MEDIATING MECHANISMS: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN
PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT DEVIANCE
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation 
is my own or was done with collaboration with my advisory committee. This information does
not include propriety or classified information.
______________________________________________
Jennifer M. Crosswhite-Gamble
Certificate of Approval:
__________________________ _____________________________
Joe F. Pittman Jennifer L. Kerpelman, Chair
Professor Associate Professor
Human Development and Human Development and
Family Studies Family Studies
_________________________ _____________________________
Gregory S. Pettit Francesca Adler-Baeder
Professor Assistant Professor
Human Development and Human Development and
Family Studies Family Studies
__________________________
Stephen L. McFarland
Dean
Graduate School
MEDIATING MECHANISMS: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN
PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT DEVIANCE
Jennifer M. Crosswhite-Gamble
A Dissertation
Submitted to
the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Auburn, Alabama
December 16, 2005
iii
MEDIATING MECHANISMS: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN
PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT DEVIANCE
Jennifer M. Crosswhite-Gamble
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The 
author reserves all publication rights.
___________________________________
Signature of Author
___________________________________
Date of Graduation
iv
VITA
Jennifer Marie Crosswhite-Gamble, daughter of John and Kathy Crosswhite, was born
on April 21
st
, 1975, in Rapid City, South Dakota. She graduated from Apollo High School
in St. Cloud, MN, in 1993. She attended St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, MN, for
four years and graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Applied
Psychology in August 1998. She entered Graduate School, Auburn University, in August,
2000, and obtained a Master of Science degree in Human Development and Family
Studies in August, 2002. One May 31, 2003, she married Bradley D. Gamble, son of
David and Sandy Gamble. Sierra Evelyn Gamble was born to Jennifer and Brad on April
12, 2004.
v
MEDIATING MECHANISMS: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN
PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT DEVIANCE
Jennifer M. Crosswhite-Gamble
Doctor of Philosophy, December 16, 2005
(M.S., Auburn University, 2002)
(B.S., St. Cloud State University, 1998)
164 Typed Pages
Directed by Jennifer L. Kerpelman
Coercion theory suggests that a coercion process between parent and child is
associated with development of deviance, thus, a direct association is suggested in the
parent-deviance link. Coercion theory also has argued that parenting constructs such as
discipline, monitoring, problem solving, positive reinforcement, and positive parenting are
important to protect against the development of deviant behaviors. While the coercion
theory has argued for a direct association, the general theory of crime has argued for an
indirect association (i.e., self-control mediates the parent-deviance link). The general
theory of crime suggests that parenting constructs such as attachment, supervision, and
recognition and punishment of deviance are associated with the development of self-
control and, in turn, deviance. Overall, each theory notes the importance of similar
parenting constructs, as well as, additional parenting constructs that the other theory does 
not. Thus, it is unknown, specifically, by which parenting constructs self-control or
vi
deviance are developed. Further, limited research has explored whether self-control
mediates the relation between parenting and adolescent deviance.
The purpose of the present longitudinal investigation was to examine (a) whether and
how individual parenting constructs (at age 8-9) from both the coercion theory and the
general theory of crime were associated with the development of self-control (at age 12-
13) and deviance (at age 16-17), and (b) whether self-control mediated the relation
between parenting and deviance. Data were drawn from 736 mother and child participants
via questionnaires and observations during three time periods. Child participants were split
almost evenly by sex (males: n = 369, females: n = 367). 
Results from structural equation modeling indicated that an overall parenting construct
characterized by parenting variables from both theories was associated with self-control
and deviance. Further evidence indicated that parenting and self-control additively
explained more variance in the engagement of deviance rather than self-control mediating
the link. Finally, results indicated that deviance was best explained when three measures of
self-control (i.e., at ages 8-9, 12-13, and 16-17) were added to the model along with
effective parenting.
Overall, results allude to the importance of examining parenting constructs as
described by both the general theory of crime and the coercion theory. Further, while
evidence was not found indicating mediation, self-control was found to be important in the
explanation of deviance. As such, evidence was provided to support specific tenets of both
the general theory of crime and the coercion theory. Future examinations of deviance
should include elements from each theory (e.g., parenting constructs and self-control).
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr. Jennifer L. Kerpelman for her continuous 
guidance, mentoring, patience, and support. The author would also like to thank her
committee members, Drs. Gregory Pettit, Joe Pittman, and Francesca Adler-Baeder, for
contributing their feedback in pursuit of this investigation, as well as, Dr. Leanne Lamke
for her feedback and guidance which led up to the current investigation. Further, the
author would like to thank her husband, Bradley Gamble, for his unconditional love,
patience, support, and understanding throughout these past five years. Finally, the author
would like to thank her parents, John and Kathy Crosswhite, as well as, her father and
mother-in-law, David and Sandy Gamble, for their unconditional support, encouragement,
and love in helping me reach my goals.
viii
Style manual or journal used Publication Manual of the American Psychological       
Association (5
th
 ed.)                                                                                                          
Computer software used Wordperfect 11.0, SPSS 13.0, AMOS 5.0                              
                                                                                                                                          
