Why Focusing on Nurture Made and Still Makes Sense: The Biosocial Development of Self-Control

1

Why Focusing on Nurture Made and Still Makes Sense:

The Biosocial Development of Self-Control

Alexander T. Vazsonyi and Joshua W. Roberts

University of Kentucky

Li Huang

Tuskegee University

2

Introduction

In the current chapter, we examine both theoretical and subsequent empirical work on

how self-control develops in children based on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory

or Crime. Few longitudinal studies (e.g., Polakowski, 1994; Vazsonyi and Huang, 2010; cf., for

cross-sectional tests, Hay, 2001; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, and Margaryan, 2004) have addressed

perhaps one of the most pivotal theoretical arguments, and one of self-control theory’s basic

tenets, namely that early socialization processes during the first decade of a child’s life

effectively send a child on a life-long self-control trajectory, one highly predictive of norm

violations, of deviance, and of criminal conduct. Consider the following analogy:

An adolescent who is an incredible baseball pitcher (3 or more standard deviations above a population mean in terms of speed, accuracy and so forth) will be situated in a similar position relative to his peers at 20, 30, 40, and age 50, following a natural trajectory of improved pitching prowess during late adolescents into young adulthood, followed by an inevitable decline. The same logic applies to deviance and crime, considering low self-control. It is the inevitable decline that puzzles social and behavioral scientists, not only in crime and deviance, but a whole host of other observable behaviors (e.g., Kanazawa, 2003; “genius curve”). So, perhaps we should be most interested in developments during the first decade of life and less so in the immutable, universal, maturational growth and decline that follows (Vazsonyi and Huang, 2010: 255).

Despite a large number of empirical tests focused on self-control theory, few have tackled

this issue and central question of how self-control develops, not the exclusive source of

variability in deviance, but a central, probabilistic one. Most related work in criminology is

focused on the stability of self-control (the stability thesis); this only addresses a very modest

piece of the puzzle related to the development of self-control. Some of this (construct) stability

work found evidence supporting theoretical predictions about rank order changes over time

(Arneklev, Cochran, & Gainey, 1998; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Turner & Piquero, 2002), while

others did not (Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Mitchell & MacKenzie, 2006; Winfree, Taylor,

3

He, & Esbensen, 2006).

On the other hand, some researchers in the developmental sciences have focused on how

self-control/self-regulation develops in infants and young children for some time (Kopp, 1982);

this includes an understanding that this process was reciprocal, although most of this work was

conducted recently (Colman, Hardy, Albert, Raffaelli, & Crockett, 2006; Kochanska, Coy, &

Murray, 2001; Kochanska, Aksan, Penney, & Doobay, 2007; Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005;

Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003). Other developmental work has also focused on the

association between self-control or self-regulation and deviance or externalizing behaviors,

inspired by the work of Mischel and colleagues (1989; Eisenberg, Zhou, Spinrad, Valiente,

Fabes, & Liew, 2005; Zhou, Hofer, Eisenberg, Reiser, Spinrad, & Fabes, 2007; see also Brody &

Ge, 2001; Crockett, Raffaelli, & Shen, 2006). For instance, Eisenberg and colleagues (2005) also

identified how socialization experiences from caregivers continue to contribute in developmental

changes of self-control or self-regulation during childhood and adolescence. They recognized

some time ago that different terminology and at times operationalizations of self-control and

self-regulation across different disciplines or sub-disciplines within social and behavioral

sciences have been used, thus further contributing to how much or little scholarship in this area,

including on self-control theory, has progressed (Eisenberg, Champion, and Ma, 2004).

In the current chapter, we examine the extent to which Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-

control theory was mis-specified, as some have recently argued, in light of recent scholarship

focused on biological origins of self-control, of deviance, antisocial or criminal behaviors --

some based on the behavior genetic method, some focused on alleles frequency or genetic

markers, and some focused on gene X environment interactions. For instance, Wright and Beaver

(2005) suggest Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 60) explicitly discount the possibility that low

4

self-control might have a genetic component: “the magnitude of the ‘genetic effect’” they say

[omitted by authors: as determined by adoption studies], “is near zero.” A large body of

literature, however, has arrived at a very different conclusion.

The statement by Wright and Beaver is persuasive; however, Gottfredson and Hirschi

(1990: 60) in fact argue the opposite, on the very same page, commenting most generally on

biological positivism, on searches for physiognomy in criminals, on chromosal markers and so

forth, “This result should not be surprising, and it should not be interpreted as that biology has

nothing to do with crime [emphasis added]”. Recognizing and understanding the behavior

genetic method prior to the publication of their seminal book, almost a quarter century ago, and

undoubtedly due to regular collegial exchanges with David C. Rowe at the University of Arizona

at the time, they also comment on the following page that:

“These correlation coefficients [path model decomposition of a genetic effect on crime shown on page 61] translate into a heritability coefficient of .177, which may be described as the theoretical upper limit of the correlation between father’s criminality and son’s criminality given our assumptions. We would not argue that this result proves the irrelevance of biology to crime. We would argue, however, that this shows the need for greater attention to conceptual matters by those interested in biology and crime” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 61).

These comments appear to be mostly focused on conceptual issues, on positivism in general

which is characterized by a data driven, reductionist approach that often lacks an idea, a

conceptual framework, or even a theory. As is often the case, with controversial conceptual or

theoretical work, work that apparently has inspired a generation of criminologists judging by the

sheer volume of scholarship it has generated, work that challenges accepted or agreed upon

notions of how crime and deviance develop, but also work that is simply profound and

parsimonious, as is the case with self-control theory, it precipitates heavy criticism.

It is clear that Gottfredson and Hirschi favored social explanations in how self-control

5

develops, but very critically, they repeatedly acknowledged and discussed the salience of both

individual differences, the importance of biology, and of socialization effects. Thus, the current

chapter is guided by the simple question to what extent did Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) “have

it right” a quarter century ago? Does the General Theory leave out or even ignore biology in the

development of self-control and in the understanding of deviance and crime, as some have levied

as a criticism against the theory? How does self-control develop, using a biosocial lens? We

attempt to address these questions, by providing a larger framework for the development of self-

control, and also, by providing a simple empirical test at the end of the chapter. This is not meant

to fully address our original questions, but simply an illustration of the importance of a reciprocal

socialization process known to underlie the development of self-control and the associated

likelihood of engaging in crime and deviance – an illustration (not in a genetically informed

design) of reciprocity in socialization, evidence for both individual differences as well as

socialization effects in the development of self-control and deviance.

