision-makers in dealing withoffenders. Much more important criminalcareer research lies on the horizon nationallyand internationally, and we look forward toseeing this research emerge.

yy ReferencesAuerhahn, Kathleen. 1999. “Selective Incapacitation

and the Problem of Prediction.” Criminology 37:703–34.

Blumstein, Alfred, and Jacqueline Cohen. 1979.“Estimation of Individual Crime Rates from ArrestRecords.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology70: 561–85.

Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohn, Somnath Das, andSoumyo D. Moitra. 1988. “Specialization andSeriousness during Adult Criminal Careers.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 4: 303–45.

Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and Paul Hsieh.1982. The Duration of Adult Criminal Careers.Final report submitted to National Institute ofJustice, August 1982. Pittsburgh, PA: School ofUrban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-MellonUniversity.

Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth,and Christy A. Visher, eds. 1986. Criminal Careersand “Career Criminal.” 2 vols. Panel on Research onCriminal Careers, Committee on Research on LawEnforcement and the Administration of Justice.Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation, National Research Council. Washington,D.C.: National Academy Press.

Blumstein, Alfred, David P. Farrington, and SoumyoMoitra. 1985. “Delinquency Careers: Innocents,Desisters, and Persisters.” In Crime and Justice: AnAnnual Review of Research, Vol. 6, ed. MichaelTonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Brame. Robert, and Alex R. Piquero. 2003. “The Roleof Sample Attrition in Studying the LongitudinalRelationship between Age and Crime.” Journal ofQuantitative Criminology.

Bursik, Robert J., Jr. 1980. “The Dynamics ofSpecialization in Juvenile Offenses.” Social Forces 58:851–64.

Bushway, Shawn, Robert Brame, and RaymondPaternoster. 1999. “Assessing Stability and Change inCriminal Offending: A Comparison of RandomEffects, Semiparametric, and Fixed Effects ModelingStrategies.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15:23–64.

Bushway, Shawn D., Alex R. Piquero, Lisa M. Broidy,Elizabeth Cauffman, and Paul Mazerolle. 2001. “AnEmpirical Framework for Studying Desistance as aProcess.” Criminology 39: 491–515.

Canela-Cacho. José E., Alfred Blumstein, andJacqueline Cohen. 1997. “Relationship between theOffending Frequency (λ) of Imprisoned and FreeOffenders.” Criminology 35: 133–76.

Capaldi, Deborah N., and Gerald R. Patterson. 1996.“Can Violent Offenders Be Distinguished fromFrequent Offenders: Prediction from Childhood toAdolescence.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33: 206–31.

Chaiken, Jan M., and Marcia R. Chaiken. 1982. Varietiesof Criminal Behavior. Rand Report R-2814-NIJ.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Cohen, Jacqueline. 1986. “Research on CriminalCareers: Individual Frequency Rates and OffenseSeriousness.” In Criminal Careers and “CareerCriminals, Vol. 1, ed. Alfred Blumstein, JacquelineCohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Conway, Kevin P., and Joan McCord. 2002. “ALongitudinal Examination of the Relation betweenCo-offending with Violent Accomplices andViolent Crime.” Aggressive Behavior 28: 97–108.

Eggleston, Eliane, John H. Laub, and Robert J. Sampson.2003. “Examining Long-term Trajectories ofCriminal Offending: The Glueck Delinquents fromAge 7 to 80.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology,forthcoming.

Elliott, Delbert S. 1994. “1993 Presidential Address—Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, DevelopmentalCourse, and Termination.” Criminology 32: 1–22.

Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne S. Ageton, David Huizinga,Barbara Knowles, and R. Canter. 1983. ThePrevalence and Incidence of Delinquent Behavior:1976–1980. National Youth Survey, Report No. 26.Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and BarbaraMorse. 1987. “Self-Reported Violent Offending:A Descriptive Analysis of Juvenile Violent Offen -ders and Their Offending Careers.” Journal ofInterpersonal Violence 1: 472–514.

Farrington, David P. 1986. “Age and Crime.” In Crimeand Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 7,ed. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

———. 1989. “Self-Reported and Official Offendingfrom Adolescence to Adulthood.” In Cross-NationalResearch in Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency,ed. Malcolm W. Klein. Dordrecht: Kluwrer.

———. 2003. “Key Results from the First Forty Yearsof the Cambridge Study in DelinquentDevelopment.” In Taking Stock of Delinquency: AnOverview of Findings from Contemporary Longitu -dinal Studies, ed. Terence P. Thornberry andMarvin D. Krohn. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Farrington, David P., Sandra Lambert, and Donald J.West. 1998. “Criminal Careers of Two Generationsof Family Members in the Cambridge Study inDelinquent Development.” Studies on Crime andCrime Prevention 7: 85–106.

Farrington, David P., and Rolf Loeber. 1998. “MajorAims of This Book.” In Serious & Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions,ed. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Farrington, David P., Rolf Loeber, Delbert S. Elliott, J.David Hawkins, Denise Kandel, Malcolm Klein,Joan McCord, David Rowe, and Richard Tremblay.1990. “Advancing Knowledge about the Onset ofDelinquency and Crime.” In Advances in Clinicaland Child Psychology, ed. Bernard Lahey and A.Kazdin. New York: Plenum.

Farrington, David P., Howard N. Snyder, and TerrenceA. Finnegan. 1988. “Specialization in JuvenileCourt Careers.” Criminology 26: 461–87.

Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. AGeneral Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Greenberg, David F. 1975. “The Incapacitative Effect ofImprisonment: Some Estimates.” Law and SocietyReview 9: 541–80.

Greene, M. A. 1977. The Incapacitative Effect ofImprisonment on Policies of Crime. UnpublishedPhD thesis, School of Urban and Public Affairs,Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.(University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI).

Greenwood, Peter W., and Allan Abrahams. 1982.Selective lncapacitation. Rand Report R-2815-NIJ.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Greenwood, Peter W., and Susan Turner. 1987. Selectivelncapacitation Revisited: Why the High-RateOffenders Are Hard to Predict. Rand Report R-3397-NIJ. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Guttridge, P., W. F. Gabrielli, Jr., Sarnoff A. Mednick,and Kathertne T. Van Dusen. 1983. “CriminalViolence in a Birth Cohort.” In Prospective Studiesof Crime and Delinquency,, ed. Katherine T. VanDusen and Sarnoff A. Mednick. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Hamparian, D. M., R. Schuster, S. Dinitz, and J. Conrad. 1978. The Violent Few: A Study ofDangerous Juvenile Offenders. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Hindelang , Michael, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis.1981. Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Hirschi, Travis, and Michael G. Gottfredson. 1983.“Age and the Explanation of Crime.” AmericanJournal of Sociology 89: 552–84

Kelley, Barbara Tatem, David Huizinga, Terence P.Thornberry, and Rolf Loeber. 1997. Epidemiologyof Serious Violence. Office of Juvenile JusticeBulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Krohn, Marvin D., Terence P. Thornberry, CraigRivera, and Marc Le Blanc. 2001. “LaterDelinquency Careers.” In Child Deinquents:Development, Intervention, and Service Needs, ed.Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2001.“Understanding Desistance from Crime.” In Crimeand Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 28, ed. MichaelTonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lauritsen, Janet. 1998. “The Age-Crime Debate:Assessing the Limits of Longitudinal Self-ReportData.” Social Forces 77: 127–55.



Le Blanc, Marc, and Marcel Fréchette. 1989. MaleCriminal Activity from Childhood through Youth:Multilevel and Developmental Perspectives. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Loeber, Rolf, and David P. Farrington, eds. 1998.Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factorsand Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Loeber, Rolf, and Howard N. Snyder. 1990. “Rate ofOffending in Juvenile Careers: Findings of Constancyand Change in Lambda.” Criminology 28: 97–110.

Moffitt, Terrie E., Avshalom Caspi, Michael Rutter, andPhil A. Silva. 2001. Sex Differences in AntisocialBehaviour: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, andViolence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nagin, Daniel S. 1999. “Analyzing DevelopmentalTrajectories: A Semi-Parametric, Group-BasedApproach.” Psychological Methods 4: 139–77.

Nevares, Dora, Marvin E. Wolfgang, and Paul E. Tracy.1990. Delinquency in Puerto Rico: The 1970 BirthCohort Study. New York: Greenwood Press.

Petersilia, Joan. 1980. “Criminal Career Research: AReview of Recent Evidence.” In Crime and Justice:An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 2, ed. NorvalMorris and Michael Tonry. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Petersilia, Joan, Peter W. Greenwood, and MarvinLavin. 1978. Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons.Washington, DC: National Institute of LawEnforcement and Criminal Justice, Law EnforcementAssistance Administration, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Peterson, Mark A., and Harriet B. Braiker. 1980. DoingCrime: A Survey of California Prison Inmates.Report R-2200-DOJ. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Piquero, Alex R. 2000. “Assessing the Relationshipsbetween Gender, Chronicity, Seriousness, andOffense Skewness in Criminal Offending.” Journalof Criminal Justice 28:103–16.

Piquero, Alex R., Alfred Blumstein, Robert Brame,Rudy Haapanen, Edward P. Mulvey, and Daniel S.Nagin. 2001. “Assessing the Impact of ExposureTime and Incapacitation on Longitudinal Trajec -tories of Criminal Offending.” Journal of AdolescentResearch 16:54–74.

Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, and Donald Lynam.2003. “Do the Factors Associated with Life-Course-Persistent Offending Relate to CareerLength?” Crime and Delinquency, forthcoming.

Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and AlfredBlumstein. 2003. “The Criminal Career Paradigm.”In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 30,ed. Michael Tonry. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, andRudy Haapanen. 2002. “Crime in EmergingAdulthood.” Criminology 40: 137–70.

Piquero, Alex R., and Stephen L. Buka. 2002. “LinkingJuvenile and Adult Patterns of Criminal Activity inthe Providence Cohort of the National Colla -borative Perinatal Project.” Journal of CriminalJustice 30: 1–14.

Piquero, Alex R., Raymond Paternoster, Paul Mazerolle,Robert Brame, and Charles W. Dean. 1999. “OnsetAge and Offense Specialization.” Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 36: 275–99.

Pulkkinen, L. 1988. “Delinquent Development:Theoretical and Empirical Considerations.” InStudies of Psychosocial Risk: The Power ofLongitudinal Data, ed. Michael Rutter. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Quetelet, Adolphe. 1831. Research on the Propensity forCrime at Different Ages. 1984 edition translated bySawyer F. Sylvester. Cincinnati, OH: AndersonPublishing Company.

Raudenbush, Stephen W. 2001. “Toward a CoherentFramework for Comparing Trajectories of IndividualChange.” In New Methods for the Analysis of Change,ed. Linda M. Collins and Aline G. Sayers. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. 1986. “Co-Offender Influences onCriminal Careers.” In Criminal Careers and “CareerCriminals,” ed. Alfred Blumstein, JacquelineCohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr., and David P. Farrington. 1991.“Advancing Knowledge about Co-Offending:Results from a Prospective Longitudinal Survey ofLondon Males.” Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology 82: 360–95.

Rojek, D. G., and M. L. Erickson. 1982. “DelinquentCareers: A Test of the Career Escalation Model.”Criminology 20: 5–28.

Sarnecki, Jerzy. 1990. “Delinquent Networks inSweden.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 6:31–51.

———. 2001. Delinquent Networks . Youth Co-Offendingin Stockholm. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schmertmann, Carl P., Adansi A. Amankwaa, andRobert D. Long. 1998. “Three Strikes and You’reOut: Demographic Analysis of Mandatory PrisonSentencing.” Demography 35: 445–63.

Shannon, Lyle. 1982. Assessing the Relationship of AdultCriminal Careers to Juvenile Careers. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Shinnar, Shlomo, and Reuel Shinnar. 1975. “TheEffects of the Criminal Justice System on theControl of Crime: A Quantitative Approach.” Lawand Society Review 9: 581–611.

Smith, D. Randall, and William R. Smith. 1984. “Patternsof Delinquent Careers: An Assessment of ThreePerspectives.” Social Science Research 13: 129–58.

Spelman, William. 1994. Criminal Incapacitation.New York: Plenum.

Stattin, Håkan, David Magnusson, and HowardReichel. 1989. “Criminal Activity at Different Ages:A Study Based on a Swedish Longitudinal ResearchPopulation.” British Journal of Criminology 29:368–85.

Steffensmeier, Darrell J., Emilie Andersen Allan, Miles D.Harer, and Cathy Streifel. 1989. “Age and theDistribution of Crime.” American Journal ofSociology 94: 803–31.

Stolzknberg, Lisa, and Stewart J. D’Alessio. 1997. “‘ThreeStrikes and You’re Out’: The Impact of California’sNew Mandatory Sentencing Law on Serious CrimeRates.” Crime and Delinquency 43: 457–69.

Thornberry. Terence P. 1989. “Panel Effects and theUse of Self-Reported Measures of Delinquency inLongitudinal Studies.” In Cross-National Researchin Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency, ed.Malcolm W. Klein. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Tittle, Charles R., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993.“Criminal Behavior and Age: A Test of ThreeProvocative Hypotheses.” Journal of Criminal Lawand Criminology 88: 309–42.

Tracy, Paul E., Marvin E. Wolfgang, and Robert M.Figlio. 1990. Delinquency Careers in Two BirthCohorts. New York: Plenum.

Visher, Christy A. 1986. “The Rand Inmate Survey: ARe-Analysis.” In Criminal Careers and “ CareerCriminals,” Vol. 2, ed. Alfred Blumstein, JacquelineCohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

———. 1987. “Incapacitation and Crime Control:Does a ‘Lock ’em Up’ Strategy Reduce Crime?”Justice Quarterly 4: 513–43.

———. 2000. “Career Criminals and Crime Control.”In Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook, ed.Joseph F. Sheley. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Visher, Christy A., and Jeffrey A Roth. 1986. “Parti -cipation in Criminal Careers.” In Criminal Careersand “Career Criminals,” Vol. 1, ed. Alfred Blumstein,Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A.Visher. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Wikström, Per-Olof H. 1985. Everyday Violence inContemporary Sweden: Situational and EcologicalAspects. Stockholm: National Council for CrimePrevention, Sweden, Research Division.

Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and ThorstenSellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zimring, Franklin E., Sam Kamin, and GordonHawkins. 1999. Crime and Punishment in California:The Impact of Three Strikes and You’re Out.Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental StudiesPress, University of California.



1. Explain in your own words some of the concepts that Piquero et al. point out as key concepts of thecareer criminal paradigm, such as offending frequency, duration, and so on. Which of the concepts doyou feel are most important in determining which individuals pose the greatest danger to society?

2. Which policy implications suggested by Piquero et al. do you feel make the most sense? Which make theleast sense to you, and why?

3. Do you know any individuals in your life whom you would classify as chronic offenders (if not, considerstories in the media/press)? What do you think caused them to become such habitual offenders? Whatdo you think are the primary causes for their chronic offending, and what types of policies would youimplement to prevent others from becoming such persistent offenders?

�

647

S E C T I O N

XINTEGRATEDINTEGRATEDTHEORETICALTHEORETICALMODELS AND NEWMODELS AND NEWPERSPECTIVES OFPERSPECTIVES OFCRIMECRIME

The introduction of this section will introduce integrated theories, those in whichtwo or more traditional theories are merged into one cohesive model.We will thendiscuss the pros and cons of integrating theories and explain the various ways

theories can be integrated. A review of various integrated theories will demonstrate themany ways different theories have been merged to form a more empirically validexplanation for criminal behavior.

yy IntroductionThis introduction examines relatively recent developments in criminological develop-ment, with virtually all of these advances taking place in the last couple of decades.Specifically, we discuss the types of models that modern explanatory formulations seemto have taken, namely integrated and theories. Of course, other unique theoretical frame-works have been presented in the last 20 years, but most of the dominant models presented during this time fall into the category of integrated theories.

Integrated theories attempt to integrate two or more traditionally separate modelsof offending to form one unified explanatory theory. Given the empirical validity of mostof the theories discussed in previous sections, as well as the failure of all of these previ-ously examined theories to explain all variation in offending behavior, it makes sense thattheorists would try to combine the best of several theories, while disregarding orde-emphasizing the concepts and propositions that don’t seem to be as scientifically validin each of the frameworks. Furthermore, some forms of theoretical integration deal withonly concepts or propositions, while others vary by level of analysis (micro vs. macro, orboth). Although such integrated formulations sound attractive and appear to be sure-fireways to develop sounder explanatory models of behavior, they have a number of weak-nesses and criticisms. In this introduction, we explore these issues, as well as the bestknown and most accepted integrated theories that are currently being examined andtested in the extant criminological literature.

yy Integrated TheoriesAbout 30 years ago at a conference at the State University of New York at Albany, leadingscholars in criminological theory development and research came together to discuss themost important issues in the growing area of theoretical integration.1 Some integratedtheories go well beyond formulating relationships between two or more traditionally sep-arate explanatory models; they actually fuse the theories into one, all-encompassingframework. The following sections will examine why integrated theories became popularover the last several decades while discussing different types of integrated theories, thestrengths and weaknesses of theoretical integration, and several of the better known andrespected integrated theories.

The Need for Integrated Theories in Criminology

The emphasis on theoretical integration is a relatively recent development, which hasevolved due to the need to improve the empirical validity of our traditional theories, whichsuffer from lack of input from various disciplines.2 This was the result of the history ofcriminological theory, which we discussed in prior sections of this book. Specifically, most19th-century theories of criminal behavior are best described as based on a single-factor(e.g., IQ) or limited-factor (e.g., stigmata) reductionism. Later, in the early 1900s, a secondstage of theoretical development involved the examination of various social, biological,and psychological factors, which became known as the multiple-factor approach and ismost commonly linked with the work of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck.

Finally, in the latter half of the 20th century, a third stage of theoretical developmentand research in criminology became dominant, which represented a backlash against themultiple-factor approach. This stage has been called systemic reductionism,which refers to


1For a compilation of the papers presented at this conference, see Steven F. Messner, Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E.Liska, eds., Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects (Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1989).

2This discussion is largely drawn from Charles F. Wellford, “Towards an Integrated Theory of Criminal Behavior,” inMessner et al., Theoretical Integration, 119–27.

Section X � Integrated Theoretical Models and New Perspectives of Crime 649

the pervasive attempts to explain criminal behavior in terms of a particular system ofknowledge.3 For example, a biologist who examines only individuals’ genotype will likelynot be able to explain much criminal behavior because he is missing a lot of informationabout the environment in which the person lives, such as level of poverty or unemploy-ment. For the last 50 years, the criminological discipline in the United States has beendominated by sociologists, which is largely due to the efforts and influence of EdwinSutherland (see Section VII). Thus, as one expert has observed:

It is not surprising to find that most current explanations of criminal behaviorare sociologically based and are attempts to explain variations in the rates ofcriminal behavior as opposed to individual instances of that behavior . . . [e]venwhen the effort is to explain individual behavior, the attempt is to use exposureto or belief in cultural or social factors to explain individual instances or patternsof criminal behavior. . . . We find ourselves at the stage of development in crim-inology where a variety of sociological systemic reductionistic explanationsdominate, all of which have proven to be relatively inadequate (to the standardof total explanation, prediction, or control) in explaining the individual occur-rence or the distribution of crime through time or space.4

Other criminologists have also noted this sociological dominance, with some goingas far to claim that:

Sutherland and the sociologists were intent on turning the study of crime into anexclusively sociological enterprise and that they overreacted to the efforts of poten-tial intruders to capture some of what they regarded as their intellectual turf.5

This dominance of sociology over the discipline is manifested in many obvious ways.For example, virtually all professors of criminology have a Doctorate of Philosophy(Ph.D.) in sociology or criminal justice, and virtually no professors have a degree inbiology, neuropsychology or other fields that obviously have important influence onhuman behavior. Furthermore, virtually no undergraduate (or even graduate) programsin criminal justice and criminology currently require students to take a course that coversprinciples in biology, psychology, anthropology, or economics; rather, virtually all thetraining is sociology based. In fact, most criminal justice programs in the United Statesdo not even offer a course in biopsychological approaches toward understanding criminalbehavior, despite the obvious need for and relevance of such perspectives.

Many modern criminologists now acknowledge the limitations of this state of sys-temic reductionism, which limits theories to only one system of knowledge, in this case

3Ibid., 120.

4Ibid., 120–21.

5Quote from Stephen Brown, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Gilbert Geis, Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context,4th ed. (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 2001), 251, regarding claims made by Robert Sampson and John Laub, “Crimeand Deviance Over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds,” American Sociological Review 55 (1990): 609–27.Also, see discussion in Richard A. Wright, “Edwin H. Sutherland,” Encyclopedia of Criminology, Vol. 1, ed. Richard A.Wright and J. Mitchell Miller (New York: Routledge, 2005).

sociology.6 What resulted is a period of relative stagnation in theoretical development, withexperts regarding the 1970s as “one of the least creative periods in criminological history.”7

In addition, the mainstream theories that were introduced for most of the 1900s (such asdifferential association, strain, social bonding, and labeling, which we reviewed in previoussections) received limited empirical support, which should not be too much of a surprisegiven that they were based on principles of only one discipline, namely sociology. Thus, ithas been proposed that integrated theories evolved as a response to such limitations and theneed to revitalize progress in the area of criminological theory building.8 After reviewingsome of the many integrated theories that have been proposed in the last two decades, wethink readers will agree that the approach of combining explanatory models has indeedhelped stimulate much growth in the area of criminological theory development. But beforeexamining these theories, it is important to discuss the varying forms they take.

Different Forms of Integrated Theories

There are several different types of integrated theories, which are typically categorizedby the way that the creator of the integrated model proposes the theories fuse together in auseful way. The three most common forms of propositional theoretical integration, mean-ing that they synthesize theories based on their postulates, are known as end-to-end, side-by-side, and up-and-down integration.9 First, we will explore each of these types beforediscussing a few more variations of combining theoretical concepts and propositions.

End-to-End Integration. The first type, end-to-end theoretical integration, typically isused when theorists expect that one theory will come before or after another in terms oftemporal ordering of causal factors. This type of integration is more developmental in thesense that it tends to propose a certain ordering of the component theories that are beingmerged. For example, an integrated theory may claim that most paths toward delinquencyand crime have their early roots in the breakdown of social attachments and controls (i.e.,social bonding theory), but later, the influence of negative peers (i.e., differentialassociation) becomes more emphasized. Thus, such a model would look like this:

Weak Social Bond � Negative Peer Associations � Crime

Such an integrated model is referred to as end-to end (or “sequential”) integration,which is appropriately named because it conveys the linkage of the theories based on thetemporal ordering of two or more theories in their causal timing.10 Specifically, the


6Wellford, “Toward an Integrated Theory”; Sampson and Laub, “Crime and Deviance.”

7Wellford, “Toward an Integrated Theory,” 120, citing Frank P. Williams III, “The Demise of CriminologicalImagination: A Critique of Recent Criminology,” Justice 1 (1984): 91–106.

8Wellford, “Toward an Integrated Theory.”

9This typology is largely based on Travis Hirschi, “Separate and Unequal Is Better,” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 16 (1979): 34–37.

10Allen E. Liska, Marvin D. Krohn, and Steven F. Messner, “Strategies and Requisites for Theoretical Integration in theStudy of Crime and Deviance,” in Messner et al., Theoretical Integration, 1–19.


breakdown of social bonds comes first, followed by the negative peer relations. Anotherway of saying this is that the breakdown of social bonds is expected to have a more“remote” or indirect influence on crime, which is mediated by differential peer influences;on the other hand, according to this model, peer influences are expected to have a more“immediate,” or direct effect on crime, with no mediating influences of other variables.This model is hypothetical and presented to illustrate the end-to-end form of integration,but we will see that some established frameworks have incorporated similar propositionsregarding social bonding and differential association/reinforcement theories.

Many of the traditionally separate theories that we have examined in previous intro-ductions tend to differ in their focus on either remote or immediate causal factors.11 Forinstance, one of the assumptions of differential association theory is that psychologicallearning of crime is based on day-to-day (or even moment-to-moment) learning, so theemphasis is on more immediate causes of crime, namely interactions with peers andother significant others. On the other hand, other theories tend to focus more on remotecauses of crime, such as social disorganization and strain theory, which place the empha-sis on social structure factors, such as relative deprivation or industrialization, that mostexperts would agree are typically not directly implicated in situational decisions to engagein an actual criminal act but are extremely important nonetheless.

This seems to be conducive to using end-to-end integration, and often, the theoriesseem to complement each other quite well, as in our hypothetical example in which socialcontrol theory proposes the remote cause (i.e., weakened bonds) and differential associ-ation theory contributes the more direct, proximate cause (i.e., negative peer influence).On the other hand, two or more theories that focus only on more immediate causes ofcrime would be harder to combine because they both claim they are working at the sametime, in a sense competing against the other for being the primary direct cause of crimi-nal activity; thus, they would be unlikely to fuse together as nicely and would not com-plement one another. Also, some theorists have argued that end-to-end integration issimply a form of theoretical elaboration, which we will discuss later. Another major limi-tation of end-to-end integration is the issue of whether the basic assumptions of theincluded theories are consistent with one another. We will discuss this in the followingsection, which discusses criticism of integration. But first we must examine the otherforms of theoretical integration.

Side-by-Side Integration. Another type of integrated theory is called side-by-side (or“horizontal”) integration. In the most common form of side-by-side integration, casesare classified by a certain criterion (e.g., impulsive versus planned), and two or moretheories are considered parallel explanations depending on what type of case is beingconsidered. So when the assumptions or target offenses of two or more theories aredifferent, a side-by-side integration is often the most natural way to integrate them. Forexample, low self-control theory may be used to explain impulsive criminal activity,whereas rational choice theory may be used to explain criminal behavior that involvesplanning, such as white-collar crime. Traditionally, many theorists would likely argue thatlow self-control and rational choice theory are quite different, almost inherently opposing

11Much of our discussion of these forms of integration is taken from Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites.”

perspectives of crime. However, contemporary studies and theorizing have shown thatthe two models complement and fill gaps in the other.12 Specifically, the rationalchoice/deterrence framework has always had a rather hard time explaining and predictingwhy individuals often do very stupid things for which there is little payoff and a highlikelihood of getting in serious trouble, so the low self-control perspective helps fill in thisgap by explaining that some individuals are far more impulsive and are more concernedwith the immediate payoff (albeit often small) rather than any long-term consequences.

An illustration of this sort of side-by-side integration of these two theories mightlook something like this:

For most typical individuals:

High Self-Control � Consideration of Potential Negative Consequences �Deterred From Committing Crime

For more impulsive individuals/activities:

Low Self-Control � Desire for Immediate Payoff � Failure to Consider Consequences � Decision to Commit Criminal Act

This side-by-side integration shows how two different theories can each be accurate,depending on what type of individual or criminal activity is being considered. As somescholars have concluded, rational choice theory is likely not a good explanation forhomicides between intimates (which tend to be spontaneous acts), but it may be veryapplicable to corporate crime.13

Up-and-Down Integration. Another way of combining two or more theories is referred toas up-and-down (or “deductive”) integration, and is generally considered the classicform of theoretical integration because it has been done relatively often in the history ofcriminological theory development, even before it was considered integration. This ofteninvolves increasing the level of abstraction of a single theory so that postulates seem tofollow from a conceptually broader theory. Up-and-down integration can take twoprevalent forms: theoretical reduction and theoretical synthesis.


12Daniel Nagin and Raymond Paternoster, “Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime,”Law and Society Review 27 (1993): 467–96; Alex Piquero and Stephen Tibbetts, “Specifying the Direct and IndirectEffects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offenders’ Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Modelof Rational Offending,” Justice Quarterly 13 (1996): 481–510; Stephen Tibbetts and Denise Herz, “Gender Differencesin Factors of Social Control and Rational Choice,” Deviant Behavior 17 (1996): 183–208; Stephen Tibbetts and DavidMyers, “Low Self-Control, Rational Choice, and Student Test Cheating,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 23(1999): 179–200; Bradley Wright, Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie Moffitt, “Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment DeterCriminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 41 (2004): 180–213; for a review, see Stephen Tibbetts, “Individual Propensities and Rational Decision-Making: Recent Findings and Promising Approaches,” in Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior: Recent Research andFuture Challenges, ed. Alex Piquero and Stephen Tibbetts (New York: Routledge, 2002), 3–24.

13Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites”; for a review, see Brown et al., Explaining Crime; for a recent study of rationalchoice being applied to corporate crime, see Nicole Leeper Piquero, M. Lyn Exum, and Sally S. Simpson, “Integratingthe Desire-for-Control and Rational Choice in a Corporate Crime Context,” Justice Quarterly 22 (2005): 252–81.


Theoretical reduction is typically done when it becomes evident “that theory A con-tains more abstract or general assumptions than theory B and, therefore, that key parts oftheory B can be accommodated within the structure of theory A.”14 Regarding theoreticalreduction, we have discussed this form of integration previously in this book, withoutactually calling it by this name. For example, in the introduction to Section VII, we dis-cussed how differential reinforcement theory subsumed Sutherland’s differential associa-tion theory. By equating concepts contained in both theories, the authors of differentialreinforcement argued somewhat effectively that the learning that takes place throughinteractions with primary groups is one type of conditioning.15 As you will recall, themain point is that the concepts and propositions of differential reinforcement theory aremore general than, but entirely consistent with, those of differential association theory,such that the latter is typically a specific form of the former model. In other words, dif-ferential reinforcement is a much more broad, general theory, which accounts for notonly differential association (i.e., classical conditioning), but also many other theoreticalconcepts and propositions (operant conditioning, modeling/imitation).

This same type of theoretical reduction was also discussed in the introduction toSection V when we noted that general strain theory subsumed Merton’s traditional straintheory. Specifically, traditional strain theory focused on only one type of strain: failure toachieve positively valued goals. In comparison, while general strain theory also places anemphasis on failure to achieve positively valued goals, it is more general and broadbecause it also focuses on two other forms of strain: loss of positively valued stimuli andexposure to noxious stimuli. Therefore, it seems to make sense that general strain theorywould subsume traditional strain theory because the concepts and principles of tradi-tional strain appear to simply represent a specific type of general strain and can be fullyaccounted for by the more general version of the theory.16

Despite the obvious efficiency in theoretical reduction, many theorists have criticizedsuch subsuming of theories by another. Specifically, many experts in the social sciences viewsuch deduction as a form of theoretical imperialism because the theory being deduced essen-tially loses its unique identity.17 Therefore, the very phrase theoretical reduction generally hasa negative connotation among scholars. In fact, one of the most accepted reductions in the20th century criminological literature, the differential association-differential reinforcementsynthesis we referred to above, has been condemned as a “revisionist takeover . . . a travestyof Sutherland’s position.”18 So even the most widely known and cited forms of theoreticalreduction have been harshly criticized, which gives readers some idea of how frowned uponsuch subsuming of theories by another is considered by social scientists.

14Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites,” 10.

15Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites,” 13; Robert L. Burgess and Ronald Akers, “Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior,” Social Problems 14 (1966): 128–46; Ronald Akers, Deviant Behavior: ASocial Learning Approach, 3rd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985).

16Robert Agnew, “Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency,” Criminology 30 (1992): 47–87;Robert Agnew and Helen R. White, “An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory,” Criminology 30 (1992): 475–99.

17Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites.”

18Quote from Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, The New Criminology, (New York: Harper & Row, 1973),131–132; see discussion in Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites,” 13.

The other form of up-and-down integration is referred to as theoretical synthesis, whichis “done by abstracting more general assumptions from theories A and B, allowing parts ofboth theories to be incorporated in a new theory C.”19 This form of up-and-down integra-tion is more uncommon in social science than theoretical reduction, perhaps because it ismore difficult to achieve successfully because it, by definition, requires a new theory thatessentially necessitates new concepts and/or hypotheses that are not already found in theoriginal component models. Furthermore, if the constituent theories are competing expla-nations, then it is quite likely that new terminology will have to be created or incorporatedto resolve these differences.20 However, if theoretical synthesis can be done correctly, it is per-haps the type of integration that provides the most advancement of theory developmentbecause, in addition to bringing together previously independent models, it also results in anew theory with predictions and propositions that go beyond the original frameworks.

One of the best known and most accepted (despite its critics) examples of theoreti-cal synthesis is Elliott’s integrated model, which we review in detail later in this introduc-tion.21 For our purposes here, it is important only to understand why Elliott’s model isconsidered theoretical synthesis. This is because Elliott’s model integrates the conceptsand propositions of various theories (e.g., social control and differential association) andcontributes additional propositions that did not exist in the component theories.

Levels of Analysis of Integrated Theories

Beyond the variation of types of propositional theoretical integration discussedabove, such synthesis of explanatory models also differs in terms of the level of analysisthat is being considered. Specifically, the integrated models can include component the-ories of micro-micro, macro-macro, or even micro-macro (called “cross-level”) combi-nations. For example, Elliott’s integrated theory is a micro-micro level theory, whichmeans that all of the component theories that make up the synthesized model refer to theindividual as the unit of analysis. Although these models can provide sound understand-ing for why certain individuals behave a certain way, they typically do not account for dif-ferences in criminality across groups (e.g., gender, socioeconomic groups, etc.).

On the other hand, some integrated models include theories from only macro levels. Agood example of this type of integration is seen in Bursik’s synthesis of conflict theory andthe social disorganization framework.22 Both of these component theories focus only on themacro (group) level of analysis, thus neglecting the individual level, such as explaining whysome individuals do or do not commit crime even in the same structural environment.



20David Wagner and Joseph Berger, “Do Sociological Theories Grow?” American Journal of Sociology 90 (1985): 697–728.

21Delbert Elliott, Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter, “An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on DelinquentBehavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1979): 3–27; also see discussion in Delbert Elliott, “TheAssumption that Theories can be Combined with Increased Explanatory Power: Theoretical Integrations,” inTheoretical Methods in Criminology, ed. Robert F. Meier (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), 123–49; discussion of Elliott’smodel as an example of theoretical synthesis can be found in Charles R. Tittle, “Prospects for Synthetic Theory: AConsideration of Macro-Level Criminological Activity,” in Messner et al., Theoretical Integration, 161–78.

22Robert J. Bursik, “Political Decisionmaking and Ecological Models of Delinquency, Conflict and Consensus,” inMessner et al., Theoretical Integration, 105–18.


The most complicated integrated theories, at least in terms of levels of analysis, arethose that include both micro and macro models. Such models are likely the most diffi-cult to synthesize successfully because it involves bringing together rather unnatural rela-tionships between individual-based propositions and group-level postulates. However,when done effectively, such a model can be rather profound in terms of explanation ofcrime. After all, one of the primary objectives of a good theory is to explain behavioracross as many circumstances as possible. Thus, a theory that can effectively explain whycrime occurs in certain individuals as well as certain groups would be better than a the-ory that explains crime across only individuals or groups.

An example of this is Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming, which beginswith an individual (or micro) level theory of social control/bonding—which he refers toas interdependency—and then relates levels of this concept to a group or community (ormacro) level theory of bonding—which he refers to as communitarianism.23 This theorywill be discussed in far more detail later, but it is important here to acknowledge theadvantages of explaining both the micro (individual) and macro (group) level of analysisin explanations of criminal behavior, such as in the theory of reintegrative shaming.

Ultimately, the levels of analysis of any component theories are an important consider-ation in the creation of integrated models of crime. It is particularly important to ensurethat the merging of certain theories from within or across particular levels makes rationalsense and, most important, advances our knowledge and understanding of causes of crime.

Additional Considerations Regarding Types of Integration

Beyond the basic forms of propositional integration models and levels of analysis,there are two additional types of integration—conceptual integration and theoreticalelaboration—that are quite common, perhaps even more common than the traditionalforms discussed above. Conceptual integration involves the synthesis of models in which“the theorist equates concepts in different theories, arguing that while the words andterms are different, the theoretical meanings and operations of measurement are simi-lar.”24 Essentially, the goal in such a formulation is to take the primary constructs of twoor more theories and to merge them into a more general framework that aids under-standing in explaining behavior by unifying terms that fundamentally represent similarphenomena or issues. Such formulations are considered less intrusive on the componenttheories than the propositional integrations we discussed previously.

One of the first and most cited examples of conceptual integration was provided byPearson and Weiner in 1985.25 As shown in Table 10.1, Pearson and Weiner attempted to mapthe various concepts of numerous criminological theories. This is done by creating a categorythat numerous concepts from various theories appear to fit into through their inclusion in

23John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1989).

24 Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites,” 15; definition adapted from Frank S. Pearson and Neil Alan Weiner, “Towardan Integration of Criminological Theories,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76 (1985): 116–50.

25Pearson and Weiner, “Toward an Integration”; see review in Thomas J. Bernard and Jeffrey B. Snipes, “TheoreticalIntegration in Criminology,” in Crime and Justice Review, Vol. 20, ed. M. Tonry (Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress, 1996), 301–48.

656

INTEGRATIVE CONSTRUCTS

MICRO-LEVEL

MACRO-LEVEL

ANTICEDENT

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

CONSEQUENCESORFEEDBACK

SOCIALSTRUCTURALPR

ODUCTIONANDDISTRIBUTIONOF:

Signs of

Favorable

Rules of

Belief

Selected

Utility

Rules

Rules

Opportunities

Expedience

About

Criminological

Demand

Behavioral

ofof

(DescriminativeBehavioral

Utility

Information

and

Sanctioning

Theories

(Deprivation)

Skill

Expedience

Morality

Stimuli)

Resources

Reception

Acquisition

Utilities

Opportunities

Morality

Practices

Differential

��

��

�

Association

Negative Labeling

��

��

Social Control:

1.attachment

��

�

2.commitment

��

��

3.involvement

��

4.belief

�

Occurrence

��

��

��

Economic

��

��

��

�

Routine Activities

��

��

��

�

Neutralization

��

�

Relative Deprivation

��

��

��

Strain

��

��

��

��

��

Normative

��

(Culture) Conflict

Generalized Strain

��

��

��

��

��

�

and Normative

(Culture) Conflict

Marxist-Critical/

��

��

��

�

Group Conflict

Table 10.1

Mapping of the Selected Criminological Theories Into the Integrative Structure


explanatory models of criminal behavior and across level of explanation. Although based ona social learning/differential reinforcement perspective, Pearson and Weiner’s model attemptsto include concepts of virtually all existing theories of crime and delinquency models ofbehavior. A particular strength is that this model includes feedback or behavioral consequenceelements, as well as classifying each model by unit of measurement and analysis.

For example, as illustrated in Table 10.1, the conceptual model shows that differen-tial association theory has concepts that apply to all internal aspects and one of the twoconcepts at the consequences at the micro level, but none of the aspects at the external-micro level or any of the four macro-level concepts. On the other hand, Marxist criticaltheory is shown to apply to three of the internal-micro and one of the consequences-levelconcepts and to most of the macro-level concepts as well. Although some of the theoriesthat we discuss in this book are included, largely because Pearson and Weiner’s concep-tual integration was done in the mid-1980s, this model includes most of the dominanttheoretical frameworks that were prevalent in the criminological literature at the time oftheir formulation. Thus, this conceptual model remains as a sort of prototype for futureattempts to conceptually integrate established theories explaining criminal conduct.

One notable strength of their conceptual integration is the inclusion of most main-stream theories—differential association, labeling, social control, deterrence/economic,routine activities, neutralization, strain, cultural, conflict—at the time in which they cre-ated their integrated framework. Another strength of their integrated framework is thefact that they account for concepts at different levels of analysis, namely micro (individ-ual) and macro (group) levels, as shown in Table 10.1. So the framework clearly does agood job at creating links between the most prominent theories in terms of the conceptsthat they propose as the primary causes of crime.

However, Pearson and Weiner’s conceptually integrated framework does have severalnotable weaknesses. One of the most prominent criticisms of the conceptual model is thatit is based on a single theory, specifically social learning theory (tied to Akers’s differentialreinforcement/social learning theory discussed in Section VII), and the authors never reallyprovide a strong argument for why they chose this particular base framework for theirmodel. Another major weakness of this conceptual framework is that it completely neglectsmany biological and biosocial factors—hormones, neurotransmitters, toxins—that havebeen consistently shown to have profound effects on human behavior. Still, despite the crit-icisms of this integrated framework, respected theorists have noted that Pearson andWeiner’s “integration of these concepts into a consistent, coherent framework is impressive,”but the model has never received much attention in the criminological literature.26

However, despite the obvious tendency to simplify formulations through conceptualintegration, many critics have claimed that such attempts are simply a means toward propo-sitional integration. Thus, despite its categorization as conceptual, this type of integration isnot necessarily seen as such, and it may be seen by many as a form of deductive integration.However, many experts have noted that conceptual integration is actually not a form of side-by-side integration nor is it end-to-end integration; rather, it is what it says it is: conceptualintegration. It is nothing more and nothing less.27 Therefore, it appears that conceptualintegration is a distinct derivative form of integration and that it can and should occur

26Ronald Akers and Christine Sellers, Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application, 4th ed. (LosAngeles, CA: Roxbury, 2004), 288.


independently if it helps to advance understanding of why people commit crime, particularlyfor integrated models of offending. As the most knowledgeable experts recently concluded,“establishing some conceptual equivalence is necessary for deductive integration.”28

An additional variation of integration is theoretical elaboration, which is a strategythat takes an existing theory that is arguably underdeveloped and then further develops itby adding concepts and/or propositions to include other components from other theo-ries. Many critics of traditional theoretical integration have argued that theoretical elab-oration is a more attractive strategy because existing theories of offending are notdeveloped enough to fully integrate them.29 An example of theoretical integration can beseen in the expansion of rational choice theory, which had traditionally focused on ratiosof perceived costs and benefits, to include deontological constructs such as moral beliefs.Specifically, studies have consistently shown that ethical constraints condition the influ-ence of expected consequences on criminal behavior, ranging from violence to academicdishonesty to white-collar crime.30 Although they are not without critics, most rationalchoice scholars appear to be in agreement that such elaboration advanced the theoreticalframework and made it a more accurate explanation of human behavior. In sum, theo-retical integration, like conceptual integration, is an option for merging and improvingtheoretical models without completely synthesizing two or more entire paradigms.

Criticisms and Weaknesses of Integrated Theories

A number of criticisms have been leveled at theoretical integration. Perhaps one ofthe most obvious and prevalent, not to mention extremely valid, criticisms is the argu-ment that caution should be taken in attempting to integrate theories that have apparentcontradictions or inconsistencies in their postulates.31 As we have seen, different theoriesare based on varying, often opposite, perspectives of human nature. While most versionsof strain theory (e.g., Merton’s theory) assume that human beings are born with a naturaltendency toward being good, most variations of control theory (e.g., Hirschi’s socialbonding and self-control theories) assume that humans are innately selfish and hedonis-tic. At the same time, most versions of learning theory (e.g., Sutherland’s theory of dif-ferential association and Akers’s differential reinforcement theory) assume that humansare born with a blank slate, in other words, people are born with neither good nor badtendencies but rather learn their morality moment-to-moment from social interaction.


28Ibid., 16.

29Liska et al., “Strategies and Requisites,” 16; Travis Hirschi, “Exploring Alternatives to Integrated Theory,” in Messneret al., Theoretical Integration, 37–50; Terence P. Thornberry, “Reflections on the Advantages and Disadvantages ofTheoretical Integration,” in Messner et al., Theoretical Integration, 51–60; Robert F. Meier, “Deviance andDifferentiation,” Messner et al., Theoretical Integration, 199–212.

30A. Etzioni, The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (New York: Free Press, 1988); Ronet Bachman, RaymondPaternoster, and Sally Ward, “The Rationality of Sexual Offending: Testing a Deterrence/Rational Choice Conceptionof Sexual Assault,” Law and Society Review 26 (1992): 401–19; Raymond Paternoster and Sally Simpson, “SanctionThreats and Appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational Choice Model of Corporate Crime,” Law and Society Review 30(1996): 378–99; Stephen G. Tibbetts, “College Student Perceptions of Utility and Intentions of Test Cheating,” PhDdissertation, University of Maryland-College Park (Ann Arbor, MI:UMI, 1997); for a review and discussion, see SallySimpson, Nicole Leeper Piquero, and Raymond Paternoster, “Rationality and Corporate Offending Decisions,” inPiquero and Tibbetts, Rational Choice, 25–40.

31Much of this discussion is taken from Brown et al., Explaining Crime, and Messner et al., Theoretical Integration.


Obviously, attempts to integrate such theories face the problematic hurdles of deal-ing with such obvious contradictions, and many formulations that do merge some ofthese perspectives simply do not deal with this issue. The failure to acknowledge, let aloneexplain, such inconsistencies is likely to result in regression of theoretical developmentinstead of leading to progress in understanding, which is the primary goal of integratingtheories in the first place.

Other experts have argued that any attempts to integrate theories must unite threedifferent levels of analysis, which include individual (micro), group (macro), and micrositu-ational, which merges the micro level with spontaneous context.32 While we agree that thiswould be the ideal for theory formulation, we know of no theory that does so. Therefore, thisproposition is more of an ideal that has not yet been attempted. So we are inclined to go withthe best that has been offered by expert theorists. Still, in the future, it is hoped that such anintegrated model will be offered that addresses all of these aspects in an explanatory model.

Another argument against theoretical integration is the stance that explanatory perspec-tives of crime are meant to stand alone. This is the position taken by Travis Hirschi, who is oneof the most cited and respected scholars in criminology over the last 40 years.33 As others havenoted, Hirschi informed his position on this debate unequivocally when he stated that “sepa-rate and unequal is better” than integrating traditionally independent theoretical models.34

This type of perspective is also called oppositional tradition or theoretical competition,because the separate theories are essentially pitted against one another, in a form of battleor opposition. Although scientists are trained always to be skeptical of their own beliefsand open to other possibilities, especially the desire to refine theoretical models that areshown to be invalid, it is surprising that such a position exists. Despite the rather unscien-tific nature of this stance, such a position of oppositional tradition has many supporters.Specifically, one of the most respected and cited criminologists, Travis Hirschi claimed:

The first purpose of oppositional theory construction is to make the world safefor a theory contrary to currently accepted views. Unless this task is accomplished,there will be little hope for the survival of the theory and less hope for its devel-opment. Therefore, oppositional theorists should not make life easy for thoseinterested in preserving the status quo. They should instead remain at all timesblind to the weaknesses of their own position and stubborn in its defense. Finally,they should never smile.35

Unfortunately, this position against theoretical integration is presented in a veryunscientific tone. After all, scientists should always be critical of their own views andtheory. By stating that theorists should be “blind” to opposing viewpoints and “stubborn”in their own perspective’s defense, Hirschi advocates a position that is absolutely againstscience. Still, this statement, albeit flawed, shows the extreme position against theoreticalintegration and is favorable toward having each independent theory standing opposed to

32James Short, “The Level of Explanation Problem in Criminology,” in Theoretical Methods in Criminology, ed.R. Meier (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), 42–71; see also James Short, “On the Etiology of Delinquent Behavior,”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1979): 28–33.33Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration”; Hirschi, “Exploring Alternatives.”34Hirschi, “Separate but Unequal.”35Hirschi, “Exploring Alternatives,” 45.

others. It is our position that this stand does not have much defense, which is shown byHirschi’s lack of rational argument. Furthermore, it is generally acceptable to smile whenpresenting any theoretical or empirical conclusions, even when they involve opposition toor acceptance of integrated theoretical models of criminal behavior.

Perhaps one of the most important criticisms against Hirschi’s and others’ criticismsof integrated models is that most traditional models alone only explain a limited amountof variation in criminal activity. Elliott and colleagues have claimed:

Stated simply, the level of explained variance attributable to separate theories isembarrassingly low, and, if sociological explanations for crime and delinquencyare to have any significant impact upon future planning and policy, they must beable to demonstrate greater predictive power.36

While some put this estimate at 10 to 20 percent of the variance in illegal activities, thisis simply an average across different theories and various forms of deviant behavior.37

However, this range is an overestimate regarding many studies on the accuracy of separatetheories, which tend to show weak support (well under 10 percent explained variation inoffending), particularly for some tests of social bonding and strain models, as well as others.38

On the other hand, this estimated range of explained variance underestimates theempirical validity of some theoretical frameworks that consistently show a high level ofexplained variation in certain criminal behaviors. For example, a large number of studiesexamining Akers’s differential reinforcement/social learning theory (discussed in Section VII),which examined not only a wide range of samples (in terms of age, nationality, and otherdemographic characteristics) but also a large range of deviant activities (e.g., cigarettesmoking to drug usage to violent sexual crimes) consistently account for more than 20percent of variation in such behaviors.39 Specifically, most of these studies estimate that


36Delbert Elliott, David Huizinga, and S. Ageton, Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985),125, as quoted in Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 306.

37This estimate can be found in Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 306, but is based on the estimates ofothers, as discussed in this work.

38See review in Akers and Sellers, Criminological Theories, particularly p. 97.

39Ronald Akers, Marvin Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Maria Radosevich, “Social Learning and Deviant Behavior:A Specific Test of a General Theory,” American Sociological Review 44 (1979): 635–55; Marvin Krohn and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, “Community Context and Theories of Deviant Behavior: An Examination of Social Learning and SocialBonding Theories,” Sociological Quarterly 25 (1984): 353–71; Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Ronald Akers, Marvin Krohn, andMarcia Radosevich, “Cessation of Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents: A Social Learning Model,” DeviantBehavior 5 (1984): 79–96; Ronald Akers and John Cochran, “Adolescent Marijuana Use: A Test of Three Theories ofDeviant Behavior,” Deviant Behavior 6 (1985): 323–46; Ronald Akers and Gang Lee, “Age, Social Learning, and SocialBonding in Adolescent Substance Use,” Deviant Behavior 19 (1999): 1–25; Marvin Krohn, William Skinner, JamesMassey, and Ronald Akers, “Social Learning Theory and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: A Longitudinal Study,” SocialProblems 32 (1985): 455–473; Ronald Akers and Gang Lee, “A Longitudinal Test of Social Learning Theory: AdolescentSmoking,” Journal of Drug Issues 26 (1996): 317–43; Ronald Akers, Anthony La Greca, John Cochran, and ChristineSellers, “Social Learning Theory and Alcohol Behavior Among the Elderly,” Sociological Quarterly 30 (1989): 625–38;Scot Boeringer, Constance Shehan, and Ronald Akers, “Social Contexts and Social Learning in Sexual Coercion andAggression: Assessing the Contribution of Fraternity Membership,” Family Relations 40 (1991): 558–564; SunghyunHwang and Ronald Akers, “Adolescent Substance Use in South Korea: A Cross-Cultural Test of Three Theories,” inSocial Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A Guide for the New Century, ed. Ronald Akers and Gary Jensen(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003), 39–64.


Akers’s social learning model explains up to 68 percent or more of the variation in certaindeviant behaviors, with the lowest estimate around 30 percent.

Obviously, not all independent theories of crime lack empirical validity, so this doesnot support critics’ claims that traditionally separate theories of crime do not do a goodjob in explaining criminal behavior. However, it is also true that many of the theories thatdo the best job in empirical tests for validity are those that are somewhat integrated, inthe sense that they often have been formed by merging traditional theories with otherconstructs and propositions, much like Akers’s differential reinforcement theory, whichadded more modern psychological concepts and principles (e.g., operant conditioningand modeling) to Sutherland’s traditional theory of differential association (see SectionVII). So in a sense, an argument can be made that theoretical integration (or at least the-oretical elaboration) had already occurred, which made this theory far more empiricallyvalid than the earlier model.

Another example of the high level of empirical validity of existing models of offend-ing can be found in some models of rational choice, which have been revised through the-oretical elaboration and have explained more than 60 percent of the explained variationin deviant behavior.40 However, much of the explanatory power of such frameworks relieson incorporating the constructs and principles of other theoretical models, which is whatscience is based on; specifically, they revise and improve theory based on what is evidentfrom empirical testing. After all, even some of the harshest critics of theoretical integra-tion admit that traditional theories do not “own” variables or constructs.41 For example,Hirschi claimed that:

Integrationists somehow conclude that variables appear . . . with opposition the-ory labels attached to them. This allows them to list variables by the theory thatowns them. Social disorganization theory . . . might own economic status, cul-tural heterogeneity, and mobility. . . . Each of the many variables is measuredand . . . the theories are ranked in terms of the success of their variables inexplaining variation in delinquency . . . such that integration is in effect requiredby the evidence and surprisingly easily accomplished.42

This is the way that science and theoretical development and revision are supposed towork, so in our opinion, this is exactly as it should be. All scientists and theoreticians shouldconstantly be seeking to improve their explanatory models and be open to ways to do so, asopposed to being staunch supporters of one position and blind to existing evidence.

Despite the criticisms against theoretical integration, a strong argument has beenmade that theoretical competition and oppositional tradition is “generally pointless.”43 Abig reason for this belief of proponents of theoretical integration is that various theoriestend to explain different types of crime and varying portions of the causal processes for

40For example, see Tibbetts, “College Student Perceptions,” which showed that an elaborated rational choice modelexplained more than 60 percent of variation in test cheating among college students.

41See discussion in Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 306–7.

42Hirschi, “Exploring Alternatives,” 41, as cited (revised) in Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 307.

43Quote from Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 306, based on the rationale provided by Elliott et al.,Explaining Delinquency.

behavior. For example, some theories focus more on property crimes while others placeemphasis on violent crimes, and some theories emphasize the antecedent or root causes(e.g., genetics, poverty) of crime while others focus on more immediate causes (e.g., cur-rent social context at the scene). Given that there are multiple factors that contribute tocrime and that different factors are more important for various types of crime, it onlymakes sense that a synthesis of traditionally separate theories must come together toexplain the wide range of criminal activity that occurs in the real world.

Ultimately, there are both pros and cons regarding whether or not to integrate theo-ries. It is our belief that theoretical integration is generally a good thing, as long as thereis caution and attention given to merging models that have opposing assumptions, suchas the natural state of human beings (e.g., good vs. bad vs. blank slate). But only after con-siderable empirical research will the true validity of integrated models be tested, andmany have already been put to the test. We will now examine a handful of integrated the-ories that have been proposed over the last couple of decades, as well as the studies thathave examined their empirical validity. Not surprisingly, some integrated and elaboratedtheories appear to be more valid than others, with most adding considerably to ourunderstanding of human behavior and contributing to explaining the reasons why cer-tain individuals or groups commit criminal behavior more than others.

Examples of Integrated Criminological Theory

We have already discussed the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical integra-tion, as well as the ways in which traditionally separate explanatory models are combinedto form a new synthesized framework. We will now review a number of the most promi-nent examples of theoretical integration that have been proposed in the last 30 years,which is largely the time period when most attempts at integration have been presented.We hope that readers will critique each theory based on the criteria that we have alreadydiscussed, particularly noting the empirical validity of each model as based on scientificobservation and logical consistency of its propositions.

Elliott’s Integrated Model. Perhaps the first and certainly the most prominent integratedmodel is that proposed by Delbert Elliott and his colleagues in 1979, which has becomeknown as Elliott’s integrated model.44 In fact, this model “opened the current round ofdebate on integration,” because it was essentially the first major perspective proposed thatclearly attempted to merge various traditionally separate theories of crime.45 Elliott’sintegrated framework attempts to merge strain, social disorganization, control, and sociallearning/differential association-reinforcement perspectives for the purpose of explainingdelinquency, particularly in terms of drug use, as well as other forms of deviant behavior(see Figure 10.1).

As can be seen in Figure 10.1, the concepts and propositions of strain and social dis-organization, as well as inadequate socialization, are considered antecedent (or root)


44Delbert Elliott, S. Ageton, and R. Cantor, “An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior,” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1979): 3–27; for further elaboration and refinement of this theory, see Elliottet al., Explaining Delinquency.

45Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 310.


causes of delinquency. In other words, failing to achieve one’s goals (i.e., strain theory) orcoming from disadvantaged neighborhoods (i.e., social disorganization) are key causesfor predisposing people to criminal behavior. Furthermore, the fact that many low-income households tend to lack adequate socialization, such as when a single parent hasto work two or three jobs to make ends meet, is also a major root cause of delinquency.

Because this model clearly shows some models/constructs coming first (e.g., strain,social disorganization) and others coming later (e.g., weak bonding and then affiliationswith delinquents), which lead to criminality, this is a good example of an “end-to-end”form of theoretical integration. This is an “end-to-end” form of integration because somemodels/concepts, such as strain, occur chronologically first, which then lead chronologi-cally to other models/concepts, such as weak conventional bonding or strong delinquentbonding, which then leads to crime.