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES   xii
LIST OF FIGURES  xiii
I. LITERATURE REVIEW     1
Coercion Theory     1
Coercion Theory Research     3
Coercion Theory: Parenting Constructs     6
Self-Control as a Mediating Mechanism   12
Additional Evidence Regarding the Associations Between
Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance   24
Contributions, Potential Model Integration, and Goals of the Current
Conceptualization   29
II. UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN PARENTING AND
ADOLESCENT DEVIANCE: A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION   33
METHOD   42
Participants   42
Procedure   44
Measures   44
Background Variables   45
Sex   45
Age   45
Race   45
Mother?s Education   45
Family Structure   45
x
Parenting   46
Closeness/Involvement   47
Communication   48
Support for Autonomy   48
Discipline   49
Positive Reinforcement   50
Self-Control   50
Deviance   53
Alcohol Use   53
Less Serious Offense   53
Violence   54
RESULTS   55
Preliminary Analyses   55
Stability of Self-Control   57
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control and 
Deviance     59
Parenting and Self-Control   60
Parenting and Deviance   60
Self-Control and Deviance   61
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and Less Serious 
Offenses   62
Mediation: Closeness/Involvement, Self-Control and Less 
Serious Offenses   64
Residualized Findings   66
Stability of Self-Control   66
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control 
and Deviance   67
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and 
Deviance   68
xi
DISCUSSION   70
Stability of Self-Control   71
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control and 
Deviance   73
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance   77
Residualization Effects   79
Lack of Associations   81
Limitations and Future Directions   83
III. REFERENCES   90
IV. APPENDICES 120
A: Instrument Collection by Respondent, Age, and Data Collection
Years 121
B: Description of Items Used in the Self-Control Constructs 122
C: Types of Transformations Used for Specific Items 123
D: Bivariate Correlations Between Demographic with Parenting
and Self-Control Variables Age 8-9 124
E: Bivariate Correlations on Parenting Age 8-9, Self-Control, and
Deviance Measures 128
F: Factor Loadings for Each CFA Self-Control Model; Mother and
Child Reported (After Residualization) 134
G: Pre- and Post-Residualization Comparisons on Self-Control
Across Age and Respondents 135
H: Pre- and Post Residualization Comparisons on Longitudinal
Relations 136
I: Additional Analyses Examining Parenting Variables Age 12-13 137
V. END NOTES 148
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Parenting Constructs and Definitions 105
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Demographics Age 8-9 106
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics on Parenting Age 8-9, Self-Control, and 
Deviance Measures Before and After Transformation 107
Table 4: Factor Loadings for Each CFA Self-Control Model; Mother
and Child Reported 109
Table 5: Standardized Regression Weights of Parenting Age 8-9 onto 
Effective Parenting, Self-Control and Deviance Measures 110
Table 6: Standardized Regression Weights of Parenting Age 8-9 onto 
Effective Parenting, Self-Control and Deviance Measures:
Residualized Variables 111
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Model 112
Figure 2: Test for Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control Age 12-13,
and Less Serious Offenses 113
Figure 3: Test for Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control Ages 8-9,
 12-13, and 16-17, and Less Serious Offenses 114
Figure 4: Test for Mediation: Closeness/Involvement, Self-Control Age 
12-13, and Less Serious Offenses 115
Figure 5: Test for Mediation: Closeness/Involvement, Self-Control Ages 
8-9, 12-13, and 16-17, and Less Serious Offenses 116
Figure 6: Test for Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control Ages 8-9,
12-13, and 16-17, and Less Serious Offenses
(Residualized Effects) 117
Figure 7: Test for Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control Ages 8-9,
12-13, and 16-17, and Alcohol Use (Residualized Effects) 118
Figure 8: Test for Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control Ages 8-9,
12-13, and 16-17, and Violence (Residualized Effects) 119
1
 I. LITERATURE REVIEW
The current review of literature examines the nature by which parents influence the
development of adolescent deviance. Two theories that each speak to the parenting-
adolescent deviance link, coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997;
Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) and the
general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), will be reviewed. Following will be
a discussion of theoretical convergence, and distinctive contributions of each theory. As
will be demonstrated, the two theories together add additional insight regarding how
parents influence the development of adolescent deviance.
Coercion Theory
According to the coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997;
Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987), whether
an individual engages in deviant behaviors as a child or an adolescent depends on a
reciprocal coercion process that occurs between the parent and child. Coercion is defined
by an aversive event that leads to a positive outcome (Kiesner, Dishion, & Poulin, 2001).
The degree to which the coercion process occurs between parent and child influences
whether the child engages in deviant behaviors as a child or adolescent. The coercion
process is a series of feedback loops that escalate overtime whereby the parent influences
the child and the child influences the parent (Patterson, 1996; Snyder & Patterson; 1987).
2
For example, when a parent tries to discipline his/her child, the child responds in an
aversive manner (e.g., whining, crying, throwing a temper tantrum). The parent returns
with an escalated attempt (e.g., scolding, threats) at disciplining the child. However, the
child then responds in an escalated aversive manner. Eventually, the parent desists in
trying to discipline the child and ignores future deviant behaviors (Dishion & Patterson,
1997; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). In a second coercive process, the parent terminates
discipline attempts at the first sign of the child engaging in aversive behaviors (Snyder &
Patterson, 1987). In both instances, the child ?gets away? with the first negative behavior
and is reinforced for his/her aversive behaviors. Each time this sequence of behaviors
occurs, the behaviors are further elicited, maintained, and exacerbated as the child is
reinforced for the aversive behaviors (Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Finally, it should be
noted that some levels of the coercion process occur within every family, however, those
children who engage in the coercion process at high rates and begin at a young age are
reinforced for aversive behaviors, and are more likely to engage in subsequent deviant
behaviors for longer durations (Kiesner et al., 2001).
Interestingly, more serious forms of deviant behaviors are not evident until after age
12 (Patterson & Yoerger, 2002). When the child is young (i.e., under age 12), s/he
engages in overt aversive behaviors such as whining, crying, and throwing temper
tantrums. However, as the child becomes older (i.e., after age 12) and interacts with other
aversive/deviant peers, the behaviors change from overt to covert behaviors that are
considered more serious (e.g., theft, vandalism, drug and alcohol use; Patterson &
Yoerger, 1993; 2002; Snyder, Reid, & Patterson, 2003). In essence, because the individual
3
interacts with other deviant peers who reinforce and teach additional deviant behaviors, a
child?s negative aversive behaviors of whining and crying change into more serious forms
of deviant behaviors (Patterson, 1996; 1997). 
Coercion Theory Research
Research conducted using the coercion theory has primarily consisted of the influence
that the coercion process has on aversive/deviant behaviors in the home and at school, as
well as, duration of deviant behaviors. This influence appears to be the same whether the
coercion process is experienced during the early years or during preadolescence. More
recent analyses on the coercion theory have provided support for the very important
aspect of bidirectional influences between parent and child, and that the coercion process
is a learned process across generations, which can be applied equally well to both males
and females, and to older and younger samples. Finally, when the coercion process is
experienced within the family, it appears to influence all rather than specific types of
deviant behaviors.
The majority of research conducted thus far has been on the same sample of 210 male
participants longitudinally followed from the 4
th
 through 12
th
 grade (i.e., Oregon Youth
Study; OYS). The majority of these male participants were Caucasian (86%) and from
two parent families (70%; Patterson, Forgatch, Yoerger, & Stoolmiller, 1998; Stoolmiller,
Duncan, & Patterson, 1995). Data were collected via observation, interview, and self-
reported questionnaires from both parents and the child participant. Additional data were
collected via teacher reports and juvenile court record documents. Further, studies on this
sample have been conducted using cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Finally, the
4
coercion process was most often operationalized as the parent?s use of ineffective
discipline and monitoring (e.g., Loeber & Dishion, 1984; Patterson et al., 1998; Snyder,
Dishion, & Patterson, 1986; Stoolmiller et al., 1995). Included in the measurement of
discipline was ?nattering?; that is, coercive statements (e.g., ?Stop hitting or I will spank
you?; Patterson et al., 1998).
Research with the OYS sample has yielded a number of findings that support coercion
theory. First, varying levels of the coercion process (i.e., typically indicated by ineffective
parenting such as threatening, yelling, spanking the child) experienced within the family
influence the number of settings in which deviant behaviors occur and their duration, as
well as, the timing of the initiation of deviant behaviors (i.e., early childhood versus
preadolescence). For example, males who have experienced high levels of the coercion
process within their families were more likely to engage in deviance at home and school,
and engage in more severe levels of deviance for longer durations (i.e., early starters).
Those who experienced moderate levels of the coercion process within the family engaged
in deviance in one social setting, and engaged in moderate levels of deviance for shorter
durations (i.e., later starters; Loeber & Dishion, 1984; Patterson et al., 1998; Snyder et al.,
1986; Stoolmiller et al., 1995). Further, whether an individual began experiencing the
coercion process early in life or during preadolescence, the result was the same (i.e., the
individual was more likely to engage in deviant behaviors; Kiesner et al., 2001). Second,
when both the parents? and child?s coercive behaviors were examined, results indicated the
coercion process is bidirectional and escalates over time as hypothesized; parents? level of
coercion influences the child?s level of coercion, which in turn, escalates the parent?s level
5
of coercion and so on (Patterson, Bank, & Stoolmiller, 1990). Further, it has been found
that the coercion process operates across generations; that is, males engage in the same
type of coercive behaviors with their own children as they experienced with their own
parents (Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, & Owen, 2003). Finally, the coercion process appears
to be influential in the development of both violent offenses (e.g., assault, robbery, rape)
and non-violent offenses (all arrests excluding status and traffic offenses; Capaldi &
Patterson, 1996).
Research conducted on samples other than the OYS has suggested that coercion also
produces negative child outcomes in females, as well as, in children under age 5. For
example, when the coercion process existed between mothers and their children (males,
females; 10-34 months old; 27% African American, 38% Caucasian, 18% Hispanic, 14%
mixed ethnicity), the children were more angry and more non-compliant than children in
non-coercive families (Strassberg & Treboux, 2002). Fagot and Leve (1998) also
suggested that the use of coercive behaviors (i.e., parental use of nagging, criticizing, and
aggression towards the child) during the child?s early years (males, females; under age 5;
95% Caucasian) predicted an increase in aggression and externalizing behavior problems
when the child entered kindergarten. Additional evidence suggested that when parents
engage in coercive behaviors (i.e., whining, criticizing, and aggression) towards the child,
the child was more likely to engage in deviant behaviors (e.g., destroy property, threaten
people, verbal aggression), and this was found to be true for both males and females at age
5 and during the 1
st
 and 5
th
 grades (predominantly Caucasian samples; Dishion, Duncan,
Eddy, Fagot, & Fetrow, 1994; Eddy, Leve, & Fagot, 2001).
6
Taken together, it is evident that parental use of coercive behaviors (i.e., ineffective
monitoring and discipline; parental use of nagging, whining, criticism, and aggression) are
influential in the development of deviant behaviors regardless of whether the coercion
begins early or later in life. Similar results are found for males and females, regardless of
the type of deviant behavior (e.g., violent and non-violent offenses). Additionally, the
coercion process is bidirectional, can be influential across generations, and depending on
the timing of onset can predict how long an individual will engage in deviance. Finally, the
evidence is quite robust as the results come from both cross-sectional and longitudinal
research over several decades. Overall, the coercion process is a dynamic process that
occurs between the parent and child which influences child/adolescent deviance over time.
Coercion Theory: Parenting Constructs
Thus far, it is evident that parents influence the development of deviant behaviors
through a coercion process. However, the coercion process between parent and child can
be used to elucidate how parents are influential in the development of deviant behaviors as
parents who engage in the coercion process are engaging in specific ineffective parenting
behaviors (e.g., ineffective discipline and monitoring; nagging, whining, criticism, and
aggression). Therefore, the coercion process, itself, inspires researchers to think about the
individual parenting constructs that may be influential in the development of deviant
behaviors. Several investigators have suggested that effective family management is the
key to eliminating, or protecting against, the coercion process within a family, and thus
eliminating deviant behaviors (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1996; Patterson &
Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). For example,
7
Patterson and colleagues suggest in several reviews of literature that parents must use
effective discipline, monitoring, and problem solving practices in addition to positive
parenting and reinforcement to protect against the development of deviant behaviors. As
such, when a lack of effective family management exists, a child is more likely to engage in
deviant behaviors. Therefore, it is important to consider the individual parenting
constructs theorized to be influential in the development of deviant behaviors.
First, effective discipline consists of recognizing inappropriate or deviant behaviors,
consistently tracking behaviors across settings, and using consistent appropriate discipline
when deviant behaviors are performed. Ineffective discipline techniques consist of lax,
inconsistent, and harsh discipline (Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Second, monitoring
involves (in)direct parental awareness of the child?s whereabouts, peer group affiliations,
and free time activities (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Patterson & Yoerger, 1997; Snyder
& Patterson, 1987). Monitoring also involves communication regarding rules, regulations,
and consequences. Without effective monitoring the child is more likely to become friends
with deviant peers, learn about, and be reinforced for deviant behaviors (Snyder et al.,
2003). Third, teaching appropriate social problem solving skills matter, as these skills are
particularly important during verbal and physical conflicts. Inappropriate social problem
solving includes: a lack of communication, poor compromising strategies, rejection of
responsibilities, poor problem solving, and increased anger, blaming, and defensiveness
(Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Fourth, positive parenting practices include allowing age-
appropriate autonomy, demonstrating support and closeness, and encouraging values, as
well as, communicating ?clear expectations and standards of mature behavior? (Snyder &
8
Patterson, 1987 p. 225). Further, positive parenting involves communication that is
positive and indicates interest, caring, and support of the child, and an emotional
attachment between parent and child (Patterson, 1996; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). In the
absence of positive parenting, children are more likely to develop a lack of social skills and
engage in deviant behaviors (Dishion, 1990; Stoolmiller et al., 1995). Finally, it is
necessary for parents to consistently acknowledge prosocial behaviors with positive
reinforcement (Patterson, 1996). Patterson and Yoerger (1993) suggest that families who
do not reinforce positive behaviors, do not effectively punish deviant behaviors, and
reinforce deviant behaviors are more likely to engage in coercion within the family.
Empirical research supports the relevance of these five parenting practices. In the only
study to examine the relationship between all five parenting practices and the development
of deviant behaviors, Patterson, Reid, & Dishion (1992), from the OYS sample, found that
monitoring, discipline, positive reinforcement, and problem solving were negatively
associated with deviant behaviors. However, positive parenting, as an individual construct,
was not associated with deviant behaviors. The authors suggested two possible reasons
for this lack of finding; there may have been problems with the measurement of positive
parenting, or positive parenting may not be as important as the authors originally
theorized. Further, parenting practices as an overall construct, that included positive
parenting, accounted for 36% of the variance in deviant behaviors, with monitoring and
discipline accounting for 24-32% when measured separately. Thus, results allude to the
possibility that an overall construct of effective parenting characterized by all theorized
parenting constructs explains more variance in the development of deviance than
9
individual parenting constructs, and as such, suggests that positive parenting may influence
deviance when examined in conjunction with other parenting constructs.
Additionally, a number of studies have found empirical evidence linking ineffective
monitoring and discipline with an increase in deviant behaviors (e.g., argues, lies, physical
fighting, vandalism, substance abuse). For example, Dishion (1990) assessed the
association between family management skills (i.e., parental monitoring and discipline) and
deviant behaviors (e.g., argues, lies) on the OYS sample. Results indicated that inept
monitoring and discipline within the family appeared to lead to more deviant behaviors.
Additionally, Patterson, Dishion, and Bank (1984) assessed early and mid-adolescent
Caucasian males and their families in a sample of adolescents other than the OYS, and
found that inept discipline led to an increase physical fighting. In a more recent study,
Fletcher, Darling, and Steinberg (1995) found, via adolescent self-reports, that when there
was a decrease in parental monitoring, male and female adolescents (i.e., 9-12th grades;
65% Caucasian) were more likely to engage in substance use. Finally, Bank, Forgatch,
Patterson, and Fetrow (1993) studied a young sample of children (males, females; K-6
th
grade; 91% Caucasian), and found that antisocial mothers were less capable of monitoring
and discipline with children in grades 3-6, but not children in grades K-2. In this study,
ineffective discipline was predictive of deviant behaviors in younger children, 
10
but both ineffective discipline and monitoring were predictive of deviant behaviors in older
children. These findings held for both males and females.
In summary, what is known from these empirical studies is that parental discipline,
monitoring, problem solving, and positive reinforcement all are associated with deviant
behaviors independently, cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Unfortunately, there has
been only one study in which all five parenting practices were empirically studied
independently and as an overall construct of effective parenting (Patterson et al., 1992).
The majority of empirical work has been conducted solely on the association between
monitoring and discipline with deviant behaviors. However, because of Patterson et al.?s
work, evidence does suggest that positive reinforcement and problem solving are
associated with deviance, as is positive parenting when part of an overall effective
parenting construct. Further, the Patterson et al. study did find that an overall construct of
effective parenting explained more variance in deviance as compared to individual
parenting constructs.
Overall, there appear to be two important gaps in the literature reviewed. First, the
two main parenting practices that Patterson and colleagues assessed were that of
ineffective discipline and monitoring (e.g., Dishion, 1990; Patterson et al., 1984). Future
research needs to further explore the relations between positive parenting, problem
solving, and positive reinforcement with deviance as independent parenting practices, as
well as, part of an overall construct of effective parenting that is combined with
monitoring and discipline.
11
Second, Snyder et al. (2003) also suggest coercion theory research is limited, as it has
focused only on the direct influence ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors, and has
ignored other potentially important factors. For example, any potential mediating
mechanisms to help explain the link between parenting and adolescent deviance. Snyder et
al. further suggested that self-regulation could be a potential mediating link between
ineffective parenting and deviance. However, because self-regulation has just been
introduced into the coercion theory, no known empirical work within this theoretical
perspective has addressed whether self-regulation serves as a mediating mechanism.
Therefore, it seems vitally important that future research address whether any variables
account for the link between parenting and the development of deviant behaviors.
Although Snyder et al. (2003) only recently suggested the idea that self-regulation
could mediate the link between ineffective parenting and deviance, Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990), in their general theory of crime, have introduced the idea that low self-
control mediates the link between parenting and deviance. In spite of different names being
used, the concepts of self-regulation and self-control overlap considerably. Someone who
has self-control is able to problem solve, plan, have a future orientation, guides planful
goal directed behavior, restrain their behaviors, and delay gratification (Moffitt, 1993;
1997; Snyder et al., 2003; Vollmer, Borrero, Lalli, & Daniel, 1999; Wills, Sandy, &
Yaeger, 2002). Similarly, someone who has self-regulation is able to set and attain goals,
plan actions, refrain from engaging in problematic behaviors, and focus on long term goals
(Brody & Ge, 2001; Brody, Dorsey, Forehand, & Armistead, 2002; Weinberger &
Schwartz, 1990). Thus, the concept of self-control appears synonymous with the concept
12
of self-regulation. In the following section, the concept of self-control will be explored.
Self-control as a Mediating Mechanism
 Putting forward the general theory of crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
hypothesized that adolescent deviance and adult crime can be explained by low levels of
self-control. The authors contend that an individual?s level of self-control is influential on
the level of deviance in which that individual engages. Gottfredson and Hirschi further
suggest that differences in individuals? levels of self-control are influenced by differences
in levels of effective parenting; that is, a lack of effective parenting influences whether an
individual will engage in deviant behaviors. The authors further contend that individuals
with low self-control will engage in many forms of deviant behavior, rather than one
specific type.
In describing self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi have suggested that self-control is
an individual difference (i.e., a stable ?trait-like?) characteristic that crystallizes by age 10,
ranges on a continuum from low to high, and remains relatively stable throughout one?s
life after crystallization. Additionally, the authors indicated that an individual with low
self-control engages in behaviors that provide immediate gratification, is looking for easy
or simple ways to receive gratification, engages in behaviors that are exciting, risky, or
thrilling, lacks long-term goals, engages in behaviors 
that require little thought processing, and engages in behaviors which result in the
victim(s) feeling pain or discomfort. 
Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggest that self-control is a stable ?trait-
13
like? characteristic, Turner and Piquero (2002) argue that the stability of self-control is not
in the level of self-control in which each individual carries with him/her, but rather in the
relative differences between offenders and non-offenders. In essence, Turner and Piquero
argue that individual levels of self-control will increase with age due to continued
socialization (i.e., develop more self-control), however the differences between offenders
and non-offenders will remain the same. The authors suggest that the relative level of self-
control in offenders will change as the same relative level of self-control in non-offenders.
Further, the authors argue that there should be larger differences (i.e., be less stable)
before than after crystallization (i.e., before age 10). 
While self-control is theorized to become crystallized by age 10 and thereafter stable,
limited research has explored this aspect of the general theory of crime (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990). Of the few studies that have been conducted, mixed support has been
generated regarding the stabilization of self-control. For example, both Polakowski (1994)
and Brody and Ge (2001) found evidence for the stability of self-control over a 1 and 4
year period. However, in both cases, beta coefficients were in the .32-.35 range. Given the
smaller coefficient, evidence suggests there is actually more instability in self-control than
stability. However, Arneklev, Cochran, and Gainey (1998) found mean level differences of
self-control within individuals to be highly stable over a four month period (i.e., no
significant differences in mean levels over four months). Finally, Turner and Piquero found
that levels of self-control within individuals changed over a 12 year period, as well as,
significant differences in levels of self-control between offenders and 
non-offenders with offenders having less self-control. Over time, however, these
14
differences became less indicating that individual levels of self-control increased over time.
Thus, the evidence suggests that self-control may have some form of stability over time,
however, there also appears to be change or an increase in levels of self-control over time.
As such, the limited research conducted thus far does not provide substantial evidence to
indicate that self-control is a stable construct. Further, no known work has been
conducted to examine whether self-control crystallizes by age 10. Future empirical work
will need to further explore these tenets of the general theory of crime.
Next, to further explain the idea of effective parental teaching, Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) suggest that the level of parental teaching influences whether an individual
will commit deviant behaviors. In effect, it is up to the parents to properly teach the child
how to suppress impulsive behaviors, think about long-term consequences, and be
sensitive toward the needs and feelings of others. The authors do not suggest that
inappropriate behaviors are being reinforced or taught by the parents, as the coercion
theory would suggest (Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Rather, it is the lack of effective
parental teaching that influences whether an individual will engage in deviant behaviors.
As part of an effective parental teaching process, Gottfredson and Hirschi hypothesized
that four parenting constructs are influential in the development of self-control: 1) an
attachment between parent and child, 2) parental supervision, 3) recognition of deviant
behaviors, and 4) punishment of deviant acts. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, if all
four elements of effective parenting occur, an adequate level of self-control is most likely
to develop resulting in a lower likelihood of the child engaging in deviant behaviors.
However, if one of the four elements is missing, the child is less likely to form an adequate
15
level of self-control, and in turn, engage in deviant behaviors. Thus, a general sense of
effective parenting characterized by these four parenting practices (i.e., an overall effective
parenting construct) may be more important than the individual parenting practices (i.e.,
attachment, supervision, recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors) in the
development of self-control. Finally, because Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001) suggested
that self-control should crystallize by age 10 and because children fail to form self-control
due to a lack of effective parenting, it appears that early forms of parenting (i.e., before
the age 10) are important for the development of self-control. 
Looking in depth at the four elements of effective parenting, attachment is viewed as a
parental concern for the child?s well-being, the level of warmth and closeness parents feel
toward their children, and time spent with their children (i.e., parental involvement;
Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Additionally, the higher the levels of communication (e.g.,
the sharing of thoughts and feelings, and talking about activities engaged in during the
day) and affectional identification (i.e., love, respect) between parent and child, the
stronger the parent-child attachment (Hirschi, 1969). Next, parental supervision not only
keeps a child from engaging in deviant behaviors, but also teaches the child how to avoid
engaging in deviant behaviors when s/he is not under direct supervision. The authors
suggest that supervision as an external control produces a level of internal control within
the child. This internal control is what keeps an individual from engaging in deviant
behaviors when s/he is not being directly supervised (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Third,
parents also must recognize deviant behaviors when they occur, at all ages (e.g., talking
back, yelling, pushing vs. vandalism, theft; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Finally, effective
16
punishment includes setting limits, having age-appropriate consequences, and enforcing
the consequences when a rule is broken (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). In addition, the
most effective form of punishment is disapproval by individuals close to the child (Hirschi,
1969). When parents feel indifference or hostility toward the child, have lax, inadequate,
or poor supervision skills, fail to recognize early forms of deviant behaviors, or are too
lenient, inconsistent, or harsh (e.g., physical punishment/abuse) with discipline, they are
more likely to have children with low self-control. In effect, it is up to the parents to
properly teach the child how to suppress impulsive behaviors, think about long-term
consequences, and be sensitive toward the needs and feelings of others.
Empirical research guided by the general theory of crime has found that low self-
control (a) is predictive of deviant behaviors in young children, adolescents, and adults
(Normandeau & Guay, 1998; Pulkkinen & Hamalainen, 1995; Tremblay, Boulerice,
Arseneault, & Junger, 1995; Vazsonyi, Pickering, Junger, & Hessing, 2001), (b) predicts
similarly for male and females, African American and Caucasian adolescents, and cross-
nationally (Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Pulkkinen &
Hamalainen, 1995; Vazsonyi & Crosswhite, 2004; Vazsonyi et al., 2001), and (c) is
predictive of a number of different types of deviant behaviors, such as skipping class,
vandalism, theft, cigarette and alcohol/drug use, assault, arguing, and rape in adolescents,
property and violent crime, drug use, larceny, shoplifting, gambling, risky sexual
behaviors, risky driving, academic dishonesty, and thrill and adventure seeking behaviors
(e.g., skydiving) in college students/young adults, and criminal behaviors (e.g., carrying a
weapon) in adults (Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursik, 1993; Baron, 2003; Brody,
17
Stoneman, & Flor, 1996; Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999; Gibbs &
Giever, 1995; Jones & Quisenberry, 2004; Keane et al., 1993; LaGrange & Silverman,
1999; Longshore & Turner, 1998; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996;
Stone, 2004; Stylianou, 2002; Vazsonyi et al., 2001). 
As such, there appears to be robust empirical evidence suggesting that self-control is
associated with whether an individual engages in deviant or criminal behaviors. However,
much of the empirical work that has been conducted using the general theory of crime has
focused on the relationship between low self-control and deviance (Cochran, Wood,
Sellers, Wilkerson, & Chamlin, 1998). Very little empirical work has examined whether
and how the four elements of effective parenting (individually or as an overall construct of
effective parenting) influence self-control, or whether additional parenting constructs also
are influential. Further, limited research has examined whether parenting prior to age 10 is
important for the development of self-control and deviance after age 10.
To date, only seven studies have been conducted to examine the link between
parenting and self-control (Cochran et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Hope & Chapple, 2005;
Gibbs, Griever, & Martin, 1998; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004;
Polakowski, 1994; Pratt, Turner, & Piquero, 2004). Of these studies, four specifically
examined whether low self-control mediated parenting and deviance, and only three
studies examined these relations longitudinally. First, in a cross-sectional sample of male
and female undergraduate students (52.2% female; 76.1% Caucasian), Cochran et al.
(1998) found that parental supervision did not predict self-control however, parental
attachment did. In addition, only 14.2% of the variance in self-control was explained by
18
parental attachment suggesting that other factors (i.e., other parenting and non-parenting
variables) are needed to more fully explain the development of self-control. Results further
revealed that low self-control predicted fraudulent behaviors (e.g., academic dishonesty).
Thus, evidence does suggest that effective parenting (i.e., parental attachment) is at least
partially responsible for the development of self-control, and in turn, self-control does
predict fraudulent behaviors. Unfortunately, however, specific analyses were not
conducted to ascertain whether low self-control mediated the relationship between
parenting and fraudulent behaviors. 
Gibbs et al. (1998) examined, cross-sectionally, a sample of male and female
undergraduate students (18-22 years; 55.5% female; 91.6% Caucasian) to ascertain
whether self-control mediated parenting and deviance. The authors found little support
indicating that parental management (i.e., monitoring, recognition and punishment of
deviant behaviors) had a direct influence on deviance. Instead, support was found to
indicate that poor parental management predicted low self-control, and in turn, low self-
control predicted deviant behaviors. Thus, evidence exists suggesting that low self-control
concurrently mediates the relationship between parental management and deviance, as
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) theorized. However, the analysis only examined parental
management as one broad parental construct and did not examine whether individual
parenting variables also influenced the development of self-control.
To examine whether self-control mediated individual parenting behaviors and
deviance, Hay (2001) explored a cross-sectional sample of male and female adolescents
(ages 14-18 years; equally divided by sex; 41% Caucasian, 32% Hispanic, 20% African
19
American). Evidence suggested that parental discipline and monitoring additively
predicted self-control. Hay, further, found that by adding parental acceptance-involvement
and psychological autonomy to the equation, the relationship between parenting and self-
control dramatically increased. Analyses were not conducted to determine whether an
overall construct of effective parenting explained more variance in self-control than did the
individual parenting behaviors. It is also important to note that Hay suggested that
parental acceptance-involvement and psychological autonomy are outside the scope of
Gottfredson and Hirschi?s (1990) conceptualization. However, Hay defines acceptance-
involvement as ?parents? acceptance of their children and involvement in their lives? (p.
721), which appears to fit with Gottfredson and Hirschi?s conceptualization of attachment.
As such, the increase in predicting self-control appears to be a function of including a
variable that taps into Gottfredson and Hirschi?s conceptualization of attachment, and
offering psychological autonomy, an additional parenting variable outside of their
conceptualization. Further, adding self-control into the regression slightly decreased the
relationship between parenting and delinquency suggesting that self-control did not fully
mediate the relation between parenting and delinquency. However, self-control directly
explained both predatory delinquency (e.g., stealing, damaging/destroying property) and
substance abuse. Thus, the evidence lends partial support for Gottfredson and Hirschi?s
conceptualization. It does appear, however that their conceptualization of parenting may
be limited in the explanation of self-control.
In the final study that examined whether self-control mediated the link between
parenting and deviance cross-sectionally, Perrone et al. (2004) analyzed the first wave of
20
the Add Health Study to examine whether low self-control meditated relations between
parenting and adolescent deviance. The Add Heath Study included in-class and in-home
assessments of over 13,000 male and female adolescents in grades 7-12 (Caucasian and
ethnically diverse sample with an oversampling of Chinese Americans, Cuban Americans,
Puerto Rican Americans, and African American adolescents whose parents held a college
degree). Perrone et al. focused on the in-home data as this data included information from
both the participants and their parents. Findings suggested that poor parental efficacy (i.e.,
low attachment, lack of recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors) predicted low
self-control, low self-control predicted deviance, and low self-control partially mediated
the link between poor parental efficacy and deviance. While the advantage of this study is
that evidence has been provided to suggest self-control at least partially mediates the
parent-deviance link, it is not evident which parenting construct individually influenced the
development of self-control, as these parenting constructs were not examined separately.
Additionally, although longitudinal analysis was possible using the Add Health data, it was
not performed (i.e., this study focused on concurrent parenting, self-control, and
deviance).
Thus far, it is evident that self-control at least partially mediates the relationship
between parenting and deviance concurrently. The final three studies examined the
longitudinal relations between parenting, self-control, and deviance. First, to examine the
specific etiology of self-control cross-sectionally and longitudinally, Pratt et al. (2004)
used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (52% male; 38% Caucasian;
62% Hispanic and African American). Analyses revealed that poor parental supervision at
21
age 10 predicted low self-control at ages 10 and 12. However, evidence suggested that
higher levels of discipline at age 10 were associated with lower levels of self-control at
ages 10 and 12. Similar results were found when comparing across race. Interestingly, the
authors did not provide a rationale for why high levels of discipline were associated with
low levels of self-control. Although opposite of what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
would hypothesize, it is possible that the nature of the discipline was harsh, and therefore,
could explain why self-control was underdeveloped. Despite the unexpected findings,
additional support is provided that supervision and discipline, at least in some manner, are
associated with self-control concurrently and longitudinally. Unfortunately, deviance was
not measured in the current study. 
Next, to examine the relation between parenting, self-control, and deviance
longitudinally, Polakowski (1994) analyzed data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development. Data were collected from 411 males in Great Britain over a period of 20
years (interviewed at ages 8-9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, and 24 years). Additional data were
collected via parental, teacher, and peer reports until the adolescent was age 15. Results
indicated that a lack of effective parental training at ages 8-10 predicted lack of self-
control at age 12-14. Results further suggested that a lack of self-control at age 8-10
predicted delinquency for individuals ages 10-13, 14-16, and 17-21. Further, low 
self-control at age 12-14 predicted delinquency when the individuals were ages 14-16 and
17-21. Overall, the findings suggested that poor parental teaching predicted a lack of 
self-control, which in turn predicted delinquency. Although Polakowski examined an
important theoretical element of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s (1990) theory (i.e., whether
22
parenting prior to age 10 was associated with self-control and deviance after age 10),
Polakowski did not operationalize effective parental teaching in a manner fully consistent
with their conceptualization. Instead, he operationalized parental teaching as commitment,
involvement, conventional qualities, and supervision. Further analyses were not conducted
to determine whether self-control mediated the link between parenting, and deviance
cross-sectionally or longitudinally, nor were individual parenting behaviors examined.
In a final study to examine the longitudinal relation between parenting, self-control,
and risky sexual behaviors, Hope and Chapple (2005) used data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (52% male; 52% Caucasian). Specifically, the authors
examined maternal attachment and monitoring
1
 and adolescent self-control when the
adolescent was age 11-13, and engagement in risky sexual behaviors (i.e., ever had sex,
number of sexual partners, type of relationship to sexual partners) at age 15-17. Results
revealed that poor maternal attachment and monitoring were associated with lower self-
control. Further, individuals with poor self-control were more likely to engage in sex, have
more sexual partners, and engage in sex with partners whom they had recently met.
Finally, low self-control did partially mediate the relation between maternal attachment
and ever having sex, number of sexual partners, and type of relationship to sexual partner.
Interestingly, self-control did not mediate the relation between monitoring and
engagement in sexual behaviors which is contrary to the general theory of crime
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Overall, according to the results, a lack of effective
parenting (i.e., low attachment) was associated with low self-control concurrently, but not
necessarily longitudinally as poor parenting and low self-control were measured at the
23
same age. The advantage of this study, however, is that evidence suggests low self-control
predicts later engagement of risky behaviors. Additional research is still needed to
elucidate the longitudinal relations between earlier parenting (individual parenting
constructs and an overall parenting construct), later self-control, and even later
engagement in deviant behaviors.
Overall, the research does provide limited evidence that a lack of effective parenting
predicts low self-control, and that low self-control partially mediates the link between
ineffective parenting and deviance concurrently. Additional evidence from longitudinal
analyses suggest that earlier forms of ineffective parenting lead to low self-control, that
low self-control leads to later deviance, and that low self-control mediates ineffective
parenting and risky behaviors when parenting and self-control are measured concurrently.
However, only one of the three longitudinal studies specifically examined whether self-
control mediated the link between parenting and deviance. Additionally, only two of the
