Theories of Juvenile Delinquency: Self-Control and Social Learning

Introduction

Interventions that involve life-course persistent offenders should place emphasis on remedial social skills so that these individuals have an opportunity to decrease the frequency of their offending in the future and to address conduct disorder problems. Interventions involving adolescent-onset offenders should, wherever applicable, tackle issues relating to parenting, alcohol and drug misuse, and antisocial peer associations. Keane, Krull, and Phythian (2008) define self-control as the extent to which a person is susceptible to temptation. According to them, lack of self-control is a fairly universal and stable characteristic that accounts for individual differences in deviant, reckless, and criminal conduct.

Young people's parents are often blamed for their children's delinquent behavior, and some courts go as far as penalizing parents for their children's antisocial actions. It is widely believed that weak self-control develops during early childhood, when the family is the most central socializing agent. Hence, lack of self-control and the resultant deviant behavior are seen as stemming from familial factors. This paper examines parenting effects on children's self-control using a large-scale, nationwide sample of children in Canada, considering factors such as household size and parental composition. Analyses show that self-control levels differ across family structures: children residing in traditional households — where both biological parents live together — report higher self-control levels than children raised in single-parent or reconstituted households. However, parental monitoring partly offsets this relationship. Overall, irrespective of family structure, an accepting and nurturing family atmosphere positively influences self-control (Farrington, 2010).

Low Self-Control Theory

Low self-control theory departs from the emphasis on informal relational controls and focuses instead on individual controls. Through effective parenting practices of discipline and monitoring, some children develop the ability to appropriately respond to situations requiring deferred gratification and planning. Delinquency is observed more frequently among males than females. One explanation for this is the divergent etiologies of delinquency for each gender: males may be relatively more susceptible to inadequate parenting and other risk factors that predispose them to delinquency. An alternative hypothesis holds that delinquency risk factors are identical for females and males, but that males have relatively greater exposure to these factors.

People with high self-control levels are more sensitive to others, possess stronger verbal and cognitive skills, are less driven by independence, and are more willing to accept restrictions on their behavior. By contrast, those with poor self-control are characterized by insensitivity, impulsivity, a preference for physical rather than intellectual activity, risk-taking, and short-sightedness. They find it difficult to resist the temptation to commit crime, drive recklessly, smoke, drink excessively, or use drugs. Consequently, weak self-control results in problematic interpersonal relationships, antisocial behavior, and weak involvement in community institutions. Those with low self-control face difficulties in making and maintaining friendships, achieving success at school or in the workplace, and sustaining stable relationships.

Life-course and social bond theories emphasize the significance of indirect interpersonal controls, and research corroborates the importance of attachment bonds in preventing individuals from becoming delinquent. Both theories also incorporate direct controls such as monitoring, discipline, and rule-setting into the causal equation. Rather than privileging direct or indirect controls as more important, researchers suggest that both significantly curb delinquent behavior. Controls clearly function at individual as well as social levels, and characteristics of family structure influence informal familial social controls (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2006).

Self-control theory aims to unite explanations of crime and deviance under a single framework. However, weak self-control does not mean that a person will inevitably become a criminal. This is a control theory, which holds that the more productive question is not why certain people engage in deviant conduct, but rather why certain people do not. Weinberger and Feldman (1994) did not find any significant relationship between adolescent boys' self-control and parenting practices. Discipline and monitoring are easier to implement in dual-parent households — whether both biological parents or one biological and one stepparent — than in single-parent households.

Family Structure and Parental Monitoring

Reconstituted families encounter somewhat different challenges. The stepparent–stepchild bond may be weak, and living with a stepparent can expose a child to a family environment that is indifferent or even hostile. Brown and Demuth (2004) demonstrated that familial elements such as parental closeness, supervision, monitoring, and involvement attenuate the effects of family structure on delinquency. However, their study did not include any measures of self-control. The parental monitoring scale measures parental supervision and detection of inappropriate conduct, incorporating questions about restrictions on children's activities, parental knowledge of their children's whereabouts, and recognition of incorrect behavior.

Regarding parenting factors, study participants self-reported overall high levels of monitoring and nurturance, and low rejection levels. Notably, the dependent variable was not significantly affected by parental monitoring in a statistically significant way. The impact of parental monitoring, rejection, and nurturance on self-control does not appear to vary with the respondent's gender. Regarding monitoring in reconstituted and single-parent homes relative to intact households, results reveal no statistically significant link between self-control and parental monitoring in intact households. In reconstituted and single-parent homes, however, significant positive links were found — stronger in reconstituted families than in single-parent homes when different sociodemographic characteristics are controlled for. This indicates that parental monitoring's impact is comparatively more complex due to its relationship with family structure.

One important consideration when studying the relationship between delinquent behavior and parental supervision is that even when parents acknowledge they do not always know their children's whereabouts, children may still feel that their behavior is monitored constantly. As a result, children may be deterred from engaging in activities likely to result in punishment or disapproval. In such cases, parent-reported and child-reported information on supervision can yield highly divergent results. The latter results were considered more valuable, as behavioral responses linked to specific parenting practices necessarily depend on children's perception and internalization of those practices (Phythian, Keane, & Krull, 2008).

Weak self-control is nonetheless considered a primary social trait contributing to delinquency and crime. According to the theory's originators, Gottfredson and Hirschi, self-control develops during early childhood and remains highly stable throughout a person's life. Because human beings are inherently inclined to avoid pain and seek pleasure, self-control only develops through deliberate effort — conscious or unconscious — to cultivate it. Children must therefore learn self-control, and this cultivation is the responsibility of their families. The general theory of self-control identifies three conditions essential for developing self-control in children: parental monitoring of children's behavior, identification of any deviant behavior, and punishment or correction of such behavior. Central to each of these conditions is parental love, since a caring parent tends to observe and correct their child (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.

Burfeind, J. W., & Bartusch, D. J. (2006). Juvenile delinquency: An integrated approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence vs. parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 58–81.

Farrington, D. P. (2010). Family influences on delinquency. Juvenile justice and delinquency, 203–222.

Feldman, S. S., & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on boys' delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 195–211.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

Phythian, K., Keane, C., & Krull, C. (2008). Family structure and parental behavior: Identifying the sources of adolescent self-control. Western Criminology Review, 9, 73.

Social Learning Theories. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/youthandthelaw/roots/volume5/chapter08_social_learning.aspx