The only requirements are that you use 3 sources (2 of them must be academic/research articles or book chapters) and cite them in APA. This should be written as an essay with an intro and conclusion, and you need to start with a research question. One source that has to be used is attached. ***Topic of the entire paper*** Background/childhood-how the juvenile was raised. Where they raised in a broken home? “Bad” parents? Etc. What caused the juveniles to get to the point that they are at?Any questions please reach out to me.It must be in perfect APA format. A full 3 page paper, not double spaced. Times 12 font. The class is Juvenile Justice System. Everything is based off of that, the topic needs to be addressed and every possible question and answer needs to be answered. Tough professor. Very thorough with the work.
parenting_and_delinquency.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2008) 36:223–235
DOI 10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x
Trajectories of Delinquency and Parenting Styles
Machteld Hoeve & Arjan Blokland &
Judith Semon Dubas & Rolf Loeber & Jan R. M. Gerris &
Peter H. van der Laan
Published online: 5 September 2007
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract We investigated trajectories of adolescent delinquent development using data from the Pittsburgh Youth
Study and examined the extent to which these different
trajectories are differentially predicted by childhood parenting styles. Based on self-reported and official delinquency seriousness, covering ages 10–19, we identified five
distinct delinquency trajectories differing in both level and
change in seriousness over time: a nondelinquent, minor
persisting, moderate desisting, serious persisting, and
serious desisting trajectory. More serious delinquents
tended to more frequently engage in delinquency, and to
report a higher proportion of theft. Proportionally, serious
persistent delinquents were the most violent of all trajectory
groups. Using cluster analysis we identified three parenting
styles: authoritative, authoritarian (moderately supportive),
and neglectful (punishing). Controlling for demographic
characteristics and childhood delinquency, neglectful parenting was more frequent in moderate desisters, serious
persisters, and serious desisters, suggesting that parenting
styles differentiate non- or minor delinquents from more
serious delinquents.
Keywords Delinquency trajectories . Parenting styles .
Development . Longitudinal
J. S. Dubas
Department of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands
During childhood the family environment constitutes the
basic social ecology in which the child’s behavior is
manifested, learned, encouraged or suppressed (Dishion
and Patterson 2006). Criminologists have long since
acknowledged the association between parenting and
delinquency (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1986) and
various criminological theories have included parenting
behaviors among their explanatory variables (e.g., Hirschi
1969). However, only with the advent of developmental
criminology during the 1990s have criminological theories
been proposed linking a variety of family factors and
parenting practices to specific developmental trajectories of
delinquency.
In this study we make use of data from the Pittsburgh
Youth Study (PYS), a longitudinal study covering a period
of over 14 years. Our aim is to test whether distinct
developmental trajectories based on delinquency seriousness can be identified and whether parenting styles are
differentially linked to membership of these trajectories.
R. Loeber
Life History Studies, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Parenting and Delinquency
J. R. M. Gerris
Department of Pedagogy: Family and Behavior,
Radboud University Nijmegen,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
A delinquent trajectory, the evolution of delinquency over
age, can usefully be described by its level (intercept) and its
rate of change over time (slope). Developmental crimino-
M. Hoeve : A. Blokland : P. H. van der Laan
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law
Enforcement (NWO-NSCR),
Leiden, The Netherlands
M. Hoeve (*)
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Amsterdam,
P.O. Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: m.hoeve@uva.nl
224
logical theories differ in the extent to which they consider
between-individual variation on these two dimensions.
Some theories account only for differences in the absolute
level of delinquency, assuming, often implicitly, the shape
of the delinquent trajectory to be relatively similar across
individuals (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Others
explicitly recognize variation in both the intercept and slope
of delinquent development, linking differently shaped
trajectories to different etiological factors, including parenting practices (e.g., Moffitt 1993).