On the Development of Self-Control and the Importance of Biology

Few would question the impact Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory has

had on our understanding of crime and deviance within criminology; this is also true outside of

criminology, sometimes explicitly linked to self-control theory and sometimes not, in

psychology (e.g., Baumeister, Heatherton & Tice, 1994; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004),

the developmental sciences (Eisenberg et al, 2005), educational sciences (Duckworth &

Seligman, 2005), or health and health-risk research (e.g., Griffin, Scheier, Acevedo, Grenard,

and Botvin, 2011; Miller, Barnes, & Beaver, 2011). Given the temporal order, it seems likely

that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory might have been an important source, something

DeLisi (2013) so eloquently identifies as a “transdisciplinary” phenomenon in his recent chapter

6

entitled “Pandora’s Box.” The extent to which this phenomenon is truly transdisciplinary versus

simply a phenomenon appearing across a number of subdisciplines within social and behavioral

sciences is open for discussion. Gottfredson (2006: 96) so simply, but poignantly noted:

If theories may be judged by how much research they stimulate, control theory is doing exceptionally well. If theories may be judged by their consistency with the facts, control theory is doing exceptionally well. And if theories may be judged by the frequency with which other perspectives seek to incorporate them, control theory is, perhaps, without peer.

Despite its success in generating a tremendous amount of scholarship, the theory has not

been without heavy criticisms and has generated a tremendous amount of debate (Geiss, 2000;

Goode, 2008). Among others, important criticisms that have been raised about the paucity of

work that examines the etiology of self-control and the extent to which self-control theory-

incorporates biological mechanisms or explanations:

…the paucity of research examining the factors that give rise to low self-control is somewhat surprising. We have, for instance, been able to locate only a handful of empirical studies that test them. The findings, in general, have been favorable to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s position that effective child-rearing practices are predictive of self-control in children (but see Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wilkerson, and Chamlin, 1998) (Wright and Beaver, 2005: 1170).

Theoretically, Gottfredson and Hirschi identify primary socialization effects in the home during

the first decade of life, by parents or caregivers, as key in the development of self-control,

although they also propose secondary socialization agents, such as teachers at schools or schools

themselves. Findings on the importance of parenting processes have not been extensive, often

based on cross-sectional work, but have provided support (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994; Gibbs,

Giever, & Higgins, 1998; Hay, 2001; Polakowski, 1994; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010). This also

includes work done to test the salience of “secondary” socialization contexts, such as the school

(Turner, Piquero, & Pratt, 2005). However, recently some scholars have called into question how

much do parents really matter in this process (e.g., Beaver, Wright, & Delisi, 2007; Wright &

7

Beaver, 2005), with a twin criticism about self-control theory and the extent to which it is valid.

In fact, Wright and Beaver (2005: 1190) conclude:

Gottfredson and Hirschi openly exclude the possibility that self-control has a genetic base. Our study, along with others from various fields, suggests that for self-control theory to be a valid theory of crime it must incorporate a more sophisticated understanding of the origins of self-control (Pratt, Turner and Piquero, 2004; see also Pratt et al., 2002).

Similarly, citing the same work, Cullen, Unnever, Wright, and Beaver note (forthcoming: 17):

Still, Wright and Beaver’s research challenges the parental management thesis in suggesting that the major parental sources of self-control are likely genetic and thus cannot be traced to the style of child-rearing techniques used in a household. There appear to be at least two misunderstandings, related to theoretical interpretation as

well as to the extent to which Wright and Beaver’s important work did in fact show no non-

heritable effects. Together with the previous comment, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 96) in

fact appear to simply deny a denial of biology:

Obviously, we do not suggest that people are born criminals, inherit a gene for criminality, or anything of the sort. In fact, we explicitly deny such notions (see Chapter 3). What we do suggest is that individual differences may have an impact on the prospects of effective socialization (or adequate control). Effective socialization is, however, always possible whatever the configuration of individual.

Individual differences imply biological or genetic variability which they describe as primary and

as existing prior to any socialization processes or effects children might experience:

“Two general sources of variation are immediately apparent in this scheme. The first is the variation among children in the degree to which they manifest such traits to begin with” and “Obviously, therefore, even at this threshold level the sources of low self-control are complex” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 96)

Importantly, and perhaps consistent with theory, Wright and Beaver show in their work and call

attention to the fact that between 55% to 66% of the variability in self-control is heritable, based

on HLM analysis that takes genetic relatedness into account and based on a genetically informed

8

estimate of heritability based on the same data. Similarly, Beaver, Connolly, Schwartz, Al-

Ghamdi, and Kobeisy (2013) also found evidence which suggests that much of the observed

stability in self-control over time as well as changes in self-control are related to genetic factors

(78% to 89% and 74% to 92%, respectively). It seems as we have argued previously that

Gottfredson and Hirschi chose to focus on positive socialization effects because these represent

perhaps the only fruitful avenue for meaningful change (perhaps the essence of applied empirical

work in criminology), and research has largely supported this.

In a meta-analysis of 34 rigorous studies focused on testing the malleability of self-

control during the first decade of children’s lives, for instance, Piquero, Jennings and Farrington

(2009) concluded that (1) studies were successful in improving self-control, (2) that these

interventions reduced deviance, and (3) positive effects were robust across a number of potential

moderators, including data sources or raters, clinical versus non-clinical approaches and so forth.

Some larger intervention effects were found for girls in comparison to boys, which the authors

interpreted as being theoretically consistent because girls are less delinquent and because they

are also more receptive to intervention efforts in comparison to boys. Calling for a revised

criminal justice policy, based on their findings about the importance of self-control and its

malleability, they conclude:

Our findings show that interventions aimed at improving socialization and childrearing practices in the first decade of life (e.g., Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009) offer benefits for improving self-control as well as reducing delinquency/crime. It appears that investment in these efforts—in lieu of the more cost-prohibitive incarceration policies of the recent past—should be an important part of the policy response, especially because self-control is malleable and responsive to external sources of socialization (Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington 2009: 28).

9

Is Biology Really More Important?