The notable ways in which this perspective becomes a true integrated model is seenin the mediating or intervening variables. Although some antecedent variables (such asstrain) can lead directly toward delinquent activity, most of the criminal activity is theo-retically predicted through a process that would include a breakdown of conventionalbonding (i.e., social control/bonding theory), which occurs in many individuals whoexperience strain or social disorganization in their neighborhoods and inadequate social-ization. Furthermore, individuals who have such a breakdown in conventional bondingtend to be more highly influenced by the associations that they make in the streets amongtheir peers (i.e., differential association-reinforcement/social learning theory). Accordingto Elliott’s integrated theory, this factor—strong delinquent bonding—most directlyresults in delinquent behavior among most juvenile offenders.

One of the notable features of this theoretical model is that it allows for various typesof individuals to become criminal. In other words, unlike traditionally separate frame-works that assume offenders expect not to achieve their goals (e.g., strain theory) or comefrom bad neighborhoods (e.g., Chicago/social disorganization theory), Elliott’s integratedtheory allows for a variety of possibilities when it comes to causal paths that explain howcrime and delinquency develop in certain people and groups. This is what makes inte-grated models so much more powerful; namely, they bring several valid explanationstogether and allow for various possibilities to occur, all of which explain some criminality.

Socialdisorganization

Inadequatesocialization

Weakconventional

bonding

Strongdelinquentbonding

Delinquentbehavior

Strain

Figure 10.1 Elliott et al.’s Integrated Theoretical Model

Whereas traditional theories largely only provide for one causal process, Elliott and hiscolleagues showed right from the first major integrated theory that different types of tra-jectories, or paths to crime, are possible.

One of the major criticisms of merging such theories, particularly strain (whichassumes individuals are born relatively good) and control/social bonding (which clearlyassumes that people are born relatively bad [i.e., selfish, greedy, aggressive, etc.]), is thatthey tend to have extremely different, even opposite, assumptions of human behavior. Asa recent review of theoretical integration noted, Elliott and his colleagues attempted tocircumvent this obvious contrast in basic assumptions by claiming that the model allowsfor variation in individual motivations for why people engage in delinquency and crime.46

For example, they claim that failure to achieve one’s goals (i.e., strain theory) is not alwaysthe motivation for crime; rather, crime can result from inadequate socialization or com-ing from a disadvantaged neighborhood.

Furthermore, Elliott’s integrated model also allows for different forms of control orsocial bonding, with not all of the delinquents being required to have weak social bondswith conventional society. For instance, as can be seen in Figure 10.1, a person who hasexperienced strain (or failure to achieve one’s goals) can move directly to the social learn-ing/differential association-reinforcement variables of strong delinquent bonding, so thatthe weak conventional bonding construct is not a required causal process in this theoret-ical model. So while some critics claim that Elliott and his colleagues have combined the-ories that simply cannot be synthesized due to contrasting assumptions, we believe thatthe integrated theory did, in fact, find a logical and consistent way of showing how bothmodels can be merged in a way that makes a lot of sense in the real world. On the otherhand, the model does indeed claim that strain directly causes weak conventional bonding,and the theoretical framework implies that the probability of delinquency is highest whenan individual experiences both strain and weak conventional bonding, so to some extentthe critics make an important point regarding the logical consistency of the full model,which Elliott and his colleagues have not adequately addressed.47

Despite the presence of elements of the four traditionally separate theories (strain, socialdisorganization, social control/bonding, and social learning/differential association-reinforcement), Elliott and his colleagues identify this integrated theory with social control asopposed to any of the other perspectives, which they argue is a more general theory and canexplain crime and delinquency across different levels of explanation. They also note that thesocial control perspective is more sociological, in the sense that it places more importance onthe role of institutional structures in controlling criminal behavior.48 Perhaps another reasonwhy they identified their model with social control/bonding theory was because both inter-vening constructs represent types of bonds formed or not formed with others: weak conven-tional bonding and strong delinquent bonding. However, it is important to keep in mind thatthese constructs actually represent two traditionally separate theories, namely social bondingtheory and differential association-reinforcement/social learning, respectively.

The authors of this textbook believe that when an integrated theory (which claims tobe such an integrated model) chooses a primary or dominant theory as its basis, it does


46Ibid.

47Ibid.

48Ibid., 311–12.


not help in selling it to the scientific community, let alone others. A similar problem wasseen in Pearson and Weiner’s conceptual integration in their identifying a single tradi-tionally separate theory—social learning/differential association-reinforcement—as thefoundation or basis for their framework. Obviously, the first reaction by many theorists,even those that are not inherently against theoretical integration, would be somewhatcautious or even resistant. After all, why would a theory that claims to be integrated out-right claim a single explanatory framework as its basis.

Rather, such models may be seen more so as examples of theoretical elaboration,which tends to start with the assumptions and concepts of one theory and draw from othermodels to improve the base model. Still, despite the criticisms toward identifying a singlemodel as a basis for developing an integrated framework for explaining criminality, it isapparent that latitude has been shown for this flaw. It is important to note that Elliott’smodel is considered the first “true” attempt at theoretical integration and is still widelyrespected as the prototype and example of what an integrated model could and should be.

Regarding the empirical evidence for and against Elliott’s integrated model, much ofthe evidence for it has been provided by Elliott and his colleagues through their testing ofthe theory. Specifically, much of the testing they have done has been via the NationalYouth Survey (NYS), a national survey collected and synthesized by criminologists at theUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, which is where Elliott and most of the colleagues withwhom he works are professors. This longitudinal measure of delinquency has beenadministered and analyzed for several decades, and it represents perhaps the most sys-tematic collection of information from youth regarding key developmental variables anddelinquency rates that has ever existed.

Most of the evidence from the National Youth Survey shows general strong supportfor Elliott’s model.49 However, some evidence showed few direct effects of strain andsocial control concepts, which is surprising given that the basis for the model was thesocial control/bonding elements of the theory.50 In fact, the original hypothesis in themodel—that strain and social control/bonding theories would have a direct effect ondelinquency—were not observed.51 Rather, only bonding to delinquent peers had a sig-nificant and strong effect on future criminality, which supports social learning/differentialassociation-reinforcement theory. This strongly supports the social learning variables inthe model and diminishes the claim by Elliott and his colleagues about the fundamentaltheoretical perspective of social control/bonding.

Furthermore, a critical review of Elliott’s framework, as presented in his 1985 book (withHuizinga and Ageton), notes that a major problem with the integrated framework is that:

The most puzzling feature of the theory is the inclusion of social disorganizationin it as a causal factor, in the absence of any attempt to measure or test the impor-tance of this factor. Presumably, the authors wished to claim that their theory was“more sociological than psychological.”52

49See review in Akers and Sellers, Criminological Theories, 273–76.50Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton, Explaining Delinquency.51Akers and Sellers, Criminological Theories, 275.

52David Farrington, book review of Elliott et al., Explaining Delinquency, in British Journal of Addiction 81 (1986): 433;embedded quote taken from p. 67 in Elliott et al.’s book.

This point is particularly important, given that virtually none of the tests of Elliott’sintegrated model have included social disorganization factors in their studies, even afterthis critical review was published more than 20 years ago. So Elliott and his colleaguesshould either drop this portion of his model from consideration in the model or providean adequate test of it in relation to the rest of the framework. Although we would opt forthe latter, one of these two alternatives must be chosen.

However, from the presentation that Elliott gave as his presidential address to theAmerican Society of Criminology in 1993, it appears that the former alternative waschosen. Specifically, in his model of the onset of serious violent offending, all of the antecedent variables in his model could be explained by the other traditionallyseparate theoretical models in his framework. He included two bonding constructs(family and school), parental sanctions, stressful life events (i.e., strain), and earlyexposure to crime and victimization. Perhaps the last factor could be construed asrelated to social disorganization theory, but it is probably regarded more as a sociallearning/differential association-reinforcement variable, as is suggested from theoriginal model.

In addition, this critique noted that the existing evidence shows that most delinquentactivity is committed among groups of juveniles, and thus, youth who tend to commitillegal acts naturally associate with delinquents. Yet, the affiliation with delinquentpeers is not considered the basic foundation of the theory—as tests of this modeldemonstrated—but rather an intervening variable in the model. The author of this cri-tique claims that Elliott’s model does not emphasize this point strongly enough andthereby does not provide “convincing evidence in this book that delinquent peers causeor facilitate offending.”53

In light of these findings, even Elliott and his colleagues acknowledged that their inte-grated model best fit the data as a social learning/differential association-reinforcementframework of delinquency.54 However, they chose to retain social control/bonding theoryas the primary foundation of their integrated model, stating that “it is not clear that asocial learning model would have predicted a conditional relationship between conven-tional bonding . . . and deviant bonding.”55 Elliott and colleagues went on to say that theydid not attribute most of the explained variation in the model on social learning/differentialreinforcement as being the most important model or construct because they claimed thatsuch variables did not play a strong enough part in the indirect effects that were seen inthe estimated models.

This is actually a logical position, given the fact that their integrated frameworkwould, in fact, predict the social learning/differential association-reinforcement variableswere the primary direct effects on delinquency, and the social control, strain, and socialdisorganization variables were considered primarily indirect all along, according to theirmodel. However, some critics, especially the proponents of social learning/differentialreinforcement theory, have claimed that:


53Farrington, book review, 433.

54Ibid.

55Ibid., based on quote from Elliott et al. Explaining Delinquency, 137.


In our opinion, even with the addition of the interactive effects of conventionalbonding, the final model reported by Elliott et al. is more of a variation on sociallearning theory (with bonding modifications) than it is a variation on socialbonding theory (with learning modifications).56

After all, the measures of delinquent peer bonds used by Elliott and his colleagues areessentially measures that have been used by theorists and researchers of social learningtheorists over the last few decades, regarding differential associations, reinforcements, andmodeling.57

Additional analyses using the National Youth Survey have tended to agree with thecritics regarding the importance of social learning/differential reinforcement variables inpredicting crime and delinquency. Specifically, one relatively recent reanalysis of the NYSdata showed that social learning variables appeared to predict more variation in deviancethan did the other models or constructs in the model.58 Some have noted that the socialbonding assumption—that strong attachments to others, regardless of who they are—isnot supported by empirical research (see Section VII). This is true, and all future inte-grated models must address this issue if they include social control/bonding propositionsor constructs in their models.

Despite these criticisms and empirical observations, it appears that Elliott’s integratedmodel has contributed to our understanding of the development of delinquent behavior. Inthe least, it inspired other theoretical frameworks, some of which we review here. However,it should also be obvious that there are some valid criticisms of this model, such as claimingthat the model is based on social control/bonding theory while depending heavily on thestrong delinquent bonding that takes place in most cases of criminality, clearly implicatingsocial learning/differential reinforcement theory. Again, we want to stress that a true inte-grated model should not place any emphasis on a particular theory, otherwise the critics willhave a sound argument when findings show that one theory is more influential than another.

Thornberry’s Interactional Theory. After Elliott’s integrated model, presented in 1979, thenext major integrated framework was that of Terrence Thornberry in 1987.59 This modelincorporated empirical evidence drawn since Elliott’s presentation to create a unique andinsightful model of criminality, which addressed an extremely important aspect that hadnever been addressed previously in criminological theory. Specifically, Thornberry’sinteractional theory was the first to emphasize reciprocal, or feedback effects, in thecausal modeling of the theoretical framework.

56Akers and Sellers, Criminological Theories, 275.57Ibid., 276.58Robert Agnew, “Why Do They Do It? An Examination of the Intervening Mechanisms Between ‘Social Control’Variables and Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993): 245–66.59Terrence Thornberry, “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency,” Criminology 25 (1987): 863–87; see alsoThornberry, “Reflections”; Terrence Thornberry, A. Lizotte, M. Krohn, M. Farnworth, and S. Jang, “TestingInteractional Theory: An Examination of Reciprocal Causal Relationships Among Family, School and Delinquency,”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82 (1991): 3–35; Terrance Thornberry, Alan Lizotte, Marvin Krohn,Margaret Farnworth, and Sung Joon Jang, “Delinquent Peers, Beliefs, and Delinquent Behavior: A Longitudinal Testof Interactional Theory,” Criminology 32 (1994): 47–83.

As a basis for his model, Thornberry combined social control and social learningmodels. According to Thornberry, both of these theories try to explain criminality in astraightforward, causal process and are largely targeted toward a certain age population.60

Thornberry uniquely claims that the processes of both social control and social learningtheory affect each other in a type of feedback process.

Thornberry’s integrated model incorporates five primary theoretical constructs,which are synthesized in a comprehensive framework to explain criminal behavior. Thesefive concepts are: commitment to school; attachment to parents; belief in conventionalvalues (these first three are taken from social control/bonding theory); adoption of delin-quent values; and association with delinquent peers (these last two are drawn from sociallearning/differential association-reinforcement theory). These five constructs, whichmost criminologists would agree are important in the development of criminality, areobviously important in a rational model of crime, so at first it does not appear thatThornberry has added much to the understanding of criminal behavior. Furthermore,Thornberry’s model clearly points out that different variables will have greater effects atcertain times; for example, he claims that association with delinquent peers will havemore effect in mid-teenage years than at other ages.

What Thornberry adds beyond other theories is the idea of reciprocity or feedbackloops, which no previous theory had mentioned, much less emphasized. In fact, much ofthe previous criminological literature had spent much time debating whether individu-als become delinquent and then start hanging out with similar peers or whether indi-viduals start hanging out with delinquent peers and then begin engaging in criminalactivity. This has been the traditional “chicken or egg” question in criminology for mostof the 20th century; namely, which came first, delinquency or bad friends. It has oftenbeen referred to as the “self-selection” versus “social learning” debate; in other words, docertain individuals select themselves to hang out with delinquents by their previousbehavior, or do they learn criminality from delinquents with whom they start associat-ing. One of the major contributions of Thornberry’s interactional model is that hedirectly answered this question.

Specifically, Thornberry noted that most, if not all, contributors to delinquency (andcriminal behavior itself) are related reciprocally. Thus, Thornberry postulated that engag-ing in crime leads to hanging out with other delinquents and that hanging out with delin-quents leads to committing crimes. It is quite common for individuals to commit crimeand then start hanging out with other peers who are doing the same, and it is also quitecommon for people to start hanging out with delinquent peers and then start committingoffenses. Furthermore, it is perhaps the most likely scenario for a person to be offendingand to be dealing with both the influences of past experiences and with peer effects as well.

As mentioned previously, Thornberry considers the social control/bonding con-structs, such as attachments to parents and commitment to school, the most essential pre-dictors of delinquency. Like previous theoretical models of social bonding/control,Thornberry’s model puts the level of attachments and commitment to conventional soci-ety ahead of the degree of moral beliefs that individuals have toward criminal offending.However, lack of such moral beliefs leads to delinquent behavior, which in turn negatively


60Much of this discussion is taken from Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 314–16; and also Akers andSellers, Criminological Theories, 278.


affects the level of commitment or attachments an individual may have built in his/herdevelopment. As Thornberry claimed:

While the weakening of the bond to conventional society may be an initial causeof delinquency, delinquency eventually becomes its own indirect cause preciselybecause of its ability to weaken further the person’s bonds to family, school, andconventional beliefs.61

Thus, the implications of this model are that variables relating to socialcontrol/bonding and other sources cause delinquency, which then becomes, in itself, apredictor and cause for the breakdown of other important causes of delinquency and crime.

For example, consider a person we shall call Johnny, who has an absent father and amother who uses inconsistent discipline and sometimes harsh physical abuse of her son.He sees his mother’s state of constant neglect and abuse as proof that belief in conven-tional values is wrong, and he becomes indifferent toward governmental laws; after all, hismain goal is to survive and be successful. Because of his mother’s psychological and phys-ical neglect, Johnny pays no attention to school and rather turns to his older peers forguidance and support. These peers guide him toward behavior that gives him both finan-cial reward (selling what they steal) and status in their group (respect from performingwell in illegal acts). At some point, Johnny gets caught, and this makes the peers whotaught him how to engage in crime very proud, while alienating him from the previousbonds he had with his school, where he may be suspended or expelled, and with hismother, who further distances herself from him. This creates a reciprocal effect or feed-back loop to the previous factors, which was lack of attachment to his mother and com-mitment to school. The lowered level of social bonding/control with conventionalinstitutions/factors (mother, school), and increased influence by the delinquent peersthen leads Johnny to commit more frequent and more serious crimes.

Such a model, although complex and hard to measure, is logically consistent, andthe postulates are sound. However, the value of any theory has to be determined by theempirical evidence that is found regarding its validity. Much of the scientific evidenceregarding Thornberry’s empirical model has been contributed by Thornberry and hiscolleagues.

Although the full model has yet to be tested, the researchers “have found general sup-port for the reciprocal relationships between both control concepts and learning conceptswith delinquent behavior.”62 One test of Thornberry’s model used the longitudinalRochester Youth Development Study to test its postulates.63 This study found that the esti-mates of previous unidirectional models (nonreciprocal models) did not adequately explainthe variation in the data. Rather, the results supported the interactional model, with delin-quent associations leading to increases in delinquency while delinquency led to reinforcingpeer networks and both directional processes working through the social environment. Infact, this longitudinal study demonstrated that once the participants had acquired

61Thornberry, “An Interactional Theory,” 876, as quoted by Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 315.

62Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical Integration,” 316.

63Thornberry et al., “Delinquent Peers.”

delinquent beliefs from their peers, the effects of these beliefs had further effects on theirfuture behavior and associations, which is exactly what Thornberry’s theory predicts.64

Perhaps the most recent test of Thornberry’s interactional model examined the age-varying effects of the theory.65 This study incorporated hierarchical linear modeling ininvestigating a sample of the National Youth Survey, a national sample of youth. Theresults showed that while the effects of delinquent peers were relatively close to predic-tions, peaking in the mid-teenage years, the predictions regarding the effects of family ondelinquency were not found to be significant in the periods that were expected, althoughfamily was important during adolescence.

Unlike other authors of integrated theories, Thornberry specifically noted that heprefers to see his approach as “theoretical elaboration,” and not full theoretical integra-tion. While we commend Thornberry for addressing this concern, virtually all criminol-ogists still consider his framework a fully integrated model. And in many ways,Thornberry’s interactional model is far more integrated than others discussed herebecause it gives equal weight to the traditionally separate theoretical frameworks that arecombined into his model, in the sense that both are considered antecedent and recipro-cal in their effects on criminal behavior.

Braithwaite’s Theory of Reintegrative Shaming. A unique integrated model that proposedthe synthesis of several traditionally separate theories was presented in 1989, in a bookentitled Crime, Shame, and Reintegration.66 The theory of reintegrative shaming mergesconstructs and principles from several theories, primarily social control/bonding theoryand labeling theory, with elements of strain theory, subculture/gang theory, anddifferential association theory. All of these theories are synthesized in a clear and coherentframework that is presented in both descriptive and graphic form. We will spend extratime discussing Braithwaite’s theory because it discusses not only U.S. culture but alsocultural and justice tendencies in Japanese culture.

Braithwaite’s idea for the theory was obviously inspired by the cultural differences heobserved in Eastern (particularly Japanese) culture, in terms of both socialization prac-tices and the justice system, as compared to the Western world. (Note that Braithwaite isfrom Australia, which uses the same Western practices as England and the United States.)Specifically, he emphasizes the Japanese focus on the aggregate, such as family, school, orbusiness, to which the individual belongs. In contrast, in many Western cultures, epito-mized by U.S. culture, the emphasis is clearly placed on the individual.

This contrast has often been referred to as the “we” culture versus the “me” culture(Eastern versus Western emphases, respectively). Although this is seen in virtually allaspects of culture and policy practices, it is quite evident in people’s names. In mostEastern cultures, people are known by their family name, which is placed first in theordering. This shows the importance that is placed on the group to which they belong. Incontrast, Western societies listing individual names first, implying a focus on the individualhim/herself. These naming practices are a manifestation of a virtually all-encompassing


64Ibid.

65Sung Joon Jang, “Age-Varying Effects of Family, School, and Peers on Delinquency: A Multilevel Modeling Test ofInteractional Theory,” Criminology 37 (1999): 643–85.

66John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).


cultural difference regarding group dynamics and social expectations across societies,especially their justice systems. For example, it is quite common in Japan to receive a sen-tence of apologizing in public, even for the most serious violent crimes.67 In his book,Braithwaite points out that after World War II, Japan was the only highly industrializingsociety that showed a dramatic decrease in its crime rate.

Criminological theory would predict Japan to have an increasing crime rate, given theextremely high density of urban areas due to rapid industrialization, especially on such asmall amount of land, Japan being a large island. As Braithwaite describes it, the Japanesesuffered from anomie after the war in the sense of a general breakdown of cultural norms,but the nation was able to deal with this anomic state despite the odds. Japan definitivelydecided not to follow the Western model of justice after the war; rather, they rejected theWestern system of stigmatizing convicted felons. Instead, the Japanese implemented a sys-tem in which they reintroduce (hence “reintegration”) the offenders to society via a for-mal ceremony in which citizens accept the offenders back into conventional society. Incontrast, in the United States, we typically give our “ex-cons” about $75 on average andmake them promise always to identify themselves as felons on legal documents.

In other cultural contrasts, Japan is extremely lenient in sentencing offenders toprison. In contrast, by rate of incarceration the United States is the most punitive devel-oped nation. In Japan, Braithwaite notes that:

Prosecution only proceeds in major cases . . . where the normal process of apol-ogy, compensation, and forgiveness by the victim breaks down. Fewer than10 percent of those offenders who are convicted receive prison sentences, and fortwo-thirds of these, prison sentences are suspended. Whereas 45 percent of thoseconvicted of a crime serve a jail sentence in the U.S., in Japan the percentage isunder two.68

Public apology is the most common punishment among the Japanese, which stronglyreflects the nature of honor in Japanese society, as well as pointing out the fundamentaldifferences between how we deal with offenders. Braithwaite claims that this cultural andpolitical difference has a huge impact on why crime rates in both nations haveexperienced such differential trends.

Most developing Western nations, including the United States, experienced a risingcrime rate in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Braithwaite argues that this was likely due toculture and the differential treatment of its offenders, namely “it might be argued thatthis [the downward trend in crime rates after World War II in Japan] was a result of the re-establishment of cultural traditions of shaming wrongdoers, including the effective coupling ofshame and punishment.”69 In contrast, Braithwaite claims that “one contention . . . is that theuncoupling of shame and punishment manifested in a wide variety of ways in many Westerncountries is an important factor in explaining the rising crime rates in those countries.”70

67Ibid., 62.

68Ibid., citing findings from J. Haley, “Sheathing the Sword of Justice in Japan: An Essay on Law Without Sanctions,”Journal of Japanese Studies 8 (1982): 265–81.

69Braithwaite, Crime Shame, 61, brackets are authors’ paraphrasing.

70Ibid, 61.

Furthermore, in contrast to American society, the Japanese are typically less con-frontational with authority. For example, some scholars have noted that the Japaneseaccept the authority of law, and police officers are considered similar to “elder brothers”who rely “on positive rather than negative reinforcement,” when it comes to crime con-trol.71 This difference in the way officers and other authority figures are considered islikely due to the way that the Japanese view society, in terms of neighborhood, commu-nity, school, and work—the informal institutions of control that we have mentioned ear-lier in this book as having more effect on the crime rate than the formal institutions (i.e.,police, courts, prisons).

Beyond discussing the cultural differences, Braithwaite’s integrated theory addressessome of the most notable scientific observations regarding what types of individuals andgroups are likely to commit crime. Specifically, Braithwaite states that most crime is com-mitted by young, poor, single males who live in urban communities that have high levelsof residential mobility; they are not likely attached to or do poorly in school, have loweducational/occupational aspirations, are not strongly attached to their parents, associatewith delinquent peers, and do not have moral beliefs against violating law.72

It is obvious from this list that Braithwaite incorporated some of the major theoriesand corresponding variables into his theoretical perspective. The emphasis on poor peo-ple who do not have high educational/occupational aspirations obviously supports straintheory, whereas the inclusion of urban individuals who live in communities with highresidential mobility reflects the Chicago School/social disorganization theory. At the sametime, Braithwaite clearly highlights the predisposition of people who have limited moralbeliefs and weak attachments, which conjures images of social bonding/control theory;individuals having delinquent peers obviously supports differential association/reinforcementtheory. Thus, a handful of theories are important in the construction of Braithwaite’sintegrated theory.

Braithwaite notes that much of the effectiveness of the Japanese system of crimecontrol depends on two constructs: interdependency and communitarianism.Interdependency is the level of bonds that an individual has to conventional society,such as the degree to which they are involved or attached to conventional groups insociety, which would include employment, family, church, and organizations.According to Braithwaite, interdependency is the building block of the other major the-oretical construct in his integrated model: communitarianism. Communitarianism isthe macro (group) level of interdependency, meaning that it is the cumulative degreeof the bonds that individuals have with the conventional groups and institutions (e.g.,family, employment, organizations, church, etc.) in a given society. Obviously, thesetheoretical constructs are highly based on the theory of social bonding/control, in thesense that they are based on attachments, commitment, and involvement in conven-tional society.

Braithwaite’s model has a causal ordering that starts with largely demographic vari-ables, such as age, gender, marital status, employment, and aspirations on the individual


71D. H. Bayley, Forces of Order: Police Behavior in Japan and the United States (Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress, 1976).

72Braithwaite, Crime, Shame, 44–53.


level and urbanization and residential mobility on the macro (group) level. All of thesefactors are predicted to influence the level of interdependency and communitarianism inthe model, which as we previously discussed is largely based on social control/bondingtheory. Depending on which type of culture is considered, or what forms of shaming areused in a given jurisdiction, the various types of shaming that are administered are key inthis integrated model.

According to Braithwaite, societies that emphasize reintegrative shaming, such asJapan, will reduce the rates of crime in their society. When an offender in Japan completeshis or her sentence or punishment for committing a crime, the government will oftensponsor a formal ceremony in which the offender is reintroduced or “reintegrated” backinto conventional society. According to Braithwaite, we do not reintegrate offenders intoour society after shaming them but rather stigmatize them, which leads them to associateonly with people from criminal subcultures (e.g., drug users, gang members). Braithwaiteclaims that this leads to the formation of criminal groups and the grasping of illegitimateopportunities offered in the local community. Ultimately, this means that people who arenot reintegrated into conventional society will inevitably be stigmatized and labeled asoffenders, preventing them from becoming productive members of the community, evenif their intentions are to do such.

Most empirical studies of Braithwaite’s theory show mixed results, with most in favorof this theory, especially regarding its implementation for policy. Some tests have shownthat reintegrative ideology regarding violations of law can have a positive impact on futurecompliance with the law; others have found that high levels of shaming in parental prac-tices do not increase offending.73 Studies in other countries, such as China and Iceland,show partial support for Braithwaite’s theory.74While some studies have found encourag-ing results,75 other recent studies have also found weak or no support for the theory.76

The most recent reports regarding the effects of shame show that outcomes largelydepend on how shame is measured, which Braithwaite’s theory largely ignores. There are,for example, episodic or situational shame states as well as long-term shame traits orpropensities. Recent reviews of the literature and studies of how different types of shameare measured show that certain forms of shame are positively correlated with offending,whereas other forms of shame tend to inhibit criminal behavior.77 If an individual persis-tently feels shame, they are more likely to commit criminal activity, but if persons who are

73Toni Makkai and John Braithwaite, “Reintegrative Shaming and Compliance with Regulatory Standards,”Criminology 32 (1994): 361–386; Carter Hay, “An Exploratory Test of Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory,”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38 (2001): 132–53.

74Lu Hong, Zhang Lening, and Terance Miethe, “Interdependency, Communitarianism, and Reintegrative Shaming inChina,” Social Science Journal 39 (2002): 189–202; Eric Baumer, Richard Wright, Kristrun Kristinsdottir, HelgiGunnlaugsson, “Crime, Shame, and Recidivism: The Case of Iceland,” British Journal of Criminology 42 (2002): 40–60.

75Nathan Harris, Lode Walgrave, and John Braithwaite, “Emotional Dynamics in Restorative Conferences,” TheoreticalCriminology 8 (2004): 191–210; Eliza Ahmed and Valerie Braithwaite, “‘What, Me Ashamed’? Shame Management andSchool Bullying,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (2004): 269–94.