A prominent example of a theory explaining only level
differences in delinquent development is Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s (1990) ‘General Theory’. Their theory attributes
delinquency to lack of self-control. While recognizing
inherent individual differences, Gottfredson and Hirschi
claim low levels of self-control to result from parents
failing to monitor the child’s behavior, to recognize deviant
behavior when it occurs, and to punish such behavior
(Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Other theories go beyond
explaining only level differences in delinquency and
examine how delinquency changes by age. Moffitt (1993),
Patterson (e.g., Patterson and Yoerger 2002), and Lahey
and Waldman (2003), for example, offer theories that try to
explain why delinquent trajectories are differently shaped
for different types of individuals. The basic premise of
these models is that children differ, whether continuously
(Lahey and Waldman) or discontinuously (Moffitt), in key
temperamental and cognitive elements that make up
antisocial propensity. According to these typologies difficult children negatively affect their parents’ disciplinary
strategies, resulting in harsher and inconsistent punishments
and parents being less involved in the socialization process.
These negative child–parent transactions set a child off on a
delinquent path that starts in the early teens, entails many
delinquent acts and persists far into adulthood. In contrast,
neuropsychologically healthy children with average temperamental profiles, raised in adaptive family environments,
are unlikely to develop enduring and serious delinquency
trajectories. These children tend to show minor, nonaggressive delinquent trajectories that peak in adolescence
reflecting their desire to express autonomy from parental
control (Moffitt 1993) or peer pressure to engage in
delinquent acts (Lahey and Waldman 2003; Patterson and
Yoerger 2002). Finally, children with extremely low risk
profiles, experiencing both individual and structural
barriers, will be impervious to these social influences
and are expected to refrain from delinquency altogether.1
1
In her latest fine-tuning of the taxonomy Moffitt (2006) has argued for
an additional fourth group, the low-level chronics. These individual’s
share many individual and family characteristics with the high-level
persistent delinquents, yet show persistent, but not high-level delinquent
trajectories. Presumably, they also have off-putting characteristics that
exclude them from delinquent peer groups, such as anxieties or phobias.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2008) 36:223–235
From Parenting Dimensions to Parenting Styles
The vast majority of studies on the family-delinquency
association have treated the family as a potential risk factor
for delinquent behavior. Family risk factors include characteristics of parenting as well as other family-related issues such
as marital discord, psycho-social problems of parents, and
delinquency within the family (Loeber and StouthamerLoeber 1986). However, research adopting this risk factor
approach is variable-centered, identifying differences among
families on single dimensions, such as harsh parental
discipline, supervision, and control, but not considering
how these various dimensions coalesce within specific
families. Several scholars have argued that adopting a
typological approach is more suitable for studying a complex
system such as a family (Bergman and Magnusson 1997).
This approach combines aspects of variable- and casecentered approaches in which the whole functioning of the
system is the unit of analysis by empirically organizing the
variety of characteristics and dynamics of families (Henry et
al. 2005; Mandara 2003; Mandara and Murray 2002).
An influential typology concerning the parenting context
has been developed by Maccoby and Martin (1983).
Elaborating on the work of Baumrind (1971), Maccoby
and Martin proposed a typology, defining parenting styles
according to a two-dimensional framework which consists
of: (1) support, such as warmth, acceptance, affection, and
responsiveness; and (2) control, which refers to punishment, restrictiveness, supervision, inductive parenting, and
conformity demands. They identified four parenting styles:
authoritarian (low support, high control), authoritative (high
support and control), permissive (high support and low
control), and neglecting (low support and control). Parenting styles are configurations of attitudes and behaviors of
parents towards their child and create a context or a climate
for the parent’s behavior. A parenting style is not
considered domain specific; that is, it is displayed across
many different situations (Darling and Steinberg 1993).
This multidimensional approach may consequently more
fully cover the facets of child-rearing and may provide a
more comprehensive understanding of the influence of
patterns of parenting characteristics on the development of
delinquency than single parenting characteristics commonly
used as risk factors in predicting delinquency.
Prior Research and Current Focus
Findings from empirical research analyzing whether different delinquency trajectories are associated with different
family factors are mixed. Some studies found at least
partially different familial etiologies for different trajectories (Chung et al. 2002a, b; Fergusson et al. 2000;
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2008) 36:223–235
McDermott and Nagin 2001; Wiesner and Silbereisen 2003;
Wiesner and Windle 2004), whereas other studies found no
or very few differences (Nagin et al. 1995; White et al.