Based on the pioneering work by Wright and Beaver (2005), Beaver, Wright, and Delisi

(2007: 1346) similarly concluded as a basis for their study which focused on the extent to which

neuropsychological motor skill function measures co-varied with self-control that:

“Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have dismissed the possibility that self-control has a biological or genetic component (Wright and Beaver, 2005) and to take these findings into consideration, the explanation of self-control set forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi needs to be revised with an explicit focus on how the biological processes of the brain affect the development of self-control”.

The study provided evidence that measures of fine and gross motor skills were negatively

associated with measures of self-control, as were socialization variables, based on a random

sample of 3,000 young children. This was found for both boys and girls part of the ECLS-K,

although parenting measures did not reach significance for girls when prior self-control was

added to model tests in the prediction of 1st grade self-control (only a test of developmental

changes in self-control from kindergarten to 1st grade). There is little doubt that the frontal cortex

is very important in the process of decision making (e.g., Renya, Chapman, Dougherty, &

Confrey, 2011); we know from recent brain imaging work that these decision centers continue to

mature into the early 20s and that it would be important and interesting to integrate these insights

into our understanding of how to explain crime and deviance, particularly among youth, and

perhaps to elaborate on self-control theory.

However, the extent to which neurological deficits per se are generally important for

crime and deviance, something Moffitt and colleagues also focused on in the 1990s, or to what

extent brain maps or mapping provides novel insights into why people deviate from social

norms, is less clear. Mapping the brain and understanding that it continues to develop past

adolescence, understanding that it is involved and which regions of it are involved in decision

10

making are important. But, what are we are looking for exactly? This search at times is

reminiscent of when biology and biological explanations were considered to be more central in

our understanding of crime and deviance; yet, whether at the molecular, genetic level or

physiological processes observed in the brain, having an idea of what we are looking for would

seem to be a hallmark of what is necessary to building knowledge, understanding, or a coherent

and testable theory of crime and deviance. Consider the following comment by expert

neuroscientists who study neurological control processes:

In sum, control functions that are typically associated with control (e.g., inhibition, task setting, and updating) are defined largely based on behavioral observations (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000). How these functions correspond to distinct indicators of brain activity will determine whether they are truly distinct componential entities or whether they emerge from the interactions of various systems in the brain and are therefore manifest only in the minds of cognitive scientists (Lenartowicz, Kalar, Congdon, & Poldrack, 2010: 690). One of the studies cited by Beaver, Wright, and Delisi (2007) as the basis and impetus for

their work was research done by Cauffman, Steinberg, and Piquero (2005), which juxtaposed

self-control measures with physiological measures related to autonomic nervous system

functioning (heart rate) as well as measures of intelligence, and neuropsychological functioning

(spatial span, a measure of cerebral lateralization). In a comparison of incarcerated youth (2/3 of

whom had committed a violent crime) and a sample of high school students from the general

population, they found that only a measure of self-control and parental education predicted

antisocial behaviors in the high school sample. On the other hand, a measure of self-control,

heart rate, and the measure of brain lateralization predicted antisocial behaviors among

incarcerated youth. Cauffman, Steinberg, and Piquero (2005: 155) conclude:

“In sum, while one component of self-control, future orientation, remains significant in this full model, it does not render insignificant the effects of neuropsychological functioning (in the form of spatial span scores) and biological

11

factors (in the form of heart rate). Thus, while certain components of self-control are important in distinguishing the two groups, it does not eliminate other factors that Gottfredson and Hirschi would expect to be eliminated. These results, then, support the contentions of those scholars attributing importance to neuropsychological and biological factors in addition to self-control (Moffitt, 1993; Rowe, 2002). There is no question that this study provided an interesting insight into potential

biologically-linked processes in the explanation of variability in adolescent deviance and crime.

At the same time, it is simply unclear the extent to which the findings provide new and coherent

information that stands in effect to invalidate self-control theory as some have suggested. It is

also not clear whether the theory has any predictions related to heart rate or brain lateralization as

found in this latter study; these were not found to be important for antisocial behaviors among

adolescents from the general population. It is perhaps self-evident that Gottfredson and Hirschi

did not discuss issues related to heart rate or brain lateralization; but does this provide the basis

for a revised or different theoretical explanation?

There is no doubt that the group of incarcerated youth, where 2/3 were in jail because

they killed, assaulted or raped another human being, might suffer from neurological and other

deficits. These youth seem particularly troubled, perhaps suffering from organic deficits. Yet,

self-control was important in understanding their antisocial behaviors as theorized. This means

they suffered from self-control deficits as well as other intellectual, emotional, and perhaps

neurological ones. Gottfredson and Hirschi consider low self-control a probabilistic individual

characteristic important in understanding variability in crime and deviance. They do not seem to

eliminate biology as pointed out, nor do they address or exclude serious intellectual impairments,

perhaps organic in origin or any other individual characteristics. They note on the probabilistic

nature of self-control:

12

In our view, lack of self-control does not require crime and can be counteracted by situational conditions or other properties of the individual. At the same time, we suggest that high self-control effectively reduces the possibility of crime – that is, those possessing it will be substantially less likely at all periods of life to engage in criminal acts (Gottfredson and Hirschi: 89).

They also specifically comment on other known correlates and predictors of crime, including

“low intelligence, high activity level, physical strength, and adventuresomeness” (Gottfredson

and Hirschi, 1990: 96) and how these are known to interfere with or support effective

socialization of self-control, with the development of self-control.

Both Biology and Socialization are Important!

Beaver et al. (2013) showed that mostly genetic and non-genetic (shared and non-shared)

effects are important in understanding the development of self-control and its stability over time.

Similarly, Beaver, Ratchford, and Ferguson (2009) illustrate that although a molecular marker

had no direct effect on self-control, the interaction between the 5HTTLPR allele and time spent

with delinquent synergistically explained variability in levels of self-control. Delisi (2011)

recently wrote a poignant editorial about the importance of biology given many of these

reviewed insights, calling for more genetically or biologically informed scholarship focused on

the etiology of crime and deviance. He notes:

For decades, criminology viewed genetics as startling, unconventional, and embarrassing. Genetics was l'enfant terrible. Today, a criminology that ignores or disputes the salience of genes toward understanding, preventing, and treating antisocial behavior risks being embarrassed (DeLisi, 2013: 515).