76Bas Van Stokkom, “Moral Emotions in Restorative Justice Conferences: Managing Shame, Designing Empathy,”Theoretical Criminology 6 (2002): 339–61; Charles Tittle, Jason Bratton, and Marc Gertz, “A Test of a Micro-LevelApplication of Shaming Theory,” Social Problems 50 (2003): 592–617; Lening Zhang and Sheldon Zhang, “ReintegrativeShaming and Predatory Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (2004): 433–53.

not predisposed to feel shame perceive that they would feel shame for doing a givenillegal activity, then they would be strongly inhibited from engaging in such activity.78

This is consistent with findings from another recent study that demonstrated that theeffect of reintegrative shaming had an interactive effect on delinquency.79

Furthermore, Braithwaite’s theory does not take into account other important self-conscious emotions, such as guilt, pride, embarrassment, and empathy, that are importantwhen individuals are deciding whether or not to commit criminal behavior. Althoughsome theorists claim that shame is the key social emotion, studies show that they are clearlywrong. Rather, many emotions, such as guilt and embarrassment, are based on social inter-action and self-consciousness; in many ways, they are just as inhibitory or rehabilitating asshame.80 The literature examining rational choice theory is also an indication of the effectsof other emotions than shame in influencing decisions on offending.81

Still, Braithwaite’s reintegrative theory provides an important step ahead in theoreti-cal development, particularly in terms of combining explanatory models to address crimerates, as well as correctional policies/philosophies, across various cultures. Specifically,Braithwaite’s theory makes a strong argument that Eastern (particularly Japanese) poli-cies of reintegration and apology for convicted offenders are beneficial for their culture.Would this system work in Western culture, especially the United States? The answer isdefinitely unknown, but it is unlikely that such a model would work well in the UnitedStates. After all, most of the chronic, serious offenders in the United States would not behighly deterred by having to apologize to the public, and many might consider such anapology or reintegration ceremony as an honor, or a way to show that they weren’t reallypunished. This may not be true, but we would not know this until such policies wereimplemented fully in our system. However, programs along these lines have been imple-mented in our country, and some of these programs will be reviewed later in this book.

Tittle’s Control-Balance Theory. One of the more recently proposed models of theoreticalintegration is that of Charles Tittle’s control balance theory. Presented by Tittle in 1995,control-balance integrated theory proposes that (1) the amount of control to which oneis subjected and (2) the amount of control that one can exercise determine the probabilityof deviance occurring. In other words, the balance between these two types of control, heargued, can predict the type of behavior that is likely to be committed.82

In this integrated theoretical framework, Tittle claimed that a person is least likely tooffend when he or she has a balance of controlling and being controlled. On the other


77Stephen Tibbetts, “Shame and Rational Choice in Offending Decisions,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 24 (1996):234–55.

78Stephen Tibbetts, “Self-Conscious Emotions and Criminal Offending,” Psychological Reports 93 (2003): 201–31.

79Hay, “Exploratory Test.”

80For an excellent review, see June Price Tangney and K. Fischer, Self-Conscious Emotions: The Psychology of Shame,Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride (New York: Guilford Press, 1995).

81See Harold Grasmick, Brenda Sims Blackwell, and Robert Bursik, “Changes over Time in Gender Differences inPerceived Risk of Sanctions,” Law and Society Review 27 (1993): 679–705; Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik, and BruceArneklev, “Reduction in Drunk Driving as a Response to Increased Threats of Shame, Embarrassment, and LegalSanctions,” Criminology 31 (1993): 41–67; Tibbetts, “College Student Perceptions.”

82Charles Tittle, Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995).


hand, the likelihood of offending will increase when these become unbalanced. If indi-viduals are more controlled by external forces, which Tittle calls “control deficit,” then thetheory predicts they will commit predatory or defiant criminal behavior. In contrast, if anindividual possesses an excessive level of control by external forces, which Tittle refers toas “control surplus,” then that individual will be more likely to commit acts of exploita-tion or decadence. It is important to realize that this excessive control is not the same asexcessive self-control, which would be covered by other theories examined in this intro-duction. Rather, Tittle argues that people who are controlling, that is, who have excessivecontrol over others, will be predisposed toward inappropriate activities.

Early empirical tests of control-balance theory have reported mixed results, with bothsurpluses and deficits predicting the same types of deviance.83 Furthermore, researchershave uncovered differing effects of the control balance ratio on two types of deviance thatare contingent on gender. This finding is consistent with the gender-specific supportfound for Reckless’s containment theory and with the gender differences found in othertheoretical models.84 Despite the mixed findings for Tittle’s control balance theory ofcrime, this model of criminal offending still gets a lot of attention, and most of the empir-ical evidence has been in favor of this theory.

Hagan’s Power-Control Theory. The final integrated theory that we will cover in thisintroduction deals with the influence of familial control and how that relates tocriminality across gender. Power-control theory is another integrated theory that wasproposed by John Hagan and his colleagues.85 The primary focus of this theory is on thelevel of patriarchal attitudes and structure in the household, which are influenced byparental positions in the workforce.

Power-control theory assumes that in households where the mother and father haverelatively similar levels of power at work (i.e., balanced households), mothers will be lesslikely to exert control on their daughters. These balanced households will be less likely toexperience gender differences in the criminal offending of the children. However, house-holds in which mothers and fathers have dissimilar levels of power in the workplace (i.e.,unbalanced households) are more likely to suppress criminal activity in daughters. In suchfamilies, it is assumed that daughters will be taught to be less risk-taking than the males inthe family. In addition, assertiveness and risky activity among the males in the house willbe encouraged. This assertiveness and risky activity may be a precursor to crime, which ishighly consistent with the empirical evidence regarding trends in crime related to gender.Thus, Hagan’s integrated theory seems to have a considerable amount of face validity.

83Alex Piquero and Matthew Hickman, “An Empirical Test of Tittle’s Control Balance Theory,” Criminology 37 (1999):319–42; Matthew Hickman and Alex Piquero, “Exploring the Relationships Between Gender, Control Balance, andDeviance,” Deviant Behavior 22 (2001): 323–51.

84Matthew Hickman and Alex Piquero, “Exploring the Relationships”; for contrast and comparison, see Grasmick et al.,“Changes Over Time”; Grasmick et al., “Reduction in Drunk Driving”; Tibbetts, “College Student Perceptions.”

85John Hagan, Structural Criminology (Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1989); John Hagan, A. Gillis, andJ. Simpson, “The Class Structure of Gender and Delinquency: Toward a Power-Control Theory of CommonDelinquent Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology 90 (1985): 1151–78; John Hagan, A. Gillis, and J. Simpson, “Clarifyingand Extending Power-Control Theory, American Journal of Sociology 95 (1990): 1024–37; John Hagan, J. Simpson, and A. Gillis, “Class in the Household: A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency,” American Journal of Sociology92 (1987): 788–816.

Most empirical tests of power-control theory have provided moderate support, whilemore recent studies have further specified the validity of the theory in different contexts.86

For example, one recent study reported that the influence of mothers, not fathers, on sonshad the greatest impact on reducing the delinquency of young males.87 Another researcherhas found that differences in perceived threats of embarrassment and formal sanctions var-ied between more patriarchal and less patriarchal households.88 Finally, studies have alsostarted measuring the effect of patriarchal attitudes on crime and delinquency.89 However,most of the empirical studies that have shown support for the theory have been done byHagan or his colleagues. Still, power-control theory is a good example of a social control the-ory in that it is consistent with the idea that individuals must be socialized, and that the gen-der differences in such socialization make a difference in how people will act throughout life.

yy Policy ImplicationsMany policy implications can be drawn from the various integrated theoretical modelsthat we have discussed in this section introduction. We will focus on the concepts thatwere most prominent in this section, which are parenting and peer influences. Regardingthe former, numerous empirical studies have examined programs for improving the abil-ity of parents and expecting parents to be effective.90 Such programs typically involvetraining high school students—or individuals/couples who are already parents—on howto be better parents. Additional programs include Head Start, and other preschool pro-grams that attempt to prepare high-risk youth for starting school; these have been foundto be effective in reducing disciplinary problems.91

Regarding peer influences, numerous programs and evaluations have examinedreducing negative peer influences regarding crime.92 Programs that emphasize prosocialpeer groups are often successful, whereas others show little or no success.93 The conclusionfrom most of these studies is that the most successful programs of this type are those that


86John Hagan, J. Simpson, and A. Gillis, “Class in the Household”; B. McCarthy and John Hagan, “Gender,Delinquency, and the Great Depression: A Test of Power-Control Theory,” Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology 24 (1987): 153–77; Merry Morash and Meda Chesney-Lind, “A Reformulation and Partial Test of thePower-Control Theory of Delinquency,” Justice Quarterly 8 (1991): 347–77; S. Singer and M. Levine, “Power-ControlTheory, Gender, and Delinquency: A Partial Replication with Additional Evidence on the Effects of Peers,”Criminology 26 (1988): 627–47.

87B. McCarthy, John Hagan, and T. Woodward, “In the Company of Women: Structure and Agency in a RevisedPower-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency,” Criminology 37 (1999): 761–88.

88Brenda Sims Blackwell, “Perceived Sanction Threats, Gender, and Crime: A Test and Elaboration of Power-ControlTheory,” Criminology 38 (2000): 439–88.

89Brenda Sims Blackwell, “Perceived Sanction Threats”; Kristin Bates, Chris Bader, and F. Carson Mencken, “FamilyStructure, Power-Control Theory, and Deviance: Extending Power-Control Theory to Include Alternate FamilyForms,” Western Criminology Review 4 (2003): 170–90.

90See review in Brown et al., Explaining Crime, 425.

91Ibid.

92For a review, see Akers and Sellers, Criminological Theories, 102–8.

93Ibid.


focus on learning life skills and prosocial skills and use a curriculum based on cognitive-behavioral approaches.94 This approach includes reinforcing positive behavior, clarifyingrules of behavior in social settings, teaching life and thinking skills, and perhaps mostimportant, thinking about the consequences of a given behavior before acting (hencecognitive-behavioral approach). Studies consistently show that programs using a cognitive-behavioral approach (i.e., think before you act) are far more successful than programs thatemphasize interactions among peers or use psychoanalysis or other forms of therapy.95

Many other policy implications can be derived from integrated theories explainingcriminal behavior, but parenting practices and peer influences are the primary constructsin most integrated models. Thus, these are the two areas that should be targeted for pol-icy interventions, but they must be done correctly. For a start, policymakers could reviewthe findings from empirical studies and evaluations and see that the earlier parenting pro-grams start, particularly for high-risk children, the more effective they can be. Regardingthe peer-influence programs, the emphasis on a cognitive-behavior therapy/training andlife skills appears to be more effective than other approaches.

yy ConclusionIn this section, we have reviewed what determines the types of integrated theories and whatcriteria make an integrated theory a good explanation of human behavior. We have alsoexamined some examples of integrated theories that have been proposed in the crimino-logical literature in the last 20 years. All of the examples represent the most researched anddiscussed integrated theories, and they demonstrate both the advantages and disadvantagesof theoretical integration/elaboration. We hope that readers will be able to determine forthemselves which of these integrated theories are the best in explaining criminal activity.

In this introduction, we have examined the various ways in which theoretical integrationcan be done, including forms of conceptual integration and theoretical elaboration.Furthermore, the criticisms of the different variations of integration and elaboration havebeen discussed. In addition, numerous examples of theoretical integration have been pre-sented, along with the empirical studies that have been performed to examine their validity.

Finally, we discussed the policy implications that can be recommended from suchintegrated theories. Specifically, we concluded that the influence of early parenting andpeer-influences are the two most important constructs across these theoretical models.Furthermore, we concluded that “the earlier, the better” regarding the parenting pro-grams. We also concluded that a cognitive-behavioral approach, which includes life skills,is most effective for peer-influence programs.

yy Section Summary� Theoretical integration is one of the more contemporary developments in

criminological theorizing. This approach brings with it many criticisms, yetarguably many advantages.

94Ibid., 108.

95Ibid.

� Types of theoretical integration include end-to-end, side-by-side, and up-and-down types.

� Conceptual integration appears to be a useful, albeit rarely explored, form oftheoretical integration.

� Theoretical elaboration is another form of integration, which involves using onetheory as the base or primary model and then incorporating concepts andpropositions from other theories to make the primary model stronger.

� A number of seminal integrated theories have been examined using empiricalevidence and appear to have enhanced our understanding of criminal behavior.

� Some of the theoretical models that have been proposed (such as Elliott et al.’smodel) have been supported by empirical research.

� Theoretical integration models have many critics, who claim that the assump -tions, concepts, and propositions of the mixed theories are counterintuitive.

K E Y T E R M S


Braithwaite’s reintegrativeshaming theory

Communitarianism

Conceptual integration

Elliott’s integrated model

End-to-end theoreticalintegration

Integrated theories

Interdependency

Side-by-side (or “horizontal”) integration

Theoretical elaboration

Thornberry’s interactionalmodel

Up-and-down integration

D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S

1. What is the definition of theoretical integration, and why can such theories be beneficial?

2. Describe what end-to-end theoretical integration is and provide an example of such integration.

3. Describe what side-by-side theoretical integration is and provide an example of such integration.

4. Describe what up-and-down theoretical integration is and provide an example of such integration.

5. Discuss the difference between theoretical elaboration, theoretical integration, and conceptualintegration.

6. What are the major strengths and weaknesses of theoretical integration?

7. In your opinion, what is the best of the integrated models? Why do you believe this is the bestintegrated model?

8. What do you believe is the weakest integrated model? Why?

Reading 34 � Separate and Unequal Is Better 679

W E B R E S O U R C E S

Integrated Theories of Crime

http://www.indiana.edu/~theory/Kip/IC.htm

John Braithwaite/Reintegrative Theory

http://www.realjustice.org/library/braithwaite06.html

Various Integrated Theories of Crime

http://law.jrank.org/pages/821/Crime-Causation-Sociological-Theories-Integrated-theories.html

SOURCE: Travis Hirschi, “Separate and Unequal Is Better,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1979): 34–37.Copyright 1979 Sage Publications, Inc. Used by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

Some argue that the assumptions of strain,control, and differential association theories ofdelinquency are fundamentally incompatible(Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978), while othersdeny that they are necessarily incompatible and

suggest the possibility of a compromise theorysatisfactory to all concerned. For sheerreasonableness, the integrationist approachwould seem to have much to commend it: Whyshould we continue to squabble over petty

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Travis Hirschi argues that theoretical integration is against the best interestsof the development of criminological theory. Hirschi’s idea of integrated models is that they“divide the child in two,” “giving the larger half” to other competing theories, which is consis-tent with what was seen in the introduction to this section.

While reading this selection, readers should take Hirschi’s arguments into consideration indeciding whether or not integrated models are beneficial in understanding why individualsengage in criminal offending. However, readers should also feel free to question the rationalethat Hirschi presents for dismissing such integrated frameworks.

Separate and Unequal Is Better

Travis Hirschi

differences when, with a little concession hereand a minor modification there, the larger truthwe all love so well would be better served?1 As amatter of fact, however, integration turns out tobe more difficult than this question suggests.When Elliott, Ageton, and Canter (1979)actually face the Solomonic task of resolving theconflicting claims of the three perspectives, theyfind themselves compelled to agree that itcannot be done. Their solution is to use theterms and ignore the claims of control theory.This allows them to divide the child in two,giving the larger half to differential associationand the remainder to strain theory.

Since it seems late to be inquiring after thechild’s health, it may be more useful here tolook briefly at the mediating devices availableto those who would resolve the conflictsamong these traditional perspectives. For alltheir popular appeal, the repeated failure ofintegrationist approaches suggests that thereare inherent difficulties that preclude attain-ment of their avowed goal.

yy End to EndOne procedure open to the integrationist is toput partial theories end to end so that theydescribe a developmental sequence. The dependent variables of prior theories become theindependent variables of subsequent theories.An overall increase in the ability to account forthe final dependent variable is not expectedbecause the last theory in the sequence pre-sumably absorbs the predictive power of thosepreceding it. In fact, given the reasonablenotion that the power and complexity of a the-ory should somehow be proportioned to whatit explains, sequential integrations will nor-mally explain less than the sum of thingsexplained by their constituent theories. Inother words, sequential integrations presup-pose important outcomes (e.g., sustained pat-terns of delinquent behavior) and are

inappropriate as explanations of trivial events(e.g., crossing a neighbor’s yard without per-mission). In sequential integrations that crossdisciplinary lines, questions about whichpartial theory is most important will usuallyseem to be off the point. In others, where eachof the constituent theories was originallyadvanced as a direct explanation of the out-come variables, integrationists face a formida-ble task: They must argue in effect that alltheories but the last one in the sequence arewrong. Unless based on evidence not previ-ously available, this argument will undercutthe integrationists’ claims to impartiality, sincethey will have become parties to the disputethey proposed to mediate.

This abstract description of the end-to-end strategy is of course partly based on thediscussion by Elliott et al. (But not entirely. Forroughly parallel integrations of the same perspectives—and some of the same fea-tures—see Lofland and Stark, 1965.) To mymind, it illustrates that Elliott et al. have on thewhole been true to the logic of their procedure.It also illustrates that this procedure cannotresolve differences among the theories in ques-tion. Those whose minds are closed to the ideathat, for example, “access to and involvementin delinquent learning and performance struc-tures is a necessary . . . variable in the etiologyof delinquent behavior” are unlikely to be per-suaded by the argument that this “postulate” isa necessary consequence of an open-mindedprocedure.

yy Side by SideAnother procedure is to put partial theoriesside by side and segregate the cases to whichthey are considered applicable (Warren andHindelang, 1979). This increases explainedvariance, avoids questions of incompatibility,and answers the question of relative impor-tance. (Other things being equal, a theory that

680 SECTION X INTEGRATED THEORETICAL MODELS AND NEW PERSPECTIVES OF CRIME

Reading 34 � Separate and Unequal Is Better 681

applies to 40 percent of the cases is “better”than one applying to 30 percent.) Since theside-by-side approach avoids the theory over-load problem, it is useful in explaining delin-quent acts differing widely in significance.

Being all virtue and no apparent defect,the side-by-side “integration” would seem tobe the way to go. The reluctance of Elliott et al.to exploit this strategy fully seems to resultfrom the fact that in the side-by-side approachthe definition of delinquency is unrestricted.This approach does not allow a single defini-tion tailored to the needs of a particular the-ory. Instead, it leaves each sub-theory free todefine delinquency in its own terms. Havingconstructed their definition with a causalsequence and differential association in mind,Elliott et al. cannot reopen the definitionalquestion without reopening the question ofthe adequacy of their integrated theory. (Apure side-by-side approach would requireconsideration of control theory as a possibleexplanation of at least some forms of delin-quent behavior.)

The major difficulty inherent in the side-by-side approach, as far as I can determine, isthat no one has as yet come up with a way ofsegregating cases that produces the results sug-gested. (The notoriously unsuccessful social-class-specific approach to theory is a goodexample of the side-by-side procedure in oper-ation.) Elliott et al. segregate cases on the basisof the strength of initial “bonds to the conven-tional order.” Those with formerly strongbonds are said to follow a path to delinquencydifferent from the path followed by those whohave never developed such bonds.2 As is usu-ally true with side-by-side integrations, proce-dures for identifying the two groups are notprovided. Furthermore, evidence for the exis-tence of the strain theory path is exceedinglyvague. Put another way, I interpret the Elliottet al. side-by-side effort as a bow in the direc-tion of “the most influential and widely usedcontemporary formulation in the sociology of

delinquent behavior,” a formulation whosecontinued influence and wide use are some-thing of a mystery, to say the least.3

yy Up and DownIntegrationists may also raise the level ofabstraction to the point where these partial the-ories become specific applications of a generaltheory of deviance—or law (e.g., Black, 1976).Such efforts should lead to greater explainedvariance because what were once consideredunrelated processes may now be seen to bear onthe same outcome. This procedure too has thedefects of its virtues: a marked tendency on thepart of integrationists to accept without ques-tion the truth of any partial theory their generaltheory subsumes. (The greater the number ofpartial theories accounted for, the greater andmore powerful the general theory.) Whatappears to be unusual reasonableness on thepart of the integrationist may then turn out tobe nothing more than failure to invokerequired scientific bases of discrimination.4

To some extent, all of these integrativeprocedures are employed by Elliott et al. As canbe seen from their general properties, the lifeof the integrationist is not easy. He or she isforced to make theoretical decisions (and toabide by their consequences) unguided by a con-sistent theoretical perspective. If, in despera-tion, one or another theoretical perspective isadopted, claims to even-handed treatment ofall perspectives are no longer tenable.

I think we should be pleased to find thatattainment of the integrationist’s goal is so diffi-cult. A “successful” integration would destroythe healthy competition among ideas that hasmade the field of delinquency one of the mostinteresting and exciting fields in sociology forsome time. To their credit, Elliott et al. eventuallyabandon the integrationist perspective in favorof the theory of differential association. To mymind, differential association is at least of some

historical interest.5 I would not be able to speakso highly of an integrated theory of delinquency.

yy Notes1. Students in schools of criminal justice, where

the boundaries between disciplines are often obscure,are easily irritated by a focus on differences amongtheories within discipline. If all disciplines are “reallysaying the same thing,” within-discipline differencesare obviously too petty to merit attention.

2. Elliott et al. occasionally mention that strain the-ory requires a repeated-measures design, while researchfrom within the control perspective has been cross-sec-tional or “static.” I do not find their equation of superiorresearch design and superior theory convincing. Arepeated-measures design may indeed allow theresearcher to examine the effects of prior states, but itdoes not guarantee that such effects exist. In fact, giventhe empirical record, I would expect the strain theorist tobe extremely leery of the hypothesis that prior and sub-sequent states interact in their effects on delinquency.

3. “We fail to find any support for Cloward andOhlin’s disjunction hypothesis” (Elliott and Voss,1974:170). “There is little or no support for the hypo -thesis that a tendency to attribute blame externally . . .increases the likelihood of delinquency. . . .” (Elliottand Voss (1974:170). “Strain theories have a decideddefect: they are not consistent with the evidence”(Hirschi, 1969:228). “On the basis of available evi-dence, Cloward and Oblin are wrong” (Hirschi andHindelang, 1977:578). “There are no delinquent gangsof the types described by Cloward and Ohlin”(Kornhauser, 1978:159).

4. In the empirical (“down”) equivalent of thisprocedure, the integrationist simply combines variablesfrom various theories on the grounds that some mayexplain cases left unexplained by the others. This is the“multiple regression” approach, where predictability isincreased by inclusion of variables unrelated to vari-ables already considered. In most applications of thisprocedure, unfortunately, the presumption of orthogo-nality among independent variables owes much of itsplausibility to the fact that it has not yet been tested.

5. In his 1939 statement of differential association,Edwin Sutherland limited his dependent-variables tosystematic crimes in order “to postpone considerationof the very trivial criminal acts” (Cohen et al., 1956:21).In their 1979 statement of essentially the same theory,Elliott et al. restrict their dependent variable to “sustained

patterns of illegal behavior” because they “are not con-cerned . . . with the isolated delinquent act.”

By 1947 Sutherland had abandoned “systematic”because a psychiatrist could find no more than 2 sys-tematic criminals among the 2,000 inmates of IndianaState Prison and because his own students found it“most difficult . . . to determine objectively whether aprisoner was a criminal systematically or adventi-tiously” (Cohen et al., 1956:21). I suspect that in thenext go around Elliott and his colleagues will reach sim-ilar conclusions about “sustained patterns of illegalbehavior.” They will see that it eliminates too much ofinterest and is too difficult (impossible?) to operational-ize to justify its retention in a theory of delinquency. (Isuspect too that they will see that this definition ofdelinquency reopens the question of the theoretical rel-evance of self-report results, since it has not been thedefinition employed in self-report research.)

yy ReferencesBlack, D. 1976 The Behavior of Law. New York:

Academic Press,Cohen, A., et al. 1956. The Sutherland Papers.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Elliott, D. S., S. S. Ageton, and R. J. Canter. 1979. “An

Integrated Theoretical Perspective-off DelinquentBehavior.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 16(1): 3–27.

Elliott, D. S., and H. Voss. 1974. Delinquency andDropout. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Farrell, R. A., and V. L. Swigert. 1978. Social Deviance.Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of dlinquency. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Hirschi, T., and M. J. Hindelang. 1977. “Intelligenceand Delinquency: A Revisionist Review.” AmericanSociological Review 42(4): 571–87.

Kornhauser, R. R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency:An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Lofland, J., and R. Stark, R. 1965. “Becoming a WorldSaver: A Theory of Conversion to a DeviantPerspective.” American Sociological Review 30(6):862–75.

Warren, M. Q., and M. J. Hindelang. 1979. “CurrentExplanations of Offender Behavior.” Pp. 162–82 H.Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice,ed. H. Toch. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.


Reading 35 � An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior 683


1. What does Hirschi have to say about integrated models generally? Do you agree or disagree?

2. What does Hirschi have to say about “end-to-end” integrated models versus “side-by-side” inte-grated models? Do you agree or disagree? Can you provide an example for both types of theoreti-cal integration?

3. Finally, what does Hirschi have to say about “up-and-down” integrated models? Do you agree or dis-agree with his stance on this form of integrated frameworks? What does Hirschi conclude, and doyou agree?

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Delbert Elliott, Suzanne Ageton, and Rachelle Canter provide one of theearliest, and still one of the best-known and respected examples of theoretical integration.We shall see that Elliott et al. merge various concepts and propositions from at least threetraditional theoretical perspectives, namely strain theory, social control theory, and varioussocial learning theories.

One of the beneficial aspects of Elliott et al.’s integrated theory is that it attempts to mergevarious versions of each of these perspectives into a cohesive, unitary explanation ofdelinquency/criminal behavior. For example, the authors go beyond the original straintheory proposed by Merton in 1938 and also take into consideration the subsequent ver-sions of strain theory that appeared in later decades (such as Cloward and Ohlin’s theoryof differential opportunities, as well as Cohen’s ideas regarding the formation of gang sub-cultures). Also, when explaining how control theories were integrated into Elliott et al.’smodel, the authors do not simply rely on Hirschi’s version of social bonding but also con-sider some of the other versions of control theory (such as control theories by Reiss, Nye,Reckless as well as Matza’s theory of drift). Finally, the authors don’t simply mergeSutherland’s theory of differential association but also take into account the more mod-ern versions of social learning theory, such as Akers’s model of differential reinforcementand Bandura’s model of imitation/modeling. Although even more modern versions ofeach of these theoretical perspectives have been introduced (e.g., general strain theory)since Elliott et al. proposed this model in 1979, it is obvious from this selection that theauthors did their best to integrate these three major perspectives using the most recentscientific evidence they had in the late-1970s.

�

SOURCE: Delbert Elliott, Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter, “An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on DelinquentBehavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1979): 3–27. Copyright 1979 Sage Publications, Inc. Used bypermission of Sage Publications, Inc.

While reading this selection, readers are encouraged to consider the validity of the model byconsidering themselves or others they grew up with and examining whether the develop-ment of the various stages proposed by Elliott et al. seems to fit with the delinquents orcriminals they have known. Furthermore, if you were to create such an integrated model,would you have emphasized any concepts or propositions from these three theoretical per-spectives (or those from other theories) that the authors do not seem to focus on or mergeinto their “comprehensive” explanation of why individuals become delinquents? Finally,readers should consider whether it is rational to merge theoretical perspectives that haveopposing basic assumptions, such as merging strain theory, which claims that individualsare born good, with perspectives such as control theory, which claims that people are bornbad and must be taught or controlled to be good.

An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior

Delbert S. Elliott, Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter


yy Previous Theories: Strain and Control

Anomie/Strain Perspective

. . . Strain theory has become the mostinfluential and widely used contemporary for-mulation in the sociology of delinquentbehavior. A specific application of strain the-ory to delinquency has been proposed byCloward and Ohlin (1960) and, more recently,by Elliott and Voss (1974). Cloward andOhlin’s work is of particular interest to usbecause their formulation, like that proposedhere, represents an attempt to integrate andextend current theoretical positions. Althoughtheir theory has been viewed primarily as anextension of the earlier work of Durkheim andMerton, it is equally an extension of the differ-ential association perspective and the priorwork of Sutherland (1947). Indeed, much of itssignificance lies in the fact that it successfullyintegrated these two traditional perspectiveson the etiology of delinquent behavior.