longitudinal studies operationalized parenting similar to how Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) conceptualized effective parenting. As such, evidence is inconclusive regarding
whether earlier parenting (prior to age 10) is influential in the development of self-control
and deviance after age 10, and whether self-control mediates earlier parenting and later
engagement in deviant behaviors.
Further, all four elements of effective parenting (i.e., attachment, supervision,
recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors) appear to influence the development of
self-control. However, mixed results were generated regarding monitoring, opposite
findings were found with respect to discipline, and recognition of deviant behaviors was
24
never examined individually. Furthermore, there may be other parenting constructs,
beyond what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) theorized, that also are influential in the
development of self-control (e.g., psychological autonomy; Hay, 2001). Thus, because so
few studies have been conducted to examine the link between parenting and self-control,
conclusions regarding how parents (i.e., by which individual parenting construct or an
overall level of effective parenting that encapsulates all four elements of parenting)
influence the development of self-control can only be speculative.
Additional Evidence Regarding the Associations Between Parenting, Self-Control, and
Deviance
Although limited research guided by the general theory of crime has been conducted
examining the link between parenting, self-control, and deviance, additional insight
regarding these associations is provided with work conducted by Brody and colleagues
who have focused on ?self-regulation? (Brody et al., 2002; Brody & Flor, 1997; Brody &
Ge, 2001; Brody, Kim, Murry, & Brown, 2003; Brody, Murry, Kim, & Brown, 2002;
Brody et al., 1996;  Brody, Stoneman, Smith, & Gibson, 1999; Kim, Brody, & Murry,
2003; Wills, Gibbons, Gerrard, & Brody, 2000). Although Brody and colleagues? work
was not framed within the context of the general theory of crime, their research is quite
consistent with the theory (e.g., parental influences on the development of self-control,
and whether self-control mediated the parental-deviance link). Further, their concept of
self-regulation overlaps with the concept of self-control, and is measured using the
Children?s Self-Control Scale. As such, self-regulation will be referred to as self-control.
25
Cross-sectional studies on rural African American children and adolescents ages 6-15
revealed that parenting practices such as parental involvement, support, monitoring,
communication, family routines, family cohesion, close and supportive family
relationships, and appropriate discipline positively influence the development of 
self-control (for exception, see Brody & Ge, 2001). Interparental conflict, harsh parent-
child conflict, and parental nagging (findings for nagging are consistent with the coercion
theory) were found to negatively influence the development of self-control. Additionally,
self-control most often fully mediated the link between parenting practices and child and
adolescent deviance in these cross-sectional studies. However, parental support continued
to predict negatively a willingness to use substances, and parent-child conflict positively
predicted being friends with peers who used substances, thus, indicating only partial
mediation of these two parenting behaviors.
In a longitudinal study using a sample of Caucasian adolescents (58 female, 42 male)
from intact families, Brody and Ge (2001) found that nurturant-involved parenting
positively, and harsh-conflicted parenting negatively, predicted the development of self-
control concurrently in two different age groups (ages 12 and 13). Earlier levels of self-
control also were related to hostility and alcohol use one year later, and a lack of 
self-control fully mediated the link between parenting practices (at the same age as self-
control) and adolescent hostility and alcohol use one year later. Thus, results seem to
provide support for Gottfredson and Hirschi?s contention that self-control mediates the
relation between parenting and deviant behaviors, at least, when parenting and self-control
were measured concurrently and deviance was measured one year later. Although this
26
study does push the field forward, it is still not apparent as to whether earlier forms of
parenting (and which individual parenting constructs) are associated with self-control at a
later time, or whether self-control mediates the link between earlier forms of parenting and
later engagement in deviance (i.e., over longer periods of time).
Finally, in two longitudinal studies conducted by Brody and colleagues (Brody et al.,
2002; Kim et al., 2003) examining the same rural African American participants as
described above, competence promoting parenting (i.e., parental nurturance, involvement,
monitoring, and communication) was found to be associated with self-control concurrently
and one year later. Further, self-control was found to mediate the link between
competence promoting parenting and adolescent adjustment (i.e., aggressive, delinquent,
and inattentive behaviors). This association held up when parenting was measured during
the same point as self-control and when parenting was measured one year prior to self-
control. Overall, these two studies provide evidence indicating that communication is
related to the development of self-control, at least when combined with other parenting
practices. However, evidence was not provided as to whether communication uniquely is
influential in the development of self-control. Finally, evidence is provided that self-control
mediates the link between parenting from one year prior and engagement in deviance one
year after. Unfortunately, when these analyses were conducted parenting and adolescent
outcomes were both examined as single latent constructs. Thus, evidence is not provided
as to which parenting practices individually are influential in the development of self-
control and deviance overtime, or whether 
27
self-control mediates the link between individual parenting practices and specific deviant
behaviors longitudinally. 
Taken together, Brody and colleagues? work (Brody et al., 2002; Brody & Flor, 1997;
Brody & Ge, 2001; Brody et al.; 2003; Brody et al., 2002; Brody et al., 1996;  Brody et
al., 1999; Kim et al., 2003; Wills et al., 2000) demonstrate that self-control is influenced
by a number of parenting practices. All of the constructs that Brody and colleagues have
studied can be linked to Gottfredson and Hirschi?s (1990) theoretical ideas of how to
effectively teach self-control. First, nurturant-involved parenting, supportive
parenting/family, predictable family routines, and family cohesion can be identified as
parents who are involved, and therefore attached, to their children. Second, the link
between monitoring and self-control provides support for the second step in effectively
teaching self-control; supervision. Third, appropriate discipline and harsh-conflicted
parent-child relationships can provide empirical evidence for the final step in effectively
teaching self-control; punishment. Overall, Brody and colleagues? work does lend support
for Gottfredson and Hirschi?s theoretical conceptualization of how parents effectively
teach self-control to children and adolescents.
In summary, evidence from both the general theory of crime (Cochran et al., 1998;
Gibbs et al., 1998; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hay, 2001; Polakowski, 1994) and
Brody and colleagues (Brody et al., 2002; Brody & Flor, 1997; Brody & Ge, 2001; Brody
et al.; 2003; Brody et al., 2002; Brody et al., 1996;  Brody et al., 1999; Kim et al., 2003;
Wills et al., 2000) suggests that self-control does predict different forms of deviant and
criminal behaviors. Further, it is evident that parenting is associated with the development
28
of self-control. However, it is not fully clear as to which parenting constructs are
individually associated with the development of self-control, or whether an overall
construct of effective parenting that encapsulates multiple types of parenting constructs is
more strongly associated with the development of self-control versus individual parenting
constructs. Additionally, limited research has been conducted to examine whether self-
control mediates the relation between parenting and deviance, and even less has measured
these associations longitudinally. Of the studies conducted, the majority of results revealed
only partial mediation and very few were longitudinal examinations. Hence, only
nondefinitive conclusions can be made regarding one of the core premises of the general
theory of crime (i.e., that self-control fully mediates the relation between parenting and
deviance). Further, limited studies have examined whether self-control was stable across
time (e.g., Arneklev et al., 1998; Brody & Ge, 2001; Polakowski, 1994, Turner &
Piquero, 2002). Thus, overall, it is unknown as to whether (a) self-control is stable as
Gottfredson and Hirschi hypothesized, (b) earlier forms of parenting influence the
development of self-control, (c) earlier levels of self-control are predictive of later acts of
deviance, and whether self-control mediates the relation between earlier parenting (e.g.,
prior to age 10) and later engagement in deviance.
Overall, two theories have been explored; coercion theory and the general theory of
crime. First, according to the coercion theory, there are five parenting practices that are
related to deviant outcomes; that is, discipline, monitoring, positive parenting, positive
reinforcement, and problem solving practices (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson,
1996; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987).
29
However, the research conducted within this area has focused solely on the direct
influence that parenting has on deviant behavior, and has not considered any indirect
associations between parenting and deviance (Snyder et al. 2003). Second, according to
the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), there are four elements of
parenting that are associated with the development of deviance; that is, attachment,
supervision, recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors. Further, Gottfredson and
Hirschi suggest that low self-control mediates the relationship between parenting and
deviance. In the section that follows, three main areas in which coercion theory and the
general theory of crime converge will be described; that is, the (a) types of parenting
practices that influence the development of self-control and deviant behaviors, (b)
mediational link between parenting and deviant behaviors, and (c) types of deviant
behaviors influenced. Once an understanding of where coercion theory and the general
theory of crime converge, a proposed model that incorporates the two theories will be
explored.
Contributions, Potential Model Integration, and Goals of the Current Conceptualization
From the research examined and discussed thus far, a number of contributions to the
current field can be made and should be explored in future research. First, from examining
the coercion theory and the general theory of crime, there appear to be five parenting
variables that overlap which suggests their importance for the development of self-control
and deviance (i.e., supervision/monitoring, discipline/punishment, attachment,
communication, and recognition of deviant behaviors; see Table 1). Future research should
examine these parenting constructs, (i.e., as an overall construct of effective parenting that
30
encompasses multiple types of parenting constructs, as well as, each of the parenting
constructs individually), to determine how parents influence 
self-control, as well as, deviant behaviors. Further, it is possible that other parenting
variables also are influential in the development of self-control, and in turn, deviance (e.g.,
positive parenting, positive reinforcement, problem solving; see Table 1). Relatedly,
coercion theory suggests that ineffective parenting at all ages is influential in the
development and duration of deviant behaviors. The general theory of crime also suggests
that early ineffective parenting (i.e., before age 10) is influential in the development of self-
control and deviance. Thus, both theories appear to agree that early ineffective behaviors
(i.e., at least prior to age 10) are important in the development of deviance and potentially
self-control.
Second, it is possible that self-control could potentially provide a mediating
mechanism for coercion theory; specifically the link between ineffective parenting and
deviance. Coercion theory has long been without a mediating mechanism. However,
recently self-regulation has emerged as a possibility (Snyder et al, 2003). Based on
evidence conducted on the development of self-control and self-regulation, similar
elements of parenting appear to be influential in the development of self-control and 
self-regulation (Brody et al., 2002; Brody & Ge, 2001; Brody et al., 1999; Hay, 2001;
Hope & Chapple, 2005; Pratt et al., 2004). Therefore, empirical work should further
examine whether self-control mediates the link between parenting and deviant behaviors. 
Third, it is apparent that coercion theory and the general theory of crime are both
predictive of similar types of deviant behaviors despite differences in participant age and
31
the different methodologies used (Dishion, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Patterson,
1984; Vazsonyi et al., 2001). For example, both theories are associated with alcohol/drug
use, vandalism, physical aggression/assault, verbal aggression, sexual assault (e.g., rape),
and theft/stealing (Brody et al., 1996; Capaldi & Patterson, 1996; Dishion, 1990;
LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Vazsonyi et al., 2001). Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) also
suggested that low self-control should be predictive of several different types of deviant
behaviors (Jones & Quisenberry, 2004). Thus, it is important to examine specific types of
deviance rather than one latent construct, and how parenting (individually and as an
overall construct of effective parenting) is associated with the development of specific
types of deviance. Finally, it is important to note that not all parenting variables may lead
to self-control, or that self-control may not fully mediate the parent-deviance relationship. 
Therefore, the current investigation will examine (a) parenting constructs from both
coercion theory and the general theory of crime in relation to self-control and deviance,
(b) whether individual parenting constructs versus an overall parenting construct that
encapsulates multiple elements of parenting are more important in the development of self-
control and deviance, (c) whether self-control partially or fully mediates the link between
several different elements of parenting and several different types of deviance, (d) examine
these associations over an eight year period (i.e., from preadolescence to middle
adolescence), and (e) at the exploratory level, the stability of self-control. 
To examine these empirical questions, data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth 1979 (NLSY79) will be analyzed; specifically the Child and Young Adult dataset.
Fortunately, the nature of this dataset permits longitudinal analysis, and as such, the
32
current investigation will examine the longitudinal associations between individual
parenting constructs, self-control, and specific types of deviance. Unfortunately, however,
the dataset does not provide measures for each of the parenting constructs as identified by
the coercion theory and the general theory of crime. Therefore, only five parenting
constructs will be examined (i.e., individual parenting behaviors: discipline,
communication, and positive reinforcement, as well as, elements of good parenting:
attachment and positive parenting; see Figure 1 for conceptual model). 
33
II. UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT
DEVIANCE: A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION
Despite the encouraging trend that overall juvenile crime rates have decreased 11%
between 1999 and 2003, there were still approximately 2.3 million adolescent arrests for
various crimes within the United States (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, 2005; Snyder,
2004). Further, there has been an increase in arrests between 2002 and 2003 for assault,
vandalism, weapons use, and drug abuse violations (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book,
2005). Given how prevalent delinquent behaviors are, understanding the etiology of
deviance is crucial. A number of factors have been examined to gain a better
understanding of deviance, such as biological predisposition (e.g., neurological deficits;
Moffitt, 1997; 2003), contextual factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status; Sampson, 2000),
an association with deviant peers (e.g., Dishion & Skaggs, 2000), and ineffective parenting
(e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 1996). While there are many different factors that influence the
development of adolescent deviance, evidence indicating a parental influence on
adolescent deviance is quite robust and has been demonstrated for decades (Loeber &
Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).
Currently in the developmental field, one well known theory is aimed specifically at
understanding how parents are influential in the development of child or adolescent
34
deviance; coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson &
Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). The coercion theory
suggests that when both parent and child engage in a reciprocal coercion process, the child
is more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Generally, the coercion process between
parent and child begins during early childhood. The theory suggests further that there are
five elements of ineffective parenting influential in the development of child/adolescent
deviance, namely poor discipline, monitoring, and the inability to use appropriate problem
solving skills, positive parenting, and positive reinforcement (Dishion & Patterson, 1997;
Patterson, 1996; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder &
Patterson, 1987). Further, communication matters for effective monitoring, and social
problem solving (Snyder & Patterson, 1987).
In the only study to examine the relationship between all five parenting practices and
the development of deviant behaviors, Patterson et al. (1992), found that monitoring,
discipline, positive reinforcement, and problem solving were negatively associated with
deviant behaviors. However, positive parenting, as an individual construct, was not
associated with deviant behaviors. Further, parenting practices as an overall construct, that
included positive parenting, accounted for 36% of the variance in deviant behaviors, with
monitoring and discipline accounting for 24-32% when examined separately. Thus, results
allude to the possibility that an overall construct of effective parenting characterized by all
theorized parenting constructs explains more variance in the development of deviance than
individual parenting constructs, and as such, suggests that positive parenting may influence
deviance when examined in conjunction with other parenting constructs. However, some
35
of the specific parenting variables, such as monitoring and discipline, appear to matter
more than others do. In fact, the majority of research conducted on the coercion theory
has examined monitoring and discipline almost exclusively, and virtually has ignored
positive parenting and positive reinforcement. Consistent evidence has indicated that
ineffective monitoring and discipline lead to an increase in deviant behaviors (e.g., argues,
lies, physical fighting, vandalism, substance abuse; Dishion; 1990; Bank et al., 1993;
Fletcher et al., 1995; Patterson et al., 1984). These findings have held for both males and
females. Although the findings are consistent, the scope of parenting constructs examined
has been quite narrow.
Snyder et al. (2003) also suggest coercion theory research is limited, as it has focused
only on the direct influence ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors, and has ignored
other potentially important factors. For example, any potential mediating mechanisms to
help explain the link between parenting and adolescent deviance. Snyder et al. further
suggested that self-regulation could be a potential mediating link between ineffective
parenting and deviance. However, because self-regulation has just been introduced into
the coercion theory, no known empirical work within this theoretical perspective has
addressed whether self-regulation serves as a mediating mechanism.
Although Snyder et al. (2003) only recently suggested the idea that self-regulation
could mediate the link between ineffective parenting and deviance, Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990), in their general theory of crime, have introduced the idea that low 
self-control mediates the link between parenting and deviance. Although different names,
the concepts of self-regulation and self-control overlap considerably. Someone who has
36
self-control is able to problem solve, plan, have a future orientation, guide planful goal
directed behavior, restrain behaviors, and delay gratification (Moffitt, 1993; 1997; Snyder
et al., 2003; Vollmer et al., 1999; Wills et al.,  2002). Similarly, someone who has self-
regulation is able to set and attain goals, plan actions, refrain from engaging in problematic
behaviors, and focus on long term goals (Brody & Ge, 2001; Brody et al., 2002;
Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). Thus, the concept of self-control appears synonymous
with the concept of self-regulation.
Putting forward the general theory of crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
hypothesized that adolescent deviance and adult crime can be explained by low levels of
self-control. They suggest that when an individual has low self-control and has an
opportunity for deviance, s/he is more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. The authors
contend that an individual?s level of self-control is influential in the level of deviance in
which an individual engages. Gottfredson and Hirschi further suggest that differences in an
individual?s level of self-control are influenced by differences in levels of parental teaching;
that is, a lack of effective parental teaching determines whether an individual will engage
in deviant behaviors. The theory suggests there are four elements of parenting important
for the development of an ?appropriate? level of self-control: (a) parental attachment (i.e.,
parental involvement, warmth), (b) parental supervision, (c) recognition of deviant
behaviors, and (d) punishment of deviant behaviors. Parent-child communication, also,
was theorized by Hirschi (1969) to be essential for effective parental teaching. Further,
Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self-control mediates the relation between parenting
and adolescent deviance.
37
In describing self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have suggested that self-
control is a stable ?trait-like? characteristic that crystallizes by age 10, and remains
relatively stable throughout one?s life. However, Turner and Piquero (2002) argue that
rather than the individual levels of self-control remaining stable after crystallization, the
relative difference in levels of self-control between offenders and non-offenders is what
remains stable. Limited research has been conducted to examine the crystallization and
stability tenets of the general theory of crime, and has thus far resulted in mixed support.
For example, both Polakowski (1994) and Brody and Ge (2001) found evidence for the
stability of self-control over a 1 and 4 year period. However, in both cases, beta
coefficients were only in the .32-.35 range. Given the smaller coefficient, evidence
suggests there is actually more instability in self-control than stability. However, Arneklev
et al. (1998) found mean level differences of self-control within individuals to be highly
stable over a four month period (i.e., no significant differences in mean levels over four
months). Turner and Piquero also found that levels of self-control within individuals
increased over a 12 year period, but that the difference in levels of self-control between
offenders and non-offenders remained relatively stable. Thus, the evidence suggests that
self-control may have some form of stability, however, there also appears to be change in
levels of self-control within individuals. As such, the limited research conducted thus far
does not provide substantial evidence to indicate that self-control is a stable construct.
Additionally, no known work has examined whether self-control truly crystallizes at or
around age 10. Future empirical work will need to further explore these tenets of the
general theory of crime.
38
Finally, because Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001) suggested that self-control should
crystallize by age 10 and because children fail to form self-control due to a lack of
effective parenting, it appears that early forms of parenting (i.e., before the age 10) are
important for the development of self-control. However, limited research has examined
whether parenting prior to age 10 is important for the development of self-control and
deviance after age 10. Additionally, although one of the main premises of the general
theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) is that parents are influential in the
development of self-control, very little empirical work has examined whether and how the
four elements of effective parenting (i.e., as an overall construct of effective parenting that
encapsulates all four hypothesized parenting variables or each of the four parenting
constructs individually) influence self-control, and whether additional parenting constructs
also are influential.
From the limited research examining linkages between parenting and self-control
(Cochran et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Hope & Chapple, 2005; Gibbs et al., 1998; Perrone et
al., 2004; Polakowski, 1994; Pratt et al., 2004), cross-sectional results have indicated that
parental attachment, monitoring, and discipline are additively associated with self-control
(Cochran et al., 1998; 1998; Hay, 2001). Also found to be associated with self-control
were overall parenting constructs, such as parental management (i.e., monitoring,
recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors) and parental efficacy (i.e., attachment,
recognition and punishment of deviant behaviors; Gibbs et al., 1998; Perrone et al., 2004).
Parenting constructs outside the scope of the general theory of crime also were associated
with self-control (e.g., psychological autonomy; Hay, 2001). In addition, there has been
39
some evidence that low self-control partially mediates relations between parenting (as
individual parenting constructs and overall effective parenting constructs) and deviance
(Gibbs et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004).
Longitudinal analyses revealed that (a) poor parental supervision and discipline were
associated with self-control one and two years later, (b) attachment and monitoring were
associated with self-control four years later, (c) competence promoting parenting (i.e.,
parental nurturance, involvement, monitoring, and communication) was associated with
self-control concurrently and one year later, and (d) self-control partially mediated
parenting and deviance when parenting and self-control were measured concurrently
(Brody et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2003; Hope & Chapple, 2005; Pratt et al., 2004). In the
only study to examine whether parenting prior to age 10 was associated with subsequent
self-control and deviance, Polakowski (1994) found evidence indicating that parental
training (i.e., commitment, involvement, conventional qualities, and supervision) was
associated with self-control four years later and with deviance two-to-nine years later. 
In summary, it is evident that parenting is associated with the development of self-
control. However, it is not fully clear whether (a) parenting constructs outside the scope
of the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) also are influential in the
development of self-control, (b) studying an overall construct of effective parenting that
encapsulates multiple types of parenting constructs would explain more variance in self-
control versus examining each parenting construct individually, or (c) self-control
mediates the relation between parenting and deviance. Of the studies conducted, the
majority of results revealed only partial mediation and very few were longitudinal
40
examinations. Hence, only tentative conclusions can be made regarding whether self-
control mediates the relation between parenting and deviance. Further, limited studies
have examined whether self-control was stable across time, and whether parenting prior to
age 10 was important for the development of self-control and deviance longitudinally
(e.g., Polakowski, 1994). 
Overall, coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson &
Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) and the general
theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) offer theoretical arguments and empirical
evidence in how ineffective parenting is associated with deviant outcomes. Used together,
coercion theory and the general theory of crime may provide additional insight into the
explanation of how parents influence adolescent deviance. For example, there appear to be
five overlapping parenting constructs that are important to examine in relation to self-
control and deviance (supervision/monitoring, discipline/punishment, attachment,
communication, and recognition of deviant behaviors; see Table 1). However, it also
appears that there may be additional parenting variables outside the scope of the general
theory of crime that may be influential in the development of self-control (e.g., positive
parenting, positive reinforcement). It also seems apparent that parenting during a child?s
early life (i.e., prior to age 10) is important for the development of self-control and
deviance. Finally, self-control may serve as another potentially important factor for
understanding the development of deviance.
Therefore, the goals of the current investigation are to examine (a) parenting
constructs from both coercion theory and the general theory of crime in relation to 
41
self-control and deviance, (b) whether individual parenting constructs versus an overall
parenting construct that encapsulates multiple types of parenting constructs are more
important in the development of self-control and deviance, (c) whether self-control
partially or fully mediates the link between several different elements of parenting and
several different types of deviance, (d) associations among parenting, self-control, and
deviance variables over an eight year period (i.e., from preadolescence to middle
adolescence), and (e) at the exploratory level, the stability of self-control. By exploring
these empirical associations, researchers can begin to have a better understanding with
respect to the types of parenting constructs influential in the development of self-control,
and whether self-control mediates the link between parenting and deviance longitudinally.
To examine these empirical questions, data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth 1979 (NLSY79) will be analyzed. The advantage of this dataset is that data were
collected both from mothers and children beginning when the children were very young.
For the purposes of this study, data will be analyzed when the children were 8-9, 12-13,
and 16-17 years of age.
42
METHOD
Participants
Data were drawn from the Child and Young Adult data of the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY79). Originally in 1979, data were collected from a nationally
representative cohort of women ages 14 to 21 (Center for Human Resource Research,
2004). Data were collected on an annual basis until 1994 when data collection moved to a
biennial basis. In 1986 biological children of the female respondents also were included in
the study on a biennial basis. Data collected were reported by both mother and child, as
well as, from interviewer administered assessments (see Appendix A). Starting in 1988,
children ages 10 and over who lived with their mothers also began to self-report through
an interview process. Beginning in 1994, once some of the children in the study began
reaching the age of 15, data were no longer collected via mother reports or interviewer
administered assessments. However, the adolescent participants completed individual self-
report questionnaires on a biennial basis that were similar to their mothers? questionnaires
in the original study.
Data analyzed for the current longitudinal investigation included mother reported child
assessments and background characteristics from when her children were ages 8-9 and 12-
13, as well as, child self-reports from when the children were ages 12-13 and 16-17. Also
included were reports based on interviewer observations when the children were ages 8-9.
43
Data for the current study were limited to ages 8-9, 12-13, and 16-17 for three reasons.
First, Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001) suggested that self-control starts to become
crystallized during the early elementary school years (i.e., by approximately age 10) and
that parenting is influential in the development of self-control. Secondly, by the time
children reach the age of 12-13, self-control should theoretically have become crystallized.
Therefore, the current investigator wanted to examine the association between parenting
that occurred before self-control was crystallized (i.e., prior to age 10) and self-control
after crystallization. Third, because the frequency with which individuals engage in deviant
behaviors begins to peak at approximately age 16-17, the current investigator wanted to
ensure that participants were being assessed at a time when a variety of deviant behaviors
at higher frequencies were likely to be occurring. For example, based on national statistics,
69% of adolescents ages 10-17 arrested in 2002 were ages 16-17 (Snyder, 2004). Finally,
all participants were from the same cohort; that is, all children reached the ages of 8-9, 12-
13, and 16-17 at the same time. 
Initially, 859 participants were considered for possible inclusion. Thirty cases were
dropped because mother and child reported across several items that there was no father
(father-figure) present in the child?s life. An additional 32 cases were dropped because
there was no reported parenting data at age 8-9. Finally, 61 cases were dropped because
there was no reported self-control data at age 12-13. Thus, 736 participants had data
available during the three time periods (i.e., ages 8-9, 12-13, and 16-17). In 2002 when
the participants were age 16-17, the sample was split almost evenly by sex 
44
(males: n = 369, females: n = 367) and by age (16 years: n = 356, 17 years: n = 380; see
Table 2 for additional descriptive information on the sample demographics).
Procedure
During all data collection time periods, data were collected in the participant?s home.
Trained staff collected data through questionnaires, interviews, and standardized child
assessments. Data were collected from both the mother and the child until the child was
age 14 (see Appendix A). Mothers reported on information regarding the child?s
background characteristics, parenting, and completed child assessments such as the Home
Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) and the Behavior Problem
Index (BPI). Children ages 10 to 14 completed a self-report questionnaire, and reported
on a variety of topics including parent-child relations and attitudes. Between the ages of 4
and 14, interviewers? observations regarding the child?s home environment also were
collected. Generally, data from the mother and the child, as well as, the interviewer?s
observations were collected within one month of each other. Once participants reached the
age of 15, mothers no longer reported information regarding their children nor were any
interviewer administered assessments conducted. Instead, only child participants
completed a self-report questionnaire, and reported on attitudes, risk taking behaviors, and
deviant behaviors, for example. 
Measures
Mothers and their children completed a series of items that were related to individual
parenting constructs, the child?s level of self-control and engagement in deviant behaviors,
as well as, background information.
45
Background Variables
Sex. A sex variable was provided within the NLSY data. Child sex was identified as
(1) male and (2) female.
Age. An age variable was provided within the NLSY data, and was based on the
child?s birth month and year in relation to the month and year the respondent completed
his/her interview administered assessments and self-report questionnaires.
Race. Race was identified by an interviewer during the mother?s original 1979
interview. This information was then extrapolated to her child, and was identified as: (1)
Hispanic, (2) African American, or (3) Caucasian (non-Hispanic).
Mother?s education. Mother?s education was determined by a single item during each
wave of data collection in which the mother was asked to report the highest level of
education she has received: (0) none, (1) 1
st
 grade, (2) 2
nd
 grade, (3) 3
rd
 grade, (4) 4
th
grade, (5) 5
th
 grade, (6) 6
th
 grade, (7) 7
th
 grade, (8) 8
th
 grade, (9) 9
th
 grade, (10) 10
th
 grade,
(11) 11
th
 grade, (12) 12
th
 grade, (13) 1
st
 year of college, (14) 2
nd
 year of college, (15) 3
rd
year of college, (16) 4
th
 year of college, (17) 5
th
 year of college, (18) 6
th
 year of college,
(19) 7
th
 year of college, and (20) 8
th
 year of college or more.
Family structure. The family structure of the child was determined by two items
during wave one and two of data collection: (1) Is the spouse of the mother present in the
household of mother, and (2) Does the father of the child live in the household. Both items
were scored as a (0) no or (1) yes. A crosstab analysis was performed to define the
specific family structure and included: child lives with (1) both biological parents, married,
(2) biological parents, unmarried, (3) biological mother, only and (4) biological mother
46
and step-father. As noted earlier, all children were living with their biological mothers
during data collection time points. 
During wave three, respondents were not asked whether their fathers lived in the same
household. Therefore, this question was replaced with a constructed variable indicating the
type of residence in which the respondent lived. A crosstab analysis was performed to
define the family structure and included: (1) child does not live at home, mother
unmarried, (2) child does not live at home, mother married, (3) parent?s have joint
custody, mother unmarried, (4) parents have joint custody, mother married, (5) child lives
at father?s house, mother unmarried, (6) child lives at father?s house, mother married, (7)
child lives at mother?s house, mother unmarried, (8) child lives at mother?s house, mother
married, (9) child lives with mother and father, unmarried, and (10) child lives with mother
and father, married.
Parenting
Of the eight parenting constructs outlined by the general theory of crime (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990) and coercion theory (Patterson, 1996; Snyder & Patterson, 1987), five
could be examined with the current dataset (i.e., individual parenting behaviors: discipline,
communication, and positive reinforcement, as well as, elements of good parenting:
attachment and positive parenting; see Table 1). Indices of parenting at ages 8-9 were
available via mother reports and interviewer observation (i.e., only communication). All
items used to measure parenting as reported by mothers and interviewers were items from
the HOME (i.e., parent and interviewer versions, respectively). It should be noted that
some parenting items examined mothers only, others examined fathers only, while still
47
others examined parents generally. Finally, each parenting construct was operationalized in
a manner consistent with the definitions of each parenting construct described earlier (see
Table 1). 
Closeness/Involvement. According to the general theory of crime (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990), an attachment between the parent and child is defined as a parent who
spends time with their child and demonstrates a sense of support/closeness to the child.
Coercion theory researchers (Patterson, 1996; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) also suggested
that an attachment between parent and child is defined as a sense of support and closeness.
However, so as not to confuse this idea with how Bowlby (1969) defined the term
attachment, attachment in the current investigation will be renamed to
closeness/involvement. 
Five items based on mother reports were used to measure closeness/involvement.
First, three items were used to measure involvement: (1) How often child spends time with
father (CI 1), (2) How often child spends time with father outdoors (CI 2), and (3) How
often child eats with both mother and father (CI 3). Each item was scored on a Likert type
scale: (1) once a day or more often, (2) at least 4 times a week, (3) about once a week, (4)
about once a month, (5) a few times a year or less, and (6) never. Each item also was
reversed scored so that higher responses indicated higher involvement. Next, two items
were used to measure closeness: (1) How close child feels toward mother (CI 4) and (2)
How close child feels toward father (CI 5). Both items were scored on a Likert type scale:
(1) extremely close, (2) quite close, (3) fairly close, and (4) not at all close. Each item was
reversed scored so that higher responses indicated higher closeness. Because the
48
involvement and closeness portions of the construct were on different measurements,
items were standardized for the purposes of examining reliability. The standardized
composite of closeness/involvement was a reliable measure (" = .74). A latent construct of
closeness/involvement also fit the data well (chi-square = 13.10, df = 4, p = .011, CFI =
.99, RMSEA = .056).
Communication. Based on interviewer?s observations, four items measured
communication between mother and child. Items included: Did interviewer observe the
mother (1) Encourage the child to talk (Com 1), (2) Answer the child?s questions verbally
(Com 2), (3) Converse with child without scolding (Com 3), and (4) Mother?s voice
convey positive feelings about child (Com 4). Items were selected yes if the interviewer
observed each behavior. Higher additive responses indicated more communication
between parent and child that was open, warm, and  positive. The interviewer?s
assessment of communication was moderately reliable (" = .67). A latent construct of
communication provided a good fit with the data when one correlated error was added
(chi-square = 4.434, df = 2, p = .109, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .041).
Support for Autonomy. According to coercion theory, positive parenting is important
for the protection against engaging in deviant behaviors. However, the definition of
positive parenting is quite large and encompasses many dimensions. As part of the
definition,  investigators have defined positive parenting as encouraging autonomy, as well
as, communicating ?clear expectations and standards of mature behavior? (Patterson,
1996; Snyder & Patterson, 1987 p. 225).  Therefore to be more precise, positive parenting
49
was measured as allowing autonomy and having expectations for mature behavior, and
will be referred to as support for autonomy. 
Three items based on mother reports were used to form a composite measuring
support for autonomy: (1) How often is the child expected to make own bed, (2) How
often is child expected to clean own room, and (3) How often is the child expected to pick
up after self. Responses were scored on a Likert type scale with higher scores indicating
more support for autonomy: (1) almost never, (2) less than ? the time, (3) ? the time, (4)
more than ? the time, and (5) almost always. Mother reports of support for autonomy
were reliable (" = .75). Because a latent construct of support for autonomy was just-
identified, parameters could not be calculated without constraining the variance of each
observed variable to be equal. Once the variance was constrained to be equal, the model
did not provide a good fit with the data. Thus, as the support for autonomy construct was
reliable, a single composite of support for autonomy (SFA) was used for the current
analyses.
Discipline. Six items based on mother reports were used to assess appropriate types of
discipline mothers would engage in if her child received low grades
2
: mother would  (1)
Contact teacher or principle (Dis 1), (2) Supervise her child more closely (Dis 2), (3) Talk
with her child (Dis 3), (4) Tell her child to study more (Dis 4), (5) Help her child with
homework more (Dis 5), and (6) Limit non-school activities (play/sports; Dis 6).
Responses were scored on a Likert type scale with higher responses indicating higher use
of appropriate types of discipline in response to low grades: (1) not at all likely, (2)
somewhat likely, (3) not sure how likely, (4) somewhat likely, and (5) very likely.
50
Mothers? reports of how likely she would use appropriate types of discipline techniques
were moderately reliable (" = .63). A latent construct of discipline provided an excellent fit
with the data when three correlated error terms were added (chi-square = 11.49, df = 6, p
= .074, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .035).
Positive Reinforcement. Three items were used to form a composite measuring how
often the child received positive reinforcement from the mother: How many times in the
past week have you (1) Praised the child for doing something worthwhile, (2) Shown the