True, l’enfant terrible, for many reasons; but this is also simply related to recent advances in

molecular biology, in neuroimaging, or in the application of advanced quantitative techniques

that are based on very narrowly defined and not readily obtained twin and adoption studies (e.g.,

the Add Health which was planned over 20 years ago). But is it really so bad? Given the

explanation in the present chapter about the primacy and full acknowledgement of individual

13

differences that are present at birth, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, this might simply be a

case of misattributing a purely environmental position to their work, to their theoretical work.

Few would argue today or even twenty years ago, in the 1990s, that socialization is in

fact a one-way street; rather, we have known it is a two-way street, due to individual,

biologically-based differences; it is a dynamic and complex process, much as detailed by Sandra

Scarr in her 1992 SRCD presidential address, about genotype -> environment effects, about

behavior genetic evidence, about “good enough parenting,” or about the salience of non-shared

environmental effects on child and adolescent development. These are, nevertheless,

environmental effects, or as Plomin and Thomson (1987) describe them, “micro-environments

within families.” It is certainly true that criminologists have eschewed even speaking of biology

or biologically informed explanations, and yet, they were there, even in the General Theory of

Crime, including how Gottfredson and Hirschi approach the importance or un-importance of

culture, of cross-cultural, comparative criminology (Chapter 8). They argue that adopting

environmental, at time idiosyncratic, explanations of crime, driven by positivist thinking has led

to a fragmented field that literally did not know what it was looking for. Rather, they call for a

culture-free, universalist conceptualization of crime and delinquency, one that makes a number

of implicit assumptions about human nature and human behavior, more consistent with a

classical conception of crime, and one that transcends local mores, practices and environments

(Vazsonyi et al., 2011; 2004).

In a comprehensive review of behavior genetic work on antisocial behavior, Moffitt

(2005) concludes that both genetic and environmental causes are equally important for antisocial

outcomes. Much of her early developmental work on the etiology of antisocial or deviant

behaviors focused on neurological deficits as well as a typology of adolescence-limited versus

14

lifecourse persistent offenders, related to her interpretation of the age-crime distribution of crime.

Consider the following explanation:

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory suggests that a single intervention strategy aimed at increasing self-control would suffice to prevent antisocial behavior at any and all ages. In contrast, Moffitt’s (1993) developmental theory implies that one set of intervention strategies is needed to prevent persistent antisocial behavior that begins in childhood, while another set of strategies is needed to prevent delinquency that emerges in adolescence. Strategies for preventing childhood-onset antisocial behavior would focus on the neurodevelopmental impairments that inhibit the development of verbal abilities and self-control, while strategies preventing adolescent-onset behavior would target the social influences of delinquent peers on behavior (Bartusch, Lynam, Moffit, and Silva, 1997: 42-43). However, more recent work appears to have focused exclusively on the importance of

self-control, with a consideration of both the 1972 birth cohort project in Dunedin New Zealand

as well as the E-risk same-sex twin cohort in the United Kingdom, a behavior genetic study

started in 1998. Perhaps one of the most profound and far reaching recent statements written in

the social scientific literature, Moffitt, Poulton, and Caspi (2013: 359) conclude based on data

from both the Dunedin and the E-Risk behavior genetic project that:

The two cohorts we are studying—born in different countries and different decades—strongly support that improving individual self-control will prove essential for humanity's long-term health, wealth, safety, and happiness [emphasis added].

They also call to action for policies and practices that target the development of self-control

among children by the age of 12:

Improving childhood self-control is especially appealing because we find that differences in self-control between children predict their adult outcomes approximately as well as (sometimes better than) low intelligence and low social class origins, factors known to be extremely difficult to improve through intervention (Moffitt et al., 2013: 57). In the final part of the chapter, we provide a simple illustration of the extent to which

there appears to be an interactive and synergistic process that characterized how parenting, self-

15

control, and deviance are related over time in a sample of young children followed from age 4.5

to age 10.5 years.

The Current Study

Vazsonyi and Huang (2010) used the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development longitudinal study to examine both self-control and deviance developmental

trajectories from ages 4.5 to 10.5. They used simple structural equation modeling (SEM) and

latent growth modeling (LGM) of developmental trajectories, findings suggested that great

construct stability of self-control and deviance over the 6 year period. They found evidence that

children’s self-control increased over the 6 year period, and at the same time, their deviance

trajectories decreased over the same period. However, the longitudinal interrelationships among

parenting, self-control and deviance were not examined in their study. To date, few previous

studies examined longitudinal bidirectional relationships for parenting, self-control and deviance.

We examined bidirectional relationships between parenting and self-control. By

examining the bidirectional or reciprocal relationships between parenting and self-control at ages

4.5, 8.5 and 10.5, we were able to assess the degree to which differences in parenting affect

differences in development of self-control at different age (see Figure 1). In addition to these

bidirectional effects, we also tested how self-control at different ages affected children’s deviant

behaviors. Finally, we were also interested in sex and ethnic/race differences of bidirectional

relationships among parenting, self-control, and deviance.

Methods

Participants

The data for this study were based on the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network Study of Early Child Care. Data

16

collection commenced in 1991 when participating children were one month old and has

continued until middle adolescence; we focus on assessment completed at ages 4.5, 8.5, and 10.5

years. Over this period, research assistants from the 10 data collection sites have seen each child

at home, in child care, in school, and in a laboratory setting. Families lived in Little Rock, AR;

Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS, Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Charlottesville, VA;

Morganton, NC; Seattle, WA; and Madison, WI. Of the n = 1,364 families that completed initial

data collections at 1 month, complete parent and child data are available on n = 985 families -

when children were in first grade. In comparing the n = 985 families to the n = 379 families

where complete data were unavailable, participant’s mothers were slightly older on average (28.6

years versus 26.38 years), better educated (14.4 years versus 13.7 years) and less likely to be of

minority status (17% versus 27%). The final sample included n= 478 boys and n = 479 girls

(51.1%); most children were European Americans (n= 844 [82.3%]; African American n = 114

[11.1%]; Hispanic N = 22 [1.6%]; Native American n = 40 [4.7%]; Asian n=5 [0.3%]). Thus, we

coded European American as majority group, African American, Hispanic, Native American,

and Asian as children part of the minority group.