Cloward and Ohlin maintain that limitedopportunity for achieving conventional goalsis the motivational stimulus for delinquentbehavior. The specific form and pattern ofdelinquent behavior are acquired through nor-mal learning processes within delinquentgroups. Experiences of limited or blockedopportunities (a result of structural limita-tions on success) thus lead to alienation (per-ceived anomie) and an active seeking out ofalternative groups and settings in which par-ticular patterns of delinquent behavior areacquired and reinforced (social learning).

Merton, Cloward and Ohlin have concep-tualized the condition leading to anomie interms of differential opportunities for achiev-ing socially valued goals. Differential access toopportunity creates strain; this is postulated tooccur primarily among disadvantaged, low-SES [socioeconomic status] youths, resultingin the concentration of delinquent subculturesin low-SES neighborhoods. It is important tonote, however, that Cloward and Ohlin havechanged the level of explanation from the


macrosociological level which characterizedDurkheim’s work to an individual level. It isthe perception of limited access to conventionalgoals that motivates the individual to exploredeviant means. This change in level of expla-nation was essential for the integration ofstrain and learning perspectives.

Elliott and Voss’s more recent work (1974)has attempted to deal with the class-boundassumptions inherent in strain theory. Theirformulation extends Cloward and Ohlin’s clas-sic statement in the following three ways: (1) The focus on limited opportunities wasextended to a wider range of conventional goals.(2) The goal-means disjunction was modifiedto be logically independent of social class. (3) The role of social learning in the develop-ment of delinquent behavior was furtheremphasized. Elliott and Voss have proposed asequential, or developmental, model of delin-quency: (1) Limited opportunities or failure toachieve conventional goals serves to (2) attenu-ate one’s initial commitment to the normativeorder and (3) results in a particular form ofalienation (normlessness), which serves as a“permitter” for delinquency, and (4) exposureto delinquent groups, which provides learningand rewards for delinquent behavior for thosewhose bonds have undergone the attenuationprocess.

From this perspective, aspiration-oppor-tunity disjunctions provide motivation fordelinquent behavior. As compared withMerton and Cloward and Ohlin, Elliott andVoss view both goals and opportunities as vari-ables. They postulate that middle-class youthsare just as likely to aspire beyond their meansas are low-SES youths. While the absolute lev-els of aspirations and opportunities may varyby class, the discrepancies between personalgoals and opportunities for realizing thesegoals need not vary systematically by class.Given Durkheim’s (1897/1951, p. 254) viewthat poverty restrains aspirations, Elliott andVoss have postulated that aspiration-opportunitydisjunctions would be at least as great, if not

greater, among middle-class youths. In anycase, the motivational stimulus for delinquentbehavior in the form of aspiration-opportunitydiscrepancies or goal failure is viewed as logi-cally independent of social class.

Normlessness, the expectation that onemust employ illegitimate means to achievesocially valued goals (Seeman, 1959), is postu-lated to result from perceived aspiration-oppor-tunity disjunctions. When a person cannot reachhis or her goals by conventional means, deviantor illegitimate means become rational and func-tional alternatives. When the source of failure orblockage is perceived as external—resulting frominstitutional practices and policies—the individ-ual has some justification for withdrawing hisor her moral commitment to these conven-tional norms. In this manner, a sense of injus-tice mitigates ties to conventional norms andgenerates normlessness.

Once at this point in the developmentalsequence, the relative presence or absence ofspecific delinquent learning and performancestructures accounts for the likelihood of one’sbehavior. The time-ordering of the exposure todelinquency variable is not explicit. It may pre-date failure or it may be the result of seeking asocial context in which one can achieve somesuccess. While the exposure may result in theacquisition of delinquent behavior patterns,actual delinquent behavior (performance) willnot result until one’s attachment to the socialorder is neutralized through real or anticipatedfailure, and the delinquent behavior has beenreinforced. The results of research relative tothis set of propositions have been generallyencouraging. . . .

While considerable empirical support foran integrated strain-learning approach todelinquency has been amassed, most of thevariance in delinquency remains unexplained.If the power of this theoretical formulation is tobe improved, some basic modification isrequired. One avenue is suggested by the weakpredictive power of the aspiration-opportunitydiscrepancy variables. . . . [In some studies],

limited academic success at school and failurein one’s relationship with parents were predic-tive, but only weakly. To some extent, the lowstrength of these predictors might be antici-pated, since they are the initial variables in thecausal sequence and are tied to delinquencyonly through a set of other conditional vari-ables. On the other hand, the strong emphasisplaced on these specific variables in strain the-ories seems questionable, given the availabledata. It might be argued that the difficulty liesin the operationalization or measurement ofthe relevant goal-opportunity disjunctions.However, we are inclined to reject this posi-tion because previous findings as to this pos-tulated relationship have been generally weakand inconclusive (Spergel, 1967; Short, 1964;Elliott, 1962; Short, Rivera, and Tennyson,1965; Jessor et al., 1968; Hirschi, 1969; Liska,1971; and Brennan, 1974). Furthermore, thereis substantial evidence in the above-mentionedstudies that many adolescents engaging in sig-nificant amounts of delinquent behaviorexperience no discrepancies between aspira-tions and perceived opportunities. The lack ofconsistent support for this relationship sug-gests that failure or anticipated failure consti-tutes only one possible path to an involvementin delinquency.

The Control Perspective

The different assumptions of strain andcontrol theories are significant. Strain formu-lations assume a positively socialized individ-ual who violates conventional norms onlywhen his or her attachment and commitmentare attenuated. Norm violation occurs onlyafter the individual perceives that opportuni-ties for socially valued goals are blocked. Straintheory focuses on this attenuation process.Control theories, on the other hand, treat thesocialization process and commitment to con-ventional norms and values as problematic.Persons differ with respect to their commitment

to and integration into the conventional socialorder. . . .

From a control perspective, delinquency isviewed as a consequence of (1) lack of inter-nalized normative controls, (2) breakdown in previously established controls, and/or (3) conflict or inconsistency in rules or socialcontrols. Strain formulations of delinquencyappear to be focusing on those variables andprocesses which account for the second condi-tion identified by Reiss (1951): attenuation orbreakdown in previously established controls.On the other hand, most control theoristsdirect their attention to the first and third con-ditions, exploring such variables as inadequatesocialization (failure to internalize conven-tional norms) and integration into conven-tional groups or institutions which providestrong external or social controls on behavior.From our perspective, these need not beviewed as contradictory explanations. On thecontrary, they may be viewed as alternativeprocesses, depending on the outcome of one’searly socialization experience.

For example, Hirschi (1969) has arguedthat high aspirations involve a commitment toconventional lines of action that functions asa positive control or bond to the social order.Strain theories, on the other hand, view highaspirations (in the face of limited opportuni-ties) as a source of attenuation of attachmentto the conventional order. Recognizing thisdifference, Hirschi suggested that the exami-nation of this relationship would constitute acrucial test of the two theories. Empirically,the evidence is inconsistent and far from con-clusive. One possible interpretation is thatboth hypotheses are correct and are part ofdifferent etiological sequences leading todelinquent behavior.

Empirical studies using the control per-spective have focused almost exclusively on thestatic relation of weak internal and externalcontrols to delinquency without consideringthe longer developmental processes. These



processes may involve an initially strong com-mitment to and integration into society whichbecomes attenuated over time, with the atten-uation eventually resulting in delinquency. Thesource of this difficulty may lie in the infrequentuse of longitudinal designs. Without a repeated-measure design, youths with strong bondswhich subsequently become attenuated may beindistinguishable from those who never devel-oped strong bonds.

yy An Integrated Strain-Control Perspective

Our proposed integrated theoretical para-digm begins with the assumption that differ-ent youths have different early socializationexperiences, which result in variable degreesof commitment to and integration into con-ventional social groups. The effect of failureto achieve conventional goals on subsequentdelinquency is related to the strength ofone’s initial bonds. Limited opportunities to achieve conventional goals constitute asource of strain and thus a motivationalstimulus for delinquency only if one is com-mitted to these goals. In contrast, limitedopportunities to achieve such goals shouldhave little or no impact on those with weakties and commitments to the conventionalsocial order.

Limited opportunities to achieve conven-tional goals are not the only experiences whichweaken or break initially strong ties to thesocial order. Labeling theorists have arguedthat the experience of being apprehended andpublicly labeled delinquent initiates socialprocesses which limit one’s access to conven-tional social roles and statuses, isolating onefrom participation in these activities and rela-tionships and forcing one to assume a delin-quent role (Becker, 1963; Schur, 1971, Kitsuse,1962; Rubington & Weinberg, 1968; Ageton &Elliott, 1974; and Goldman, 1963). It has also

been argued that the effects of social disorga-nization or crisis in the home (divorce,parental strife and discord, death of a parent)and/or community (high rates of mobility,economic depression, unemployment) attenu-ate or break one’s ties to society (Thomas &Znaniecki, 1927; Shaw, 1931; Savitz, 1970;Monahan, 1957; Toby, 1957; Glueck & Glueck,1970; Andry, 1962; and Rosen, 1970).

In sum, we postulate that limited opportu-nities, failure to achieve valued goals, negativelabeling experiences, and social disorganiza-tion at home and in the community are allexperiences which may attenuate one’s ties tothe conventional social order and may thus becausal factors in the developmental sequenceleading to delinquent behavior for those whoseearly socialization experiences producedstrong bonds to society. For those whoseattachments to the conventional social orderare already weak, such factors may furtherweaken ties to society but are not necessaryfactors in the etiological sequence leading todelinquency.

Our basic conceptual framework comesfrom control theory, with a slightly differentemphasis placed on participation in and com-mitment to delinquent groups. Further, itidentifies a set of attenuating/bonding experi-ences which weaken or strengthen ties to theconventional social order over time. Ourfocus is on experiences and social contextswhich are relevant to adolescents. A diagramof our proposed theoretical scheme is shownin Figure 1. The rows in Figure 1 indicate thedirection and sequence of the hypothesizedrelationships. While the time order desig-nated in Figure 1 is unidirectional, the actualrelationships between initial socialization,bonding/attenuation processes, normativeorientations of groups, and behavior are oftenreciprocal and reinforcing. We have also pre-sented the variables in dichotomized form tosimplify the model and the discussion of itsmajor elements.

Bonds

Control theorists disagree about sources ofcontrol, but they all accept the central proposi-tion that delinquent behavior is a direct resultof weak ties to the conventional normativeorder. In operationalizing control theory, majoremphasis has been placed on the bond(s)which tie a person to society. Hirschi (1969)conceptualized four elements of this bond.First, attachment implies a moral link to otherpeople and encompasses such concepts as con-science, superego, and internalization ofnorms. Commitment, the second factor, is therational element in the bond. Hirschi viewscommitment to conformity as an investment in

conventional lines of action, such as an educa-tional or occupational career. Other theoristshave tied the concept of commitment to suchnotions as “stake in conformity” (Goode, 1960)and “side bets” (Becker, 1960). Involvement isthe time and energy dimension of the bond forHirschi. Given the limits of time and energy,involvement in conventional activities acts as asocial constraint on delinquent behavior. Thefinal bond, belief, refers to one’s acceptance ofthe moral validity of social rules and norms.According to Hirschi, this psychological ele-ment of the bond is effective as long as a personaccepts the validity of the rules. If one denies ordepreciates the validity of the rules, one sourceof control is neutralized.


Early SocializationOutcomes

Attenuation/BondingProcesses

Normative PeerStructures

BehaviorPatterns

Strong BondsHigh integrationHigh commitment

BondingSuccess in conventionalsocial contextsPositive labeling experiencesIncreasing integration intoconventional activities and rolesOrganized social contextsIncreasing personal commitment

AttenuatingFailure in conventional socialcontexts

Negative labeling experiencesSocial isolation

Disorganized social contexts

Decreasing personalcommitment

Weak BondsLow integrationLow commitment

Conventionalpeer groups

Delinquentpeer groups

Low probabilityof delinquentbehavior patterns

High probabilityof delinquentbehavior patterns

Figure 1 Integrated Strain-Control Paradigm


Other control theorists, such as Reiss(1951), Nye (1958), and Reckless (1967) use amore general classification of bonds as internal(personal) and external (social) controls.Hirschi’s dimensions are not easily placed intothese two general categories, although Hirschiidentifies attachment as an internal andinvolvement as an external element of thebond (1969, p. 19). We believe that distin-guishing internal controls, whose locus iswithin the person (beliefs, commitment, atti-tudes, perceptions), from external controls,whose locus is in the surrounding social andphysical milieu, poses fewer difficulties andproduces greater conceptual clarity than isfound in Hirschi’s four concepts.

The external, or social, bond we havedefined as integration. By this, we refer toinvolvement in and attachment to conven-tional groups and institutions, such as the fam-ily, school, peer networks, and so on. Thosepersons who occupy and are actively involvedin conventional social roles are, by this defini-tion, highly integrated. Group controls exist inthe form of sanctioning networks (the formaland informal rules and regulations by whichthe behavior of social role occupants or groupmembers is regulated). This conceptualizationof integration is akin to Hirschi’s concepts ofinvolvement and commitment.

The internal, or personal, bond is defined ascommitment. Commitment involves personalattachment to conventional roles, groups, andinstitutions. At another level, it reflects the extentto which one feels morally bound by the socialnorms and rules and the degree to which oneinternalizes or adopts those norms as directivesfor action. Our notion of commitment is akin toHirschi’s concepts of attachment and belief.Integration and commitment together consti-tute the bonds which tie an individual to the pre-vailing social order. High levels of integration andcommitment imply strong bonds and generalinsulation from delinquent behavior. Conversely,low social integration and commitment pre-suppose weak bonds and a susceptibility to

delinquent behavior. All gradations of integra-tion and commitment are possible.

Building Social Control: TheBonding/Attenuation Processes

The inclusion of the bonding/attenuationprocess in the model suggests that, throughoutadolescence, youths are involved in experiencesand processes which attenuate or reinforcetheir childhood bonds to the conventionalsocial order. Adolescence is a critical life period,both psychologically and socially. As youthsmake the transition from childhood to adult-hood, the level of involvement in the immedi-ate family declines and they move into new andmore complex social settings at school and inthe community. For one who developed strongchildhood bonds, such factors as (1) successexperiences at school and in the larger commu-nity, (2) positive labeling in these new settings,and (3) a continuous, stable, harmonious homelife constitute positive reinforcements of ini-tially strong bonds and continuing insulationfrom delinquency. For some, the transition isnot as smooth, and failure, negative labeling,isolation, and rejection occur in these newsocial settings; these, in turn, may create diffi-culties in the youth’s relationship with hisfamily. The net effect of these new experiencesmay be a weakening of one’s integrationinto . . . these social groups and institutionsand an increasing likelihood of involvement indelinquent behavior. Finally, for those whonever developed strong bonds during child-hood, bonding/attenuation experiences willeither strengthen the weak bonds, thus reduc-ing the likelihood of delinquency, or furtherattenuate them, thus maintaining or increasingthe probability of delinquent behavior.

We do not propose that this specific set ofvariables exhausts the possible experiences orconditions which might attenuate or rein-force one’s bonds to society during adoles-cence. Rather, we have purposely selectedthose conditions and experiences which prior

theory and research have suggested as criticalvariables to illustrate the major dimensions ofthe paradigm.

Delinquent Learning and Performance Structures

A major criticism of control theory hasbeen that weak bonds and the implied absenceof restraints cannot alone account for the spe-cific form or content of the behavior whichresults. They may account for a state of “drift,” asdescribed by Matza (1964), but they do notexplain why some youths in this state turn todelinquency, drug use, and various unconven-tional subcultures, while others maintain anessentially conforming pattern of behavior; norcan they account for emerging patterns of delin-quency which may be unique to particular agesor birth cohorts. We therefore postulate thataccess to and involvement in delinquent learn-ing and performance structures is a necessary(but not sufficient) variable in the etiology ofdelinquent behavior. Following Sutherland(1947), we maintain that delinquent behavior,like conforming behavior, presupposes a patternof social relationships through which motives,rationalizations, techniques, and rewards can belearned and maintained (Burgess & Akers, 1966aand 1966b; Akers, 1977; Bandura, 1969, 1973;and Mischel, 1968). Delinquent behavior is thusviewed as behavior which has social meaningand must be supported and rewarded by socialgroups if it is to persist.

By the time children enter adolescence, vir-tually all have been sufficiently exposed to crim-inal forms of behavior to have “learned” oracquired some potential for such acts. The morecritical issue for any theory of delinquency iswhy and how this universal potential is trans-formed into delinquent acts for some youthsand not others. For most learning theorists, adistinction is made between learning and per-formance and the latter is directly tied to rein-forcements (Rotter, 1954; Bandura & Walters,1963; Mischel, 1968; and Bandura, 1969). . . .

According to the present social learningformulation, learning or acquisition of novelresponses is regulated by sensory and cognitiveprocesses; learning may be facilitated by rein-forcement but does not depend on it (e.g.,Bandura & Walters, 1963; Hebb, 1966). Directand vicarious reinforcements are, however,important determinants of response selectionin performance.

The delinquent peer group thus provides apositive social setting that is essential for theperformance and maintenance of delinquentpatterns of behavior over time. Those commit-ted to conventional goals, although they mayhave been exposed to and learned some delin-quent behaviors, should not establish patternsof such behavior unless (1) their ties to theconventional social order are neutralizedthrough some attenuating experiences and(2) they are participating in a social context inwhich delinquent behavior is rewarded. Insocial learning terms, they may have acquiredor learned delinquent behavior patterns, butthe actual performance and maintenance ofsuch behavior are contingent on attenuation oftheir commitment to conventional norms andtheir participation in a social context support-ive of delinquent acts. Alternatively, for thosewith weak ties and commitments to the con-ventional social order, there is no reason for adelay between acquisition and performance ofdelinquent acts.

In the causal sequence described by straintheory, the individual holds conventional goalsbut is unable to attain them by conventionalmeans. If attachment to the goals is strongenough, it may support delinquent behaviorwithout participation in delinquent groups, forattaining these goals may provide sufficient rein-forcement to maintain the behavior. Therefore,our model shows one direct route to delinquentbehavior from attenuating experiences, withoutmediating group support for delinquency. Weview this as the atypical case, however, and pos-tulate that it is difficult to sustain this causalsequence for extended periods of time.



Involvement in a delinquent group is anecessary condition for sustained patterns ofdelinquency among persons who do not sub-scribe to conventional goals (the weakly social-ized person described by control theory).Individual patterns of delinquency (withoutgroup support) are more viable for those com-mitted to conventional goals because there aregenerally shared expectations and social sup-ports for achievement of those goals. Foryouths with weak bonds, involvement in adelinquent peer group serves this supportfunction. Cohen (1966) has observed thatdelinquency often involves a desire for recog-nition and social acceptance, and, therefore,requires group visibility and support. Main -tenance of delinquent behavior patternsshould require some exposure to and partici-pation in groups supporting delinquent activ-ities. Though not a necessary condition fordelinquent behavior among those with ini-tially strong bonds, contact with delinquentgroups should, nevertheless, increase the likeli-hood of sustained delinquent behavior.

Delineation of the delinquent peer groupas a necessary condition for maintenance ofdelinquent behavior patterns represents anextension of previous statements of controltheory. . . . It is one thing to be a social isolatewith weak bonds to conventional peer groupsand another to be highly committed to andintegrated into a delinquent peer group. Bothpersons may be characterized as having weakbonds to the social order, with few conven-tional restraints on their behavior; but thosecommitted to and participating in delinquentpeer groups have some incentive and socialsupport for specifically delinquent forms ofbehavior. We agree with Hirschi’s (1969) andHepburn’s (1976) argument that those with alarge stake in conformity (strong bonds) arerelatively immune to delinquent peer groupinfluence. However, we postulate that, in addi-tion to weak bonding and an absence ofrestraints, some positive motivation is neces-sary for sustained involvement in delinquent

behavior. In the absence of positive motivation,we would not predict significant involvementin delinquency across time even for those withweak bonds, for there is no apparent mecha-nism for maintaining such behavior (Brennan,Huizinga, & Elliott, 1978). It may be that someexploratory, “primary” forms of delinquency(Lemert, 1951) may occur without group sup-port, or that this constitutes a pathological pathto delinquency, but the maintenance of delin-quent behavior patterns usually requires someexposure to and participation in groups sup-porting delinquent activity.

In sum, we postulate that bonding to con-ventional groups and institutions insulates onefrom involvement in delinquent patterns ofbehavior and that bonding to deviant groupsor subcultures facilitates and sustains delin-quent behavior. When examining the influenceof social bonds, it is critical that the normativeorientation of particular groups be taken intoaccount. This focus on the normative orienta-tions of groups is the central theme in subcul-tural theories of delinquency (Cohen, 1955;Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; and Miller, 1958)and constitutes an important qualification to asimple interpretation of the relationshipbetween social bonds and delinquency. Thisposition has an empirical as well as a theoreti-cal base. . . .

Delinquent Behavior

Delinquent behavior is viewed as a specialsubclass of deviant behavior. While devianceincludes all violations of all prevailing norms,delinquent behavior includes only violationsof statutory proscriptive norms, or, as they areusually called, laws. Thus, delinquent behaviortakes on special meaning because (1) there isgenerally broad community consensus forthese norms, (2) virtually all persons are awarethat these specific proscriptions are enforcedby official sanctions, and (3) the risk of detec-tion and punishment influences the perfor-mance of delinquent acts.

We are not concerned here with the isolateddelinquent act. Our focus is on sustained pat-terns of delinquent behavior, whether the per-son involved is socially or self-defined as adelinquent or nondelinquent person. Althoughour definition of delinquency subsumes onecharacteristic of a delinquent role (sustainedpatterns of delinquent behavior), it is our viewthat continuing involvement in delinquencymay not necessarily involve the enactment of adelinquent role (Becker, 1963). There is empiri-cal evidence that many embezzlers, auto thieves,check forgers, shoplifters, and persons involvedin violent assaults against persons (includingrape) do not view themselves as criminal ordelinquent (Gibbons, 1977; Lemert, 1951, 1953;Cameron, 1964; Robin, 1974; Gauthier, 1959;and Gebhard et al., 1965). Furthermore, manyadolescents involved in sustained patterns ofdelinquent behavior are never apprehended andpublicly labeled as delinquent persons, and haveneither a public nor a self-definition as a delin-quent or criminal person (Sykes and Matza,1957; Reiss, 1962; Cameron, 1964; Hirschi, 1969;Kelly, 1977; and Jensen, 1972). Thus, our con-ceptualization of delinquency focuses on sus-tained patterns of illegal behavior and is logicallyindependent of the concept of delinquent role.

Etiological Paths to Delinquency

There are two dominant etiological pathsto delinquency in the paradigm shown inFigure 1. The first involves an integration oftraditional control theory and social-learningtheory. Weak integration into and commit-ment to the social order, absence of conven-tional restraints on behavior, and highvulnerability to the influence of delinquentpeer groups during adolescence characterizethe socialization experiences related to the firstpath. Depending on the presence and accessi-bility of conventional and delinquent peergroups, some weakly bonded youths turn todelinquency while others maintain an essentially

conforming pattern of behavior or a legal, butunconventional, lifestyle. The crucial elementin this path is the delinquent peer group.Weakly bonded youths may not hold conven-tional aspirations (as for academic success),but they do share in more general aspirationsfor friendship and acceptance, as well as sta-tus and material rewards, which may beoffered through participation in a group.Given an absence of conventional restraintsand access to delinquent groups, the reasonsfor involvement are not unlike those forinvolvement in more conventional peer groupsduring adolescence.

The second path represents an integrationof traditional strain and social-learning per-spectives. Youths who follow this path developstrong bonds to the conventional socialorder through their socialization experiences.The crucial element in this sequence is theattenuation, or weakening, of these bonds.Attenuating experiences during adolescenceinvolve personal failure to achieve conven-tional goals and/or threats to the stability andcohesion of one’s conventional social groups.Once one’s bonds are effectively weakened, likethose who never developed strong bonds, oneis free to explore alternative means for goalachievement and to participate in delinquentor unconventional groups.

In most instances, this path also involvesparticipation in peer groups which tolerate orencourage delinquent forms of behavior. It isour view that truly individual adaptations tothis situation are unlikely to survive longenough to generate detectable patterns ofdelinquent behavior. However, two possiblesubtypes deserve mention. The diagram of thisintegrated paradigm shows a direct causal pathfrom initially strong bonds and subsequentattenuation experiences to delinquent behav-ior patterns. Under some circumstances, par-ticipation in groups providing reinforcementsfor delinquent acts is unnecessary. Attenuatingexperiences are sufficient to motivate repeated



acts of delinquency, which are attempts toregain conventional rewards through uncon-ventional means. This pattern involves theclassic strain model, in which the personretains a strong commitment to conventionalgoals and values and uses illegal means as atemporary expedient. The attenuation processis only partial, and these youths retain somecommitment to and integration into conven-tional groups. We anticipate such patterns tobe of relatively short duration and to involvehighly instrumental forms of delinquentbehavior. Patterns of theft may characterizethis etiological path.

A second subtype corresponds to thatdescribed generally by Simon and Gagnon(1976) in their article on the anomie ofaffluence. This path involves those whosecommitments to conventional goals are atten-uated by a decreasing gratification derivedfrom goal achievement. Unlike the previ-ously described subtype, which involved fail-ure to achieve conventional success goalsbecause of limited means or abilities, thistype has ability and a ready access to legiti-mate means and is successful by conven-tional standards. The failure to derivepersonal gratification from “success” resultsin an attenuation of the commitment tothese success goals and sets in motion asearch for alternative goals whose attain-ment will provide a greater measure of per-sonal gratification. This path to delinquencyclearly requires participation in socialgroups in which delinquent behavior pat-terns can be learned and reinforced. Thispattern of delinquency is characterized by asearch for new experiences, which frequentlyinvolves illegal forms of behavior, such asillicit drug use and sex-related offenses.

At a more tentative level, we postulate thatthe two major paths (1) typically involve differ-ent forms of personal alienation and (2) result in different self-images and social labels.Conceptually, alienation plays a slightly different

role within strain and control perspectives.From a control perspective, alienation, in theform of powerlessness, societal estrangement,and social isolation, directly reflects a weakpersonal commitment to conventional groupsand norms. For strain theory, however, alien-ation represents a crucial intervening variablelinking failure to delinquency. It is evidence ofthe attenuation of one’s commitment bond or,in Hirschi’s (1969) terms, the neutralizationof “moral obstacles” to delinquency. In theform of alienation described by Cloward andOhlin (1960), the neutralization is achievedthrough a blaming process in which failure isattributed to others or to general societalinjustice. These same elements are present inSykes and Matza’s (1957) techniques of neu-tralization. Cartwright et al. (1966) andCartwright (1971) identify four types of alien-ation which provide this direct encouragement,justification, or permission for delinquency:normlessness, futility, lack of trust, and per-ceived indifference. If we assume some rela-tionship between the two causal paths andsocial class, there is some indirect empiricalsupport for the hypothesis that the form ofalienation is tied to the strength of one’s initialcommitment bond. . . .

We also hypothesize that those with ini-tially strong bonds are less likely to view them-selves as delinquent, even when they areinvolved in sustained patterns of delinquentbehavior. Such persons are more likely to comefrom advantaged backgrounds and to haveprosocial self-images. Consequently, they arelikely to view their delinquent acts as tempo-rary expedients, retaining at least a partialcommitment to conventional goals. The prob-ability of apprehension and public labeling bythe police and courts is also much lower forsuch youths. In contrast, those who neverdeveloped strong bonds to the social order aremore vulnerable to labeling processes and thusmore likely to be viewed as delinquents bythemselves and by others (Jensen, 1972). This

may account, in part, for the persistent viewamong law enforcement officials and the gen-eral public that most delinquents are poorand/or nonwhite, in spite of the compellingevidence that the incidence of delinquentbehavior is unrelated to these variables.

yy Summary and Discussion. . . . We believe the synthesis of traditionalstrain, social control, and social-learningperspectives into a single paradigm has sev-eral advantages over a conceptualizationwhich treats each theory as separate andindependent. First, the provision for multipleetiological paths to delinquency in a singleparadigm presents a more comprehensiveview. The integration of strain and controlperspectives assumes that these two paths areindependent and additive and that their inte-gration will account for more variance insustained patterns of delinquent behaviorthan either can explain independently.Independent tests of these traditional per-spectives in the past have often failed toinclude the variables necessary to test alter-native explanations, and even when suchvariables were available, the alternativeexplanations were assumed to be competitiveand were thus evaluated with respect to therelative strengths of the two competinghypotheses (Hirschi, 1969; and Eve, 1977).Such an approach misses the possibility thatboth hypotheses are correct and are account-ing for different portions of the variance indelinquency. We have also suggested that dif-ferent patterns of delinquency may be tied toalternative etiological paths; for example, wepostulated that one of the strain paths (lim-ited means/goal failure) should produceforms of delinquency which are consideredvery instrumental by conventional values.The alternative strain path (attenuated com-mitment to conventional goals) should resultin less instrumental forms of delinquency,

since it characteristically involves a search fornew experiences (e.g., drug use) rather thanattempts to achieve conventional goals.