child physical affection, and (3) Complimented child to another. Mothers reported an the
actual number of positive reinforcement provided to her child during the last week. Higher
additive responses indicated that the child received higher frequencies of positive
reinforcement. Mother reports of positive reinforcement were reliable (" = .75). Because a
latent construct of positive reinforcement was just-identified, parameters could not be
calculated without constraining the variance of each observed variable to be equal. Once
the variance was constrained to be equal, the model did not provide a good fit with the
data. Thus, as positive reinforcement was a reliable construct, a single composite of
positive reinforcement (PR) was used for the current analyses.
Self-Control
Since the development of the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990),
Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) developed a self-control measure based on
Gottfredson and Hirschi?s very specific descriptions. For example, Gottfredson and
Hirschi suggested that individuals with a lack of self-control engage in deviant behaviors
that provide (a) immediate gratification, (b) are easy or simple ways to receive
51
gratification, (c) are exciting, risky, or thrilling, (d) require little thought processing, (e)
result in the victim(s) feeling pain or discomfort, and (f) the individual lacks long-term
goals. The Grasmick et al. measure of self-control has been used consistently in studies to
examine the relationship between self-control and deviant behaviors (e.g., Arneklev,
Grasmick, & Bursik, 1999; Longshore & Turner, 1998; Piquero & Rosay, 1998; Vazsonyi
et al., 2001). As a result of this measure, self-control is defined by six dimensions namely,
impulsivity, simple tasks, risk seeking, physical activity, self-centeredness, and temper.
Therefore, the Grasmick et al. scale was used as a reference when items were selected to
measure self-control. 
The NLSY data allows for the examination of both mother and child reports of child
self-control at age 12-13, whereas mother reports only are available at age 8-9 and only
child reports are available at age 16-17. A composite measuring mother?s reports of child
self-control at ages 8-9 and 12-13 were comprised of nine items from the Behavior
Problem Index (BPI; Zill & Peterson, 1986; see Appendix B). Examples of items used in
to measure self-control include: (1) Child argues too much (2) Child has difficulty
concentrating, and (3) Child does not seem to feel sorry after misbehaving. Each item was
measured on a three point Likert type scale with higher responses indicating higher self-
control: (1) often true, (2) sometimes true, and (3) not true. Mother?s reports of child self-
control were reliable at ages 8-9 (" = .82) and 12-13 (" = .82). A latent construct of self-
control (used for analyses examining the stability of self-control) provided an good fit with
the data at both ages and with the same ten correlated error terms (age 8-9: 
52
chi-square = 30.51, df = 17, p = .023, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .033; age 12-13: chi-square =
36.80, df = 17, p = .004, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .040).
To form a composite measuring child?s self-reports of self-control at ages 12-13 and
16-17, six items were examined (see Appendix B). Examples of items used in to measure
self-control include: (1) I often get in a jam because I do things without thinking, (2) I
think that planning takes the fun out of things, and (3) I have to use a lot of self-control to
keep out of trouble. While the same items were used to measure self-control at ages 12-13
and 16-17, item responses were in opposite directions (i.e., age 12-13 strongly agree to
strongly disagree; age 16-17 strongly disagree to strongly agree). Thus, item responses
were reversed scored at age 16-17 to match the same direction as mother reported self-
control. After reverse scoring the items, higher responses indicated higher self-control and
were measured on a four point Likert type scale: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3)
disagree, and (4) strongly disagree. Child?s self-reported self-control were moderately
reliable for both ages 12-13 (" = .64) and 16-17 (" = .61). A latent construct of self-
control (used to examine the stability of self-control) provided an excellent fit with the
data at both ages (age 12-13 with three correlated error terms: chi-square = 11.14, df = 6,
p = .084, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .034; age 16-17 with four correlated error terms: chi-
square = 7.40, df = 5, p = .192, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .026). As a note, at no point were
the mother and child reports of self-control at age 12-13 combined to create one measure
of self-control.
53
Deviance
The decision regarding which deviant behaviors to examine was based on what was
available within the dataset. As such, three types of deviance were available (i.e., less
serious offenses, violence, alcohol use), and were measured via child self-reports at age
16-17. As a note, only child self-reports were available for this age group.
Alcohol use. Two items were used to measure the frequency with which respondents
engaged in alcohol consumption. First, ?On average, how often in the last 12 months have
you had any alcoholic beverages, that is, beer, wine, or liquor?? Responses were scored on
Likert type scale: (1) did not drink alcohol in the past 12 months, (2) 1 to 2 days in the
past 12 months, (3) 3 to 5 days in the past 12 months, (4) every other month or so (6 to
11 days a year), (5) 1 to 2 times a month (12 to 24 days a year), (6) several times a month
(25 to 51 days a year), (7) about 1 to 2 days a week, (8) almost daily or 3 to 6 days a
week, and (9) daily (AU 1). Higher scores indicated higher rates of alcohol consumption
per year. Second, respondents were asked to indicate in the last year, how many times
they got drunk. Responses were scored on a Likert type scale with higher responses
indicating higher rates of being drunk: (1) never, (2) once, (3) twice, and (4) more than
twice (AU 2). Because each item is measured differently, responses to the alcohol use
items were standardized for the purposes of examining reliability. The standardized alpha
coefficient indicated that alcohol use was a reliable measure (" = .81). Fit for a latent
construct of alcohol use could not be determined as the model was unidentifiable.
Less Serious Offenses. Four items were used to assess the frequency with which
respondents engaged in less serious offenses: In the last year, about how many times have
54
you (1) stayed out later than your parent(s) said you should (LSO 1), (2) lied to your
parent(s) about something important (LSO 2), (3) skipped a day of school without
permission (LSO 3), and (4) stayed out at least one night without permission (LSO 4).
Responses were scored on a Likert type scale with higher responses indicating higher
engagement of less serious offenses: (1) never, (2) once, (3) twice, and (4) more than
twice. The less serious offense composite was moderately reliable (" = .69). A latent
construct of self-control provided a good fit with the data (chi-square = 6.15, df = 2, p =
.046, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .053).
Violence.  Two items were used to form a composite measuring more serious forms of
deviance, specifically violence against people and property: In the last year, about how
many times have you: (1) hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or a doctor (VI 1)
and (2) damaged school property on purpose (VI 2). Responses were scored on a Likert
type scale with higher responses indicating higher engagement of violence: (1) never, (2)
once, (3) twice, and (4) more than twice. When examined, the reliability was " = .45
3
. Fit
for a latent construct of alcohol use could not be determined as the model was
unidentifiable.
55
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Initially, descriptive statistics were computed on all parenting, self-control, and
deviance constructs. Results suggested that many of the variables were skewed (see Table
3). The decision to transform skewed data was based on whether the skew was significant,
and the direction and severity of the skew. To determine significance, the skew coefficient
was divided by the standard error of skew. A non-significantly skewed variable would
result in a coefficient of < 1.0. However, Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) suggested that if
variables are skewed >1.0 but fall between +/- 2.0, transforming the variables would result
in minimal changes in the results. Additionally, they noted that in large datasets, minor
deviations from normality are likely to be significant, and that the size and visual depiction
of the distribution is more important in the decision to transform data in large datasets.
Using these guidelines, it was determined that many of the parenting items and most of the
deviance items needed to be transformed (see Appendix C for types of transformations
used on specific items). After transformation, most of the variables had normal
distributions (see Table 3). Transformed variables were used for all subsequent analyses.
Next, bivariate correlations were computed to examine relations between parenting
(age 8-9), self-control (age 12-13), and deviance (age 16-17), and demographic variables.
In order to examine the bivariate correlations between the demographic and key variables,
56
race and family structure were first dummy coded (e.g., Caucasian adolescents and two
biological parent married families were the comparison groups). Overall, bivariate
associations indicated that some associations existed between sex, race, and family
structure (i.e., single mother headed families) and key variables (see Appendices D1- D3)
4
.
Results also revealed that several of the individual parenting constructs were associated
with one another (see Appendices E1, E2, E4). However, the associations were small thus
indicating that each of the parenting variables were distinct constructs. While the
associations indicated distinct constructs, the associations also were smaller then expected
(e.g., there were many non-significant associations between the closeness/involvement and
communication items). Next, when examining the bivariate associations between mother
reported self-control (ages 8-9 and 12-13) and child reported self-control (age 16-17),
results revealed that self-control was significantly associated across age groups and
respondents (i.e., mother and child; see Appendix E6). Finally, less serious offenses,
violence, and alcohol use also were associated with one another (see Appendix E6).
Upon further examination, closeness/involvement, communication, support for
autonomy, and positive reinforcement were found to be associated with mother reported
self-control (ages 8-9 and 12-13), whereas discipline was not associated with self-control
at either age (see Appendices E3, E5). No significant bivariate associations were found
between parenting variables and child reported self-control. Bivariate results also
suggested that only closeness/involvement was related to less serious offenses. Finally,
mother and child reported self-control (all ages) were associated with violence, mother
reported self-control (age 12-13) and child reported self-control (age 16-17) were
57
associated with less serious offenses, and child reported self-control (age 16-17) was
associated with alcohol use (see Appendix E6).
Stability of Self-Control
A series of structural equation models (SEMs) were performed to explore the stability
of self-control from ages 8-9 to 12-13 (mother reported), from ages 12-13 to 16-17 (child
reported), and from ages 8-9 to 16-17 (across respondents). Model fit was evaluated by
examining the chi-quare fit statistic, the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA),
and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). To determine the fit of the model, an acceptable fit
for the RMSEA is between .08 and .10, a moderate fit is between .05 and .08, whereas, an
excellent fit is below .05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Additionally, an acceptable fit for the
CFI is between .90 and 1.0 (Crowley & Fan, 1997). Finally, when necessary for the
purposes of missing data, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to
impute estimates. Because FIML is associated with the least amount of bias in parameter
estimates, it is considered the most reliable method of handling missing data and a current
state of the art procedure (Enders, 2001).
To examine the stability of self-control (mother reported) from ages 8-9 to 12-13, a
path was drawn between the two initial CFA models. Results indicated that mother
reported self-control was highly stable ( = .74) and provided a moderate fit with the?
data (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07, = 540.91, df = 114, p = .000). Next, to examine the?
stability of child reported self-control from ages 12-13 to 16-17, a path was again
indicated between the two initial CFA models. Additional correlated error terms (a total of
6, which were the same for each model) needed to be added. Final results suggested a
58
moderate stability ( = .45), as well as, a good fit with the data (CFI = .94, RMSEA =?
.04, = 84.394, df = 41, p = .000; see Table 4 for the factor loadings on each mother and?
child reported CFA self-control model).
To examine stability of self-control across respondents, the relation between mother
reported self-control age 8-9 and child reported self-control age 12-13 was examined. The
same latent constructs with correlated error terms as in previous analyses were examined
with a path drawn between the two constructs. Results suggested self-control was only
slightly stable across respondents ( = .18), and to a lesser extent than the stability of?
self-control measured by the same respondent (CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04, = 159.71, df?
= 73, p = .000). Next, to examine the relation between mother reported self-control age
12-13 and child reported self-control age 16-17, a path was indicated between the two
latent constructs with the same correlated error terms used in prior analyses. Results
indicated that self-control was minimally stable across respondents ( = .24), again?
however, the association was weaker than the associations between the same respondents
(CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04, = 159.60, df = 73, p = .000). Finally, to examine the?
stability of mother reported self-control from age 8-9 and child reported self-control age
16-17, a path was drawn from the two initial CFA models with the same correlated error
terms as in the previous models. Results indicated there was no stability between mother
and child reported self-control over eight years
5
. Overall, self-control was a stable
construct between the same and different respondents over a four year period, but not
directly over an eight period. Further, because the associations across respondents was
59
quite weak, one could argue for the instability of self-control rather than the stability (i.e.,
that self-control changes). 
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance
To examine whether an overall construct of effective parenting that encapsulates all
five parenting variables explained more variance in self-control and deviance as compared
to the direct association of individual parenting constructs (e.g., the direct association
between closeness/involvement and deviance), a second-order latent construct of effective
parenting was created with each of the parenting constructs as indicators. Overall, a latent
construct of effective parenting at age 8-9 indicated a good fit with the data (CFI = .95,
RMSEA = .04, = 229.603, df = 112, p = .000). Further, each of the parenting?
constructs loaded significantly and similarly onto the latent construct (see Table 5 for
factor loadings; however, the loadings were functionally identical across the model). This
latent construct will be referred to as effective parenting throughout the remaining
analyses. Next, a series of SEMs were employed to examine the longitudinal relations
between (a) early parenting (age 8-9) and self-control (age 12-13), (b) early parenting (age
8-9) and deviance (age 16-17), and (b) self-control (age 12-13) and deviance (age 16-17).
The individual parenting constructs were examined separately and as a second-order
construct of effective parenting. Additionally, due to child reported self-control at age 12-
13 not having significant associations with any of the key variables, only mothered
reported self-control at age 12-13 was used for analyses. The same criteria for determining
fit when conducting CFAs were used when conducting SEMs.
Parenting and self-control
60
When examining the direct relations between each of the parenting constructs and self-
control, results revealed that only closeness/involvement ( = .10) had a direct positive?
relation with self-control (total R
2
 = 1.8%; CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, = 28.20, df = 8, p?
= .00). However, the association between effective parenting and self-control, explained
more variance in self-control (total R
2
 = 7.7%) and had a larger direct association with
self-control ( = .28; CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04, = 257.503, df = 128, p = .000).? ?
Further, each of the parenting constructs were significantly associated with effective
parenting (see Table 5 for factor loadings).
Parenting and deviance
The direct examination between early parenting and later deviance revealed that only
closeness/involvement was associated with less serious offenses ( = -.12; CFI = .95,?
RMSEA = .04, = 231.00, df = 119, p = .04), but explained only 1.9% of the variance in?
less serious offenses. Results further indicated that effective parenting was more strongly
associated with and explained more of the variance in less serious offenses ( = -.21;?
Total R
2
 = 4.3%; CFI = .94, RMSEA = .03, = 332.24, df = 181, p = .000).?
Furthermore, each of the parenting constructs loaded significantly onto effective parenting
(see Table 5 for factor loadings). Next, results indicated that only support for autonomy
was associated with, and explained 3.2% of the variance in, alcohol use ( = .16; CFI =?
.91, RMSEA = .05, = 356.869, df = 137, p = .000). Effective parenting was not?
significantly associated with alcohol use. Finally, both the individual parenting variables
and effective parenting were not significantly associated with violence.
61
Self-control and deviance
Results regarding the relation between self-control (age 12-13) and deviance (age 16-
17)  indicated that self-control was significantly associated with less serious offenses ( =?
-.17; CFI = .99, RMSEA = .02, = 76.07, df = 54, p = .03 ) and violence ( = -.24; CFI? ?
= .98, RMSEA = .04, = 70.15, df = 33, p = .000, respectively). Self-control explained?
2.7% of the variance in less serious offenses, and 5.8% of the variance in violence. Self-
control was not significantly associated with alcohol use.
Overall, a number of significant associations emerged between effective parenting,
self-control, and less serious offenses. Closeness/involvement also was positively
associated with self-control and less serious offenses. Results suggested that support for
autonomy was associated with alcohol use. To test whether mediation exists between
variables, Baron and Kenny (1986) suggests that significant associations must be present
between the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV), between the IV
and the mediating variable, and between the mediating variable and the DV in order for a
true mediational test to occur. The relations between (a) effective parenting, self-control,
and less serious offenses and (b) closeness/involvement, self-control, and less serious
offenses followed this logic, and as such, were tested within a mediational model.
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and Less Serious Offenses
A series of SEMs examined whether self-control (age 12-13) mediated the link
between effective parenting (age 8-9) and less serious offenses (age 16-17). To test for
mediation, each of the variables were entered into the model. Two SEMs for each
62
mediation was ran; one that examined the direct link from the IV to the mediating variable,
and a direct path from the mediating variable to the DV. The second SEM also included a
path directly from the IV to the DV. By analyzing the two models in this manner, it was
possible to determine whether preliminary associations decreased upon the inclusion of all
three variables into the model. That is, evidence for mediation exists when the association
between the IV and the DV becomes weaker or non-significant in the presence of a third
mediating variable.
Recall that the association between effective parenting and less serious offenses prior
to testing for mediation was = .21, the association between effective parenting and self-?
control was = .28, and the association between self-control and less serious offenses?
was = -.17. After testing for mediation, results suggested that effective parenting?
remained associated with less serious offenses ( = -.19; see Figure 2), and with self-?
control ( = .28). However, self-control was no longer associated with less serious?
offenses. Further, results indicated that the model provided a good fit with the data (CFI =
.94, RMSEA = .03, = 364.93, df = 100, p = .000), and explained 5.2% of the variance?
in less serious offenses. Thus, the results showed that self-control did not mediate the
relation between early parenting and later engagement in less serious offenses, and that
effective parenting age 8-9 was more important than mother reported self-control age 12-
13 for explaining the etiology of less serious offenses age 16-17. 
The fact that mother reported self-control did not mediate the relation between early
parenting and later deviance, was contrary to expectations. As such, thoughts regarding
63
how parenting during pre-adolescence and deviance during middle adolescence were
associated via self-control had to be revised and re-analyzed. Past research indicated that
self-control partially mediated the relation between parenting and deviance when measured
concurrently (Gibbs et al, 1998; Hay, 2001; Perrone et al., 2004). Therefore, to further
examine whether self-control linked early effective parenting and later engagement in less
serious offenses in any manner, mother reported self-control (age 8-9) and child reported
self-control (age 16-17) were added to the model (see Figure 3). Recall that self-control
was slightly to moderately stable between and across respondents over a four year period,
and effective parenting was associated with self-control ages 8-9 and 12-13. Additionally,
results examining concurrent relations between self-control and less serious offenses
indicated that self-control age 16-17 explained 40% of the variance in less serious offenses
( = -.63; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04, = 63.23, df = 28, p = .000). Thus, by adding in? ?
three measures of self-control, SEM was able to ascertain whether self-control measured
at three time points added any additional information in the explanation of deviance during
middle adolescence. 
Results suggested that (a) effective parenting was significantly associated with self-
control at age 8-9, (b) self-control was slightly to moderately stable between each four
year measurement, and (c) self-control (age 16-17) was significantly associated with less
serious offenses (see Figure 3). Further, effective parenting continued to be significantly
associated with self-control (age 12-13) and less serious offenses. However, the
association between effective parenting and less serious offenses did not weaken (e.g.,
= -.21 before and after testing for mediation). Overall, the model provided a good fit?
64
with the data (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .03, = 423.93, df = 240, p = .000), and explained?
22.8% of the variance in less serious offenses. Thus, results suggested that prior levels of
self-control were associated with the development of subsequent levels of self-control, and
in turn, only the concurrent level of self-control (child reported) was associated with the
engagement of less serious offenses. Further, it appears that a lack of self-control and a
lack of effective parenting are additively associated with less serious offenses rather than
self-control mediating the link between parenting and engagement in less serious offenses.
Mediation: Closeness/Involvement, Self-Control, and Less Serious Offenses
Next, a series of SEMs were conducted in the same manner to further understand the
relation between closeness/involvement (age 8-9), self-control (age 12-13; mother
reported), and less serious offenses (age 16-17). Because initial tests to examine the direct
associations between parenting and deviance (and self-control) were conducted with all of
the parenting variables in the model, the association between closeness/involvement and
less serious offenses (and self-control) was reexamined individually. Results indicated that
the association between (a) closeness /involvement and less serious offenses was = -.18?
(CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, = 48.83, df = 25, p = .003), and (b) closeness/ involvement?
and self-control was = .14 (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, = 28.20, df = 8, p = .000).? ?
Also recall that prior to testing for mediation the association between self-control and less
serious offenses was = -.17. After testing for mediation, results revealed that (a)?
closeness/involvement remained associated with less serious offenses ( = -.16), ?
65
(b) that closeness/involvement was associated with self-control ( = .13), (c) self-control?
was associated with less serious offenses ( = -.11), and (d) explained 4.4% of the?
variance in less serious offenses (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, = 69.04, df = 32, p = .000;?
see Figure 4). Thus results indicated that self-control did not mediate the relation between
closeness/involvement and less serious offenses. Rather it appears that closeness/
involvement age 8-9 and self-control age 12-13 (mother reported) are additively
associated with less serious offenses age 16-17.
Again because the finding regarding a lack of mediation is inconsistent with the
general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), self-control at ages 8-9 and 16-17
were added to the model to determine whether self-control as a stable construct mediated
the relation between earlier closeness/involvement and later engagement of less serious
offenses. Again, recall that (a) self-control was slightly to moderately stable between each
four year period, (b) closeness involvement was associated with self-control at ages 8-9
and 12-13, and (c) self-control and less serious offenses were associated concurrently.
Results revealed that (a) closeness/involvement was associated with self-control (age 8-9),
(b) self-control was slightly to moderately stable between each of the four year time
periods, and (c) only a concurrent measure of self-control (age 16-17) was associated with
less serious offenses (see Figure 5). Further results indicated that the model was a good fit
with the data (CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, = 106.59, df = 48, p = .000), and explained?
21.4% of the variance in less serious offenses. Thus, results revealed that less serious
66
offenses are explained more fully by the additive nature of early closeness/involvement
(age 8-9) and concurrent levels of self-control (age 16-17).
Residualized Findings
Up to this point, no controls have been entered into the model to determine whether
variables such as sex, race, mother?s education, or family structure were affecting the
relations found. Recall that preliminary analyses indicated that various demographic
variables were associated with various parenting, self-control, and deviance constructs
(see Appendices E1-E3). Therefore, a second set of analyses were conducted controlling
for sex, race, mother?s education, and family structure by partialling out the effects each
demographic variable (i.e., residualizing each variable) through the use of hierarchical
regressions. When controlling for the effects of mother?s education and family structure,
the data that were collected during the corresponding year was used for residualization
(e.g., mother?s education and family structure for when the child was age 8-9 were used
when residualizing other variables for when the child was age 8-9). These new residualized
variables were used in further analyses.
Stability of Self-Control
Residualized results suggested that mother reported self-control from ages 8-9 to 12-
13 was highly stable ( = .74; CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07, = 496.63, df = 114, p = .000).? ?
However, child reported self-control from ages 12-13 to 16-17 was no longer significant,
thereby, suggesting that the demographic variables did have an effect on the stability of
self-control (child reported)
6
.  Further, self-control was only slightly stable between
mother reported self-control age 8-9 and child reported self-control 12-13 
67
( = .14; CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, = 143.65, df = 73, p = .000), as well as, between? ?
mother reported self-control age 12-13 and child reported self-control age 16-17 ( =?
.20; CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, = 141.73, df = 73, p = .000). Finally, no stability was?
found directly between mother reported self-control at age 8-9 and child reported self-
control at age 16-17. Thus, results suggest there may be more change in levels of self-
control than stability once the effects of age, sex, and family structure are accounted for
(see Appendix G for a comparison of pre- and post-residualization results).
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance
Initial results indicated that a latent construct of effective parenting at age 8-9 fit the
data well (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04, = 220.62, df = 112, p = .000), and each of the?
parenting constructs loaded significantly and similarly onto the latent construct (see Table
6 for factor loadings). Further, none of the individual parenting constructs were directly
associated with self-control. Effective parenting, however, was significantly associated
with, and explained 4.7% of the variance in, self-control ( = .22; CFI = .93, RMSEA =?
.04, = 248.875, df = 128, p = .000). Next, effective parenting and each individual?
parenting constructs were not significantly associated with any of the deviance measures,
with one exception. Support for autonomy was directly related with, and explained 2.8%
of the variance in, alcohol use ( = .14;  CFI = .93, RMSEA = .04, = 268.11, df = 137, ? ?
p = .000). Finally, there was no significant relationship between self-control (mother
reports) and any of the deviance measures. Overall, a number of significant relations prior
to controlling for the demographic variables became non-significant after residualizing the
68
variables (see Appendix H for a comparison of pre- and post-residualization results). As a
result, it appeared that the demographic variables of sex, race, mother?s education, and
family structure were accounting for the initial findings.
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance
Because residualizing the variables resulted in many associations becoming non-
significant, a number of changes needed to occur in the current analyses. First, recall that
mother reported self-control age 12-13 was no longer associated with any of the deviance
measures after residualization, nor was there significant associations between effective
parenting and any of the deviance measures. Rather than concluding that a link between
early parenting and later engagement in deviance did not exist, an alternative method for
assessing this link was examined; child reported self-control age 12-13 was examined in
place of mother reported self-control age 12-13. Additionally, because residualizing the
variables changed many associations and an alternative measure of self-control was being
utilized, it was decided to reexamine relations with alcohol use and violence. Results
indicated that effective parenting and each of the parenting constructs were not associated
with child reported self-control age 12-13. However, child reported self-control age 12-13
was associated with less serious offenses and alcohol use, and explained 3.2% of less
serious offenses (CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04, = 9.65, df = 5, p = .086) and 2.9% of?
alcohol use (CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, = 3.66, df = 1,  p = .06). Secondly, as?
demonstrated in earlier analyses, effective parenting and self-control were associated
concurrently; mother reported self-control age 8-9 and child reported self-control 12-13
also were associated. As such, self-control age 8-9 was added to the model. Finally,
69
previous analyses indicated that when three measures of self-control were added to the
model, effective parenting and deviance were associated. Thus, child reported self-control
age 16-17 also was added to the current analyses
7
.
Results indicated that when self-control was measured at all three ages, self-control
linked earlier parenting to less serious offenses, alcohol use, and violence (see Figures 6-
8), and that self-control age 12-13 continued to be associated with less serious offenses
and alcohol use. However, in no case was earlier parenting directly associated with less
serious offenses. Further, all models provided a good fit with the data (less serious
offenses: CFI = .94, RMSEA = .03, = 384.82, df = 243, p = .000; alcohol use: CFI =?
.93, RMSEA = .03, = 342.41, df = 202, p = .000; violence: CFI = .92, RMSEA =?
.03, = 340.82, df = 202, p = .000), and explained 14.9% of the variance in less serious?
offenses, 8.5% of the variance in alcohol use, and 7.6% of the variance in violence. Thus,
although self-control linked earlier parenting with later engagement of deviant behaviors,
results can not conclude that self-control mediated this link.
70
DISCUSSION
The main goal of the current investigation was to examine whether self-control during
early adolescence mediated relations between parenting during preadolescence and
engagement in deviance during middle adolescence. To this author?s knowledge, no
studies have examined whether self-control mediated the effects of parenting and deviance
over such a long period of time. Additional questions addressed included (a) whether
parenting (i.e., both individual parenting constructs and a latent construct of effective
parenting that encapsulated five parenting constructs) during preadolescence was directly
related to the development of self-control during early adolescence and the engagement in
deviant behaviors during middle adolescence, (b) whether parenting constructs outside the
scope of the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) were influential in the
development of self-control, and (c) an exploratory examination of the stability of self-
control. 
A number of findings were generated that speak to each of these questions, both in
support of and against hypotheses. First, it was found that self-control is only slightly to
moderately stable over a four year time period. Second, a general sense of effective
parenting during preadolescence, characterized by parenting elements theorized by the
general theory of crime and coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993;
71
Snyder & Patterson, 1987), is important when examining the etiology of self-control and
deviance. However, being close and involved with the child during preadolescence also
emerged as an important parenting constructs that contributed to the development of self-
control and deviance. Further, similar amounts of variance were explained when examining
the relations between closeness/involvement, concurrent measures of self-control, and less
serious offenses as when examining the relations between effective parenting, concurrent
measures of self-control, and less serious offenses (21.4% and 22.8%, respectively). It is
important to note, that it was the concurrent assessment of self-control that explained the
majority of the variance in each model. Third, although self-control did not mediate the
link between effective parenting and deviance, both effective parenting and self-control are
additively associated with the development of deviance over an eight year time period.
Deviance also appeared to be best explained when three measures of self-control, as well
as, early parenting were added to the model. This same finding emerged when considering
only closeness/involvement in relation to self-control and less serious offenses. Fourth,
many of these relations changed once the effects of sex, race, mother?s education, and
family structure were accounted for indicating such factors are important.
Stability of Self-Control
Overall, self-control was found to be slightly to moderately stable over four year time
periods. For example, mother reports of self-control tended to be highly stable from ages
8-9 to 12-13, whereas, child reports of self-control tended to be moderately stable from
ages 12-13 to 16-17. However, when examining the stability of self-control across
respondents, the association was weak. Further, a direct association between self-control
72
from ages 8-9 to 16-17 was not significant. One potential reason this lack of association
occurred may be due to the lengthy time span between the two measurements of self-
control. For example, it is possible that self-control at age 8-9 simply does not have a
direct association on self-control at age 16-17. However, it is not surprising a lack of
association occurred between self-control age 8-9 and 16-17 given that Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) argued self-control would not be have been formed at age 8-9, however,
self-control should have theoretically been crystallized by age 16-17. A second potential
reason for this lack of association may have been the result of differences in measurement
scales and respondents. Had measurements of self-control from the same respondent been
available using the same measurement scales, results may have provided stronger evidence
for the stability of self-control. While the difference in measurement scales and
respondents may explain the lack of association over the eight year period, evidence
indicated that self-control was significantly associated over a four year time period despite
the differences. Evidence further indicated that when the respondents were the same, there
was a stronger association between two points of self-control than when the respondents
were different (see Appendix G for comparisons across respondents, pre- and post-
residualization). Additional results suggested that the association between mother reported
self-control age 12-13 and child reported self-control age 16-17 was stronger than the
association between mother reported self-control age 8-9 and child reported self-control
age 12-13. Finally, these associations held after controlling for the effects of sex, race,
mother?s education, and family structure. 
73
Thus, findings regarding the stability of self-control are consistent with past research
and the theorizing of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). For example, self-control was found
to be stable over one and four year periods (Brody & Ge, 2001; Polakowski, 1994).
Further, because evidence suggested a stronger association occurred when the participants
were older, it appears that an individual?s level of self-control becomes more stable during
adolescence (i.e., after the age of 10, as theorized). Again, this is consistent with past
research in that Turner and Piquero (2002) also found stronger associations between later
measurements of self-control when compared to measurements of self-control when the
respondent was younger. However, because there were only moderate associations
between each measurement of self-control in the current study and in the previous
research, evidence also suggested that self-control continued to change during
adolescence. Thus, only slight support is provided for the general theory of crime?s
assertion that self-control is a stable construct (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Further
research is warranted before any conclusions are made regarding the stabilization of self-
control.
Longitudinal Relations Between Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance
Overall, each of the parenting constructs (i.e., discipline, communication,
closeness/involvement, support for autonomy, and positive reinforcement) loaded
significantly onto the effective parenting latent construct, and in turn, predicted self-
control and less serious offenses (before and after residualization). Given that parenting
constructs conceptualized from both the general theory of crime and the coercion theory
(e.g., positive reinforcement, support for autonomy (i.e., positive parenting); Dishion &
74
Patterson, 1997;  Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989;
Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) were indicators of effective
parenting, parenting constructs outside the scope of the general theory of crime appear
important for providing a general sense of effective parenting, and may matter for the
development of self-control and deviance. This finding is not surprising given that past
research also found parenting constructs such as psychological autonomy was important
for the development of self-control (Hay, 2001). Thus, when studying the etiology of
deviance, researchers should examine parenting variables outside the scope of the general
theory of crime, and also include elements from both theories in order to gain a stronger
understanding of specifically how parents are associated with the development of
adolescent deviance.
Evidence also suggested that the latent construct of effective parenting was strongly
associated with the development of self-control (i.e., before and after residualization) and
the engagement in less serious offenses over time (i.e., before residualization) in
comparison to individual parenting constructs. However, closeness/involvement, alone
(before residualization), also was associated with the development of self-control and less
serious offenses. The fact that the latent construct of effective parenting and
closeness/involvement, only, explained similar amounts of variance in less serious offenses
(prior to residualization) suggests that parenting variables beyond closeness/involvement,
or an overall effective parenting construct, may not be as important as how close and
involved parents are with their children when considering the etiology of deviance.
However, when considering the etiology of self-control, evidence did suggest that an
75
overall construct of effective parenting did explain more variance in self-control than
closeness involvement, and as such, may be more important for the development of self-
control (Total R
2
 = 7.7% and 1.8%, respectively). Thus, strong conclusions can not be
made as to whether an overall effective parenting construct versus individual parenting
variables (i.e., closeness/involvement) is more important for understanding the etiology of
self-control and deviance.
In addition to the findings for effective parenting and closeness/involvement, support
for autonomy and closeness/involvement were directly associated with alcohol use prior to
residualization. After residualization, however, only the association between support for
autonomy (i.e., positive parenting) and alcohol use remained. The fact that some
individual parenting constructs were associated with self-control and deviance, while
others were not, provides both consistent and inconsistent support with past research.
First, the finding between support for autonomy and deviance adds support to the
coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989;
Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) which originally suggested that
positive parenting was associated with deviance. However, the finding also is inconsistent
with Patterson et al. (1992) who found that positive parenting was not associated with
deviance. Second, research has found consistently an association between attachment (i.e.,
closeness/involvement) and self-control (e.g., Cochran et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Hope &
Chapple, 2005). Thus, the current study adds to the growing literature regarding the
importance attachment has for the development of self-control. Interestingly, as the
attachment measure in the current study focuses mostly on fathers, evidence suggests that
76
fathers are important for whether a child engages in deviance. However, because there
were too few items regarding mothers, conclusions can not be made about the importance
of maternal attachment or the differential influences mothers and fathers have on self-
control and deviance.
Third, past research also found that discipline individually was associated with the
development of self-control (Hay, 2001; Pratt et al., 2004). The fact that discipline was
not directly associated with self-control in the current study may be a factor of how
discipline was measured. For example, while discipline in relation to low grades may be an
indicator of effective parenting, it may not be a good indicator of the type of discipline
parents need to engage in to develop a high level of self-control and to prohibit their
children from engaging in deviant behaviors. Additionally, the current measure of
discipline may not be an indicator of whether discipline is actually occurring within the
family. 
Finally, evidence suggested that self-control (prior to residualization) was negatively
associated with the engagement of less serious forms of deviance and violence, but not
alcohol use suggesting that children who have low self-control at age 12-13 are more
likely to engage in less serious forms of deviance and violence four years later. However,
low self-control is not a precursor for an individual to engage in alcohol use. These