Procedures

Information about parents and children was obtained from mothers using face-to-face

interviews and observations of mother child-interactions. Telephone interviews were conducted

numerous times, and classroom data were collected from teachers during the spring semester of

first grade through sixth grade. The entire data collection protocol was reviewed by a steering

committee supervised by the NICHD and was reviewed annually by institutional review boards

of the ten participating institutions responsible for data collection. We focused on three time

points, namely when children were 4.5 years, 8.5 years and 10.5 years old. This was largely a

17

function of measurement issues at these time points; measurement of the key study constructs

was consistent, an important prerequisite for longitudinal model tests.

Measure

Parenting. In the current study, though a number of different parenting instruments and

measures are available, the Parent-Child Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1994) was selected, largely

as a function of when they were employed (assessment times) and whether they were repeated

subsequently, to facilitate longitudinal data analysis.

At 4.5 years old, mothers were asked to complete a 30-item questionnaire designed to

assess the target child’s attachment to the parent. The form was adapted from the Student-

Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001). Items were rated using a 5 point Likert scale. For

children at 8.5 years old and 10.5 years old parenting was measured by the 30 item Parent-Child

Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1994). Initially these items were selected to measure three

dimensions of warmth/security, anger/dependency, and anxiety/insecurity. Since 3rd and 5th

grade assessments only used 15-items short forms, a 15-item version was employed for the

current study to maintain consistency in measurement over time. The 15-items included the

parent’s feelings and beliefs about his/her relationship with the child as well as items about the

child’s behavior toward the parent. Based on conceptual reasons and an interest in the

warmth/security dimension as well as some data reduction analyses described subsequently, only

eight items were used, each rated by mothers on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1= definitely

does not apply to 5 = definitely applies (e.g., “children spontaneously shares personal

information with me”). The reliability estimates for the total Parent-Child Relationship scale

ranged from α = .81 to α =.87 in previous work (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2005). The alpha level

ranged from α =.63 to α=.73 for the current study across the three time points.

18

Self-Control. Self-control was measured by the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS,

Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Mothers completed the measure. The SSRS-Parent Form consists of

three parts, namely social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence scales. The social

skill component includes three subscales, namely cooperation, assertion and self-control. The

current study only focused on the self-control subscale. It includes 10 items rated by mothers on

a 3-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = very often; e.g., “controls temper

when arguing with other child”). The alpha ranged from α = .82 to α = .87 for the self-control

subscale in previous research (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2005). In the current study, reliabilities

ranged from α = .79 to α = .82 over the three time points.

Deviance. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL, parent report) (Achenbach, 1991) was

used to assess children and early adolescent deviant behaviors. The measure includes 33 items

that describe a variety of deviant behaviors, including “lying or cheating,” “steals at home,”

“physically attacks people,” and “gets into many fights”. Mothers rated each item on a 3-point

scale (0 = “not true”, 1 = “somewhat or sometimes true”; and 2 = “very true or often true”). Test-

retest reliability estimates indicated good internal consistency in previous work (statistic α =.76

to α =.93 (Achenbach, 1991). In the current study, reliability estimates were adequate over the

three time points (α =.78 to α =.80).

Results

First, descriptive statistics for the measures were computed. These statistics are presented

in Table 1. They include means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and reliabilities for each

of the measures.

Second, bivariate correlations among parenting, self-control, and deviance were

computed. Listwise deletion was employed for this analysis. Results showed that all the

19

correlations for the three time points were statistically significant and in the expected direction.

Maternal parenting was positively associated with self-control and negatively associated with

deviance, while self-control was negatively associated with deviance (see Table 2).

Third, we specified and tested a longitudinal cross-lagged path model of the relationships

among parenting, self-control, and deviance. Model fit was adequate: χ² = 186.350, df = 16, χ²/df

= 11.647, CFI = 0.951, and RMSEA = 0.088 (90% CI 0.077-0.1) (see Figure 1) more

importantly, results also indicated that parenting at 4.5 years predicted children’s self-control at

8.5 years (β = .136, SE = .024, p <.001), while parenting at 8.5 years did not predict children’s

self-control at 10.5 years (β = .016, SE = .023, p =.482). Interestingly, we also found that

children’s self-control at 4.5 years predicted maternal parenting at 8.5 years (β = .168, SE = .033,

p <.001) and that children’s self-control at 8.5 years predicted maternal parenting at 10.5 years (β

= .065, SE = .031, p <.05), thus providing evidence of a reciprocal process. Findings also

showed that children’s self-control at age 4.5 years negatively predicted children’s deviant

behaviors at 8.5 years (β = -.131, SE = .032, p <.001) and that children’s self-control at 8.5 years

negatively predicted children’s deviant behaviors at age 10.5 years (β = -.116, SE = .026, p

<.001). Lastly, the model also provided evidence that children’s deviant behaviors at 4.5 years

predicted children’s self-control at 10.5 years (β = -.176, SE = .026, p <.001) and that children’s

deviant behaviors at 8.5 years negatively predicted children’s self-control at 10.5 years (β = -

.167, SE .027,p<.001).

Next, we also tested a series longitudinal cross-lagged path models by sex and

ethnicity/race. Results showed that all the model fit are adequately. For male model, χ² =

116,056, df = 16, χ²/df = 7.254, CFI = 0.920, and RMSEA = 0.088 (90% CI 0.095-0.135). For

female model, χ² = 71.38, df = 16, χ²/df = 4.461, CFI = 0.951, and RMSEA = 0.085 (90% CI

20

0.066-0.11). For majority model children the following model fit was observed: χ² = 98.52, df =

16, χ²/df = 6.157, CFI = 0.962, and RMSEA = 0.078 (90% CI 0.064-0.093). On the other hand,

for minority children, the following was found: χ² = 67.798, df = 16, χ²/df = 4.237, CFI = 0.895,

and RMSEA = 0.134(90% CI 0.102-0.168). Results included in Table 3 decompose the effects

by sex and by ethnic/racial group. Findings provide evidence that reciprocal processes were

found between parenting and self-control in both boys and girls during early and middle

childhood (from 4.5 years old to 8.5 years old), but less so during late childhood (8.5 years old to

10.5 years old). Similarly, reciprocal processes were also found between self-control and

deviance in both boys and girls. Finally, in comparisons by ethnic/racial group, findings

indicated that reciprocal processes existed between parenting and self-control among both

majority and minority group children during early and middle childhood (from 4.5 years old to

8.5 years old), but less so during late childhood. However, deviance at age 4.5 years did not

significantly predict children’s self-control four years later at the age of 8.5 years. We found that

an individual’s level of self-control only showed significant effects on parenting during early

childhood (between 4.5 and 8.5 years). At the same time, self-control predicted both parenting

and deviance, while deviance also predicted self-control over time. In general, stability over time

of each of the three constructs was greater in magnitude during late childhood, while at the same

time, the strength of association across them diminished.