Second, we believe that our integratedparadigm is consistent with previous empir-ical findings and offers some insight intocontradictory findings. Previous researchusing the social control perspective hasestablished a relationship between thestrength of one’s bonds and social class, withlow-SES and minority youths characterizedby weaker bonds (Nye, 1958; Gold, 1963;McKinley, 1964; and Hirschi, 1969). In con-trast, the attenuated commitment strainpath has been associated with affluence, andthe limited means-strain path seems mostrelevant to working-class youths. The com-bined effect seems consistent with theobserved class distribution of self-reporteddelinquent behavior. Our assumption thatweakly bonded youths run the greatest riskof official processing (because of greater sur-veillance in their neighborhoods, more tra-ditional forms of delinquent behavior, andlimited resources with which to avoid pro-cessing in the justice system) would accountfor the observed class distribution of officialmeasures of delinquency. . . .

yy ReferencesAgeton, S., & Elliott, D. S. (1974). The effects of legal

processing on delinquent orientations. SocialProblems, 22, 87–100.

Akers, R. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learningperspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Andry, R. G. (1962). Parental affection and delin -quency. In M. E. Wolfgang, L. Savitz, & N. Johnston(Eds.), The sociology of crime and delinquency(pp. 342–352). New York: Wiley.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learninganalysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learningand personality development. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.



Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept ofcommitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,32–40.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press.Brennan, T. (1974). Evaluation and validation

regarding the National Strategy for YouthDevelopment: A review of findings (Reportsubmitted to the Office of Youth Development).Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research and EvaluationCorporation.

Brennan, T., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1978). Thesocial psychology of runaways. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966a). Are operantprinciples tautological? Psychological Record, 16,305–312.

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966b). A differentassociation-reinforcement theory of criminalbehavior. Social Problems, 14, 128–147.

Cameron, M. O. (1964). The booster and the snitch.New York: Free Press.

Cartwright, D. S. (1971). Summary of conceptual issuesin the National Strategy for Delinquency Prevention(Document No. 34 in Center for Action Research).Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Bureau ofSociological Research.

Cartwright, D. S., Reuterman, N. A., & Vandiver, R. I.(1966). Multiple-factor approach to delinquency.Boulder: Department of Psychology, University ofColorado.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency andopportunity—A theory of delinquent gangs. NewYork: Free Press.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of thegang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Cohen, A. (1966). Deviance and control. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study of sociology.Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published1897)

Gauthier, M. (1959). The psychology of the compulsiveforger. Canadian Journal of Corrections, 1, 62–69.

Gebhard, P. H., et al. (1965). Sex offenders. New York:Harper & Row.

Gibbons, D. C. (1977). Society, crime and criminalcareers (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Goldman, N. (1963). The differential selection ofjuvenile offenders for court appearance. Washington,DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Goode, W. J. (1960). Norm commitment andconformity to role status obligation. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 64, 246–258.

Elliott, D. S. (1962). Delinquency and perceivedopportunity. Sociological Inquiry, 32, 216–227.

Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. (1974). Delinquency anddropout. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Eve, R. (1977). The efficacy of strain, culture conflict andsocial control theories for explaining rebelliousnessamong high school students. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Texas at Arlington.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juveniledelinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Gold, M. (1963). Status forces in delinquent boys. AnnArbor: University of Michigan, Institute for SocialResearch.

Hebb, D. O. (1966). Psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders.Hepburn, J. R. (1976). Testing alternative models of

delinquency causation. Journal of Criminal Lawand Criminology, 67, 450–460.

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

Jensen, G. F. (1972). Delinquency and adolescent self-conceptions: A study of the personal relevance ofinfraction. Social Problems, 20, 84–103.

Jessor, R., et al. (1968). Society, personality and deviantbehavior: A study of a tri-ethnic community.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kelly, D. H. (1977). The effects of legal processingupon a delinquent’s public identity: An analyticaland empirical critique. Education, 97, 280–289.

Kitsuse, J. I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviantbehavior: Problems of theory and method. SocialProblems, 9(Winter), 247–256.

Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Lemert, E. M. (1953). An isolation and closure theoryof naive check forgery. Journal of Criminal Law,Criminology and Police Science, 44, 296–307.

Liska, A. E. (1971). Aspirations, expectations anddelinquency: Stress and additive models. SociologicalQuarterly, 12, 99–107.

Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York:Wiley.

McKinley, D. G. (1964). Social class and family life. New York: Free Press.

Miller,W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generatingmilieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues,14(3), 5–19.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. NewYork: Wiley.

Monahan, T. P. (1957). Family status and thedelinquent child: A reappraisal and some newfindings. Social Forces, 35, 250–258.

Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquentbehavior. New York: Wiley.

Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1951). Delinquency as the failure ofpersonal and social controls. American SociologicalReview, 16, 196–207.

Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1961). The social integration of queersand peers. Social Problems, 9, 102–120.

Robin, G. (1974). The American customer: Shopper orshoplifter? Police, 8, 6–14.

Rosen, L. (1970). The broken home and maledelinquency. In M. E. Wolfgang, L. Savitz, & N. Johnston (Eds.), The sociology of crime anddelinquency (2nd ed., pp. 484–495). New York:Wiley.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinicalpsychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rubington, E. R., & Weinberg, M. S. (Eds.). (1968).Deviance: The interactionist perspective. New York:Macmillan.

Savitz, L. (1970). Delinquency and migration. In M. E.Wolfgang, L. Savitz, & N. Johnston (Eds.), Thesociology of crime and delinquency (2nd ed., pp. 473–480). New York: Wiley.

Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation.American Sociological Review, 24, 783–791.

Shaw, G. (1931). Delinquency areas. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Short, J. F., Jr. (1964). Gang delinquency and anomie.In M. B. Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and deviantbehavior (pp. 98–127). New York: Free Press.

Short, J. F., Jr., Rivera, R., & Tennyson, R. A. (1965).Perceived opportunities, gang membership anddelinquency. American Sociological Review, 30,56–67.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1976). The anomie ofaffluence: A post Mertonian conception. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 82, 356–378.

Spergel, I. (1967). Deviant patterns and oppor -tunities of pre-adolescent Negro boys in threeChicago neighborhoods. In M. W. Klein (Ed.),Juvenile gangs in context: Theory, research andaction (pp. 38–54). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Criminology. Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques ofneutralization: A theory of delinquency. AmericanSociological Review, 22, 664–670.

Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1927). The Polishpeasant in Europe and America. New York: Knopf.

Toby, J. (1957). The differential impact of familydisorganization. American Sociological Review, 22,505–512.



1. In the integrated model proposed by Elliott et al., which theoretical perspective is considered to beantecedent, or most important in the early stages, for developing delinquent or criminal tendencies? Doyou agree with this portion of the model?

2. Do you think it is rational to merge theoretical perspectives that have opposing basic assumptions, suchas merging strain theory, which claims that individuals are born good, with perspectives such as controltheory, which claims that people are born bad and must be taught or controlled to be good? Or withlearning theories, such as differential association/reinforcement, that assume individuals are born nei-ther good nor bad, but rather as a “blank slate”? If you agree with such integration, explain the rationalefor your reasoning. If not, why?

3. Ultimately, what do you think of Elliott et al.’s model? Do you think it was a good early attempt for anintegrated theory, or do you think it is rather weak given the information they had at that time (1979)?

�

Reading 36 � An Exploratory Test of Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory 697

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Carter Hay examines the empirical validity of a more modern and well-respected integrated theoretical model, namely John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrativeshaming. We examined Braithwaite’s integrated model in the introduction to this section,and Hay provides one of the first empirical tests of the theory’s propositions regarding indi-viduals. The author does this with an American sample, which consists of 197 adolescentsfrom one region in the United States.

While reading this selection, readers should consider the extent to which the primary con-cepts or variables in the model are represented, such as the way youths are shamed nega-tively or in a more positive, reintegrative form. Also, readers should consider whether theeffects of reintegrative shaming reduce delinquency among youth.

An Exploratory Test of Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory

Carter Hay

SOURCE: Carter Hay, “An Exploratory Test of Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory,” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 38, no. 2 (2001): 132–53. Copyright © 2001 Sage Publications, Inc. Used by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

Dynamic may be the best term to describe thecurrent state of criminological theory. The pasttwo decades have seen unprecedented growthin both the number and variety of theories of crime causation. Bernard and Snipes(1996:301–2) point to 16 theories of crime thatemerged just between 1985 and 1994. If weconsider theories that they omitted as well asthose put forth since 1994, at least 25 theoriesof crime have been put forth since 1985.1

The diversity of these theories is as strik-ing as their sheer number. Prominent recenttheories run the gamut of intellectual perspec-tives, including those that are Marxist (Colvinand Pauly 1983; Currie 1997), neoclassical(Cornish and Clarke 1986; Gottfredson and

Hirschi 1990; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985),feminist (Messerschmidt 1993), symbolic-interactionist (Matsueda 1992), macro-evolu-tionary (Messner and Rosenfeld 1994), lifecourse developmental (Moffitt 1993; Sampsonand Laub 1993), biosocial (Cohen andMachalek 1988; Moffitt 1993), and integrative(Braithwaite 1989; Cullen 1994; Tittle 1995;Thornberry 1987; Vila 1994).

This proliferation of theory is in somesense welcomed, given the limited explanatorypower of traditional theories of crime. Elliott(1985:124) notes that the dominant crime the-ories—social control, social learning, and strain—typically account for no more than 20 percentof the variation in crime and delinquency. New

theories therefore present the potential forimproved explanation of crime.

It is also true, however, that the recentgrowth in theory comes at some risk. If newtheories are not (1) empirically tested and (2) discarded when support is lacking, thewave of new theory may prove overwhelming.Theoretical criminology could become frag-mented as a result of an immense and confus-ing number of theories that have either limitedor unknown levels of explanatory power.Moreover, the sheer number of theories wouldrequire considerable specialization amongcriminologists, thereby hindering communi-cation across theoretical lines. To the extentthat such fragmentation does in fact emerge,the question “What causes crime?” mightbecome answerable in even less lucid termsthan is presently the case.

Bernard and Snipes (1996) already see thefield as fragmented, and Liska, Krohn, andMessner (1989:1) would seem to agree whenthey refer to the “seemingly chaotic state ofaffairs” in theoretical criminology. Bernardand Snipes’s central argument is that criminol-ogy has too many theories, and the resultingfragmentation impedes scientific progress.They warn that cynicism about criminologicaltheorizing may already be rampant and mayincrease in the future. Bernard and Snipes citetheoretical integration as one solution to thisproblem, arguing that integration can reducethe number of crime theories and at the sametime improve their overall quality.

Although the importance of integrationshould not be dismissed, an equally importantsolution is simply to ensure that recent theo-ries receive sufficient empirical scrutiny. If newtheories are to illuminate rather than obscureour understanding of the causes of crime,explicit tests of them are needed. With fewexceptions (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi’s1990 self-control theory and Agnew’s 1992general strain theory), such research has notbeen done. This article addresses that void by

reporting an exploratory test of one promi-nent new theory of crime: John Braithwaite’s(1989) reintegrative shaming theory.

yy Reintegrative Shaming Theory

John Braithwaite first put forth reintegrativeshaming theory (RST) in the book Crime,Shame and Reintegration (Braithwaite 1989).The theory’s essential argument is that the pre-cise ways in which societies, communities, andfamilies sanction deviance affect the extent towhich their members engage in predatorycriminal behavior. The key explanatory vari-able in the theory is shaming, which Braith -waite defines as any social process thatexpresses disapproval of a sanctioned act suchthat there is the intent or effect of invokingmoral regret in the person being shamed (p. 100). Braithwaite is explicit about howshaming contrasts with a more classical viewof sanctioning: “Shaming, unlike purely deter-rent punishment, sets out to moralize [empha-sis added] with the offender to communicatereasons for the evil of her actions” (p. 100).

Shaming is not, however, a uniform typeof sanctioning—it can be done in differentways and in different contexts. Braithwaite(1989) distinguishes between two types ofshaming. First, shaming is reintegrative whenit reinforces an offender’s membership in thecommunity of law-abiding citizens. This pre-vents the shamed individual from adopting adeviant master status and is accomplishedwhen shaming (1) maintains bonds of love orrespect between the person being shamed andthe person doing the shaming, (2) is directedat the evil of the act rather than the evil of theperson, (3) is delivered in a context of generalsocial approval, and (4) is terminated with ges-tures or ceremonies of forgiveness (pp. 100–1).

Reintegrative shaming is contrasted withstigmatization, which is disintegrative shaming



in which little or no effort is made to forgiveoffenders or affirm the basic goodness of theircharacter and thus reinforce their membershipin the community of law-abiding citizens.Stigmatization can be seen essentially as sham-ing in the absence of reintegration—it is theconverse of each of the four aspects of reinte-gration mentioned earlier. The primary im -por tance of stigmatization is that it treatsoffenders as outcasts and provokes a rebelliousand criminal reaction from them: “Shamingthat is stigmatizing . . . makes criminal subcul-tures more attractive because these are in somesense subcultures which reject the rejectors”(Braithwaite 1989:102).

RST’s basic prediction therefore is quitesimple: There should be a negative relationshipbetween the use of reintegrative shaming andthe extent of criminal behavior. This predictionis applicable to both micro- and macro-levelunits of analysis. That is, just as individualswho are exposed to reintegrative shamingshould commit fewer crimes, communities orsocieties with high levels of reintegrative sham-ing should have low aggregate rates of crime.

The focus of this study is the micro-levelportion of the theory, and three further pointsabout the theory should be emphasized. First,Braithwaite (1989) specifies the antecedent ofreintegrative shaming: Whether individuals areexposed to reintegrative shaming to begin withshould be a function of their involvement ininterdependent relationships. Braithwaitedescribes interdependency in the following way:

Interdependency is a condition ofindividuals. It means the extent towhich individuals participate in net-works wherein they are dependent onothers to achieve valued ends andothers are dependent on them. . . .Interdependency is approximatelyequivalent to the social bonding,attachment and commitment of con-trol theory. (pp. 99–100)

Braithwaite (1989) argues that severalindividual characteristics generally found toreduce crime—age (being younger than 15and older than 25), being married, beingfemale, and having a job—do so because theyincrease involvement in interdependentrelationships and therefore increase thechances that rule-violating behavior will bemet with reintegrative shaming rather thanstigmatization.

Second, key to the theory is the interactionbetween reintegration and shaming: The com-bination of reintegration and shaming shouldhave an effect on offending that exceeds thesum of each variable’s independent effects. Infact, strictly speaking, neither variable shouldhave an independent effect on offending(Braithwaite 1989:99; Makkai and Braithwaite1994:371–72). Instead, the effects of shamingshould be conditional on the level of reintegra-tion. When reintegration is high, shamingshould be negatively related to offending.When reintegration is low, shaming has a stig-matizing effect and should be positively relatedto offending.

A third point to emphasize about RST isthat it limits its scope to the explanation ofpredatory offenses against persons and prop-erty. The reason for this restricted focus is thatreintegrative shaming is thought to be relevantonly for offenses in which there is consensusregarding their moral wrongfulness. Whensuch consensus is lacking, shaming should notbe influential.

yy The Current StudyThis study reports an exploratory test of themicro-level predictions of RST. As has beennoted elsewhere (Braithwaite 1989:120-21; Hay1998:424), there are substantial barriers to test-ing the macro-level portions of RST. Using sur-vey research to measure reintegrative shamingacross a sample of communities or societies

would be prohibitively expensive. Moreover,researchers have yet to identify proxies forcommunity- or societal-wide levels of reinte-grative shaming.

This study instead will examine the moretestable micro-level arguments of RST. Speci -fically, adolescents are taken as the units ofanalysis, and the focus is on the relationshipbetween their perceptions of their parents’ sanc-tioning methods and their reports of predatorydelinquency. This strategy would seem accept-able to Braithwaite (1989), who noted that “thebest place to see reintegrative shaming at workis in loving families” (p. 56). The analysis willaddress three principal research questions: (1) What variables predict the extent to whichparents respond to adolescent rule-violatingbehavior with reintegration and shaming? (2) Do reintegration and shaming statisticallyinteract to affect predatory delinquency, or aretheir effects additive? (3) Are any observedeffects of reintegration and shaming on delin-quency merely a result of spuriousness?

Data and Method

Sample.The data used to examine the research ques-tions mentioned above come from anonymous,self-administered questionnaires completed bya sample of 197 adolescents taken from a singleurban area in a southwestern state of the UnitedStates. Respondents were located through theirattendance in a single high school located in thecentral part of the urban area. This school waschosen because of its diversity in race/ethnicityand socioeconomic status. All students enrolledin physical education classes during the fall of1998 were invited to parti cipate in the study.2

Roughly 60 percent of students completed andreturned the necessary consent forms and tookpart in the study.

Table 1 shows the demographic character-istics of the sample. Most respondents arebetween the ages of 14 and 17, and the sex ratioof the sample is roughly 1 to 1.The sample isdiverse in terms of race/ethnicity, with Whites,

Hispanics, and Africans Americans all highlyrepresented. Family disruption is common,with only 45 percent of respondents living in ahousehold with their biological mother andfather. Also, close to 45 percent of respondents’parents have a high school diploma or less.

Measurement of key variables. As more quan -titative tests of RST emerge, knowledge of howreintegration and shaming should be measuredwill emerge as well. For now, however, this studymakes essentially the same qualifying statementthat has appeared in two prior quantitativeanalyses of RST (Makkai and Braithwaite1994:368; Zhang 1995:251): Mea suringreintegration and shaming is no easy task, andthe measures used in this study should beimproved on as more research is conducted.


Percentage ofVariable Category Sample

Age 14 25.8

15 30.8

16 24.7

17 13.2

Other 5.5

Sex Male 47.8

Female 52.2

Race White 40.9

Hispanic 32.0

African American 19.9

Other 7.2

Family structure Mother and father 44.8

Two-parent other 16.0

Single parent 39.2

Mother’s High school 44.8education diploma or less

Father’s High school 43.2education diploma or less

Table 1Characteristics of the Sample(N = 197)


Consistent with Braithwaite’s (1989:100)discussion of shaming, the key measurementconcern was to identify sanctions that involved“moralizing.” Three survey items were selectedand scaled. With these items, respondents wereasked to indicate how much importance theirmother and father place on three goals whenreacting to a violation of any rule consideredimportant by the parent: convincing the ado-lescent that what he or she did was immoral orunfair, making him or her feel guilty or ashamedfor what was done, and having him or her“make up” for the actions by apologizing orhelping to erase any harm that was done.”3

Parents’ use of reintegration was measuredwith a scale comprising four items that corre-spond to the four aspects of reintegration dis-cussed earlier. The first two items askedrespondents to indicate how much they agreedor disagreed that their parents see them asgood people even when upset with them andtreat them with respect when they are disci-plining them. For the last two items, respon-dents assessed how likely it is that in responseto their rule violations, parents would tellthem that they are “bad kids” and eventuallyexpress their forgiveness to the adolescents.

All of the shaming and reintegration itemsasked respondents to assess their mother andfather separately. Preliminary analyses indi-cated that mothers and fathers did not differ interms of their use of shaming and reintegrationor the effects of those variables on predatoryoffending. Scores for mothers and fathers weretherefore combined to create an overall scorefor parents. Responses to the shaming and rein-tegration scales were coded so that high scorersperceive high levels of the two variables.

Delinquency was measured with two dif-ferent variables. The first is a nine-item scale ofearly childhood antisocial behavior that will beused to protect against spuriousness andexamine whether childhood behavioral prob-lems predict parents’ use of reintegrativeshaming. For these items, respondents wereasked to indicate the earliest age at which they

committed nine offenses: breaking into abuilding or house, stealing things worth $50 orless, stealing things worth more than $50, pur-posely damaging or destroying property, tak-ing a car for a drive without the owner’spermission, getting in a fight with someonewith the idea of seriously hurting him or her,carrying a hidden weapon such as a knife orgun, drinking alcohol, and using marijuana orsome other drug. For each item, responseswere coded 1 if the respondent reported com-mitting the act by age 11 or earlier and 0 if heor she had not. The nine items were summedto produce a measure of childhood antisocialbehavior, with possible scores ranging from 0to 9 and a mean of 1.24.

The second delinquency variable is ameasure of adolescents’ projected involve-ment in the first seven offenses listed above.Importantly, each of the seven acts is an illegalviolent or property offense and therefore fitswithin RST’s emphasis on predatory offenses.These survey items asked respondents the fol-lowing question: “If you found yourself in asituation where you had the chance to do thefollowing things [each of the seven offenses],how likely is it that you would do each one?”Respondents chose an answer from a scale of 0 to 10,where 0 means there is no chance thatthey would commit the act, 5 means there is a“50-50 chance,” and 10 means that they defi-nitely would commit the act. The seven itemswere averaged to create a projected predatorydelinquency scale, with scores ranging from 0to 10 and a mean of 2.55. The Cronbach’salpha for the scale is .90.

This measure of projected delinquency—rather than self-reported past delinquency—was used as a dependent variable to avoidthe causal order problems that often arise incross-sectional delinquency research. Cross-sectional studies that use self-reported pastoffending as the dependent variable sufferinherent causal order problems if indepen-dent variables are measured with itemsabout respondents’ current attitudes and

perceptions—any assertion of appropriatecausal order is questionable if current attitudesand perceptions are used to explain pastbehavior. Thus, the clear strength of a pro-jected offending variable is that it allows forclear conceptualization of causal ordering withcross-sectional data (Tittle 1977:586).

Measures of projected offending havebeen used effectively by a number of otherresearchers (e.g., Bachman, Paternoster, andWard 1992; Grasmick, Bursik, and Arneklev1993; Grasmick and Bursik 1990; Jensen andStitt 1982; Tittle 1980). A few things attest totheir validity. First, variables that are known topredict self-reported offending in longitudinaldesigns have also been found to predict projected offending (Jensen and Stitt 1982;Tittle 1980). Second, using a two-wave paneldesign, Green (1989) found that projections offuture deviance were highly correlated withactual subsequent deviance (r =.80). The cur-rent evidence therefore suggests that measuresof projected offending are useful for avoidingthe causal order problems associated withcross-sectional data.

yy Analysis

The Prediction of Reintegration and Shaming

The first issue to consider involves the ante -cedents of parental reintegration and shaming—that is, what variables predict that adolescents’parents will respond to their rule-violatingbehavior with reintegration and shaming?Braithwaite (1989) argues that involvement ininterdependent relationships should be the mostimportant factor; moreover, many demographicvariables known to predict offending may do sobecause they increase involvement in interde-pendent relationships.

To consider that possibility, three regressionequations were estimated for both dependentvariable, reintegration and shaming. Equation

(1) includes five exogenous variables: fourdemographic variables (age, sex, family struc-ture, and race/ethnicity) and a measure ofchildhood antisocial behavior.4 AlthoughBraithwaite (1989) makes no reference to howchildhood behavior problems affect parentalreintegration and shaming during adolescence,much research suggests that parent-childinteractions are highly reciprocal (e.g., Cohenand Brook 1995; Kandel and Wu 1995; Sampsonand Laub 1993).

Equations (2) and (3) consider the role ofparent-child interdependency. Equation (2) addsindividual measures of three parent-child inter-dependency variables—adolescent attachmentto parents, adolescent perceptions of parents’feelings of attachment for them, and adolescentreports of instrumental and intimate commu-nication with parents.5 If Braithwaite’s (1989)predictions are correct, the parent-child interde-pendency variables should have significanteffects on reintegration and shaming, and theirinclusion in the model should substantiallyweaken any effects of the exogenous variablesthat are observed in equation (1). Equation (3) examines the same issue, but rather than con-sidering interdependency as three separate vari-ables, a combined measure is used. Thiscombined measure is simply an average of itsthree component parts.

Table 3 shows the results of the analysisand reveals moderate support for RST’s pre-dictions. Looking first at the results of equa-tion (1) for reintegration, only race/ethnicityand childhood antisocial behavior significantlyaffect parents’ use of reintegration. Consistentwith Braithwaite’s (1989) predictions, botheffects are reduced (childhood antisocialbehavior is rendered insignificant) when theinterdependency variables are introduced intoequation (2). The effects of both attachmentto parents and perceived parental attachment tothe child are statistically and substantively sig-nificant. The effect of parent-child communi-cation is less impressive but is nevertheless inthe predicted direction and higher than those



observed for the exogenous variables. Equation(3) shows a similar pattern, revealing that thecombined interdependency variable has a sub-stantial effect (β =.72) on reintegration.

Perhaps most notable about these resultsis the substantial increase in explained vari-ance that occurs when the interdependencyvariables are included in the model. In equa-tion (1), the explained variance for reintegra-tion is less than 10 percent, but in equations

(2) and (3), explained variance is nearly 60percent.

The results for shaming are generally lesssupportive of RST’s predictions. The resultsfor equation (1) reveal that none of the exoge-nous variables have an effect on shaming, andthey combine to explain just 2 percent of thevariation in parental shaming. When the threeinterdependency variables are included inequation (2), explained variance improves to

Independent Variable 1 2 3

Reintegration

Age −.04 −.03 −.04Sex .02 −.04 −.03Race/ethnicity −.13* −.09* −.08Family structure −.11 −.08 −.09Childhood antisocial behavior −.23* −.05 −.04Attachment to parents — .40* —

Perceived parental attachment to child — .30* —

Parent-child communication — .12 —

Parent-child interdependency — — .72*

R2 .09 .57 .56

Shaming

Age −.01 .00 −.01Sex −.05 −.07 −.06Race/ethnicity −.05 −.02 −.04Family structure −.11 −.10 −.10Childhood antisocial behavior −.06 −.01 −.01Attachment to parents — −.01 —

Perceived parental attachment to child −.17 —

Parent-child communication — .08 —

Parent-child interdependency — — .20*

R2 .02 .07 .06

NOTE: Age was measured as a continuous variable in years. Sex, race/ethnicity, and family structure were measured with dummyvariables: Sex was coded 1 for males and 0 for females, race/ethnicity was coded 1 for non-Whites and 0 for Whites, and fam-ily structure was coded 1 for non-intact and 0 for intact homes.

*p < .05.

Table 2Standardized Coefficients and Fit for Ordinary Least Squares Regressions of Reintegrationand Shaming on Exogenous Variables and Parent-Child Interdependency

7 percent, although none of the three have astatistically significant effect on shaming. Thisis due in part to the shared variance betweenthe three measures of interdependency—equation (3) reveals that when they are com-bined into a single measure, the effect ofinterdependency on shaming (β = .20) is sig-nificant. Nevertheless, the explained variance (6 percent) in equation (3) remains low. By andlarge, the effect of parent-child interdepen-dency on parental shaming is relatively modestbut apparent nonetheless.

Testing for a Reintegration-Shaming Interaction

The next issue to consider involves the wayin which reintegration and shaming affectpredatory delinquency. RST predicts that thetwo interact, but it may be that their effects areadditive rather than interactive—that is, thecombination of reintegration and shamingmay not produce an effect that exceeds thesum of each variable’s independent effects ondelinquency (Hay 1998:430–31).

The typical strategy for detecting an inter-action between two variables is to enter a mul-tiplicative term into an ordinary least squares(OLS) equation that includes parameters forthe two main effects. This is not the preferredstrategy, however, for assessing the interactionin question here. Jointly considering reintegra-tion and shaming yields four parental sanc-tioning combinations, including sanctioningthat is (1) high in both reintegration and sham-ing, (2) high in reintegration but low in shaming,(3) low in reintegration but high in shaming, and(4) low in both reintegration and shaming.Using a multiplicative term to express thisinteraction would obscure how each combina-tion is distinct from the others.