findings also add to the growing body of literature suggesting that when individuals have
lower levels of self-control, they are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors (e.g., Pratt
& Cullen, 2000). However, the fact that low self-control was not associated with the use
of alcohol is inconsistent with past research (e.g., Burton et al., 1999; Gibbs & Griever,
77
1995; Vazsonyi & Crosswhite, 2004). The lack of association is perhaps associated with
the time between when parenting and alcohol use were measured. It is also possible that
use of alcohol is becoming more mainstream during adolescence. 
Mediation: Effective Parenting, Self-Control, and Deviance
Past research has demonstrated that self-control at least partially mediated the relation
between parenting and deviance concurrently (Gibbs et al., 1998; Hay, 2001; Perrone et
al., 2004). Partial mediation also occurred when parenting and self-control were measured
concurrently, and deviance was measured one and four years later (Brody & Ge, 2001;
Brody et al., 2002; Hope & Chapple, 2005; Kim et al., 2003). Current findings examining
whether self-control (age 12-13) mediated the relation between effective parenting and
deviance over an eight year time span, did not find evidence of mediation. Rather evidence
suggested that self-control (age 12-13) and effective parenting (age 8-9) were additively
influential on later engagement in less serious offenses (prior to residualization, only), and
explained 5.2% of the variance in less serious offenses. Similar findings also resulted when
examining closeness/involvement, alone; that is, self-control (age 12-13) and
closeness/involvement (age 8-9) were additively associated with later engagement in
serious offenses (prior to residualization, only), and explained 4.4% of the variance.
Similarly, when levels of self-control at all ages were accounted for in the model (prior
to residualization), self-control and effective parenting continued to be associated
additively with the development of less serious offenses, however, four times the amount
of variance in less serious offenses was accounted for (21.8% compared to 5.2% with only
one measurement of self-control entered into the model). This same finding emerged when
78
examining whether mediation occurred with closeness/involvement. Further, 21.4% of the
variance in less serious offenses was explained (compared to 4.4% with only one
measurement of self-control). Thus, evidence suggests, after accounting for previous and
concurrent levels of self-control, self-control adds value in the explanation of less serious
offenses, and appears to be accounting for most of the variance explained. 
Overall, results provided evidence for the general theory of crime (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990) in that self-control is an important factor when explaining the etiology of
deviance. However, results are also contrary to the general theory of crime in that self-
control did not mediate the link between earlier parenting and later engagement of
deviance. The lack of mediation in the current study points back to the coercion theory
(Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson &
Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Patterson and colleagues have traditionally
argued against mediating mechanisms between parenting and deviance, but rather have
argued that deviance emerges as a result of the coercive exchange between parent and
child. It was only more recently that Snyder et al. (2003) suggested that self-control may
mediate the relation. What these findings suggest is that over an eight year time period
self-control does not mediate the parenting-deviance link, as argued by Patterson and
colleagues. However, the fact that self-control and parenting were additively influential in
the development of deviance also supports the tenets of the general theory of crime. Thus,
it appears that both the general theory of crime and the coercion theory provide important
elements for the explanation of deviance. Further, because the current investigation found
individual parenting constructs theorized by both theories to be influential in the
79
development of self-control, there may be value in the integration of these two theories for
explaining adolescent deviance.
Residualization Effects
Many of the relations discussed thus far, disappeared after the effects of sex, race,
mother?s education, and family structure were accounted for (e.g., the relation between
effective parenting and closeness/involvement with less serious offenses). Recall that
preliminary analyses indicated that sex, race, and family structure were most strongly
associated with the key variables. For example, (a) males were more likely to have lower
self-control and engage in deviance, (b) Hispanic adolescents, were more likely to engage
in less serious offenses, and (c) African American and single mothers reported lower levels
of closeness/involvement or use of positive reinforcement
8
. What these findings suggest is
that depending on the child?s sex, race, and family structure, the longitudinal relations
between parenting, self-control, and deviance change. 
The fact that sex, race, and family structure were found to be significantly associated
with key variables is both consistent and inconsistent with previous research addressing
associations between parenting, self-control, and deviance. For example, when controlling
for family structure, Perrone et al. (2004) found significant associations between family
structure and self-control, as well as, family structure and deviance. Further, past research
controlling for sex and race indicated that sex was influential in the associations between
parenting, self-control, and deviance, although, race was not (Cochran et al.,1998; Gibbs
et al., 1998). However, Perrone et al. (2004) found that both sex and race were associated
with each of the links between parenting, self-control, and deviance. Additional research
80
examining whether sex and race moderated these associations indicated that moderation
did not exist (Pratt et al., 2004; Vazsonyi & Crosswhite, 2004). In each of these studies,
associations remained after controlling for sex and race, whereas in the current study,
associations became non-significant. The fact that associations became non-significant in
the current study, whereas the associations in past research remained, suggests that there
may be some unmeasured variable(s) accounting for these relations. That is, sex and race
may be performing as proxies for some unmeasured variable that would significantly
explain the associations between parenting, self-control, and deviance. In fact, in all but
one of the above mentioned studies examining parenting, monitoring was measured
(Cochran et al.,1998; Gibbs et al., 1998; Pratt et al., 2004) and race was not associated
with key variables. However, in the one study that did not measure monitoring, race was
associated with key variables (Perrone et al., 2004). Therefore, it is possible that had
monitoring also been measured in the current study, associations between parenting, self-
control, and deviance may have remained after residualizing the variables. This possibility,
therefore, suggests that monitoring may be a highly important factor for understanding
how parents are associated with the development of self-control and deviance. In fact,
monitoring was determined to be highly influential in the development of deviance decades
ago (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986), and should be included in the examination of
deviance whenever possible.
Lack of Associations
81
A number of associations did not emerge as hypothesized (e.g., mediation) or
expected (e.g., bivariate relations between parenting variables). Thus far, possible reasons
for the lack of associations emerging may be due to (a) no such association exists or (b)
demographic variables accounting for the associations suggesting there may be
unmeasured variables that are important for the link between parenting, self-control, and
deviance. It also is possible that the lack of associations were due to (c) the lengthy time
between when the parenting and deviance occurred. For example, it is possible that
parenting at age 8-9 simply does not have any direct association with deviance at age 16-
17. Rather, it is possible the quality of parenting remains stable over time (much like self-
control), and only parenting that occurs concurrently with deviant behaviors is directly
associated with deviance. If this is correct, it would seem that larger amounts of variance
in deviance would be explained by taking into account not only self-control at each age,
but the quality of parenting occurring at each age. 
To begin to examine whether concurrent parenting, or parenting that occurs closer in
time, would explain more variance in deviance, one final SEM was performed in which an
overall parenting construct of parenting at age 12-13 was added to Figure 3 (i.e., three
measures of self-control with effective parenting and less serious offenses). Results
indicated that 23.7% of the variance in less serious offenses was accounted for (1.9%
variance more than without accounting for effective parenting age 12-13). As such, there
does appear to be some importance to examining concurrent measures of parenting, as
well as, multiple measurements of parenting in understanding the etiology of deviance.
82
Similarly, if other important parenting variables were accounted for (e.g., monitoring,
recognition of deviant behaviors, problem solving), it is possible that parenting may have
been more strongly associated with self-control and deviance, and self-control may have
been found to mediate some of the effects parenting has on deviance, before and after
controlling for demographics.
A fourth and final reason for a lack of association may be due to how each of the
constructs were measured. It is possible that items used to create each variable may not
have adequately captured the full meaning of the constructs, despite every effort to form
the constructs according to their theoretical definitions. For example, the discipline
measure was a hypothetical measure regarding low grades. Had the discipline measure
measured types of discipline used most often with respect to various types of deviant
behaviors, an association between discipline and deviance may have emerged. Further, had
there been more reliable measures (i.e., " > .80), more associations may have emerged.
Relatedly, the effective parenting construct measured an overall sense of effective
parenting, but not ineffective or harsh parenting. Past research has indicated that when a
child was physically abused, s/he behaved aggressively four years after the abuse (Dodge,
Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995). Similarly, Patterson et al. (1992) found that their measure
of discipline (i.e., nattering, threatening, and abuse towards child) was associated with
deviance. Had a measure of harsh parenting or physical abuse been measured in the
current investigation, it is possible that the negative effects of such parenting would be
observed over an eight year period.
83
Limitations and Future Directions
Although a number of important findings emerged from the current study, a few
limitations must be kept in mind. As discussed in the previous section, limitations of the
current study include the available data for creating the study constructs and the lack of
monitoring measure. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that all four elements of
parenting (i.e., attachment, supervision/monitoring, recognition and punishment of deviant
behaviors) must be present in order for an adequate level of self-control to develop.
Unfortunately, because the current investigation relied on secondary data, not all parenting
constructs suggested by Gottfredson and Hirschi were available within the dataset (i.e.,
monitoring, recognition of deviant behaviors), and the measurement of some of the
behaviors that were available had limitations. Had all four parenting constructs been
available for analysis in the current study, a stronger relation between parenting and self-
control and between self-control and deviance may have emerged, as well as, evidence of
mediation over the eight year span. Relatedly, Gottfredson and Hirschi also suggested that
someone must have an opportunity for deviance before one can engage in deviant
behaviors. Although examining how ?opportunity? might moderate the current findings
would be intriguing, it is not the scope of the current investigation. Future explorations
regarding the validity of the general theory of crime will need to examine how opportunity
moderates the parenting-self-control-deviance link, and ensure that each of the four
parenting constructs outlined by Gottfredson and Hirschi are included in the investigation.
Similarly, due to data constraints, the current investigation was unable to examine all
of the parenting constructs theorized by the coercion theory to be of importance (Dishion
84
& Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993;
Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Given the parenting constructs used to describe the coercion
process are examples of ineffective or harsh parenting (e.g., nagging, whining, criticism,
aggression/abuse), it is possible that ineffective or harsh parenting may have a different
effect on the formation of self-control that is separate from how a lack of effective
parenting is associated with deviance. Thus, it would be important to explore how harsh
versus a lack of effective parenting is influential in the development of self-control.
Relatedly, the current investigation was unable to examine the coercion process
between parent and child as outlined by the coercion theory. In order to begin to ascertain
truly whether self-control could provide a mediating mechanism within the coercion
theory, the coercion process must also be examined. Additionally, research must set out to
examine how low self-control plays into the coercion process. For example, Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990) suggested that children who develop low self-control also have parents
with low self-control. It is possible that parents who initiate the coercion process with
their child are those same parents with low self-control. In turn, the coercion process may
be influential in the development of the child?s low self-control. Therefore, it is imperative
to examine the relation between self-control and the coercion process, as well as, the
relation between parenting constructs theorized by coercion theory and self-control. By
examining these potential relations, research may be able to ascertain more fully whether
(a) self-control does mediate the relation between the coercion process and deviant
behaviors, (b) more variance in deviance is explained with the inclusion of self-control and
85
the coercion process, and (c) parenting constructs outlined by Gottfredson and Hirschi
play into the development or continuation of the coercion process.
Thus, because the current investigation was unable to examine all parenting constructs
defined by both the coercion theory and the general theory of crime (i.e., the current
investigation was unable to examine all eight parenting constructs thought to be of
importance) nor the specific coercion process between parent-child, the current
investigation was unable to truly examine whether these two theories could be integrated.
While the potential does appear to be present, without a specific study that examines the
coercion process, all eight parenting constructs, self-control, and deviance, a true test of
integration or the importance of each of the hypothesized parenting constructs cannot be
examined. As such, future examinations should attempt to include all of the key variables
for a true test of integration and understanding of which parenting constructs are truly
important.
Further, the current investigation did not assess parenting at each of the time points
examined. Given that adding a measure of self-control at all three age groups explained
more variance in deviance, it is possible that by adding in a measure of parenting at each
time also would explain more variance in deviance. Having measures of parenting across
the time points would make it possible to determine whether parenting in relation to self-
control and deviance is stable over time. Relatedly, if a measure of deviance at each time
point also was added into the model, it would be possible to determine more fully whether
(a) self-control mediates the parent-deviance link concurrently and (b) the stability of
deviance in relation to parenting and self-control. As such, future research should examine
86
the longitudinal relations between parenting, self-control, and deviance simultaneously
with concurrent examinations of the relations between parenting, self-control, and
deviance. 
Additionally, the current analyses did not examine whether other factors were
associated with the development of self-control, or whether there were additional factors
that mediated the relation between parenting and deviance. For example, Moffitt (1997;
2003) found evidence linking neurological deficits with low self-control. Snyder et al.
(2003) also defined self-regulation (i.e., self-control) as someone who has executive
attentional control, motivational inhibition, and negative emotional reactivity. Research
has further found evidence suggesting when individuals have a deficit in their social
information processing, they are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors (Crick &
Dodge, 1994; Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986). In all cases, researchers have
suggested that poor parenting skills are associated in some manner with the neurological
deficits, poor self-regulation, and the development of biases in social information
processes, and the outcomes produced by neurological deficits, low self-regulation, and
biases in social information processing (Dodge, 1993; Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Moffitt,
1997; 2003; Pettit, 1997; Pettit, Polaha, & Mize, 2001). Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates,
and Pettit (1997) also suggested there may be an association between low self-control and
deficits in social information processing. Therefore, it appears that the link between
parenting and deviance may be better explained with the inclusion of measures of
neurological deficits and social information processing, as well as, self-control. As such, it
is imperative that future work examine multiple mediating mechanisms to understand
87
relations between parenting and deviance, and other potential factors that lead to a lack in
self-control.
Whether factors such as sex, race, mother?s education, and family structure may
moderate the relations between parenting, self-control, and deviance was not examined.
As demonstrated in the current analyses, these factors are important. However, research
conducted thus far on the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) has
suggested minimal differences in how sex and race moderate relations between parenting,
self-control, and deviance (Vazsonyi & Crosswhite, 2004). Unfortunately, the same
cannot be said with respect to coercion theory as there is limited research conducted on
female samples and with individuals of other racial/ethnic groups (for exception see
Fletcher et al., 1995). Therefore, it is important that future research further examine
whether and how sex, race, and other demographic variables moderate associations
between parenting, self-control, and deviance. 
A final limitation is that the current investigation was only able to examine mother?s
reports of parenting. Additionally, within these reports of parenting, there were too few
items to disentangle any specific effects that father or mother parenting behaviors may
have had on the relations between parenting, self-control, and deviance. It is possible that
parenting behaviors engaged in by mothers and fathers differ, and in turn, have different
associations with the development of self-control and deviance. Whether the data is
collected from mothers or fathers also may influence the relations between parenting, self-
control, and deviance. Future research should examine elements of parenting that both
mothers and fathers engage in as reported by both mothers and fathers.
88
In addition to the above directions for future research, one additional promising
direction includes examining the etiology of deviance through the perspective of both the
general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) and the coercion theory (Dishion &
Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993;
Snyder & Patterson, 1987). As the current investigation indicated, parenting constructs
from both theories were important when considering an overall construct of effective
parenting (i.e., discipline, attachment, communication, positive parenting, positive
reinforcement), and in turn, the development of self-control and deviance. Evidence also
suggested that parenting and self-control were additively influential in the development of
deviance, thus indicating, that self-control should not be excluded from future
examinations regarding deviance. Further, past research on the coercion theory has
demonstrated robust findings regarding the coercion process also is important in the
development of deviance. Finally, it is quite possible that self-control plays an integral part
in the development of the coercion process. Therefore, future research would be remiss
not to include elements of both the coercion theory and the general theory of crime to
understand the true etiology of deviance.
By examining the etiology of deviance through the lens of both theories, the etiology
of deviance could be better explored by examining (a) multiple parenting constructs in
relation to deviance, yet remaining within the confines of theory, and (b) whether self-
control mediates the relation between the coercion process and deviance or whether the
coercion process and self-control are additively influential in the development of deviance.
It also may be possible to determine whether a parent?s lack of self-control is influential in
89
the coercion process, and in turn, a child?s lack of self-control. For example, it is possible
that parents who engage in the use of coercion (i.e., nagging whining, threatening) to gain
a child?s compliance may have a lower level of self-control themselves. Further, the
coercion theory (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Bank, 1989;
Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Snyder & Patterson, 1987) emphasizes bidirectional
influences between parent and child, as well as, a developmental perspective to
understanding deviance both of which could help to explain the associations between
parenting, self-control, and deviance. For example, if a child has low self-control, s/he is
more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. If a parent has low self-control, s/he may be
more apt to engage in the coercion process, and in turn, the child may be more apt to
respond in an aversive manner. Thus, when coercion exists between a parent and child, it
may be that both the parent and child have low self-control. Finally, by utilizing the idea of
developmental trajectories, one could examine whether adolescents with varying levels of
self-control engaged in varying levels of deviance. The general theory of crime and
coercion theory have the potential to guide work that accounts for more variance in
deviance if researchers were to begin examining elements from both theories
simultaneously.
90
III. REFERENCES
Arneklev, B. J., Cochran, J. K., & Gainey, R. R. (1998). Testing Gottfredson and
Hirschi?s low self-control stability hypothesis: An exploratory study. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 107-127.
Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1999). Evaluating the
dimensionality and invariance of ?low self-control.? Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 15, 307-331.
Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1993). Low self-
control and imprudent behaviors. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225-
247.
Bank, L., Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & Fetrow, R. A. (1993). Parenting practices
of single mothers: Mediators of negative contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 55, 371-384.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
91
Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street
youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency,
40, 403-425.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume 1. New York: Basic Books. 
Brody, G. H., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Unique and protective
contributions of parenting and classroom processes to the adjustment of African
American children living in single-parent families. Child Development, 73, 274-286.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1997). Maternal psychological functioning, family processes,
and child adjustment in rural, single-parent, African American families. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 1000-1011.
Brody, G. H., & Ge, X. (2001). Linking parenting processes and self-regulation to
psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 82-94.
Brody, G. H., Kim, S., Murry, V. M., & Brown, A. (2003). Longitudinal direct and
indirect pathways linking older sibling competence to the development of younger
sibling competence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 618-628.
Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Kim, S., & Brown. A. (2002). Longitudinal pathways to
competence and psychological adjustment among African American children living in
rural single-parents households. Child Development, 73, 1505-1516.
92
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1996). Parental religiosity, family processes, and
youth competence in rural two-parent African American families. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 696-706.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Smith, T., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Sibling relationships in
rural African American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 1046-1057.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burton, V. S., Jr., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M., & Dunaway, R. G. (1999).
Age, self-control, and adults? offending behaviors: A research note assessing A
General Theory of Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45-54.
Capaldi, D. H., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Can violent offenders be distinguished from
frequent offenders: Predictions from childhood to adolescence. Journal of research in
crime and delinquency, 33, 206-231.
Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Patterson, G. R., & Owens, L. D. (2003). Continuity of
parenting practices across generations in an at-risk sample, A prospective comparison
of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127-
14.
Center for Human Resource Research (2004). 2002 Child and young adult data: Users
guide. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
93
Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., Sellers, C. S., Wilkerson, W., & Chamlin, M. B. (1998).
Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a general theory of
crime. Deviant Behaviors: An interdisciplinary journal, 19, 227-255.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-
processing mechanisms in children?s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
74-101.
Crowley, S. L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and
applications in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment,
68, 508-531.
Dishion, T. J. (1990). The family ecology of boys? peer relations in middle childhood.
Child Development, 61, 874-892.
Dishion, T. J., Duncan, T. E., Eddy, J. M., Fagot, B. I., & Fetrow, R. (1994). The world
of parents and peers: Coercive exchanges and children?s adaptation. Social
Development, 3, 255-268.
Dishion, T. J., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Patterson, G. R. (1984). Skill
deficits and male adolescent delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12,
37-54.
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child
and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61-75.
94
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). The timing and severity of antisocial behavior:
Three hypotheses within an ecological framework. In D. M. Stoff & J. Breiling (Eds.),
Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 205-217). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Dishion, T. J., & Skaggs, N. M. (2000). An ecological analysis of monthly ?bursts? in
early adolescent substance use. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 89-97.
Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct
disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 559-584.
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997).
Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired
chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37-510. 
Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of
chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349-371.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-
processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct
problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 632-643.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social
competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 51, 1-85.
95
Eddy, J. M., Leve, L. D., & Fagot, B. I. (2001). Coercive family processes: A replication
and extension of Patterson?s coercion model. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 14-25.
Enders, C. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood
estimation for structural equation modeling with missing data. Psychological Methods,
6, 352-370.
Fagot, B. I., & Leve, L. D. (1998). Teacher ratings of externalizing behavior at school
entry for boys and girls: Similar early predictors and different correlates. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 555-566.
Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Parental monitoring and peer
influences on adolescent substance use. In J. McCord (Eds.), Coercion and
punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 259-271). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. 
Gibbs, J. J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university
students: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s general theory. Justice
Quarterly, 12, 231-255.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-control: An
empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s general theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 35, 40-70.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
96
Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the core
empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s general theory of crime. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. 
Criminology, 39, 707-736.
Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (2001). Self-control theory. In R. Paternoster & R.
Bachman (Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime (pp. 81-96). Los Angeles: Roxbury
Press.
Hope, T. L., & Chapple, C. L. (2005). Maternal characteristics, parenting, and adolescent
sexual behavior: The role of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 26, 25-45.
Jones, S., & Quisenberry, N. (2004). The general theory of crime: How general is it?
Deviant Behavior, 25, 401-426.
Keane, C., Maxim, P. S., & Teevan, J. J. (1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and
gender: Testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 30, 30-46.
Kiesner, J., Dishion, T. J., & Poulin, F. (2001). A reinforcement model of conduct
problems in children and adolescents: Advances in theory and intervention. In J. Hill &
B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 264-291).
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
97
Kim, S., Brody, G. H., & Murry, V. M. (2003). Longitudinal links between contextual
risks, parenting, and youth outcomes in rural African American families. Journal of
Black Psychology, 29, 359-377.
LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing
the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency.
Criminology, 37, 41-72.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984).  Boys who fight at home and school: Family
conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 52, 759-768.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors
of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Ed.). Crime
and justice: An annual review of research (vol. 7 pp. 29-149). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Longshore, D. L., & Turner, S. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: Cross-
sectional test of the general theory of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 81-
98.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 135-151.
Moffitt, T. E. (1997). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent offending: A
complementary pair of developmental theories. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), 
98
Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory,
Vol. 7 (pp. 11-54). London: Transaction Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial behavior. In
B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and
juvenile delinquency (pp. 49-75). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational
choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467-496.
Normandeau, S., & Guay, F. (1998).  Preschool behavior and first-grade school
achievement: The Mediational role of cognitive self-control. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 111-121.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2005). OJJDP Statistical Briefing
Book.  [Online]. Available:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp?qaDate=20050228
Patterson, G. R. (1996). Some characteristics of a developmental theory for early-onset
delinquency. In M. F. Lenzenweger & J. J. Haugaard (Eds.), Frontiers of
developmental psychopathology (pp. 81-124). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Patterson, G. R. (1997). Performance models for parenting: A social interactional
perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children?s
internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 193-226).
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
99
Patterson, G. R., & Bank, L. (1989).  Some amplifying mechanisms for pathologic
processes in families. In M. R. Gunnar & E. Thelen (Eds.), Systems of
development: Vol 22. Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 167-209).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patterson, G. R., Bank, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1990). The preadolescent?s contributions to
disrupted family process. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta
(Eds.), From Childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? Vol 2. An annual
book series (pp. 107-133). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model
of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253-267.
Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., Yoerger, K. L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variables
that initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenile offending.
Development and Psychopathology, 10, 531-547.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional approach.
Vol. 4. Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K (1993). Developmental models for delinquent behavior. In
S. Hodgins (ed.), Crime and mental disorder (pp. 140-172). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K (1997). A developmental model for late-onset
delinquency. In D. W. Osgood (Ed.), Motivation and delinquency: Vol. 44.
100
Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 119-177). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (2002). A developmental model for early- and late-onset
delinquency. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial
behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for
intervention (pp. 147-172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Perrone, D., Sullivan, C. J., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy, self-
control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally
representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.
Pettit, G. S. (1997). The developmental course of violence and aggression. Anger,
aggression, and violence, 20, 283-299.
Pettit, G. S., Polaha, J. A., & Mize, J. (2001). Perceptual and attributional processes in
aggression and conduct problems. In H. Hill & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct
disorder in childhood and adolescence (pp. 292-319). United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. B. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.?s
self-control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173.
Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-
control and situational factors in offenders? decision making: Toward a more
complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481-510.
101
Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the
structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41-78.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s
general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
Pratt, T. C., Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Parental socialization and
community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-
control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219-243.
. Pulkkinen, L., & Hamalainen, M. (1995).  Low self-control as a precursor to crime and
accidents in a Finnish longitudinal study. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 5,
424-438.
Sampson, R. J. (2000).  A neighborhood-level perspective on social change and the social
control of adolescent delinquency. In L. Crocket & R. K. Silbereisen (Eds.),
Negotiating adolescence in times of social change (pp. 178-190). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, H. N. (2004). Juvenile arrests 2002. (NCJ No. 204608). Washington D.C.: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, J., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of
associating with deviant peers during preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 6, 29-43.
102
Snyder, J., & Patterson, G. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In H. C.
Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency. Wiley series on personality
processes (pp. 216-243). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Snyder, J., Reid, J., & Patterson, G. (2003). A social learning model of child and
adolescent antisocial behavior. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.),
Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 27-47). New York:
Guilford Press.
Stone, T. R. (2004). Low self-control, staged opportunity, and subsequent fraudulent
behaviors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 542-563.
Stoolmiller, M., Duncan, T. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). Predictors of change in
antisocial behavior during elementary school for boys. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 236-253).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strassberg, Z., & Treboux, D. (2002). Interpretations of child emotion expressions and
coercive parenting practices among adolescent mothers. Social Development, 9,
80-95.
Stylianou, S. (2002). The relationship between elements and manifestations of low self-
control in a general theory of crime: Two comments and a test. Deviant Behaviors,
23, 531-557.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3
rd
 ed.). New
York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
103
Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., & Junger, M. (1995). Does low self-
control during childhood explain the association between delinquency and
accidents in early adolescents? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 5, 439-451.
Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 30, 457-471.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Crosswhite, J. M. (2004). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi?s general
theory of crime in African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 41, 407-432.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Pickering, L. E., Junger, M., & Hessing, D. (2001). An empirical test of
a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the
prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 91-
131.
Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Lalli, J. S., & Daniel, D. (1999). Evaluating self-control
and impulsivity children with severe behavior disorders. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 32, 451-466.
Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate
dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of
Personality, 58, 381-417.
Wills, T. A., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., & Brody, G. H. (2000). Protection and
vulnerability processes relevant for early onset of substance use: A test among
African American children. Health Psychology, 19, 253-263.
104
Wills, T. A., Sandy, J. M., & Yaeger, A. M. (2002). Moderators of the relation between 
substance use level and problems: Test of a self-regulation model in middle
adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 3-21.
Zill, N., & Peterson, J. L. (1986). Behavior problems index. Washington DC: Child
Trends, Inc.
105
Table 1: Parenting Constructs and Definitions
Parenting
Construct
Definition of Parenting Construct:
Attachment
An emotional attachment (i.e., love, concern, warmth, closeness,
support) and parental involvement between the parent and the
child. For the current study, an aspect of closeness/involvement
was measured.
Monitoring/
Supervision 
Consists of (in)direct knowledge regarding the child?s
whereabouts, peer group affiliations, and activities.
Discipline/
Punishment 
Consistently dispensing age appropriate limits and consequences
when rules are broken, and being neither too lenient nor too
harsh. For the current study, a positive aspect of discipline was
measured.
Communication
A conversation between parent and child that is positive and
indicates a sense of openness and warmth; essential for effective,
positive parenting, and can be observed through multiple
parenting behaviors such as supervision, punishment of deviant
behaviors, teaching effective problem solving skills, providing
positive feedback, and forming an attachment (see e.g., Brody &
Ge., 2002). 
Recognition of 
Deviant Behaviors
Includes being able to understand and recognize that different
types of deviant behaviors can occur at all ages. 
Positive
Reinforcement*
Consistent positive reinforcement for socially appropriate and
competent behaviors is important in effective parenting.
Positive
Parenting*
Allowing autonomy and having clear expectations of mature
behaviors. For the current study, support for autonomy was
measured.
Problem Solving*
When the parent teaches the child to have effective social problem
solving skills.
Note. * indicates which parenting constructs are associated with only coercion theory.
Bolded parenting constructs are examined in the current investigation.
106
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Demographics Age 8-9.
n Percentage
Race
     Hispanic 163 22.1
     African American 224 30.4
     Caucasian 349 47.4
Mother Education
     < 12 years 154 20.9
     12 years 301 40.9
     1 - 3 years of college 193 26.3
     4 + years of college  86 11.7
Family Structure
     Biological parents, married 412 57.0
     Biological parents, unmarried  24  3.3
     Biological mother, only 235 32.5
     Biological mother and step-father  52  7.2
Note: Of the 736 participants, only 734 participants indicated mother?s education and only
723 participants indicated their family structure. For the purposes of data description, data
was recoded to (a) < 12 years, (b) 12 years, (c) 1-3 years of college, and (d) 4+ years of
college.
Tab
l
e 3
:
 Des
c
ri
p
t
i
v
e S
t
ati
s
ti
cs
 o
n
 P
a
ren
t
i
n
g
 Ag
e 8
-
9
,
 S
e
l
f
-C
o
n
tro
l
, an
d
 Dev
i
an
ce Meas
u
r
es
 B
e
f
o
re an
d
 Af
ter Tran
s
f
o
r
m
a
ti
o
n
B
e
f
o
re
 Tra
n
s
f
orma
t
i
on
s
A
f
t
e
r
 Tra
n
s
f
orma
t
i
on
s
NM
S
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
MS
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
C
I
 1
719
5.
13
1.
44
-1.
60 
(
.
09)
-.
18
.
2
6
-
1.
08 
(
.
09)
C
I
 2
702
4.
29
1.
45
-.
67 
(
.
09)
-1.
5
9
.
44
-.
20 
(
.
09)
C
I
 3
716
4.
13
1.
72
-.
77 
(
.
09)
-.
38
.
2
7
-
.
02 
(
.
09)
C
I
 4
715
3.
78
.
4
6
-
2.
03 
(
.
09)
-.
06
.
1
3
-
1.
72 
(
.
09)
C
I
 5 
679
3.
26
.
9
9
-
1.
14 
(
.
09)
-.
18
.
2
2
-
.
69 
(
.
09)
C
o
m 1
678
.
8
3
.
38
-1.
74 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
C
o
m 2
678
.
9
1
.
29
-2.
84 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
C
o
m 3
678
.
8
7
.
34
-2.
19 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
C
o
m 4
730
.
9
4
.
23
-3.
81 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
D
i
s
 1
709
4.
42
1.
03
-1.
96 
(
.
09)
-.
14
.
2
1
-
1.
30 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 2
708
4.
73
.
6
9
-
3.
42 
(
.
09)
-.
07
.
1
5
-
2.
23 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 3
710
4.
87
.
4
6
-
5.
07 
(
.
09)
-.
03
.
1
1
-
3.
44 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 4
706
4.
58
.
8
1
-
2.
50 
(
.
09)
-.
11
.
1
8
-
1.
54 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 5
715
4.
78
.
5
7
-
3.
72 
(
.
09)
-.
06
.
1
4
-
2.
31 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 6
703
3.
80
1.
24
-.
86 
--
--
--
N
o
t
e
.
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
t
i
ons
 did not
 c
h
a
nge
 t
h
e
 s
k
e
w
 of
 c
o
m
m
u
nic
a
t
i
on c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
.
 S
C
 1
 =
 s
e
lf
-
c
ont
r
o
l a
g
e
 8
-
9
 m
o
t
h
e
r
 r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
,
 S
C
 2
 