Conclusion

In conclusion, self-control remains very important and appears to develop through an

interplay between individual differences and, at least, non-heritable effects. Self-control has

recently been highlighted by some as essential for the well-being and very functioning of

humanity. Much of this work also supports the importance of socialization effects, above and

21

beyond individual differences, thus reaffirming the original theoretical conceptualization of it.

We are optimistic about the theory and its empirical status, the original potent concept of

probabilistic self-control, tempered by situational and contextual opportunities, is important in

our understanding of variability in crime and deviance. Maybe Gottfredson and Hirschi had it

right, after all, when they focused on nurture (without the exclusion of nature) in the

development of self-control. Others tend to agree –scholars conducting sophisticated and state of

the art etiological work over decades and across different continents, with and without the use of

genetically informed designs (Moffitt et al., 2013) as well as scholars extensively synthesizing

rigorous programmatic work addressing the reduction of crime and deviance by addressing self-

control (Piquero et al., 2009). Today, few would argue with the fact that socialization processes

are bidirectional and that they are related to both individual (genetic) differences as much as to

contextual influences. Much like DeLisi (2013) notes, work ignoring this status quo stands a high

chance of embarrassment. However, and thankfully so, today, so far, we can do little about

biological variability, but much about socialization influences and early experiences.

22

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the main constructs variables

Variable

# items

N Mean SD Skew SE Kurtosis SE α

Parenting at 4.5 years 8 1,077 4.66 0.35 -1.57 0.08 3.38 0.15 0.63



Self-Control at 4.5 years 10 1,057 1.30 0.31 0.09 0.07 -0.33 0.15 0.79

Self-control at 8.5 years 10 1,028 1.36 0.34 -0.15 0.07 -0.63 0.15 0.82

Self-Control at 10.5 years 10 1,021 1.39 0.33 -0.12 0.07 -0.27 0.15 0.81

Deviance at 4.5 years 8 1,057 0.50 0.35 0.68 0.07 0.26 0.15 0.78



23

Table 2. Correlations of Parenting, Self-control, and Deviance

Note. ** Correlations are statistically significant at p < 0.01 (2 tailed)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Parenting (4.5 years)

2. Parenting (8.5 years) .34**

3. Parenting (10.5 years) .29** .49**

4. Self-control (4.5 years) .32** .26** .21**

5. Self-control (8.5 years) .30** .39** .25** .53**

6. Self-control (10.5 years) .23** .29** .28** .49** .70**

7. Deviance (4.5 years) -.19** -.16** -.11** -.39** -.38** -.38**

8. Deviance (8.5 years) -.15** -.22** -.12** -.57** -.51** -.51** .54**

9. Deviance (10.5 years) -.14** -.19** -.24** -.48** -.59** -.59** .51** .70**

24

Table 3: Parameter Estimates for Male versus Female children and for Ethnic/racial Majority versus Minority Children

Male N = 478

Female N = 479

Majority N = 844

Minority N = 181

β SE β SE β SE β SE

Parenting 4.5 years Parenting 8.5 years .242*** .045 .315*** .048 .284*** .035 .258** .091

Parenting 8.5 years Parenting 10.5 years .526*** .052 .497*** .056 .444*** .041 .467*** .084

Self-control 4.5 years Self-control 8.5 years .385*** .058 .452*** .051 .391*** .041 .412*** .095

Self-control 8.5 years Self-control 10.5 years .546*** .045 .593*** .049 .605*** .035 .623*** .073

Deviance 4.5 years Deviance 8.5 years .447*** .057 .484*** .045 .531*** .033 .443*** .075

Deviance 8.5 years Deviance 10.5 years .694*** .040 .602*** .045 .654*** .034 .700*** .075

Parenting 4.5 years Self-control 8.5 years .125** .038 .182*** .039 .170*** .030 .168* .067

Parenting 8.5 years Self-control 10.5 years -.004 .038 .067** .043 .036 .030 -.086 .056

Self-control 4.5 years Parenting 8.5 years .117** .058 .150** .055 .178*** .040 .178** .111

Self-control 8.5 years Parenting 10.5 years .031 .049 .024 .056 .090* .038 .033 .093

Self-control 4.5 years Deviance 8.5 years -.160*** .057 -.151** .052 -.104** .038 -.146** .092

Self-control 8.5 years Deviance 10.5 years -.090* .040 -.140* .046 -.110** .033 -.103* .061

Deviance 4.5 years Self-control 8.5 years -.199*** .045 -.149** .043 -.231*** .035 -.092 .054

Deviance 8.5 years Self-control 10.5 years -.253*** .040 -.120** .046 -.150*** .036 -.241*** .061

25

Figure 1: Path Analysis Parameter Estimates

.466*** .291***

.634*** .484***

.594*** .416***

.168***

.136***

‐.131***

‐.176***

.065*

.016

‐.116***

‐.167***

Parenting 4.5 years

Parenting 8.5 years

Parenting 10.5 years

Self‐Control 4.5 years


Deviance 8.5 years

Deviance 4.5 years


Deviance 10.5 years

26

References

Achenbach, T.M. (1991) Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile,

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Akers, R.L. (1991) ‘Self-control as a general theory of crime’, Journal of Quantitative

Criminology, 7: 201-211.

Arneklev, B.J., Cochran, J.K., and 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.

Baron, S.W. (2003) ‘Self-contol, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and

the general theory of crime’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40: 403-

425.

Bartusch, D.R.J., Lynam, D.R., Moffitt, T.E., and Silva, P.A. (1997) ‘Is age important? Testing a

general versus a developmental theory of antisocial behavior’, Criminology, 35: 13-48.

Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, D.M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people

fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beaver, K. M., Ratchford, M., and Ferguson, C. J. (2009). ‘Evidence of genetic and

environmental effects on the development of low self-control’, Criminal Justice and

Behavior 36: 1158-1172.