To capture these distinctions, respondents’reintegration and shaming scores were col-lapsed into two categories—high or low—onthe basis of whether they were above or belowthe median. This created the four combinations

listed above: high reintegration/high shaming,high reintegration/low shaming, low reintegra-tion/high shaming, and low reintegration/low shaming. Dummy variables were then con-structed to represent the four categories.

Equation (1) of Table 4 regresses projectedpredatory offending on three of the dummyvariables (low reintegration/low shaming is thereference category) as well as control variablesfor sex, age, family structure, race/ethnicity, andchildhood antisocial behavior. This model doesnot directly bear on the issue of interaction butrather reveals how projected offending is distrib-uted across the four categories of reintegrationand shaming. The relatively large, negativecoefficient for each dummy variable indicatesthat each category is associated with lower pro-jected offending than the low-reintegration/low-shaming category omitted from the model.Consistent with RST, this strongly suggests thedelinquency-generating effects of being exposedto neither reintegration nor shaming.


Independent Variable 1 2

High reintegration/ −.27* .07high shaming

High reintegration/ −.25* −.02low shaming

Low reintegration/ −.24* −.08high shaming

Reintegration — −.29*Shaming — −.16**R2 .33 .36

NOTE: Low reintegration/low shaming is the omitted category.Both equations include controls for age, sex, race/ethnicity,and childhood antisocial behavior.

*p < .05. **p < .08.

Table 3

Standardized Coefficients and Fitfor Ordinary Least Squares Regressionof Predatory Crime on Reintegrationand Shaming Dummy Variables andMain Effects


In contrast to the RST’s predictions, however,the negative effect of the high-reintegration/high-shaming category—the reintegrative shamingcategory—is not statistically different from theeffects of the other two categories included in the model. In fact, that the low-reintegration/high-shaming category—what Braithwaite(1989) refers to as stigmatization—has a nega-tive rather than positive coefficient is itself con-tradictory to RST. Braithwaite clearly predictsthat stigmatization should produce a higherrate of projected offending than any other category.

Although informative, equation (1) doesnot address the issue of interaction becausemain effects for reintegration and shamingwere not included in the model and thus notpartialled out from the effects of the dummyvariables. Equation (2) includes the two maineffects. The results for equation (2) suggest thatreintegration and shaming affect offendingadditively rather than interactively. The maineffects of reintegration (β = −.29) and shaming(β = −.16) on predatory delinquency are signif-icant (at p =.08 for shaming) and of at leastmoderate strength. Of principal importance isthat none of the three dummy variables has aneffect on delinquency that is significantly dif-ferent from the omitted category.6

Two things should be noted about thisfinding of no interaction. First, it runs counterto the findings of Makkai and Braithwaite(1994), who observed that reintegration andshaming from health inspectors interact toaffect nursing homes’ compliance with regula-tory standards. Second, although a finding of nointeraction runs counter to RST, it does not sug-gest that reintegration and shaming are withoutimportance. Quite the opposite, both variablesare significantly and negatively related to projected offending, even after controlling forone another; dummy variables representing thedifferent categories of reintegration and sham-ing; and theoretically relevant control variables,including childhood antisocial behavior. A ten-tative conclusion that can therefore be made is

that reintegration and shaming appear to affectdelinquency additively in these data. Eachvariable—but especially reintegration—exertsan independent effect on delinquency, but thecombination of the two produces no effect mar-ginal to those independent effects.

Testing for Spuriousness

Before concluding that reintegration andshaming are significant causes of offending,the possibility of spuriousness must be ruledout. The apparent effect of reintegration andshaming on delinquency may simply reflectthat all three result from the same prior cause.The analyses shown in Table 4 partially pro-tected against this by including controls forbasic demographic variables and childhoodantisocial behavior. Perhaps the most impor-tant source of spuriousness, however, may beparent-child interdependency—that is, reinte-gration and shaming may appear to be causesof delinquency only because all three are by-products of parent-child interdependency.

To consider that possibility, two OLSequations were estimated, and the results areshown in Table 5. Equation (1) regresses pro-jected predatory delinquency on reintegration,shaming, and controls for age, sex, familystructure, race/ethnicity, and childhood anti-social behavior. Consistent with the earlierfindings, moderately large effects of reintegra-tion and shaming are revealed. Both effects arestatistically significant, but the standardizedeffect of reintegration (β = −.24) is greatest.Equation (2) of Table 5 tests for spuriousnessby adding the composite parent-child interde-pendency variable that combines the threeseparate interdependency variables used ear-lier. If the effects of reintegration and shamingare causal effects, they should persist evenwhen controlling for interdependency, givenRST’s clear prediction that interdependency isa cause of reintegration and shaming ratherthan a mediator of their effects on offending(Braithwaite 1989:99).

The results for equation (2) suggest thatreintegration’s effect is spurious but that theeffect of shaming is not. When parent-childinterdependency is included in the equation,the effect of reintegration is entirely eliminated(the beta goes from −.24 to .05), whereas thenegative effect of shaming is reduced less dra-matically (the beta goes from −.17 to −.12)and remains statistically significant. Includingthe interdependency variable resulted in only amoderate increase (from .35 to .42) in R2,pointing to the overlap between reintegrationand interdependency.7

Admittedly, the failure of reintegration toretain its significance when interdependencywas controlled may result from inadequatemeasurement of reintegration. Recall that rein-tegration was measured with just 4 items,whereas interdependency was measured with12. Moreover, the newness of RST and the lackof prior quantitative tests precluded the use ofempirically validated measures of either reinte-gration or shaming. Most of the interdepen-dency items, on the other hand, have been usedeffectively in delinquency research over the pastseveral decades. Given the obvious conceptualoverlap between parental reintegration and

parent-child interdependency, this analysis mayhave favored the better measured variable.

The enduring effect of shaming, however,is worth emphasizing. Despite the same mea-surement limitations faced with reintegration,equation (2) of Table 5 reveals that shamingsignificantly reduces predatory delinquencyeven after controlling for reintegration, par-ent-child interdependency, childhood antiso-cial behavior, and important demographicvariables such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, andfamily structure. Shaming is arguably the mostnovel aspect of RST, and this analysis suggestsits potential importance to the explanation ofpredatory delinquency.

yy Discussion and ConclusionThe past two decades have seen an explosionin theories of crime and delinquency causa-tion, but these theories have received limitedempirical attention. This article sought toaddress that void by testing the micro-levelportion of reintegrative shaming theory as itapplies to the sanctioning methods used byparents with adolescents. Because this is one ofthe first explicit tests of RST, firm conclusionsabout the theory’s validity and defects are notwarranted. Nevertheless, three key findings areworth reflecting on: (1) the strong relationshipbetween parent-child interdependency andreintegration, (2) the apparent spuriousness ofthe reintegration-delinquency relationship,and (3) the durable independent effect ofshaming on delinquency.

First, consistent with RST’s predictions,this study revealed a strong relationshipbetween the level of parent-child interdepen-dency and parents’ use of reintegration.Interdependency also had a significant effecton shaming, but its effect on reintegration wasnotably stronger—interdependency and rein-tegration share about 50 percent of their vari-ation. If nothing else, this strong effect clearlysupports the idea that parents who have a close


IndependentVariable 1 2

Reintegration −.24* .05

Shaming −.17* −.12*Parent-child — −.41*interdependency

R2 .35 .42

NOTE: Both equations include controls for age, sex, race/ethnicity, family structure, and childhood antisocial behavior.

*p < .05.

Table 4

Standardized Coefficient and Fit forOrdinary Least Squares Regressionsof Predatory Crime on Reintegration,Shaming, and Parent-ChildInterdependency


relationship with their children are likely tosanction in such away that reinforces that closerelationship.

But this strong statistical relationshipbetween parent-child interdependency andreintegration contributes to a second keyfinding: An initial effect of reintegration ondelinquency disappeared when parent-childinterdependency was held constant. This wasinterpreted as evidence that the initial effect ofreintegration was spurious—reintegration wasrelated to delinquency only because each wasthe result of interdependency. This interpreta-tion is consistent with RST’s specification ofcausal order: Interdependency affects the levelof reintegration, which in turn affects delin-quency. Because reintegration is supposed tobe the variable most proximate to delinquency,its effect should have remained.

An alternative possibility with these twovariables is that their actual causal order isopposite what RST predicts—it may be thatreintegrative sanctioning of children leads tohigh parent-child interdependency rather thanvice versa. If that were the case, the findingspresented here would be just as expected.Future research might be usefully directedtoward sorting out the causal order of thesevariables, paying special attention to the possi-bility that parental reintegration and parent-child interdependency are reciprocally relatedto one another in the same way that manyother delinquency-causing variables are(Thornberry et al. 1994).

A third key finding of this study involvesthe durable, independent effect of shaming ondelinquency. Shaming—arguably the mostnovel aspect of RST (see Hay 1998:423)—wassignificantly and negatively related to pro-jected delinquency even when controlling forage, sex, family structure, race/ethnicity, child-hood antisocial behavior, and parent-childinterdependency. Moreover the negative effectof shaming was not dependent on the level ofreintegration—the effect was strong whenreintegration was at both high and low levels

(see equation [1] of Table 4). Although thisclearly suggests the potential importance ofshaming, strictly speaking, it is not entirelysupportive of RST, which argues that shamingshould be negatively related to delinquencyonly when reintegration is high.

One possibility to consider in futureresearch is that contrary to RST, moral-basedsanctions such as shaming may rarely be stig-matizing, even when used in the absence of high reintegration or interdependency.Research in developmental psychology hasconsistently shown that moral- and reason-based sanctions are generally effective at con-trolling adolescents, especially relative tosanctions based on coercion and intimidation(see, e.g., Bandura and Walters 1959;Baumrind 1991; Patterson, Reid, and Dishion1992; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957). Inshort, RST’s emphasis on the harmful effectsof stigmatization may be appropriate, butshaming as defined by RST may not be asource of such stigmatization, even in theabsence of reintegration. Future research mayconsider that stigmatization is likely to resultnot from moral-based sanctions such as sham-ing but rather, from such things as physicalpunishment, harsh verbal attacks, and similarforms of intensely antagonistic sanctioning.

In concluding, it can be noted that likemost empirical tests of theory, the findings inthis study are neither uniformly supportive norunsupportive. The findings here do suggest,however, that RST and its central concept ofshaming are worthy of greater empirical atten-tion than they have received thus far. Futureempirical tests may involve micro-level tests ofthe theory such as the one reported here or,conversely, macro-level analyses of communityor societal rates of crime. Or better yet, futuretests should consider the micro/macro linkagesthat can be derived from RST. At any rate,increased attention to RST and other recenttheories will be necessary if those theories areto contribute to rather than complicate ourunderstanding of the causes of crime.

yy Notes1. The theories listed by Bernard and Snipes

(1996:301-2) are forth by Schwendinger andSchwendinger (1985), Wilson and Herrnstein (1985),Cornish and Clarke (1986), Mawson (1987), Thornberry(1987), Cohen and Machalek (1988), Hagan (1988),Katz (1988), Bernard (1989), Braithwaite (1989), Jeffery(1989), Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), Agnew (1992),Walters (1992), Sampson and Laub (1993), and Messnerand Rosenfeld (1994). Additional theories have been putforth by Pearson and Weiner (1985), Matsueda (1992),Messerschmidt (1993), Moffitt (1993), Sherman (1993),Cullen (1994), Vila (1994), Tittle (1995), Currie (1997),Wood et al. (1997), and Heimer and De Coster (1999).

2. Physical education is a required course for allstudents except those on athletic teams. Rather thantaking normal physical education classes, athletesenroll in a class specific to their sport. Most students atthis school fulfill the physical education requirementduring their first two years of high school.

3. There is some question as to whether RST is atheory of crime causation or recidivism (Hay 1998:432).From a measurement standpoint, this is an importantquestion. If RST is a theory of crime causation, thenmeasurement should focus on reintegration and sham-ing in response to any rule-violating behavior, includingnoncriminal acts. On the other hand, if RST is solely atheory of recidivism, reintegration and shaming shouldbe relevant only in response to criminal acts.

Braithwaite (1989) is not clear on the issue, so dif-ferent interpretations are possible. The position takenhere is that RST is a theory of both causation and recidi-vism. Whether it is treated as one or the other in a givenstudy will depend largely on which sanctioning institu-tion is the focus. For example, if the micro-level theory istested by examining the extent of reintegrative shamingfound in juvenile court dispositions, this would obviouslybe examining RST as a theory of recidivism because indi-viduals would not be exposed to the sanctioning had theynot already committed a crime. However, when parentalsanctioning is the focus, it makes more sense to examineRST as a theory of crime causation because the vastmajority (perhaps all) of parental sanctions will bedirected at noncriminal rule violations. Moreover,parental sanctioning begins at an age prior to when crimeis possible. So the question here becomes. “How doesparental reintegrative shaming in response to all rule-violations, including noncriminal violations, preventinvolvement in serious criminal violations?”

4. Admittedly, RST makes no prediction that agedifferences within this range (roughly 14–17) willexplain offending or exposure to reintegration andshaming. Rather, it predicts that age differences shouldexist between those inside this range and those outsideof it. Thus, including this demographic variable doesnot explicitly test RST’s predictions about the effects ofage on reintegration and shaming.

5. The interdependency variables were measuredin a way consistent with Braithwaite’s (1989) argumentthat interdependency approximates Hirschi’s (1969)notion of the social bond. Because parental sanction-ing is the focus of this study, interdependency betweenthe parent and child in particular was emphasized. Thefollowing scales were used, with adolescents indicatinghow much they agree or disagree with each statement.Each item was answered separately for mothers andfathers, and the scores were combined to create anoverall score for parents. All items were coded so thathigh values correspond to high interdependency.

Adolescent attachment to parents:

I’m closer to my mother/father than a lot of kidsare to theirs.

Having a good relationship with her/him isimportant to me.

I would like to be the kind of person she/he is.

Adolescent perceptions of parents’ feelings of attachment:

She/he is interested in what I do.

She/he encourages me to discuss my problemswith her/him.

I think she/he shows more interest in my brothersand sisters than in me.

Other mothers/fathers seem to show more inter-est in their children than mine does in me.

She/he tries to understand my problems andworries.

Parent-child communication:

I often share my thoughts and feelings with mymother/father.

I enjoy letting her/him in on my “big” moments.



I often talk to her/him about problems that I amfacing.

I often talk to her/him about my plans for thefuture.

6. Multicollinearity is a concern with regressionequations that include interaction terms and the vari-ables used to construct them. In this case, examinationof variance inflation factors (VIFs) indicated no causefor concern. VIFs for the three interaction dummy vari-ables were 3.35, 3.23, and 4.49—well below the point atwhich multicollinearity typically is seen as problematic(see Myers 1990:369; Stevens 1992:77). An additionalequation was estimated without the control variables.This lowered the VIFs for the dummy variables slightlyto 3.17, 3.10, and 4.23. This equation once again indi-cated that the interaction dummy variables were not sig-nificantly related to crime, but the two main effects were.

7. The F test (F = 19.9, df = 1,166) for this dif-ference is, however, significant at p <.01. Other analy-ses indicate that the R2 for the model in equation (2) of Table 5 is also marginally higher than thatfound for an equation that only includes interdepen-dency (R2= 40), but this difference (F = 2.00, df = 2.168) is not significant.

yy ReferencesAgnew, Robert. 1992. “Foundation for a General Strain

Theory of Crime and Delinquency.” Criminology30: 47–87.

Bachman, Ronet, Raymond Paternoster, and Sally Ward.1992. “The Rationality of Sexual Offending: Testinga Deterrence/Rational Choice Conception of SexualAssault.” Law and Society Review 26: 343–72.

Bandura, Albert, and Richard H. Walters, 1959.Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press.

Baumrind, Diana. 1991. “The Influence of ParentingStyle on Adolescent Competence and SubstanceUse.” Journal of Early Adolescence 11: 56–95.

Bernard, Thomas J. 1989. “A Theoretical Approach toIntegration.” Pp.137–59 in Theoretical Integrationin the Study of Crime and Deviance: Problems andProspects, ed. Steven F. Messner, Marvin D. Krohn,and Allen E. Liska. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Bernard, Thomas J., and Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1996.“Theoretical Integration in Criminology.” Pp. 301–48

in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, ed.Michael Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegra -tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1999. “Restorative Justice: AssessingOptimistic and Pessimistic Accounts.” Crime andJustice: A Review of Research 25: 1–127.

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Richard Machalek. 1988. “AGeneral Theory of Expropriative Crime.”American Journal of Sociology 94: 465–501.

Cohen, Patricia and Judith Brook. 1995. “TheReciprocal Influence of Punishment and ChildBehavior Disorder.” In Coercion and Punishment inLong-Term Perspectives, ed. Joan McCord. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Colvin, Mark, and John Pauly. 1983. “A Critique ofCriminology: Toward an Integrated Structural-Marxist Theory of Delinquency Production.”American Journal of Sociology 89: 513–51.

Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke, eds. 1986. TheReasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives onOffending. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cullen, Francis T. 1994. “Social Support as anOrganizing Concept for Criminology: PresidentialAddress to the Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences.” Justice Quarterly 11: 527–59.

Currie, Elliott. 1997. “Market, Crime, and Community:Toward a Mid-Range Theory of Post-IndustrialViolence.” Theoretical Criminology 2: 147–72.

Elliott, Delbert. 1985. “The Assumption That TheoriesCan Be Combined with Increased ExplanatoryPower.” Pp.123–49 in Theoretical Methods inCriminology, ed. Robert F. Meier. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. AGeneral Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA. StanfordUniversity Press.

Grasmick, Harold G., and Robert J. Bursik, Jr. 1990.“Conscience, Significant Others, and RationalChoice: Extending the Deterrence Model.” Lawand Society Review 24: 837–61.

Grasmick, Harold G., Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and Bruce J.Arneklev. 1993. “Reduction in Drunk Driving as aResponse to Increased Threats of Shame, Embarrass -ment, and Legal Sanctions.” Criminology 31: 41–67.

Green, Donald E. 1989. “Measures of Illegal Behaviorin Individual Level Deterrence Research.” Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency 26: 253–75.

Hagan, John. 1988. Structural Criminology. NewBrunswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hay, Carter. 1998. “Parental Sanctions and DelinquentBehavior: Toward Clarification of Braithwaite’sTheory of Reintegrative Shaming.” TheoreticalCriminology 2: 419–43.

Heimer, Karen, and Stacy De Coster. 1999. “TheGendering of Violent Delinquency.” Criminology37: 277–317.

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

Jeffery, C. R. 1989. Criminology. Englewood Cliffs. NJ:Prentice Hall.

Jensen, Gary, and B. Grant Stitt. 1982. “Words andMisdeeds: Hypothetical Choices versus PastBehavior as Measures of Deviance.” Pp. 33–54 inDeterrence Reconsidered, ed. John Hagan. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Kandel, Denise, and Ping Wu. 1995. “DisentanglingMother-Child Effects.” In Coercion and Punishmentin Long-Term Perspectives, ed. Joan McCord.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Katz, Jack. 1988. The Seductions of Crime. New York:Basic Books.

Liska, Allen E., Marvin D. Krohn, and Steven F. Messner.1989. “Strategies and Requisites for TheoreticalIntegration in the Study of Crime and Deviance.”Pp. 1–19 in Theoretical Integration in the Study ofDeviance and Crime: Problem and Prospects, ed.Steven F. Messner, Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E.Liska. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Makkai, Toni, and John Braithwaite. 1994. “Reintegra -tive Shaming and Compliance with RegulatoryStandards.” Criminology 32: 361–83.

Matsueda, Ross L. 1992. “Reflected Appraisals, ParentalLabeling, and Delinquency: Specifying a SymbolicInteractionist Theory.” American Journal ofSociology 97: 1577–1611.

Mawson, A. R. 1987. Transient Criminality New York:Praeger.

Messerschmidt, James M. 1993.Masculinities andCrime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Messner, Steven F., and Richard Rosenfeld. 1994.Crime and the American Dream. Belmont. CA:Wadsworth.

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Devel -opmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100:674–701.

Myers, R. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression withApplications. 2nd ed. Boston: Duxbury.

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

Pearson, Frank, and Neil Alan Weiner. 1985. “Towardan Integration of Criminological Theories.” Journalof Criminal Law and Criminology 76: 116–50.

Sampson, Robert, and John Laub. 1993. Crime in theMaking: Pathways and Turning Points through Life.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwendinger, H., and J. S. Schwendinger. 1985.Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency. New York:Praeger.

Sears, R., E. Maccoby, and H. Levin. 1957. Patterns ofChild Rearing. Evanston. IL: Row, Peterson.

Sherman, Lawrence W. 1993. “Defiance, Deterrence,and Irrelevance: A Theory of the CriminalSanction.” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 30: 445–73.

Stevens, James. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistics forthe Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Tittle, Charles. 1977. “Sanction Fear and the Maintenanceof Social Order.” Social Forces 55: 579–96.

———. 1980. Sanctions and Social Deviance: TheQuestion of Deterrence. New York: Praeger.

———. 1995. Control Balance: Toward a GeneralTheory of Deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Thornberry, Terence P. 1987. “Toward an InteractionalTheory of Delinquency.” Criminology 25: 863–91.

Thornberry, Terence P., Alan J. Lizotte, Marvin D.Krohn, Margaret Farnsworth, and Sung Joon Jang.1994. “Delinquent Peers, Beliefs, and DelinquentBehavior: A Longitudinal Test of InteractionalTheory.” Criminology 32: 47–84.

Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. NewHaven. CT: Yale University Press.

Vila, Bryan J. 1994. “A General Paradigm for Under -standing Criminal Behavior: Extending EvolutionaryEcological Theory.” Criminology 32: 311–60.

Walters, G. 1992. Foundations of Criminal Science. NewYork: Praeger.

Wilson, James Q., and Richard J. Herrnstein. 1985.Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Wood, Peter B., Walter R. Gove, James A. Wilson, andJohn K. Cochran. 1997. “Nonsocial Reinforcementand Habitual Criminal Conduct: An Extension ofLearning Theory.” Criminology 35: 335–66.

Zhang, Sheldon X. 1995. “Measuring Shaming in anEthnic Context.” British Journal of Criminology 35:248–62.


Reading 37 � Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency 711


1. According to Hay, what types of factors seem to be important in determining whether parents use rein-tegrative disciplinary strategies, as opposed to more stigmatizing techniques? If you were (or are) a par-ent, do these strategies make sense to you in the disciplining of your own child(ren)?

2. From the results of this study, do the effects of reintegration and shaming tend to interact to predictoffending? If so, how? If not, give your reasons why they do not seem to interact.

3. What other factors may account for the findings of this study, specifically reintegration and shaming?Did Hay find evidence that other such factors seemed to account for such findings?

4. Do you think Braithwaite’s model of reintegrative shaming could work in the United States as a whole?Explain your reasoning for your answer.

R E A D I N G

In this selection, Terence Thornberry presents an integrated model that primarily mergestwo theoretical perspectives, specifically control theory and differential reinforcement/social learning theory. However, the primary distinction between previous integratedframeworks and Thornberry’s model is that Thornberry takes into account the reciprocal,or feedback, effects that certain variables may have on the increase of delinquent/criminalbehavior.

For example, Thornberry claims that weak bonds to parents (a control concept) may lead toassociation with delinquent peers (a differential association/social learning concept), which islikely to lead to parents having even weaker bonds with the individual/youth. So it is proposedthat the fact that a youth gets in trouble is likely to lead to more alienation or weaker bondswith the youth’s parents, which is quite likely in reality. Such an effect is a good example of areciprocal effect or feedback effect, and this is just one of the many reciprocal effects that areproposed in this model. Thornberry’s integrated model of offending is full of such reciprocal(or feedback) effects, and this is what distinguishes his model from previous integrated frame-works, or any of the traditional theoretical models that attempted to explain offending.

While reading this selection, readers should consider their own experience or those of oth-ers they know who were caught once (and maybe arrested) for a relatively minor charge. Thesocial “fallout” from this initial arrest may have resulted in more adverse reactions from par-ents (or others), and that made the other factors, such as delinquent peers, more prominent.Readers may notice that this type of reciprocal or feedback loop resembles labeling theory,

SOURCE: Terence P. Thornberry, “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency,” Criminology 25 (1987): 863–91. Reprintedby permission of the American Society of Criminology.

�


in which a person commits an initial (often minor) offense and is labeled as an offender,leading to worse and more frequent offending. Although Thornberry does not specificallyinvoke labeling theory in his theory, there is an obvious comparison to be made between thereciprocal effects he discusses and the effects of stigmatization that labeling theorists makein their explanatory models. Still, Thornberry’s integrated model was one of the first inte-grated frameworks that actually incorporated such reciprocal or feedback effects into thetheory of why individuals engage in offending behavior.

Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency

Terence P. Thornberry

yy Origins and AssumptionsThe basic premise of the model proposed hereis that human behavior occurs in social inter-action and can therefore best be explained bymodels that focus on interactive processes.Rather than viewing adolescents as propelledalong a unidirectional pathway to one oranother outcome—that is, delinquency orconformity—it argues that adolescents inter-act with other people and institutions and thatbehavioral outcomes are formed by that inter-active process. For example, the delinquentbehavior of an adolescent is formed in part byhow he and his parents interact over time, notsimply by the child’s perceived, and presum-ably invariant, level of attachment to parents.Moreover, since it is an interactive system, thebehaviors of others—for example, parents andschool officials—are influenced both by eachother and by the adolescent, including his orher delinquent behavior. If this view is correct,then interactional effects have to be modeledexplicitly if we are to understand the social andpsychological processes involved with initia-tion into delinquency, the maintenance of suchbehavior, and its eventual reduction.

Interactional theory develops from the sameintellectual tradition as the theories mentionedabove, especially the Durkheimian tradition of

social control. It asserts that the fundamentalcause of delinquency lies in the weakening ofsocial constraints over the conduct of the indi-vidual. Unlike classical control theory, however,it does not assume that the attenuation of con-trols leads directly to delinquency. The weaken-ing of controls simply allows for a much widerarray of behavior, including continued conven-tional action, failure as indicated by schooldropout and sporadic employment histories,alcoholism, mental illness, delinquent and crim-inal careers, or some combination of these out-comes. For the freedom resulting fromweakened bonds to be channeled into delin-quency, especially serious prolonged delin-quency, requires an interactive setting in whichdelinquency is learned, performed, and rein-forced. This view is similar to Cullen’s structur-ing perspective which draws attention to the[indeterminacy] of deviant behavior. “It canthus be argued that there is an indeterminate andnot a determinate or etiologically specific rela-tionship between motivational variables on theone hand and any particular form of deviantbehavior on the other hand” (Cullen, 1984, p. 5).

Although heavily influenced by controland learning theories, and to a lesser extent bystrain and culture conflict theories, this is notan effort at theoretical integration as that termis usually used (Elliott, 1985). Rather, this


paper is guided by what we have elsewherecalled theoretical elaboration (Thornberry,1987). In this instance, a basic control theory isextended, or elaborated upon, using availabletheoretical perspectives and empirical findingsto provide a more accurate model of the causesof delinquency. In the process of elaboration,there is no requirement to resolve disputesamong other theories—for example, their dif-ferent assumptions about the origins ofdeviance (Thornberry, 1987, pp. 15–18); allthat is required is that the propositions of themodel developed here be consistent with oneanother and with the assumptions aboutdeviance stated above.

yy OrganizationThe presentation of the interactional modelbegins by identifying the central concepts to beincluded in the model. Next, the underlyingtheoretical structure of the proposed model isexamined and the rationale for moving fromunidirectional to reciprocal causal models isdeveloped. The reciprocal model is thenextended to include a developmental perspec-tive, examining the theoretical saliency of dif-ferent variables at different developmentalstages. Finally, the influence of the person’sposition in the social structure is explored.Although in some senses the last issue is logi-cally prior to the others, since it is concernedwith sources of initial variation in the causalvariables, it is discussed last so that the recip-rocal relationships among the concepts—theheart of an interactional perspective—can bemore fully developed.

yy Theoretical ConceptsGiven these basic premises, an interactionalmodel must respond to two overriding issues.First, how are traditional social constraintsover behavior weakened and, second, onceweakened, how is the resulting freedom

channeled into delinquent patterns? To addressthese issues, the present paper presents an initialversion of an interactional model, focusing onthe interrelationships among six concepts:attachment to parents, commitment to school,belief in conventional values, associations withdelinquent peers, adopting delinquent values,and engaging in delinquent behavior. Theseconcepts form the core of the theoretical modelsince they are central to social psychologicaltheories of delinquency and since they havebeen shown in numerous studies to be stronglyrelated to subsequent delinquent behavior (seeElliott et al., 1985, Chs. 1-3, for an excellentreview of this literature).