=
 s
e
l
f-co
n
t
r
o
l
a
g
e
 8
-
9
 m
o
t
h
e
r
 r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
,
 S
C
 3
 =
 s
e
lf
-
c
ont
r
o
l a
g
e
 8
-
9
 c
h
ild r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
 Addit
i
ona
l a
b
b
r
e
v
ia
t
i
ons
 not
e
d
 in t
h
e
 m
e
t
hods
 s
e
c
t
ion.
    
    T
a
bl
e
 c
o
n
t
i
n
ue
s.
 
107
T
a
b
l
e 3 Co
n
t
i
n
ued:
 Des
c
r
i
pt
i
v
e S
t
at
i
s
t
i
cs
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
eas
ur
es
 Bef
o
r
e
 an
d A
f
t
e
r
 T
r
an
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
f
o
r
e
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
ti
on
s
A
f
t
e
r
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
ti
on
s
NM
S
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
MS
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
SF
A
723
4.
09
.
9
8
-
.
95 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
PR
717
29.
40
36.
95
3.
70 
(
.
09)
1.
30
.
4
0
-
.
13 
(
.
09)
SC
 1
727
2.
47
.
4
1
-
.
87 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
SC
 2
725
2.
50
.
4
0
-
.
88 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
SC
 3
418
2.
48
.
4
2
-
.
33 
(
.
12)
--
--
--
L
S
O 1
733
2.
40
1.
28
.
12 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
L
S
O 2
733
2.
04
1.
19
.
63 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
L
S
O 3
735
1.
52
1.
02
1.
73 
(
.
09)
-
.
84
.
2
9
1
.
31 
(
.
09)
L
S
O 4
734
1.
45
.
9
2
1
.
93 
(
.
09)
-
.
85
.
2
7
1
.
38 
(
.
09)
A
U
 1
405
2.
87
1.
93
.
99 
(
.
12)
.
3
6
.
29
.
16 
(
.
12)
A
U
 2
735
1.
54
1.
06
1.
67 
(
.
09)
-
.
84
.
2
9
1
.
33 
(
.
09)
VI
 1
735
1.
23
.
6
7
3
.
12 
(
.
09)
-
.
92
.
2
1
2
.
33 
(
.
09)
VI
 2
734
1.
11
.
4
7
4
.
91 
(
.
09)
-
.
96
.
1
5
3
.
98 
(
.
09)
No
t
e
.
 T
r
an
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
 di
d n
o
t
 ch
an
ge t
h
e s
k
ew o
f
 co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
 co
ef
f
i
ci
en
t
s
.
 S
C
 1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
ed,
 S
C
 2 
=
s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
ed,
 S
C
 3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 ch
i
l
d
 r
e
po
r
t
ed.
 A
ddi
t
i
o
n
al
 ab
b
r
ev
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
 n
o
t
e
d i
n
 t
h
e m
e
t
h
o
d
s
s
ect
i
o
n
.
108
109
Table 4: Factor Loadings for Each CFA Self-Control Model; Mother and Child Reported
Item
Age 8-9
(mom)
Age 12-13
(mom)
Age 12-13
(child)
Age 16-17
(child)
1 .61 .62 .36 .27
2 .50 .49 .37 .40
3 .35 .41 .15 .21
4 .45 .48 .69 .56
5 .63 .64 .44 .39
6 .60 .59 .62 .56
7 .66 .66 -- --
8 .62 .61 -- --
9 .53 .48 -- --
Note. Recall that mother reported self-control was measured by nine items, whereas, child
reported self-control was measured by six items. Refer to the methods section for specific
item details. All loadings were significantly associated p < .05.
T
a
b
l
e 5:
 S
t
an
dar
d
i
zed Regr
es
s
i
o
n
 W
e
i
g
h
t
s
 o
f
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9 o
n
t
o
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
eas
ur
es
Di
s
C
o
m
CI
S
F
A
P
R
EP
 (l
a
t
e
n
t
 c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
)
.3
5
.
2
9
.3
5
.
3
1
.5
5
EP
 a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 w
i
t
h
 S
e
l
f
-C
o
n
t
r
o
l
.3
7
.
2
9
.3
8
.
3
1
.5
0
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 L
S
O
.
35
.
2
8
.
38
.
3
0
.
54
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 A
l
co
h
o
l
 Us
e
.
36
.
2
5
.
34
.
3
2
.
54
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 Vi
o
l
en
ce
.
3
5
.
29
.
3
5
.
30
.
5
6
N
o
t
e
:
 E
P
 =
 e
ffe
c
t
iv
e
 p
a
r
e
n
t
in
g
.
 L
S
O
 =
 le
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
ffe
n
s
e
s
;
 D
i
s
 =
 d
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
;
 C
o
m =
 c
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
,
 C
I
 =
 c
l
o
s
e
n
e
s
s
/
in
v
o
lv
e
m
e
n
t
,
SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 On
l
y
 s
i
gn
i
f
i
can
t
 co
ef
f
i
ci
en
t
s
 wer
e
 r
e
po
r
t
ed.
110
T
a
b
l
e 6:
 S
t
an
dar
d
i
zed Regr
es
s
i
o
n
 W
e
i
g
h
t
s
 o
f
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9 o
n
t
o
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
eas
ur
es
:
Res
i
dual
i
zed Var
i
ab
l
e
s
Di
s
C
o
m
CI
S
F
A
P
R
E
P
 (
l
at
en
t
 co
n
s
t
r
uct
)
.
4
4
.
25
.
3
0
3
2
.
50
EP
 a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 w
i
t
h
 S
e
l
f
-C
o
n
t
r
o
l
.4
5
.
2
6
.3
1
.
3
3
.4
7
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 L
S
O
.
42
.
2
5
.
31
.
3
2
.
50
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 A
l
co
h
o
l
 Us
e
.
45
.
2
3
.
30
.
3
3
.
49
E
P
 as
s
o
ci
at
ed wi
t
h
 Vi
o
l
en
ce
.
4
4
.
27
.
3
1
.
32
.
5
0
N
o
t
e
:
 E
P
 =
 e
ffe
c
t
iv
e
 p
a
r
e
n
t
in
g
.
 L
S
O
 =
 le
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
ffe
n
s
e
s
;
 D
i
s
 =
 d
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
;
 C
o
m =
 c
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
,
 C
I
 =
 c
l
o
s
e
n
e
s
s
/
in
v
o
lv
e
m
e
n
t
,
SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 On
l
y
 s
i
gn
i
f
i
can
t
 co
ef
f
i
ci
en
t
s
 wer
e
 r
e
po
r
t
ed.
111
F
i
gur
e 1: C
o
n
cept
u
al
 M
o
del
No
t
e
.
 T
h
e m
o
r
e
 el
ab
o
r
at
e m
o
del
 do
es
 ex
am
i
n
e t
h
e di
r
ect
 r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 b
e
t
w
een
 each
 o
f
 t
h
e par
e
n
t
i
n
g co
n
s
t
r
uct
s
 wi
t
h
 each
 o
f
 t
h
e dev
i
an
ce
m
eas
ur
es
.
112
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
A
t
t
ach
m
e
n
t
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
Vi
o
l
en
ce
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
C
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
S
e
l
f
-
C
on
tr
ol
Al
c
o
ho
l
 U
s
e
F
i
gur
e 2: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e Par
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
e 12-
13,
 an
d L
e
s
s
 Ser
i
o
u
s
 Of
f
e
n
s
es
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 8-
9.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
113
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
Cl
o
s
e/
I
nvo
l
v
e
C
o
mmu
n
-
i
cat
i
o
n
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
E
f
f
ect
i
v
e 
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
.3
6
.4
0
.2
9
.3
0
.5
0
.2
8
-.1
9
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
Rei
n
f
o
r
ce-
me
n
t
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
F
i
gur
e 3: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e Par
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
es
 8-
9,
 12-
13 an
d 16-
17,
 an
d L
e
s
s
 Ser
i
o
u
s
 Of
f
e
n
s
es
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 ages
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13,
 an
d b
y
 