Beaver, K.M., Schutt, J.E., Boutwell, B.B., Ratchford, M., Roberts, K., and Barnes, J.C. (2009)

‘Genetic and environmental influences on levels of self-control and delinquent peer

affiliation: Results from a longitudinal sample of adolescent twins’, Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 36: 41-60.

Beaver, K.M. and Wright, J.P. (2007) ‘The stability of low self-control from kindergarten

27

through first grade’, Journal of Crime and Justice, 30: 63-86.

Beaver, K.M., Wright, J.P., and Delisi, M. (2007) ‘Self-control as an executive function:

Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis’, Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 34: 1345-1361.

Beaver, K. M., Connolly, E. J., Schwartz, J. A., Al-Ghamdi, M. S., and Kobeisy, A. N. (2013).

Genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change in levels of self-control.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(5), 300-308.

Beccaria, C. (1963) On Crimes and Punishments, translated by H. Paolucci, Indianapolis, IN:

Bobbs-Merrill.

Bentham, J.A. (1948) A Fragment on Government: And an Introduction to the Principles of

Morals and Legislation, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bradley, R.H. and Corwyn, R.F. (2005) ‘Productive activity and the prevention of behavior

problems’, Developmental Psychology, 41: 89-98.

Brody, G.H. and 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.

Burt, C.H., Simons, R.L., and Simons, L.G. (2006) ‘A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting

and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime’,


Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Silva, P.A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R.F., and Schmutte, P.A.

(1994) ‘Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship

across countries, genders, races, and methods’, Criminology, 32: 163-196.

Cauffman, E., Steingberg, L., and Piquero, A.R. (2005) ‘Psychological, neuropsychological, and

28

physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-

control’, Criminology, 43: 133-176.

Cheung, N.W. and Cheung, Y.W. (2008) ‘Self-control, social factors, and delinquency: A test of

the general theory of crime among adolescents in Hong Kong’, Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 37: 412-430.

Cochran, J.K., Wood, P.B., Sellers, C.S., Wilkerson, W., and Chamlin, M.B. (1998) ‘Academic

dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime’, Deviant

Behavior, 19: 227-255.

Colman, R.A., Hardy, S.A., Albert, M., and Crocket, L. (2006) ‘Early predictors of self-

regulation in middle childhood’, Infant and Child Development, 15:421-437.

Crockett, L.J., Raffaelli, M., and Shen, Y.L. (2006) ‘Linking self-regulation and risk proneness

to risky sexual behavior: Pathways through peer pressure and early substance use’,

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16:503-525.

Cullen, F.T., Unnever, J.D., Wright, J.P., and Beaver, K.M. (forthcoming) ‘Parenting and self-

control’, in Erich Goode (ed.), Crime and Criminality: Evaluating the General Theory of

Crime, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

DeLisi, M. (2001) ‘It’s all in the record: Assessing self-control theory with an offender sample’,

Criminal Justice Review, 26, 1-14.

DeLisi, M. (2013) ‘Pandora’s box: The consequences of low self-control into adulthood’,

In Chris L. Gibson and Marvin D. Krohn (Eds.), Handbook of Life-course Criminology.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

DeLisi, M. (2011) ‘Genetics: L'Enfant terrible of criminology’, Journal of Criminal Justice,

40:515-516.

29

Duckworth, A.L. and Seligman, M.E. P. (2005) ‘Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting

academic performance of adolescents’, Psychological Science, 16:939-944.

Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., and Ma, Y. (2004) ‘Emotion-related regulation: An emerging

construct’, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50:236-259.

Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T.L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R.A., and Liew, J. (2005) ‘Relations

among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A

three-wave longitudinal study’, Child Development, 76:1055-1071.

Evans, T.D., Cullen, F.T., Burton Jr., V.S., Dunaway, R.G., Benson, M.L. (1997) ‘The social

consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime’, Criminology, 35: 475-

504.

Feldman, S.S. and Weinberger, D.A. (1994) ‘Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on

boys’ delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study’, Child Development, 65: 195-211.

Geis, G. (2000) ‘On the absence of self-control as the basis for a General Theory of Crime: A

critique’, Theoretical Criminology, 4:35-53.

Gibbs, J.J. and 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., and Martin, J.S. (1998) ‘Parental management and self-control: An

empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory’, Journal of Research on

Crime and Delinquency, 35: 40-70.

Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. (1950) Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Goode, E. (2008) Out of Control: Assessing the General Theory of Crime, Stanford, CA:

30

Stanford University Press.

Gottfredson, M.R. (2006) ‘The empirical status of control theory in criminology’, In Francis

Cullen, John Wright, and Kristie Blevins (Eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of

Criminological Theory, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Gottfredson, M. R. and Hirschi, T. (1990) A General Theory of Crime, Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik Jr., R.J. and 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.

Gresham, F.M. and Elliot, S.N. (1990) Social Skills Rating System Manual, Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service.

Griffin, K.W., Scheier, L.M., Acevedo, B., Grenard, J.L., and Botvin, G.J. (2011) ‘Long-term

effects of self-control on alcohol use and sexual behavior among urban minority young

women’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9:1-23.

Hardwick, K. H. and Brannigan, A. (2008) ‘Self-control, child effects, and informal social

control: A direct test of the primacy of sociogenic factors’, Canadian Journal of

Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50:1-30.

Harris, J.R. (1995) ‘Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of

development’, Psychological Review, 102: 458-489.

---- (1998) The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, New York, NY:

Free Press.

---- (2000) ‘Socialization, personality development, and the child’s environment: Comment on

Vandell (2000)’, Developmental Psychology, 36: 711-723.

31

Hay, C. (2001) ‘Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory’,


Hay, C. and Forrest, W. (2006) ‘The development of self-control: Examining self-control

theory’s stability thesis’, Criminology, 44:739-774.

Hirschi, T. (2004) ‘Self-control and crime’, in R.F. Baumeister and K.D. Vohs (eds.), Handbook

of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, New York: Guilford Press.

Jones, S. and Quisenberry, N. (2004) ‘The general theory of crime: How general is it?’, Deviant

Behavior, 25: 401-426.

Kanazawa, S. (2003) ‘Why productivity fades with age: The crime-genius connection’, Journal

of Research in Personality, 37:257-272.

Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Penney, S.J., and Doobay, A.F. (2007) ‘Early positive emotionality as

a heterogeneous trait: Implications for children’s self-regulation’, Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 93:1054-1066.

Kochanska, G., Coy, K.C., and Murray, K.T. (2001) ‘The development of self-regulation in the

first four years of life’, Child Development, 72:1091-1111.

Kopp, C.B. (1982) ‘Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective’,

Developmental Psychology, 18:199-214.

Lenartowicz, A., Kalar, D.J., Congdon, E., and Poldrack R.A. (2010) ‘Towards an ontology of

cognitive control’, Topics in Cognitive Science, 2:678–692.

Laub, J.H. and Sampson, R.J. ‘Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study

of crime’, Criminology, 31: 301-326.

Longshore, D. (1998) ‘Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general

theory of crime’, Social Problems, 45: 102-113.

32

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science,

244: 933-938.

Miller, H.V., Barnes, J.C., and Beaver, K.M. (2011) ‘Self-control and health outcomes in a

nationally representative sample’, American Journal of Health and Behavior 35:15-27.

Mitchell, O. and MacKenzie, D.L. (2006) ‘The stability and resiliency of self-control in a sample

of incarcerated offenders’, Crime and Delinquency, 52:432-449.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., and Wager, T.D. (2000)

‘The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex

“frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis’, Cognitive Psychology, 41:49-100.

Moffitt, T.E. (1993) ‘Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy’, Psychological Review, 100: 674-701.

---- (2005) ‘The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-

environment interplay in antisocial behaviors’, Psychological Bulletin, 131: 533-554.

Moffitt, T.E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., Harrington, H., Houts, R.,

Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross, S., Sears, M.R., Thomson, W.M., and Caspi, A. (2011)

‘A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety’,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108:

2693-2698.

Moffitt, T.E., Poulton, R., and Caspi, A. (2013) ‘Lifelong impact of early self-control: Childhood

self-discipline predicts adult quality of life’, American Scientist, 101: 352-359.

Ozbay, O. (2008) ‘Self-control, gender, and deviance among Turkish university students’,

Journal of Criminal Justice, 36: 72-80.

Perrone D., Sullivan, C.J., Pratt, T.C., and Margaryan, S. (2004) ‘Parental efficacy, self-control,

33

and delinquency: A test of a General Theory of Crime on a nationally representative

sample of youth’, International Journal of Offender Therapy in Comparative

Criminology, 48:298-312.

Pianta, R.C. (1994) Parent Child Relationship Scale, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

---- (2001) Student-Teacher Relationship Scale, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C., Tremblay, R., and Jennings, W.G. (2009) ‘Effects

of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency’, Journal

of Experimental Criminology, 5: 83-120

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W.G., and Farrington, D. P. (2009) 'On the malleability of

self-control: Theoretical and policy implications regarding a General Theory of Crime',

Justice Quarterly, 27:803-834.

Piquero, A.R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L.E., and Cullen, F.T. (2005) ‘Self-control,

violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime’,

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21: 55-71.

Plomin, R. and Thompson, R. (1987) ‘Life-span developmental behavioral genetics’, In P.B.

Baltes, D.L. Featherman, and R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-Span Development and Behavior,

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Inc.

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. and Cullen, F.T. (2000) ‘The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general

theory of crime: A meta-analysis’, Criminology, 38: 931-964.

Raffaelli, M., Crockett, L.J., and Shen, Y.L. (2005) ‘Developmental stability and change in self-

34

regulation from childhood to adolescence’, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research

and Theory on Human Development, 166:54-76.

Ratchford, M. and Beaver, K.M. (2009) ‘Neuropsychological deficits, low self-control, and

delinquent involvement: Toward a biosocial explanation of delinquency’, Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 36: 147-162.

Rebellon, C.J., Straus, M.A., and Medeiros, R. (2008) ‘Self-control in global perspective: An

empirical assessment of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory within and across 32

national settings’, European Journal of Criminology, 5: 331-361.

Reyna, V.F., Chapman, S.B., Dougherty, M.R., and Confrey, J. (2011) The Adolescent Brain:

Learning, Reasoning, and Decision Making, Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Rothbart, M.K., Ellis, L.K., Rueda, R., and Posner, M.I. (2003) ‘Developing mechanisms of

temperamental effortful control’, Journal of Personality, 71:1113-1144.

Rowe, D.C. (2002) Biology and Crime, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Shreck, C.J. (1999) ‘Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a

general theory of crime’, Justice Quarterly, 16: 633-654.

Tagney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., and Boone, A.L. (2004) ‘High self-control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success’, Journal of

Personality, 72:271-324.

Turner, M.G. and Piquero, A.R. (2002) ‘The stability of self-control’, Journal of Criminal

Justice, 30: 457-471.

Michael G. Turner, M.G., Piquero A.R., and Pratt, T.C. (2005) ‘The school context as a

source of self-control’, Journal of Criminal Justice 33:327–339.

35

Unnever, J.D., Cullen, F.T., and Pratt, T.C. (2003) ‘Parental management, ADHD, and

delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory’, Justice

Quarterly, 20: 471-500.

Vazsonyi, A.T. and Huang, L. (2010) ‘Where self-control comes from: On the development of

self-control and its relationship to deviance over time’, Developmental Psychology,

46: 245-257.

Vazsonyi, A.T., Pickering, L.E., Junger, M., and 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.

Vazsonyi, A.T., Wittekind, J.E.C., Belliston, L.M., and Van Loh, T.D. (2004) ‘Extending the

general theory of crime to the East: Low self-control in Japanese late adolescents’,

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20: 189-216.

Winfree, L.T., Taylor, T.J., He, N., and Esbensen, F.A. (2006) ‘Self-control and variability over

time: Multivariate results using a 5-year, multisite panel of youths’, Crime and

Delinquency, 52:253-286.

Wright, J.P. and Beaver, K.M. (2005) ‘Do parents matter in creating self-control in their

children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-

control’, Criminology, 43: 1169-1202.

Zhou, Q., Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Reiser, M., Spinrad, T.L., and Fabes, R.A. (2007) ‘The

developmental trajectories of attention focusing, attentional and behavioral persistence,

and externalizing problems during school-age years’, Developmental Psychology,

43:369-385.

Why Focusing on Nurture Made and Still Makes Sense: The Biosocial Development of Self-Control

Documents

Transcript of Why Focusing on Nurture Made and Still Makes Sense: The Biosocial Development of Self-Control