2001; Wiesner and Capaldi 2003). Although many theories
attribute an important role to childhood parenting in the
etiology of delinquency, most studies focused on family
risk factors other than parenting, such as parental criminality, parental stress and family structure (Fergusson and
Horwood 2002; Fergusson et al. 2000; McDermott and
Nagin 2001) or examined only one or two single parenting
dimensions in relation to delinquency trajectories (Nagin et
al. 1995; White et al. 2001; Wiesner and Silbereisen 2003).
To our knowledge, one study analyzed the link between
family functioning patterns and offending trajectories.
Gorman-Smith et al. (2000) found that struggling families
(low in discipline, monitoring, structure, cohesion and
beliefs) which may be comparable to the neglectful style,
were found to be at increased risk for each type of
offending, whereas exceptionally functioning families (high
levels of positive parenting, adequate discipline, structure,
and cohesion) were less likely to be involved in each of the
offending patterns. Task-oriented families (high levels of
structure, but low levels of warmth and beliefs about the
family), which may be relatively similar to the authoritarian
parenting style, appeared more likely to be involved in the
serious chronic pattern of offending. Thus, although this
study covered a relatively limited period of 4 years in
middle adolescence, a concurrent link between patterns of
family functioning and offending behavior was identified.
The present study builds on research on offending
trajectories by analyzing the existence of distinct delinquency trajectories in a longitudinal sample of males who
participated in the Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS; Loeber et
al. 1998). It adds to previous studies in at least four ways.
First, the PYS covers a period of 14 years with 18 waves.
We use data measured at ages 7 up to 19. Many previous
studies applying trajectory analysis on self-report data had
smaller numbers of assessments covering shorter periods
(e.g., Chung et al. 2002a, b; Wiesner and Windle 2004).
Second, whereas many previous studies conducted concurrent analyses measuring both risk factors and delinquency
during adolescence (e.g., Gorman-Smith et al. 2000), in the
present study risk factors were measured in childhood, thus
before delinquency trajectory data was collected. Moreover,
although most theories explaining delinquent behavior by
family characteristics state that parenting and family
influences are strongest during childhood (Gottfredson
and Hirschi 1990; Moffitt and Caspi 2001), most previous
studies concentrated on family factors measured during
adolescence. Third, we further extend previous research by
focusing on parenting styles instead of family factors in
order to gain more insight in the influence of multidimensional styles of how parents interact with their children and
225
whether these are linked to distinctive delinquency patterns
across adolescence. Unlike previous studies our focus is on
a broad range of parenting characteristics, including
supportive and disciplining parenting behaviors and the
quality of the relationship between parent and child. In
addition, we control for risk factors known to be important,
such as socioeconomic status and prior delinquent behavior
(e.g., Farrington 2002). Fourth, parenting and all other risk
factors were measured across six waves covering middle
childhood rather than a snapshot of one point in time.
In sum, general theories of delinquency have argued that
family risk factors discriminate between delinquents and
non-delinquents. Indeed, there is extensive empirical evidence for family risk factors to explain level differences in
delinquency. However, whether distinct delinquency trajectories are linked to different parenting styles is still
ambiguous. Therefore, this paper addresses the following
research questions: (1) which distinctive delinquency trajectories are empirically identifiable using self-reported and
official delinquency from late childhood through late
adolescence? (2) What are the delinquency characteristics
of the trajectory groups? (3) Do parenting styles, which we
consider to be composites of behaviors or relationships in
which the parent and child are directly involved, differentiate
between the offending trajectory groups, above and beyond
prior delinquent behavior and demographic variables?
Materials and Methods
Sample and Procedure
The Pittsburgh Youth Study is a panel study that began in
1987 following boys from public schools in the inner city of
Pittsburgh. The total sample consisted of three cohorts (grades
1, 4 and 7). Based on a screening of antisocial behavior during
the first assessment, a risk score for antisocial or problem
behavior was created with the most antisocial third of the
sample (about 30%) considering the high risk group and the
remaining two-thirds of the sample constituting the low risk
group. About 500 boys per cohort, 250 from each risk group,
were then randomly selected for further follow-up (for
detailed information, see Loeber et al. 1998).
For this study we used data from the youngest cohort. The
number of participants at the screening was 849 and at the first
follow-up assessment 503 (256 high risk and 247 low risk).