c
h
ild
r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 16-
17.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
.3
5
.5
3
.
1
9
.3
1
.3
0
.1
2
-.4
2
114
.4
0
-.2
1
.3
1
.4
9
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
Cl
o
s
e/
I
nvo
l
v
e
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
Rei
n
f
o
r
ce-
me
n
t
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
C
o
mmu
n
i
-
cat
i
o
n
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
E
f
f
ect
i
v
e
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
F
i
gur
e 4:
 T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
e 12-
13,
 an
d L
e
s
s
 S
e
r
i
o
u
s
 Of
f
e
n
s
es
No
t
e
.
 S
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 8-
9.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
.1
3
-.1
1
115
-.1
6
Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
S
e
l
f
-
C
on
tr
ol
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
F
i
gur
e 5: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 C
l
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
es
 8-
9,
 12-
13,
 an
d 16-
17,
 an
d L
e
s
s
 Ser
i
o
u
s
 Of
f
e
n
s
es
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 ages
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13,
 an
d b
y
 
c
h
ild
r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 16-
17.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
.5
7
.1
8
.1
3
116
-.4
2
-.1
9
Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
F
i
gur
e 6: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e Par
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
es
 8-
9,
 12-
13,
 an
d 16-
17,
 an
d L
e
s
s
 Ser
i
o
u
s
 Of
f
e
n
s
es
 (
R
es
i
dual
i
zed
E
f
f
ect
s
)
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 8-
9,
 an
d b
y
 ch
i
l
d
 r
e
po
r
ts
 a
t
ages
 12-
13 an
d 16-
17.
.4
2
.2
8
.0
9
.2
2
.3
0
.2
6
?.
35
-.1
0
117
.3
4
.4
8
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 
Rei
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
Le
ss S
e
r
i
o
u
s
O
ffe
n
s
e
s
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
C
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
E
f
f
ect
i
v
e 
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
F
i
gur
e 7: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e Par
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
es
 8-
9,
 12-
13,
 an
d 16-
17,
 an
d A
l
co
h
o
l
 Us
e (
R
es
i
dual
i
zed E
f
f
e
c
ts
)
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 8-
9,
 an
d b
y
 ch
i
l
d
 r
e
po
r
ts
 a
t
ages
 12-
13 an
d 16-
17.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
ge 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
.4
2
.0
9
.
2
3
.2
6
.2
6
-.2
4
.3
0
-.1
2
118
.3
4
.4
8
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
Al
c
o
ho
l
Us
e
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
C
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
Rei
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
E
f
f
ect
i
v
e
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
F
i
gur
e 8: T
e
s
t
 f
o
r
 M
e
di
at
i
o
n
:
 E
f
f
ect
i
v
e Par
e
n
t
i
n
g,
 Sel
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 A
g
es
 8-
9,
 12-
13,
 an
d 16-
17,
 an
d Vi
o
l
en
ce (
R
es
i
dual
i
zed E
f
f
ect
s
)
No
t
e
.
 A
l
l
 o
t
h
e
r
 po
s
s
i
b
l
e pat
h
s
 wer
e
 n
o
n
-
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
an
t
.
 Sel
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 was
 m
eas
ur
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
 r
e
po
r
t
s
 at
 age 8-
9,
 an
d b
y
 ch
i
l
d
 r
e
po
r
ts
 a
t
ages
 12-
13 an
d 16-
17.
A
g
e 8-
9
A
g
e 12-
13
A
g
e 16-
17
.4
2
.0
9
.2
1
.3
0
.2
6
-.2
5
119
.3
0
.3
4
.4
8
D
i
s
c
ip
lin
e
Cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
I
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
Vi
o
l
en
ce
Suppo
r
t
 f
o
r
Au
t
o
no
m
y
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
C
o
mmu
n
i
c
a
t
io
n
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
Rei
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
E
f
f
ect
i
v
e
Pa
re
n
t
i
n
g
Se
l
f
-
Co
n
t
r
o
l
120
IV. APPENDICES
121
Appendix A: Instrument Collection by Respondent, Age, and Data Collection Years
Ages Instruments
were Collected
Years Data
Collected
Types of Instruments
Collected
Mother
Supplement Birth through Age 14 1986-2002
Background characteristics
The HOME
Behavior Problem Index
Child
Supplement Ages 4-14 1988-2002
Interviewer Administered
Assessments
Child Self-
Administered
Supplement
Ages 10 and up 
Ages 10 through 14
1988-1993
1994-2002
Parent-child relations
Attitudes
Young 
Adults Survey Ages 15 and up 1994-2002
Attitudes
Deviant behaviors
Risk taking behaviors
122
Appendix B: Description of Items Used in the Self-Control Constructs
Mother Reports of Child Self-Control at Ages 8-9 and 12-13
1. Child argues too much
2. Child has difficulty concentrating
3. Child is easily confused, seems in a fog
4. Child does not seem to feel sorry after misbehaving
5. Child is impulsive or acts without thinking
6. Child is restless, overly active, cannot sit still
7. Child is stubborn, sullen, or irritable
8. Child has a strong temper and loses it easily
9. Child demands a lot of attention
Child Self-Reports of Self-Control at Ages 12-13 and 16-17
1. I often get in a jam because I do things without thinking
2. I think that planning takes fun out of things
3. I have to use a lot of self-control to keep out of trouble
4. I enjoy taking risks
5. I enjoy new and exciting experiences, even if they are a little frightening or unusual
6. Life with no danger in it would be too dull for me
123
Appendix C: Types of Transformations Used for Specific Items
Variable Transformation Type Transformation Formula
CI 1 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(7-C1408700))*-1
CI 2 age 8-9 Reflect and Square Root (sqrt(7-C1408800))*-1
CI 3 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(7-C1408900))*-1
CI 4 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(5-C1409100))*-1
CI 5 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(5-C1409200))*-1
Dis 1 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1410400))*-1
Dis 2 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1410600))*-1
Dis 3 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1410800))*-1
Dis 4 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1411000))*-1
Dis 5 age 8-9 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1411100))*-1
PR age 8-9 Logarithm lg10(pr94 +1)
LSO 1 Inverse (1/Y1416500)*-1
LSO 2 Inverse (1/Y1416600)*-1
AU 1 Logarithm lg10(Y1404600)
AU 2 Inverse (1/Y1416300)*-1
VI 1 Inverse (1/Y1415900)*-1
VI 2 Inverse (1/Y1416200)*-1
Note. Not all items of each construct are listed. Those that did not need transformation are
excluded from the present table. CI = closeness/involvement, Dis = discipline; PR =
positive reinforcement, LSO = less serious offenses, AU = alcohol use, VI = violence.
Only significant coefficients were reported.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
 D
1
:
 B
i
v
a
r
i
ate C
o
r
r
e
l
a
ti
o
n
s
 B
e
tw
een
 D
e
mo
g
r
ap
h
i
c w
i
th
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
 an
d
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 V
a
r
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 8
-
9
.
S
e
x
R
ace_
1
R
ace_
2
E
d
u
c
F
a
m_
1
F
am_
2
F
a
m_
3
CI
 1
-
.05
.01
-.15*
*
*
.02
.03
.04
-.65*
*
*
CI
 2
-
.05
.04
-.17*
*
*
-.02
.01
.01
-.44*
*
*
CI
 3
-
.03
.09*
-.22*
*
*
-.05
.03
.10*
*
-
.55*
*
*
CI
 4
.07
-.01
.03
.02
.02
.02
.04
CI
 5
-
.01
-.02
-.19*
*
*
.05
.07
-.17*
*
*
-.49*
*
*
Co
m
 1
-
.03
.03
.02
.10*
-.03
.02
.03
Co
m
 2
.03
-.03
-.09*
.06
-.09*
.05
-.06
Co
m
 3
-
.00
-.09*
-.04
.04
-.08*
.01
-.02
Co
m
 4
.03
.02
-.16*
*
*
-.13*
*
*
-.09*
.02
-.05
D
i
s
 1
-
.01
-.01
.06
.04
-.06
.02
.02
D
i
s
 2
-
.02
-.07*
.07
.05
.00
.03
-.04
D
i
s
 3
-
.03
-.02
-.02
.03
-.11*
*
.04
-.02
D
i
s
 4
.04
.01
.12*
*
*
-.05
.04
.03
-.03
D
i
s
 5
.01
-.03
.05
.03
-.12*
*
*
.03
-.08*
D
i
s
 6
-
.01
.04
.17*
*
*
.03
-.07
.09*
.03
S
F
A
.05
.00
-.03
.01
-.05
.06
-.06
P
R
-.03
-.07
-.28*
*
*
.06
-.04
.01
-.18*
*
*
S
C
.15*
*
*
-.02
-.09*
.07
-.08*
-.04
-.12*
*
*
N
o
t
e
. Ra
c
e
_1 = H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
, Ra
c
e
_2 = A
f
ri
c
a
n
 A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
 (Ca
u
c
a
s
i
a
n
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d);
 F
a
m
_1 = m
o
t
h
e
r
 f
a
t
h
e
r
 l
i
v
e
 t
o
ge
t
h
e
r
 un
m
a
rri
e
d, F
a
m
_2 = 
mo
m
a
n
d s
t
e
p
-da
d, F
a
m
_3 = s
i
n
g
l
e
 m
o
t
h
e
r
 (m
o
t
h
e
r f
a
t
h
e
r
 m
a
rri
e
d
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d.. A
ddi
t
i
o
n
a
l
 a
bbre
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
 n
o
t
e
d
 i
n
 t
h
e
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
 
                 
124
A
ppen
d
i
x
 D2:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 Dem
o
gr
aph
i
c an
d S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 12-
13
S
e
x
R
ace_1
R
ace_2
E
duc
F
a
m
_
1
F
am
_2
F
a
m
_
3
SC
 (
m
o
m
)
.
10**
-
.
05
-
.
06
.
08*
-
.
09*
.
0
1
-
.
13***
SC
 (
c
h
i
l
d
)
.
23***
-
.
03
-
.
03
-
.
02
-
.
01
-
.
07
-
.
06
No
t
e
.
 Race_1 = Hi
s
p
an
i
c
,
 Race_2 = A
f
r
i
can
 A
m
er
i
can
 (
C
aucas
i
a
n
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d)
;
 F
a
m
_1 = m
o
t
h
er
 f
a
t
h
er
 l
i
v
e t
o
get
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_2 =
m
o
m
 a
n
d
 s
t
e
p
-d
a
d
, F
a
m
_
3
 =
 s
i
n
g
l
e
 m
o
t
h
e
r
 (m
o
t
h
e
r f
a
t
h
e
r
 m
a
rri
e
d
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d
)
;
 S
C
 =
 s
e
l
f
-c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.                           
125
A
ppen
d
i
x
 D3:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 Dem
o
gr
aph
i
c wi
t
h
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 16-
17
S
e
x
R
ace_1
R
ace_2
E
duc
F
a
m
_
1
F
am
_2
F
a
m
_
3
SC
.
23***
-
.
13**
.
12*
.
0
8
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
4
.
00
L
S
O 1
-
.
19***
.
08*
-
.
11**
.
0
6
.
02
.
0
4
.
05
L
S
O 2
-
.
13***
.
08*
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
06
-
.
03
.
0
6
L
S
O 3
-
.
09*
.
19***
-
.
03
-
.
06
.
0
5
.
03
.
08*
L
S
O 4
-
.
14***
.0
6
.
0
6
.
02
.
10**
-
.
01
.0
7
A
U
 1
.
05
.
11*
-
.
15**
.
0
4
.
04
-
.
03
.
0
4
A
U
 2
-
.
0
5
.
10**
-
.
17***
-
.
03
.
0
3
.
02
.
08*
VI
 1
-
.
26***
.
0
2
.
05
.0
7
.
0
7
.
0
2
.
08*
VI
 2
-
.
13***
-
.
00
-
.
01
-
.
01
-
.
04
.
0
5
-
.
0
1
No
t
e
.
 Race_1 = Hi
s
p
an
i
c
,
 Race_2 = A
f
r
i
can
 A
m
er
i
can
 (
C
aucas
i
a
n
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d)
.
 F
a
m
_1 = do
n
?
t
 l
i
v
e at
 h
o
m
e
,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_2 =
d
o
n
?
t
 liv
e
 a
t
 h
o
me
,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
3
 =
 jo
in
t
 c
u
s
t
o
d
y,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 u
n
ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
4
 jo
in
t
 c
u
s
t
o
d
y,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
5
 =
 liv
e
 
at
f
a
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_6 l
i
v
e at
 f
a
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_7 = l
i
v
e at
 m
o
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
e
d,
F
a
m
_8 = l
i
v
e at
 m
o
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_9 = l
i
v
i
n
g wi
t
h
 m
o
t
h
er
 an
d f
a
t
h
er
,
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed (
m
o
t
h
e
r
 f
a
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed o
m
i
t
t
e
d
);
S
C
 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
;
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
s
es
;
 A
U
 = al
co
h
o
l
 us
e;
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
 S
ee m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c i
t
em
s
.
A
ppen
d
i
x
 D3 C
o
n
t
i
n
ues
126
A
ppen
d
i
x
 D3 Co
n
t
i
n
ued:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 Dem
o
gr
aph
i
c wi
t
h
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 16-
17
Fa
m
_
4
F
a
m
_
5
Fa
m
_
6
F
a
m
_
7
Fa
m
_
8
F
a
m
_
9
SC
-
.
08
-
.
05
-
.
01
.
0
2
.
04
-
.
02
L
S
O 1
.
01
.
09*
.
0
3
.
02
-
.
02
.
0
3
L
S
O 2
.
09*
-
.
01
-
.
06
.
0
2
.
04
.
0
1
LS
O
 3
.
0
0
.0
7
.0
0
.0
7
.0
3
.0
6
L
S
O 4
.
01
-
.
01
.
0
2
.0
7
.0
1
.
0
3
A
U
 1
.
1
0
*
.0
6
-
.0
4
-
.1
0
*
.0
2
-
.0
0
A
U
 2
.
0
6
.1
0
*
.0
2
-
.0
3
.
0
4
.0
4
VI
 1
.
10**
.
0
1
.
03
.
10*
-
.
04
-
.
05
VI
 2
.
08*
-
.
10
-
.
02
-
.
02
-
.
04
.0
7
No
t
e
.
 Race_1 = Hi
s
p
an
i
c
,
 Race_2 = A
f
r
i
can
 A
m
er
i
can
 (
C
aucas
i
a
n
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d)
.
 F
a
m
_1 = do
n
?
t
 l
i
v
e at
 h
o
m
e
,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_2 =
d
o
n
?
t
 liv
e
 a
t
 h
o
me
,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
3
 =
 jo
in
t
 c
u
s
t
o
d
y,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 u
n
ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
4
 jo
in
t
 c
u
s
t
o
d
y,
 mo
t
h
e
r
 ma
r
r
i
e
d
,
 F
a
m_
5
 =
 liv
e
 
at
f
a
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_6 l
i
v
e at
 f
a
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_7 = l
i
v
e at
 m
o
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
e
d,
F
a
m
_8 = l
i
v
e at
 m
o
t
h
er
?
s
 h
o
us
e,
 m
o
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_9 = l
i
v
i
n
g wi
t
h
 m
o
t
h
er
 an
d f
a
t
h
er
,
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed (
m
o
t
h
e
r
 f
a
t
h
er
 m
a
r
r
i
ed o
m
i
t
t
e
d
);
 
S
C
 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
;
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
s
es
;
 A
U
 = al
co
h
o
l
 us
e;
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
 S
ee m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c i
t
em
s
.
127
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
1
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
 
C
I
 1
C
I 2
C
I 3
C
I 4
C
I 5
C
o
m
 1
C
o
m
 2
C
o
m
 3
C
o
m
 4
C
I
 1
1
.0
C
I
 2
.
67***
1.
0
C
I
 3
.
66***
.
59***
1.
0
C
I
 4
-
.0
3
.
07
.0
1
1
.0
C
I
 5
.
45***
.
40***
.
35***
.
22***
1.
0
C
o
m
 1
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
08*
-
.
03
1.
0
C
o
m
 2
.
08*
.
0
6
.
04
.0
7
.
0
2
.
40***
1.
0
C
o
m
 3
.
03
.
0
3
.
00
.
12**
.
0
1
.
35***
.
51***
1.
0
C
o
m
 4
.
09*
.0
7
.
0
7
.
09*
.
0
4
.
27***
.
24***
.
29***
1.
0
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
 1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed 
by
m
o
t
h
er
,
 SC
 2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 SC
 3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
ces
,
A
U
 = al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
128
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
2
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
C
I
 1
C
I 2
C
I 3
C
I 4
C
I 5
C
o
m
 1
C
o
m
 2
C
o
m
 3
C
o
m
 4
Di
s
 1
.
08*
.
10**
.
08*
.
13***
.
0
3
.
00
.
08*
-
.
02
.
0
1
Di
s
 2
.0
7
.
0
7
.
0
0
.
13***
.
09*
.
0
1
.
02
-
.
02
-
.
02
Di
s
 3
.
04
.
09*
.
0
6
.
10**
.
0
4
.
14***
.
16***
.
17***
.
11**
D
i
s
 4
-
.0
4
-
.0
1
.
0
1
.0
7
.0
3
-
.0
1
.
0
3
.0
1
-
.0
5
Di
s
 5
.
12**
.
14***
.
14***
.
08*
.0
7
.
0
0
.
08*
.0
7
.0
5
Di
s
 6
-
.
0
3
.
02
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
5
-
.
09*
-
.
03
-
.
03
-
.
05
SF
A
.
08*
.
11**
.
08*
.
11**
.
0
3
-
.
0
1
.
08*
-
.
02
.
0
5
PR
.
18***
.
17***
.
10**
.
20***
.
12**
.
0
5
.
15***
.
12***
.
14***
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
c
e
s,
 A
U
= al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
129
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
3
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
C
I
 1
C
I 2
C
I 3
C
I 4
C
I 5
C
o
m
 1
C
o
m
 2
C
o
m
 3
C
o
m
 4
SC
 1
.
12**
.
12***
.
08*
.
18***
.
10**
.
0
5
.
07
.
13***
.
14***
SC
 2
.
10**
.
12***
.
10**
.
13***
.
14***
.
1
1
.
06
.
13***
.
10**
S
C
 3
-
.0
4
.
0
0
-.0
5
.0
6
.
0
4
.0
3
-
.0
6
-
.0
2
-
.0
6
L
S
O
 1
-
.0
4
-
.0
2
-
.0
6
-
.0
1
-
.0
1
-
.0
2
.
0
0
.0
3
-
.0
4
L
S
O
 2
-
.0
4
-
.0
2
-
.0
2
-
.0
1
-
.0
0
.
0
2
.0
5
-
.0
4
.
0
2
L
S
O 3
-
.
16***
-
.
10**
-
.
05
-
.
03
-
.
10**
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
01
-
.
02
L
S
O 4
-
.
16***
-
.
15***
-
.
07*
-
.
03
-
.
08*
-
.
00
-
.
05
-
.
06
-
.
06
A
L
 1
.
01
-
.
02
.
0
1
.
05
.
0
5
.
03
-
.
00
-
.
02
.
0
8
A
L
 2
-
.0
3
-
.0
2
.
0
1
.0
3
-
.0
4
.
0
4
.0
1
.
0
0
.0
8
*
V
I
 1
-
.0
5
-
.0
4
-
.0
3
.
0
1
-.0
2
.0
1
.
0
0
.0
3
-
.0
9
*
V
I
 2
-
.0
6
-
.0
2
-
.0
5
-.0
7
-
.
12**
-
.
02
-
.
03
-
.
04
-
.
06
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
c
e
s,
 A
U
= al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
130
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
4
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
D
i
s
 1
D
is
 2
D
is
 3
D
is
 4
D
is
 5
D
is
 6
S
F
A
P
R
Di
s
 1
1
.
0
Di
s
 2
.
26***
1.
0
Di
s
 3
.
26***
.
32***
1.
0
Di
s
 4
.
12**
.
32***
.
21***
1.
0
Di
s
 5
.
33***
.
34***
.
45***
.
32***
1.
0
Di
s
 6
.
17***
.
21***
.
14***
.
33***
.
26***
1.
0
SF
A
.
08*
.
10*
.0
6
.0
1
.
0
9
*
.0
5
1
.0
PR
.
14***
.
11**
.
13***
-
.
05
.
10**
-
.
04
.
17***
1.
0
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
c
e
s,
 A
U
= al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
131
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
5
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
D
i
s
 1
D
is
 2
D
is
 3
D
is
 4
D
is
 5
D
is
 6
S
F
A
P
R
SC
 1
.
05
.
0
4
.
03
-
.
04
.
08*
-
.
06
.
13***
.
13***
SC
 2
.
04
.
1
2
.
06
.
0
1
.
08*
-
.
01
.
09*
.
12**
S
C
 3
.
0
4
.0
3
-
.0
4
-
.0
1
-
.0
1
.
0
2
-.0
3
.0
0
L
S
O 1
-
.
0
3
.
02
.
0
5
-
.
0
1
.
02
-
.
04
-
.
01
-
.
00
L
S
O
 2
-
.0
1
-
.0
0
-
.0
3
.0
7
-.0
1
.0
5
-
.0
1
-
.0
2
L
S
O
 3
-
.0
4
-
.0
5
-
.0
3
.
0
9
*
-.0
7
.
0
3
.
03
-
.
11**
L
S
O 4
-
.
0
0
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
.
03
.
0
3
.
03
-
.
05
-
.
08*
A
L
 1
-
.0
2
.
0
4
.0
3
.
0
5
-.0
3
-.0
9
.0
8
-
.0
1
A
L
 2
.
0
5
.0
3
.0
7
.
0
5
.
00
-
.
04
.
11**
.
0
5
VI
 1
.
08*
.
0
1
.
10**
.
0
3
.
02
.
0
3
.
04
-
.
05
VI
 2
.
02
-.0
7
.
0
4
-
.
0
5
.
02
-
.
05
-
.
05
-
.
01
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
c
e
s,
 A
U
= al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
132
A
ppen
d
i
x
 E
6
:
 Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 o
n
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 8-
9,
 S
e
l
f
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
 an
d Dev
i
an
ce M
e
as
ur
es
SC
 1
S
C
 2
S
C
 3
L
SO
 1
L
SO
 2
L
SO
 3
L
SO
 4
A
U
 1
A
U
 2
V
I 1
V
I 2
S
C
 1
1
.0
SC
 2
.
57***
1.
0
SC
 3
.
13**
.
17***
1.
0
LS
O
 1
-
.
0
2
-.0
7
-
.
22***
1.
0
L
S
O 2
.
00
-
.
10**
-
.
31***
.
31***
1.
0
L
S
O 3
-
.
0
5
-
.
11**
-
.
26***
.
32***
.
22***
1.
0
L
S
O 4
-
.
0
7
-
.
0
6
-
.
19***
.
42***
.
27***
.
41***
1.
0
A
U
 1
.
0
1
.0
3
-.1
2
.
19***
.
21***
.
23***
.
16***
1.
0
A
U
 2
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
6
-
.
24***
.
33***
.
23***
.
37***
.
28***
.
89***
1.
0
VI
 1
-
.
14***
-
.
12**
-
.
16***
.
23***
.
19***
.
15***
.
24***
.
19***
.
18***
1.
0
V
I
 2
-
.0
5
-.0
6
-
.
16***
.
13***
.
17***
.
18***
.
19***
.
11*
.
13***
17***
1.
0
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 SC
1 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
2 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 m
o
t
h
er
,
 S
C
3 = s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
 age 8-
9 r
e
po
r
t
ed b
y
 ch
i
l
d
,
 L
S
O = l
e
s
s
 s
e
r
i
o
u
s
 o
f
f
e
n
c
e
s,
 A
U
= al
co
h
o
l
 us
e,
 VI
 = v
i
o
l
en
ce.
133
134
Appendix F: Factor Loadings for Each CFA Self-Control Model; Mother and Child
Reported (After Residualization).
Item
Age 8-9
(mom)
Age 12-13
(mom)
Age 12-13
(child)
Age 16-17
(child)
1 .63 .64 .35 .21
2 .48 .47 .36 .29
3 .33 .40 .17 .18
4 .43 .48 .69 ns
5 .62 .64 .45 ns
6 .58 .56 .60 ns
7 .66 .67 -- --
8 .59 .59 -- --
9 .54 .48 -- --
Note. Recall that mother reported self-control was measured by nine items, whereas, child
reported self-control was measured by six items. All loadings were significantly associated
p < .05. Refer to methods section for specific items.
135
Appendix G: Pre- and Post-Residualization Comparisons on Self-Control Across Age and
Respondents
Before After
Same Respondents
     Mom SC Ages 8-9 to 12-13 .74 .74
     Child SC Ages 12-13 to 16-17 .45 ns
Across Respondents
     Mom SC Age 8-9 to Child SC Age 12-13 .18 .14
     Mom SC Age 12-13 to Child SC Age 16-17 .24 .20
     Mom SC Age 8-9 to Child SC Age 16-17 ns ns
Note. SC = self-control; Mom or Child indicates who reported on the child?s self-control;
age indicates the age in which self-control was assessed; ns = non-significant. For a
comparison of pre- and post-residualization findings across parenting, self-control, and
deviance relations, see figures 2-8.
136
Appendix H: Pre- and Post-Residualization Comparisons on Longitudinal Relations
SC LSO AU VI
CI .10/ns -.12/ns ns/ns ns/ns
SFA ns/ns ns/ns .16/.14 ns/ns
EP .28/.22 -.21/ns ns/ns ns/ns
SC --- -.17/ns ns/ns -.24/ns
Note. SC = self-control age 12-13 (mother reported), LSO = less serious offenses, AU =
alcohol use, VI = violence, CI = closeness/involvement, SFA = support for autonomy, EP
= effective parenting, ns = non-significant. Parenting age 8-9 was reported by mothers and
deviance age 16-17 was reported by child. Pre-residualization results / post-residualization
results. Paths not reported were non-significant. For a comparison of mediational results
pre- and post-residualization, see Figures 2-8. 
137
Appendix I: Additional Analyses Examining Parenting Variables Age 12-13.
D
e
s
c
r
i
ptiv
e
 s
t
a
tis
tic
s
 w
e
r
e
 a
l
s
o
 c
onduc
te
d on the
 pa
r
e
nting
 
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
ts
 a
t
 a
g
e
 12-
13;
 be
f
o
r
e
 a
nd a
f
te
r
 tr
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
tion r
e
s
u
lts
.
Be
f
o
r
e
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
tions
A
f
te
r
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
tions
NM
S
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
MS
D
s
k
e
w
 
(S
E
)
CI
 1
694
5.
00
1.
46
-
1
.
30 
(
.
09)
-
.
21
.
2
7
-
.
79 
(
.
09)
CI
 2
681
3.
97
1.
52
-
.
42 
(
.
09)
-
1
.
6
8
.
45
.
03 
(
.
09)
CI
 3
693
3.
80
1.
77
-
.
50 
(
.
09)
-
1
.
7
2
.
50
-
.
20 
(
.
09)
CI
 4
704
3.
62
.
6
3
-
1.
62 
(
.
09)
-
.
10
.
1
6
-
1.
15 
(
.
09)
CI
 5
644
3.
07
1.
04
-
.
76 
(
.
09)
-
.
23
.
2
3
-
.
30 
(
.
09)
Com
 1
649
.
8
2
.
38
-
1
.
71 
(
.
10)
--
--
--
Com
 2
649
.
8
9
.
31
-
2
.
56 
(
.
10)
--
--
--
Com
 3
649
.
8
8
.
32
-
2
.
39 
(
.
10)
--
--
--
Com
 4
722
.
9
3
.
25
-
3
.
49 
(
.
09)
--
--
--
D
i
s
 1
697
4.
28
1.
13
-
1
.
64 
(
.
09)
-
.
16
.
2
3
-
1.
02 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 2
702
4.
73
.
5
7
-
2.
67 
(
.
09)
-
.
07
.
1
5
-
1.
75 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 3
700
4.
87
.
4
5
-
4.
93 
(
.
09)
-
.
04
.
1
1
-
3.
25 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 4
696
4.
71
.
6
9
-
3.
25 
(
.
09)
-
.
08
.
1
6
-
2.
02 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 5
704
4.
65
.
7
0
-
2.
59 
(
.
09)
-
.
09
.
1
7
-
1.
59 
(
.
09)
D
i
s
 6
697
4.
01
1.
15
-
1
.
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
S
F
A
712
4.
32
.
9
9
-
1.
52 
(
.
09)
-
.
17
.
2
1
-
.
92 
(
.
09)
P
R
696
25.
29
31.
85
4.
21 
(
.
09)
1.
24
.
3
9
-
.
13 
(
.
09)
N
o
te
.
 T
r
a
n
s
f
or
m
a
tions
 did not c
h
a
n
g
e
 a
n
y
 of
 the
 c
o
m
m
unic
a
tion the
 s
k
e
w
 c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
ts
.
 Re
f
e
r
 to m
e
thods
 s
e
c
tion f
o
r
 a
bbr
e
v
ia
tions
.
138
139
Types of Transformations Used for Parenting Variables Age 12-13
Variable Transformation Type Transformation Formula
CI 1 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(7-C1956600))*-1
CI 2 age 12-13 Reflect and Square Root (sqrt(7-C1956700))*-1
CI 3 age 12-13 Reflect and Square Root (sqrt(7-C1956800))*-1
CI 4 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(5-C1957000))*-1
CI 5 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(5-C1957100))*-1
Dis 1 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1958400))*-1
Dis 2 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1958600))*-1
Dis 3 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1958800))*-1
Dis 4 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1959000))*-1
Dis 5 age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-C1959100))*-1
SFA age 12-13 Reflect and Logarithm (lg10(6-pospar98))*-1
PR age 12-13 Logarithm lg10(pr98 +1)
Note. Not all items of each construct are listed. Those that did not need transformation are
excluded from the present table. CI = closeness/involvement, Dis = discipline, SFA =
support for autonomy, PR = positive reinforcement. Refer to methods section for specific
items.
Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 Dem
o
gr
aph
i
c an
d P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
e 12-
13
S
e
x
R
ace_1
R
ace_2
E
duc
F
a
m
_
1
F
am
_2
F
a
m
_
3
C
I
 1
-
.0
3
.0
6
-
.
29***
.
0
1
.
04
.
0
1
-
.
66***
C
I
 2
-
.
0
3
.
04
-
.
22***
-
.
02
.
0
2
-
.
0
3
-
.
43***
C
I
 3
.
00
.
13***
-
.
26***
-
.
06
.
08*
.
0
6
-
.
60***
C
I
 4
.
0
0
-.0
5
.0
5
-
.0
4
-
.0
2
.
0
3
.0
5
C
I
 5
-
.
0
4
.
00
.
14***
.
0
0
.
01
-
.
22***
-
.
35***
Co
m
 1
.0
7
.
0
5
-
.
08*
.
0
4
.
02
-
.
05
-
.
15***
C
o
m
 2
.
01
-
.
06
-
.
04
.
0
4
-.0
7
.
0
0
-
.
13***
C
o
m
 3
.
01
-
.
02
-
.
09**
.
0
3
.
00
.
0
2
-
.
12**
C
o
m
 4
.
01
-
.
05
-
.
01
.
0
3
-
.
0
3
.
00
-
.
09**
Di
s
 1
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
5
.
09**
.
0
5
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
4
.
02
Di
s
 2
-
.
0
2
.
01
.
0
3
.
05
-
.
04
-
.
03
.
0
6
Di
s
 3
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
05
-
.
08*
.
09*
-
.
02
Di
s
 4
.
01
.
0
6
.
12***
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
03
.
0
6
Di
s
 5
-
.
0
2
-.0
7
.
08*
.
0
5
-
.
0
3
.
03
-
.
03
Di
s
 6
-
.
09*
-
.
03
.
18***
.
0
3
.
03
-
.
02
.
0
2
SF
A
.
05
.
0
0
.
13***
-
.
04
-
.
04
-
.
00
.
0
3
PR
-
.
06
-
.
16***
-
.
19***
.
0
4
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
3
-
.
10**
No
t
e
.
 Race_1 = Hi
s
p
an
i
c
,
 Race_2 = A
f
r
i
can
 A
m
er
i
can
 (
C
aucas
i
a
n
 o
m
i
t
t
e
d)
;
 F
a
m
_1 = m
o
t
h
er
 f
a
t
h
er
 l
i
v
e t
o
get
h
er
 un
m
a
r
r
i
ed,
 F
a
m
_2 =
mo
m a
n
d
 s
t
e
p
-
d
a
d
,
 F
a
m_
3
 =
 s
i
n
g
le
 mo
t
h
e
r
 (
m
o
t
h
e
r
 fa
t
h
e
r
 ma
r
r
i
e
d
 o
mit
t
e
d
)
.
 
Re
f
e
r
 to m
e
thods
 s
e
c
tion f
o
r
 a
bbr
e
v
ia
tions
.
140
Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 12-
13
C
I
 1
C
I 2
C
I 3
C
I 4
C
I 5
C
o
m
 1
C
o
m
 2
C
o
m
 3
C
o
m
 4
C
I
 1
1
.0
C
I
 2
.
65***
1.
0
C
I
 3
.
66***
.
51***
1.
0
C
I
 4
.
01
.
11**
.
0
2
1
.
0
C
I
 5
.
41***
.
41***
.
29***
.
31***
1.
0
C
o
m
 1
.
12**
.
0
6
.
11**
-
.
02
.
09*
1.
0
C
o
m
 2
.
11**
.
0
2
.
07
.
0
4
.
12***
.
43***
1.
0
C
o
m
 3
.
11**
.
0
6
.
05
-
.
02
.
0
5
.
35***
.
53***
1.
0
Co
m
 4
.0
7
.
0
1
.
10*
.
0
6
.
03
.
35***
.
18***
.
28***
1.
0
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
T
a
bl
e
 C
o
nt
i
n
u
e
s
.
141
Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 12-
13
C
I
 1
C
I 2
C
I 3
C
I 4
C
I 5
C
o
m
 1
C
o
m
 2
C
o
m
 3
C
o
m
 4
Di
s
 1
.
01
.
0
6
.
01
.
11**
.
12**
-
.
01
.
0
4
.0
7
.0
6
Di
s
 2
-
.
0
0
.
01
-
.
05
.
11**
.
0
4
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
.
05
.
0
2
D
i
s
 3
-
.0
2
-
.0
5
-
.0
5
.
0
5
.0
6
.
0
4
.0
3
.
1
0
*
.0
7
D
i
s
 4
-
.0
3
-
.0
5
-.0
7
.0
4
-
.0
0
-
.0
2
.0
8
-
.
06
.
0
1
Di
s
 5
.
02
.
0
3
.
03
.
23***
.
11**
-
.
01
-
.
03
-
.
02
.
09*
Di
s
 6
-
.
0
1
.
05
-
.
03
.
0
0
.
01
-
.
05
-
.
03
.
0
1
-
.
0
3
SF
A
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
0
-
.
0
0
.
10**
.
0
1
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
3
-
.
10*
-
.
03
PR
.
10**
.
14***
.
10**
.
33***
.
18***
.0
8
.0
6
.
0
6
.0
6
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
T
a
bl
e
 C
o
nt
i
n
u
e
s
.
142
Bi
v
a
r
i
at
e Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 Bet
w
een
 P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g Var
i
ab
l
e
s
 A
g
e 12-
13
D
i
s
 1
D
is
 2
D
is
 3
D
is
 4
D
is
 5
D
is
 6
S
F
A
P
R
Di
s
 1
1
.
0
Di
s
 2
.
32***
1.
0
Di
s
 3
.
15***
.
36***
1.
0
Di
s
 4
.
11**
.
28***
.
28***
1.
0
Di
s
 5
.
22***
.
37***
.
24***
.
29***
1.
0
Di
s
 6
.
17***
.
23***
.
15***
.
26***
.
21***
1.
0
SF
A
.
06
.
16***
.
10**
.
0
5
.0
7
.
11**
1.
0
PR
.
12***
.
12***
.
0
6
-.0
7
.
20***
.
0
0
.
09*
1.
0
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
143
B
i
v
a
r
i
at
e C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 B
e
t
w
een
 Par
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
es
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13
CI
 1
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 2
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 3
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 4
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 5
 
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 1
 
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 2
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 3
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 4
 
(8
-9
)
C
I
 1 (
12-
13)
.
55***
.
38***
.
45***
.
0
2
.
30***
.
0
3
.
06
.
0
6
.
13
C
I
 2 (
12-
13)
.
40***
.
44***
.
34***
.
08*
.
29***
.
0
1
.
06
.
09*
.
08*
C
I
 3 (
12-
13)
.
37***
.
29***
.
45***
.
0
1
.
25***
-
.
04
-
.
02
-
.
00
.
08*
C
I
 4 (
12-
13)
.
0
2
.0
7
.
0
3
.
38***
.
0
5
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
.
11**
.
0
3
C
I
 5 (
12-
13)
.
35***
.
28***
.
23***
.
10**
.
54***
-
.
02
.
0
2
.
08*
-
.
00
C
o
m
 1 (
12-
13)
.
10*
.
09*
.
10*
-
.
06
.
09*
.
20***
.
0
1
.
01
.
08*
C
o
m
 2 (
12-
13)
.
08*
.
08*
.
12**
.
0
2
.
07
-
.
02
.
0
2
.
01
-
.
04
C
o
m
 3 (
12-
13)
.
08*
.
08*
.
10*
.
0
1
.
04
-
.
03
-
.
02
.
0
1
-
.
0
1
C
o
m
 4 (
12-
13)
.
0
3
.
03
.
0
3
.
04
.
0
2
.
08*
.
0
3
.
14***
.
13***
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
T
a
bl
e
 C
o
nt
i
n
u
e
s
.
144
B
i
v
a
r
i
at
e C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 B
e
t
w
een
 Par
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
es
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13
CI
 1
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 2
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 3
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 4
 
(8
-9
)
CI
 5
 
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 1
 
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 2
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 3
(8
-9
)
Co
m
 4
 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 1 (
12-
13)
-
.
02
-
.
04
-
.
02
.
0
6
.
03
.
0
3
.
05
.
0
5
.
02
Di
s
 2 (
12-
13)
-
.
05
-
.
05
-
.
06
.
14***
.
0
5
.
05
.
08*
.
0
4
.
02
Di
s
 3 (
12-
13)
-
.
02
-
.
09*
-
.
09*
.
10**
.
0
4
.
04
.
11**
.
0
2
.
05
Di
s
 4 (
12-
13)
-
.
06
-
.
09*
-
.
09*
.
08*
-
.
02
.
0
3
.
05
.
0
2
.
02
Di
s
 5 (
12-
13)
.
08*
.
09*
.
0
3
.
10**
.
10**
.0
7
.
0
6
.
10**
.
0
2
Di
s
 6 (
12-
13)
-
.
02
-
.
03
-
.
02
.
0
1
-
.
0
5
.
10**
.
0
3
.
04
.
0
0
SF
A
 (
12-
13)
-
.
00
.
0
5
-
.
0
2
.
11**
-
.
03
.
0
4
.
15***
.
0
3
.
02
PR
 (
12-
13)
.
13***
.
14***
.
0
4
.
16***
.
13***
-
.
00
.
0
5
.
10**
.0
7
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
T
a
bl
e
 C
o
nt
i
n
u
e
s
.
145
B
i
v
a
r
i
at
e C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 B
e
t
w
een
 Par
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
es
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13
Di
s
 1
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 2
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 3 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 4 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 5 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 6
(8
-9
)
SF
A
(8
-9
)
PR
(8
-9
)
C
I
 1 (
12-
13)
.
0
3
-
.
0
2
.
06
-
.
02
.
0
3
-.0
7
.
0
6
.
17***
C
I
 2 (
12-
13)
.
0
2
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
1
-
.
0
4
.
00
.
0
1
.
03
.
21***
C
I
 3 (
12-
13)
-
.
02
-.0
8
-
.
02
-
.
05
-
.
02
-
.
08*
.
0
4
.
13***
C
I
 4 (
12-
13)
.
0
2
.
06
-
.
01
.
08*
.
0
5
.
01
-
.
01
.
16***
C
I
 5 (
12-
13)
-
.
03
-
.
01
-
.
02
.
0
3
-
.
0
4
-
.
0
8
.
01
.
10**
C
o
m
 1 (
12-
13)
.
0
3
-
.
0
6
-
.
0
0
-
.
09*
-
.
02
-
.
06
-
.
00
.
08*
C
o
m
 2 (
12-
13)
.
0
5
-
.
0
2
.
04
-
.
05
.0
7
-
.
03
-
.
00
.
0
2
C
o
m
 3 (
12-
13)
.
0
6
-
.
0
1
.
10*
-
.
03
.
0
3
.
01
-
.
06
-
.
01
C
o
m
 4 (
12-
13)
.
0
2
.
02
-
.
00
.
0
0
.
05
-
.
03
-
.
06
.
0
4
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
T
a
bl
e
 C
o
nt
i
n
u
e
s
.
146
B
i
v
a
r
i
at
e C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 B
e
t
w
een
 Par
e
n
t
i
n
g A
g
es
 8-
9 an
d 12-
13
Di
s
 1
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 2
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 3 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 4 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 5 
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 6
(8
-9
)
SF
A
(8
-9
)
PR
(8
-9
)
Di
s
 1 (
12-
13)
.
27***
.
09*
.
0
6
.
03
.
09*
.
13***
.
0
1
.
09*
Di
s
 2 (
12-
13)
.
11**
.
24***
.
23***
.
14***
.
15***
.
08*
.
0
5
.
06
Di
s
 3 (
12-
13)
.
11**
.
15***
.
23***
.
0
5
.
16***
.
0
5
.
06
.
0
3
Di
s
 4 (
12-
13)
.
0
6
.
20***
.
14***
.
35***
.
10**
.
13***
-
.
01
.
08*
Di
s
 5 (
12-
13)
.
09*
.
19***
.
09*
.
10**
.
15***
.
0
6
-
.
0
2
.
10**
Di
s
 6 (
12-
13)
.0
8
.
11**
.
13***
.
16***
.
19***
.
28***
.
0
2
-
.
0
1
SF
A
 (
12-
13)
.
11**
.
15***
.
13***
.0
8
.
16***
.
10**
.
38***
.
09*
PR
 (
12-
13)
.
11**
.
10**
.
09*
-
.
03
.
09*
-.0
7
.
11**
.
52***
No
t
e
.
 * 
p
 <.
05,
 ** 
p
 < .
01,
 *** 
p
 < .
001.
 I
t
al
i
c
i
zed es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
 i
n
di
cat
ed a t
r
en
d (
p
 <.
1)
.
 CI
 = cl
o
s
en
es
s
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
em
en
t
,
 Co
m
 =
co
m
m
u
n
i
cat
i
o
n
,
 Di
s
 = di
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e,
 SF
A
 = s
uppo
r
t
 f
o
r
 aut
o
n
o
m
y
,
 PR
 = po
s
i
t
i
v
e
 r
e
i
n
f
o
r
cem
en
t
.
 R
e
f
e
r
 t
o
 m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 s
ect
i
o
n
 f
o
r
 s
p
eci
f
i
c
it
e
m
s
.
147
148
END NOTES
1. Because Hope and Chapple (2005) utilized child self-reports of parenting, the 
authors were able to examine monitoring within their study utilizing the NLSY data. The
current investigation utilized mother reports of parenting whom were not asked about
monitoring, and as such, monitoring was not examined in the current investigation.
2. Although the measure of discipline is technically a hypothetical scenario, past 
research also examining the NLSY has used this same measure to examine discipline (see
e.g., Pratt et al., 2004). Further, alternative items such as how often in the past week was
the child grounded were considered. However, the items were unclear as to why the child
was receiving discipline, and as such, could be measuring harsh discipline. Further, the
items only examined discipline during the past week instead of over time/past year. It is
possible that the child may have engaged in more or less appropriate behaviors than
average. Using the current measure of discipline controls for harshness of and reason for
receiving discipline, and provides a more general sense of discipline use over time.
3. I do acknowledge that the measure of violence is less than what is typically 
considered reliable. However, these two items were the only items within the dataset that
did not have problems with the data (e.g., no variance, low respondents) and that captured
a more serious form of deviance.
149
4. Results indicated that sex was not associated with any of the parenting variables. 
However, sex was associated with self-control and deviance, thereby indicating that
females were more likely to have higher self-control and males were more likely to engage
in less serious offenses and violence. Next, results indicated that race was significantly
associated with a majority of the key variables, thus, suggesting that when compared to
Caucasian adolescents, African American parents were less likely to be as close or
involved with their children, use as much positive or warm communication, or positive
reinforcement. However, African American parents were more likely to use appropriate
discipline with respect to grades than Caucasian parents. Further, Hispanic adolescents
were more likely than Caucasian adolescents to engage in less serious offenses and alcohol
use, whereas, Caucasian adolescents were more likely than African American adolescents
to use alcohol. Finally, single mother headed families were less likely to be as
close/involved or use positive reinforcement with children when compared to two parent
biological families. Two parent biological families also were more likely to use warm
positive communication when compared to two parent unmarried families.
5. A SEM was conducted in which all three measures of self-control (i.e., at ages 8-
9, 12-13, and 16-17) were added to the model; once with mother reported self-control age
12-13 and once with child reported self-control age 12-13. Results indicated that mother
reported self-control age 8-9 was associated with mother reported self-control age 12-13
( = .70 before and after residualization), and in turn, was associated with child reported?
self-control age 16-17 before and after residualization ( = .27 and .19, respectively).?
However, the fit was poor in both cases (before residualization: CFI = .87, RMSEA =
150
.06, = 749.31, df = 224, p = .000; after residualization: CFI = .88, RMSEA = .06, =? ?
732.67, df = 224, p = .000). When child reports of self-control age 12-13 were examined,
self-control age 8-9 was associated with self-control age 12-13 before and after
residualization ( = .20 and .13, respectively), and in turn, was associated with self-?
control age 16-17 before residualization ( =.52) but not after residualization. In both?
cases, the models fit the data (before residualization: CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04, =?
317.75, df = 165, p = .000; after residualization: CFI = .95, RMSEA = .03, = 289.45, df?
= 165, p = .000). In none of the reported SEMs did self-control age 8-9 become
statistically significant with self-control age 16-17.
6. The structure of each CFA mother and child reported self-control model at ages 8-
9, 12-13, and 16-17, after residualization, also were examined. Recall that each CFA
mother reported self-control model had the same correlated error terms, as well as, each
CFA child reported self-control model. Results suggested similar loadings for each item
between each CFA model for the same respondents (see Appendix F). However, only half
of the items loaded significantly at age 16-17, whereas, all items loaded significantly at age
12-13. Thus, results suggest after residualization the structure of self-control between
ages 12-13 and 16-17 was different.
7. While the latent constructs of child reported self-control at ages 12-13 and 16-17 
after residualization were not found to be stable, the composites of child reported self-
control at age 12-13 and 16-17 after residualization were correlated. As such, analyses
continued to determine whether the constructs of child reported self-control after
151
residualization were stable from 12-13 to 16-17. Results indicated the composites were
stable.
8. Given that the majority of items used to measure closeness/involvement were 
regarding fathers, does little to tap into how close or involved mothers may be with their
children. It also is possible there is limited father involvement (e.g., in the case of single
mothers). As such, the manner with which closeness/involvement is measured in the
current analyses may account for why African American and single mothers reported
lower levels of closeness/involvement.