The first three derive from Hirschi’s versionof control theory (1969) and represent the pri-mary mechanisms by which adolescents arebonded to conventional middle-class society.When those elements of the bond are weak-ened, behavioral freedom increases consider-ably. For that freedom to lead to delinquentbehavior, however, interactive settings that rein-force delinquency are required. In the model,those settings are represented by two concepts:associations with delinquent peers and the for-mation of delinquent values which derive pri-marily from social learning theory. For thepurpose of explicating the overall theoreticalperspective, each of these concepts is definedquite broadly. Attachment to parents includesthe affective relationship between parent andchild, communication patterns, parenting skillssuch as monitoring and discipline, parent-childconflict, and the like. Commitment to schoolrefers to the stake in conformity the adolescenthas developed and includes such factors as suc-cess in school, perceived importance of educa-tion, attachment to teachers, and involvementin school activities. Belief in conventional valuesrepresents the granting of legitimacy to suchmiddle-class values as education, personalindustry, financial success, deferral of gratifica-tion, and the like.

Three delinquency variables are includedin the model. Association with delinquent

peers includes the level of attachment to peers,the delinquent behavior and values of peers,and their reinforcing reactions to the adoles-cent’s own delinquent or conforming behavior.It is a continuous measure that can varyfrom groups that are heavily delinquent tothose that are almost entirely nondelinquent.Delinquent values refer to the granting oflegitimacy to delinquent activities as accept-able modes of behavior as well as a generalwillingness to violate the law to achieve otherends. Delinquent behavior, the primary out-come variable, refers to acts that place theyouth at risk for adjudication; it ranges fromstatus offenses to serious violent activities.Since the present model is an interactionalone, interested not only in explaining delin-quency but in explaining the effects ofdelinquency on other variables, particularattention is paid to prolonged involvement inserious delinquency. . . .

yy Model SpecificationA causal model allowing for reciprocal rela-tionships among the six concepts of interest—attachment to parents, commitment to school,belief in conventional values, association with

delinquent peers, delinquent values, and delin-quent behavior—is presented in Figure 1. Thismodel refers to the period of early adolescence,from about ages 11 to 13, when delinquentcareers are beginning, but prior to the periodat which delinquency reaches its apex in termsof seriousness and frequency. In the followingsections the model is extended to later ages.

The specification of causal effects beginsby examining the three concepts that form theheart of social learning theories of delinquency—delinquent peers, delinquent values, and delin-quent behavior. For now we focus on thereciprocal nature of the relationships, ignoringuntil later variations in the strength of the rela-tionships. Traditional social learning theoryspecifies a causal order among these variablesin which delinquent associations affect delin-quent values and, in turn, both produce delin-quent behavior (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce,& Radosevich, 1979; Matsueda, 1982). Yet, foreach of the dyadic relationships involvingthese variables, other theoretical perspectivesand much empirical evidence suggest theappropriateness of reversing this causal order.For example, social learning theory proposesthat associating with delinquents, or more pre-cisely, people who hold and reinforce delin-quent values, increases the chances of


−

−−

−−

−−

−−

−−

+

+

++

++++

++

+

Attachmentto parents

Belief inconventional

values

Commitmentto school

Association withdelinquent peers

Delinquentbehavior

Delinquentvalues

Figure 1 A Reciprocal Model of Delinquent Involvement at Early Adolescence


delinquent behavior (Akers, 1977). Yet, as farback as the work of the Gluecks (1950) thisspecification has been challenged. Arguing that“birds of a feather flock together,” the Glueckspropose that youths who are delinquent seekout and associate with others who share thosetendencies. From this perspective, rather thanbeing a cause of delinquency, associations arethe result of delinquents seeking out and asso-ciating with like-minded peers.

An attempt to resolve the somewhattedious argument over the temporal priority ofassociations and behavior is less productivetheoretically than capitalizing on the interac-tive nature of human behavior and treating therelationship as it probably is: a reciprocal one.People often take on the behavioral repertoireof their associates but, at the same time, theyoften seek out associates who share theirbehavioral interests. Individuals clearly behavethis way in conventional settings, and there isno reason to assume that deviant activities,such as delinquency, are substantially differentin this regard.

Similar arguments can be made for theother two relationships among the delin-quency variables. Most recent theories ofdelinquency, following the lead of social learn-ing theory, posit that delinquent associationslead to the formation of delinquent values.Subcultural theories, however, especially thosethat derive from a cultural deviance perspec-tive (Miller, 1958) suggest that values precedethe formation of peer groups. Indeed, it is thesocialization of adolescents into the “lower-class culture” and its particular value systemthat leads them to associate with delinquentpeers in the first place. This specification canalso be derived from a social control perspec-tive as demonstrated in Weis and Sederstrom’ssocial development model (1981) and Burkettand Warren’s social selection model (1987).

Finally, the link between delinquent valuesand delinquent behavior restates, in manyways, the basic social psychological question ofthe relationship between attitudes and behavior.

Do attitudes form behavior patterns or doesbehavior lead to attitude formation? Socialpsychological research, especially in cognitivepsychology and balance models (for example,Festinger, 1957; Brehm and Cohen, 1962)points to the reciprocal nature of this relation-ship. It suggests that people indeed behave in amanner consistent with their attitudes, butalso that behavior is one of the most persuasiveforces in the formation and maintenance ofattitudes.

Such a view of the relationship betweendelinquent values and behavior is consistentwith Hindelang’s findings: this general pattern of results indicates that one can “predict” a respondent’s self approval [of ille-gal behaviors] from knowledge of thatrespondent’s involvement/non-involvement[in delinquency] with fewer errors than vice-versa (1974, p. 382). It is also consistent withrecent deterrence research which demon-strates that the “experiential effect,” in whichbehavior affects attitudes, is much strongerthan the deterrent effect, in which attitudesaffect behavior (Paternoster, Saltzman, Waldo,& Chiricos, 1982; Paternoster, Saltzman,Chiricos, & Waldo, 1983).

Although each of these relationshipsappears to be reciprocal, the predictedstrengths of the associations are not of equalstrength during the early adolescent period(see Figure 1). Beliefs that delinquent conductis acceptable [and] positively valued may beemerging, but such beliefs are not fully articu-lated for 11- to 13-year-olds. Because of theiremerging quality, they are viewed as moreeffect than cause, produced by delinquentbehavior and associations with delinquentpeers. As these values emerge, however, theyhave feedback effects, albeit relatively weakones at these ages, on behavior and associa-tions. That is, as the values become more fullyarticulated and delinquency becomes posi-tively valued, it increases the likelihood of suchbehavior and further reinforces associationswith like-minded peers.

Summary. When attention is focused on theinterrelationships among associations withdelinquent peers, delinquent values, anddelinquent behavior, it appears that they are, infact, reciprocally related. The world of humanbehavior is far more complex than a simplerecursive one in which a temporal order can beimposed on interactional variables of this nature.Interactional theory sees these three concepts asembedded in a causal loop, each reinforcing theothers over time. Regardless of where theindividual enters the loop the followingobtains: delinquency increases associationswith delinquent peers and delinquent values;delinquent values increase delinquent behaviorand associations with delinquent peers; andassociations with delinquent peers increasesdelinquent behavior and delinquent values. Thequestion now concerns the identification offactors that lead some youth, but not others intothis spiral of increasing delinquency.

yy Social Control EffectsAs indicated at the outset of this essay, thepromise of interactional theory is that the fun-damental cause of delinquency is the attenua-tion of social controls over the person’sconduct. Whenever bonds to the conventionalworld are substantially weakened, the individ-ual is freed from moral constraints and is atrisk for a wide array of deviant activities,including delinquency. The primary mecha-nisms that bind adolescents to the conven-tional world are attachment to parents,commitment to school, and belief in conven-tional values, and their role in the model cannow be examined.

During the early adolescent years, the fam-ily is the most salient arena for social interactionand involvement and, because of this, attach-ment to parents has a stronger influence onother aspects of the youth’s life at this stage thanit does at later stages of development. With thisin mind, attachment to parents is predicted to

affect four other variables. Since youths who areattached to their parents are sensitive to theirwishes (Hirschi, 1969, pp. 16–19), and, sinceparents are almost universally supportive of theconventional world, these children are likely tobe strongly committed to school and to espouseconventional values. In addition, youths whoare attached to their parents, again because oftheir sensitivity to parental wishes, are unlikelyto associate with delinquent peers or to engagein delinquent behavior.

In brief, parental influence is seen as cen-tral to controlling the behavior of youths atthese relatively early ages. Parents who have astrong affective bond with their children, whocommunicate with them, who exercise appro-priate parenting skills, and so forth, are likelyto lead their children towards conventionalactions and beliefs and away from delinquentfriends and actions.

On the other hand, attachment to parentsis not seen as an immutable trait, imperviousto the effects of other variables. Indeed, associ-ating with delinquent peers, not being com-mitted to school, and engaging in delinquentbehavior are so contradictory to parentalexpectations that they tend to diminish thelevel of attachment between parent and child.Adolescents who fail at school, who associatewith delinquent peers, and who engage indelinquent conduct are, as a consequence,likely to jeopardize their affective bond withtheir parents, precisely because these behaviorssuggest that the “person does not care aboutthe wishes and expectations of other people”(Hirschi, 1969, p. 18), in this instance, his orher parents.

Turning next to belief in conventional val-ues, this concept is involved in two differentcausal loops. First, it strongly affects commit-ment to school and in turn is affected by com-mitment to school. In essence, this loop posits abehavioral and attitudinal consistency in theconventional realm. Second, a weaker loop isposited between belief in conventional valuesand associations with delinquent peers. Youths



who do not grant legitimacy to conventionalvalues are more apt to associate with delinquentfriends who share those views, and those friend-ships are likely to attenuate further their beliefsin conventional values. This reciprocal specifi-cation is supported by Burkett and Warren’sfindings concerning religious beliefs and peerassociations (1987). Finally, youths who believein conventional values are seen as somewhat lesslikely to engage in delinquent behavior.

Although belief in conventional valuesplays some role in the genesis of delinquency,its impact is not particularly strong. For exam-ple, it is not affected by delinquent behavior,nor is it related to delinquent values. This isprimarily because belief in conventional valuesappears to be quite invariant; regardless ofclass of origin or delinquency status, for exam-ple, most people strongly assert conventionalvalues (Short & Strodtbeck, 1965, Ch. 3).Nevertheless, these beliefs do exert some influ-ence in the model, especially with respect toreinforcing commitment to school.

Finally, the impact of commitment toschool is considered. This variable is involvedin reciprocal loops with both of the otherbonding variables. Youngsters who areattached to their parents are likely to be com-mitted to and succeed in school, and thatsuccess is likely to reinforce the close ties totheir parents. Similarly, youths who believein conventional values are likely to be com-mitted to school, the primary arena in whichthey can act in accordance with those values,and, in turn, success in that arena is likely toreinforce the beliefs.

In addition to its relationships with theother control variables, commitment to schoolalso has direct effects on two of the delin-quency variables. Students who are committedto succeeding in school are unlikely to associ-ate with delinquents or to engage in substan-tial amounts of serious, repetitive delinquentbehavior. These youths have built up a stake inconformity and should be unwilling to jeopar-dize that investment by either engaging in

delinquent behavior or by associating withthose who do. Low commitment to school isnot seen as leading directly to the formation ofdelinquent values, however. Its primary effecton delinquent values is indirect, via associa-tions with delinquent peers and delinquentbehavior (Conger, 1980, p. 137). While schoolfailure may lead to a reduced commitment toconventional values, it does not follow that itdirectly increases the acceptance of values thatsupport delinquency.

Commitment to school, on the otherhand, is affected by each of the delinquencyvariables in the model. Youths who accept val-ues that are consistent with delinquent behav-ior, who associate with other delinquents, andwho engage in delinquent behavior are simplyunlikely candidates to maintain an active com-mitment to school and the conventional worldthat school symbolizes.

Summary. Attachment to parents, commitmentto school, and belief in conventional valuesreduce delinquency by cementing the person toconventional institutions and people. Whenthese elements of the bond to conventionalsociety are strong, delinquency is unlikely, butwhen they are weak the individual is placed atmuch greater risk for delinquency. Whenviewed from an interactional perspective, twoadditional qualities of these concepts becomeincreasingly evident.

First, attachment to parents, commitmentto school, and belief in conventional values arenot static attributes of the person, invariantover time. These concepts interact with oneanother during the developmental process. Forsome youths the levels of attachment, commit-ment, and belief increase as these elementsreinforce one another, while for other youthsthe interlocking nature of these relationshipssuggests a greater and greater attenuation ofthe bond will develop over time.

Second, the bonding variables appear to bereciprocally linked to delinquency, exerting acausal impact on associations with delinquent

peers and delinquent behavior; they also arecausally affected by these variables. As theyouth engages in more and more delinquentconduct and increasingly associates with delin-quent peers, the level of his bond to the con-ventional world is further weakened. Thus,while the weakening of the bond to conven-tional society may be an initial cause of delin-quency, delinquency eventually becomes itsown indirect cause precisely because of its abil-ity to weaken further the person’s bonds tofamily, school, and conventional beliefs. Theimplications of this amplifying causal struc-ture [are] examined below. First, however, theavailable support for reciprocal models isreviewed and the basic model is extended tolater developmental stages. . . .

yy Developmental ExtensionsThe previous section developed a strategy foraddressing one of the three major limitationsof delinquency theories mentioned in theintroduction, namely, their unidirectionalcausal structure. A second limitation is thenon-developmental posture of most theorieswhich tend to provide a cross sectional picture

of the factors associated with delinquency atone age, but which do not provide a rationalefor understanding how delinquent behaviordevelops over time. The present section offersa developmental extension of the basic model.

Middle Adolescence

First, a model for middle adolescence,when the youths are approximately 15 or 16years of age is presented (Figure 2). Thisperiod represents the highest rates of involve-ment in delinquency and is the referenceperiod, either implicitly or explicitly, for mosttheories of delinquent involvement. Since themodels for the early and middle adolescentperiods have essentially the same structure andcausal relationships (Figures 1 and 2), discus-sion focuses on the differences between themand does not repeat the rationale for individ-ual causal effects.

Perhaps the most important differenceconcerns attachment to parents which isinvolved in relatively few strong relationships.By this point in the life cycle, the most salientvariables involved in the production of delin-quency are likely to be external to the home,associated with the youth’s activities in school


−

−−

−−

−−

−−

−−

+

+

++

++++

++

+



values

Commitmentto school


Delinquentbehavior

Delinquentvalues

Figure 2 A Reciprocal Model of Delinquent Involvement at Middle Adolescence


and peer networks. This specification is consis-tent with empirical results for subjects in thisage range (Johnson, 1979, p. 105; andSchoenberg, 1975, quoted in Johnson. Indeed,Johnson concludes that “an adolescent’s publiclife has as much or more to do with his or herdeviance or conformity than do ‘under-the-roof ’ experiences” (1979, p. 116).

This is not to say that attachment to par-ents is irrelevant; such attachments areinvolved in enhancing commitment to schooland belief in conventional values, and in pre-venting associations with delinquent peers. Itis just that the overall strength of parentaleffects [is] weaker than at earlier ages when thesalience of the family as a locus of interactionand control was greater. The second majorchange concerns the increased importance ofdelinquent values as a causal factor. It is stillembedded in the causal loop with the othertwo delinquency variables, but now it is asmuch cause as effect. Recall that at the youngerages delinquent values were seen as emerging,produced by associations with delinquentpeers and delinquent behavior. Given theiremergent nature, they were not seen as primarycauses of other variables. At mid-adolescence,however, when delinquency is at its apex, thesevalues are more fully articulated and havestronger effects on other variables. First, delin-quent values are seen as major reinforcers ofboth delinquent associations and delinquentbehavior. In general, espousing values sup-portive of delinquency tends to increase thepotency of this causal loop. Second, sincedelinquent values are antithetical to the con-ventional settings of school and family, youthswho espouse them are less likely to be com-mitted to school and attached to parents.Consistent with the reduced saliency of familyat these ages, the feedback effect to school isseen as stronger than the feedback effect toparents.

By and large, the other concepts in themodel play the same role at these ages as they

do at the earlier ones. Thus, the major changefrom early to middle adolescence concerns thechanging saliency of some of the theoreticalconcepts. The family declines in relativeimportance while the adolescent’s own worldof school and peers takes on increasing signif-icance. While these changes occur, the overallstructure of the theory remains constant.These interactive variables are still seen asmutually reinforcing over time.

Later Adolescence

Finally, the causes of delinquency duringthe transition from adolescence to adult-hood, about ages 18 to 20, can be examined(Figure 3). At these ages one should moreproperly speak of crime than delinquency,but for consistency we will continue to usethe term delinquency in the causal diagramsand employ the terms delinquency and crimeinterchangeably in the text.

Two new variables are added to themodel to reflect the changing life circum-stances at this stage of development. Themore important of these is commitment toconventional activities which includes employment, attending college, and military service.Along with the transition to the world ofwork, there is a parallel transition from thefamily of origin to one’s own family. Al -though this transition does not peak until theearly 20s, for many people its influence isbeginning at this stage. Included in this con-cept are marriage, plans for marriage, andplans for childrearing. These new variableslargely replace attachment to parents andcommitment to school in the theoreticalscheme; they represent the major sources ofbonds to conventional society for youngadults. Both attachment to parents and com-mitment to school remain in the model buttake on the cast of exogenous variables.Attachment to parents has only a minor effecton commitment to school, and commitment


to school is proposed to affect only commit-ment to conventional activities and, moreweakly, delinquent behavior.

The other three variables considered in theprevious models—association with delinquentpeers, delinquent values, and delinquentbehavior—are still hypothesized to be embed-ded in an amplifying causal loop. As indicatedabove, this loop is most likely to occur amongadolescents who, at earlier ages, were freedfrom the controlling influence of parents andschool. Moreover, via the feedback paths delin-quent peers, delinquent values, and delinquentbehavior further alienate the youth from par-ents and diminish commitment to school.Once this spiral begins, the probability of sus-tained delinquency increases.

This situation, if it continued uninter-rupted, would yield higher and higher rates ofcrime as the subjects matured. Such an out-come is inconsistent with the desistance thathas been observed during this age period(Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, 1987).

Rates of delinquency and crime begin to sub-side by the late teenage years, a phenomenonoften attributed to “maturational reform.”Such an explanation, however, is tautologicalsince it claims that crime stops when adoles-cents get older, because they get older. It is alsouninformative since the concept of matura-tional reform is theoretically undefined. Adevelopmental approach, however, offers anexplanation for desistance. As the develop-mental process unfolds, life circumstanceschange, developmental milestones are met (or,for some, missed), new social roles are created,and new networks of attachments and com-mitments emerge. The effects of these changesenter the processual model to explain new andoften dramatically different behavioral pat-terns. In the present model, these changes arerepresented by commitment to conventionalactivity and commitment to family.

Commitment to conventional activity isinfluenced by a number of variables, includingearlier attachment to parents, commitment to

Figure 3 A Reciprocal Model of Delinquent Involvement at Later Adolescence

−

−

−−

−

−

−

+

+

++

++

+

++

+ ++ +

+


Commitmentto family


values

Commitmentto school

Commitment toconventional activity


Delinquentbehavior

Delinquentvalues

−

−


school, and belief in conventional values. Andonce the transition to the world of work ismade, tremendous opportunities are affordedfor new and different effects in the delin-quency model. Becoming committed to con-ventional activities, work, college, militaryservice, and so on—reduces the likelihood ofdelinquent behavior and associations withdelinquent peers because it builds up a stake inconformity that is antithetical to delinquency.Moreover, since the delinquency variables arestill embedded in a causal loop, the effect ofcommitment to conventional activities tendsto resonate throughout the system. But,because of the increased saliency of a new vari-able, commitment to conventional activities,the reinforcing loop is now set in motion toreduce rather than increase delinquent andcriminal involvement. The variable of com-mitment to family has similar, albeit weaker,effects since the transition to the family is onlybeginning at these ages. Nevertheless, commit-ment to family is proposed to reduce bothdelinquent associations and delinquent valuesand to increase commitment to conventionalactivity. In general, as the individual takes onthe responsibilities of family, the bond to con-ventional society increases, placing additionalconstraints on behavior and precluding fur-ther delinquency.

These changes do not occur in all cases,however, nor should they be expected to sincemany delinquents continue on to careers inadult crime. In the Philadelphia cohort of1945, 51% of the juvenile delinquents werealso adult offenders, and the more serious andprolonged the delinquent careers were, thegreater the odds of an adult career (Wolfganget al., 1987, Ch. 4). The continuation of crimi-nal careers can also be explained by the natureof the reciprocal effects included in this model.In general, extensive involvement in delin-quency at earlier ages feeds back upon andweakens attachment to parents and commit-ment to school (see Figures 1 and 2). Thesevariables, as well as involvement in delinquency

itself, weaken later commitment to family andto conventional activities (Figure 3). Thus, thesenew variables, commitment to conventionalactivities and to family, are affected by the per-son’s situation at earlier stages and do not“automatically” alter the probability of contin-ued criminal involvement. If the initial bondsare extremely weak, the chances of new bond-ing variables being established to break thecycle towards criminal careers are low and it islikely that criminal behavior will continue. . . .

yy Structural EffectsStructural variables, including race, class, sex,and community of residence, refer to the per-son’s location in the structure of social rolesand statuses. The manner in which they areincorporated in the interactional model is illus-trated here by examining only one of them,social class of origin. Although social class isoften measured continuously, a categoricalapproach is more consistent with the presentmodel and with most theories of delinquencythat incorporate class as a major explanatoryvariable—for example, strain and social disor-ganization theories. For our purposes, the mostimportant categories are the lower class, theworking lower class, and the middle class.

The lower class is composed of those whoare chronically or sporadically unemployed,receive welfare, and subsist at or below thepoverty level. They are similar to Johnson’s“underclass” (1979). The working lower class iscomposed of those with more stable work pat-terns, training for semiskilled jobs, andincomes that allow for some economic stability.For these families, however, the hold on even amarginal level of occupational and economicsecurity is always tenuous. Finally, the middleclass refers to all families above these lower lev-els. Middle-class families have achieved somedegree of economic success and stability andcan reasonably expect to remain at that level orimprove their standing over time.

The manner in which the social class of ori-gin affects the interactional variables and thebehavioral trajectories can be demonstrated bycomparing the life expectancies of children fromlower- and middle-class families. As compared tochildren from a middle-class background, chil-dren from a lower class background are more aptto have (1) disrupted family processes and envi-ronments (Conger, McCarty, Wang, Lahey, &Kroop, 1984; Wahler, 1980); (2) poorer prepara-tion for school (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960); (3) belief structures influenced by the traditionsof the American lower class (Miller, 1958); and(4) greater exposure to neighborhoods with highrates of crime (Shaw & McKay, 1942; Braithwaite,1981). The direction of all these effects is suchthat we would expect children from lower-classfamilies to be initially less bonded to conven-tional society and more exposed to delinquentvalues, friends, and behaviors.

As one moves towards the working lowerclass, both the likelihood and the potency of thefactors just listed decrease. As a result, the initialvalues of the interactional variables improvebut, because of the tenuous nature of economicand social stability for these families, both thebonding variables and the delinquency vari-ables are still apt to lead to considerableamounts of delinquent conduct. Finally, youthsfrom middle-class families, given their greaterstability and economic security, are likely tostart with a stronger family structure, greaterstakes in conformity, and higher chances of suc-cess, and all of these factors are likely to reducethe likelihood of initial delinquent involvement.

In brief, the initial values of the interac-tional variables are systematically related to thesocial class of origin. Moreover, since these vari-ables are reciprocally related, it follows logicallythat social class is systematically related to the behavioral trajectories described above.Youngsters from the lowest classes have thehighest probability of moving forward on a tra-jectory of increasing delinquency. Starting froma position of low bonding to conventional insti-tutions and a high delinquency environment,

the reciprocal nature of the interrelationshipsleads inexorably towards extremely high rates ofdelinquent and criminal involvement. Such aview is consistent with prevalence data whichshow that by age 18, 50%, and by age 30, 70% oflow SES minority males have an official policerecord (Wolfgang et al., 1987).

On the other hand, the expected trajectoryof middle-class youths suggests that they willmove toward an essentially conforming life-style, in which their stakes in conformityincrease and more and more preclude seriousand prolonged involvement in delinquency.Finally, because the initial values of the inter-actional variables are mixed and indecisive forchildren from lower working-class homes,their behavioral trajectories are much morevolatile and the outcome much less certain.

Summary. Interactional theory asserts that boththe initial values of the process variables andtheir development over time are systematicallyrelated to the social class of origin. Moreover,parallel arguments can be made for otherstructural variables, especially those associatedwith class, such as race, ethnicity, and the socialdisorganization of the neighborhood. Like classof origin, these variables are systematicallyrelated to variables such as commitment toschool and involvement in delinquent behavior,and therefore, as a group, these structuralvariables set the stage on which the reciprocaleffects develop across the life cycle. . . .

yy ReferencesAkers, R. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning

perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., &

Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning theory anddeviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 44,635–655.

Braithwaite, J. (1981). The myth of social class andcriminality reconsidered. American SociologicalReview, 46, 36–58.

Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations incognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.



Burkett, S. R., & Warren, B. O. (1987). Religiosity, peerinfluence, and adolescent marijuana use: A panelstudy of underlying causal structures. Criminology,25, 109–131.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency andopportunity—A theory of delinquent gangs. NewYork: Free Press.

Conger, R. D. (1980). Juvenile delinquency: Behaviorrestraint or behavior facilitation? In T. Hirschi &M. Gottfredson (Eds.), Understanding crime.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Conger, R. D., McCarty, J. A., Wang, R. K., Lahey, B. B.,& Kroop, J. P. (1984). Perception of child, child-rearing values, and emotional distress as media -ting links between environmental stressors andobserved maternal behavior. Child Development,55, 2234–2247.

Cullen, F. T. (1984). Rethinking crime and deviancetheory: The emergence of a structuring tradition.Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

Elliott, D. S. (1985). The assumption that theories can becombined with increased explanatory power: Theo -retical integrations. In R. F. Meier (Ed.), Theoreticalmethods in criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985).Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juveniledelinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Hindelang, M. J. (1974). Moral evaluations of illegalbehaviors. Social Problems, 21, 370–384.

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

Johnson, R. E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Matsueda, R. (1982). Testing social control theory anddifferential association. American SociologicalReview, 47, 489–504.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generatingmilieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues,14(3), 5–19.

Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Chiricos, T. G., &Waldo, G. P. (1983). Perceived risk and socialcontrol: Do sanctions really deter? Law and SocietyReview, 17, 457–479.

Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Waldo, G. P., &Chiricos, T. G. (1982). Perceived risk anddeterrence: Methodological artifacts in perceptualdeterrence research. Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology, 73, 1238–1258.

Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquencyand urban areas. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Short, J. F., Jr., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group processand gang delinquency. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Thornberry, T. P. (1987a). Reflections on theadvantages and disadvantages of theoretical inte -gration. Paper presented at the Albany Conferenceon Theoretical Integration in the Study of Crimeand Deviance.

Thornberry, T. P. (1987b). Towards an interactionaltheory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863–891.

Wahler, R. (1980). The insular mother: Her problemsin parent-child treatment. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 13, 207–219.

Weis, J. G., & Sederstrom, J. (1981). The prevention ofserious delinquency: What to do? Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.

Wolfgang, M. E., Thornberry, T. P., & Figlio, R. M.(1987). From boy to man—From delinquency tocrime: Followup to the Philadelphia Birth Cohort of1945. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


1. Explain what is meant by reciprocal (or feedback) effects. Use a non-crime example to explain such effects.

2. Can you think of concepts or theoretical models other than labeling that Thornberry could or shouldhave incorporated into his integrated model of crime? Explain your rationale for including such con-cepts or models.

3. Using your own life, or others you know, give an example of someone who follows the causal model thatis proposed by Thornberry. If you can’t come up with one, explore the media for someone who does.

�

ix life-course perspectivesperspectives of … · section ix life-course perspectives of...

Documents