The average age was 6.5 at the screening and 6.9 at the first
follow-up. The screening sample consisted of 56.4% African
Americans and 57.3% of the first follow-up sample was
African American. Many boys were living with their natural
mother (94%) during the first follow-up but only a small
percentage of them lived together with their natural father
(38.5%). Demographic differences of the follow-up sample
226
compared to the screening sample (normal population) are not
large (see Loeber et al. 1998, p. 33, 36).
After the screening, data have been collected by
interviewing several informants: the youth, a parent
(primary caretaker) and teacher. Also, official data, such
as juvenile court records have been collected. Until 1990,
follow-ups took place biannually with subsequent measurements conducted yearly until 2000. The youngest cohort
has been followed up a total of 18 times until age 20.
Attrition in the Pittsburgh Youth Study was quite low with
82% of the youngest cohort participating at the 18th
assessment (Loeber et al. 2003).
Measures
Parenting variables We used the parenting data measured
in childhood up to age 9.5 to identify parenting styles. Data
on the relationship with primary caretaker, supervision,
physical punishment, the quality of the caretaker–child
communication, and positive parenting strategies were
used. Relationship with primary caretaker measured the
parents’ emotional closeness to the child and the ability to
accurately read and understand the child’s feelings and/or
needs (13 items reported by the boy; 16 items reported by
the parent). Supervision measured to what extent the parent
has knowledge about the adolescent’s whereabouts and
friends (four items). Physical punishment assessed to what
degree the parent physically punished the child (one item).
Communication measured the degree to which the caretaker
and the boy communicate about emotions, disagreements,
and problems (eight items). Reinforcement assessed the
degree to which the parent expresses positive behaviors
towards the boy (seven items reported by the boy; nine
items reported by the parent). These measures have been
described more extensively in Stouthamer-Loeber and
Stallings (2007). Internal consistencies of the parenting
scales were satisfactory with alphas ranging from 0.66 for
supervision to 0.83 for relationship with primary caretaker,
with the mean alpha 0.72. For each variable the informants
were the primary caretaker, usually the mother (91.1%) and
the boy, except for communication which is only reported
by the primary caretaker.2 Mean scores of the caretaker and
boy were used for analyses.
Demographic variables Variables indicating low economic
status and ethnicity (African American) were used as control
2
Comparing the scores of the boy and caretaker measured in the first
wave revealed that caretakers generally reported more positively about
their parenting behavior than their sons. Scores regarding relationship,
supervision and reinforcement were significantly different (t(498)=
−2.6, p<0.01, t(489)=−13.31, p<0.001, and t(498)=−12.8, p<0.001,
respectively). Physical punishment shows no significant difference.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2008) 36:223–235
variables in the multivariate analyses. Low socioeconomic
status (SES) was measured using the Hollingshead (1975)
index of social status. The scores were computed by
multiplying the scale value for occupational prestige by a
weight of five and the scale value for educational level by a
weight of three. If a family had two parents the highest score
was selected.
Delinquency For the self-reported measurement of delinquency over the previous year, the Self-Reported Delinquency
Scale (SRD) from Elliott et al. (1985) was used together with
the Youth Self Report (Achenbach and Edelbrock 1987)
items on stealing and fire setting. The informant of delinquent
behaviors was the adolescent. The SRD questionnaire
covered 22 delinquent acts ranging from petty theft to serious
assault. The self-reported data was collected from age 7 up to
age 19. In addition to the self-reported data, data were
collected on officially registered convictions (45 different
offences). Both self-reported data and official data are known
to show biases, but in different ways. While serious offending
is often underreported in self-report studies, minor offences
are usually underreported in official data (Babinski et al.
2001; Maxfield et al. 2000). We therefore combined selfreported delinquency with official data on delinquency for the
ages 10–19. This is especially important since earlier studies
have pointed to the influence of the source of delinquency
data on the parenting-delinquency link (e.g., Loeber and
Stouthamer-Loeber 1986). The General Delinquency Seriousness Classification (Loeber et al. 1998) was used to
classify self-reported and official delinquent behaviors (ages
10–19) as follows: No delinquency (level 0); Minor
delinquency at home, including minor vandalism and stealing
at home (level 1); Minor delinquency outside home, such as
minor vandalism and fire setting with insignificant damage,
shoplifting, and avoid ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments