Parenting Styles and Juvenile Delinquency: Social Control Theory

Introduction

Interventions that involve life-course persistent offenders should place emphasis on remedial social skills, giving them a chance to reduce their frequency of offending in the future and to address conduct disorder problems. Interventions involving teenage-onset offenders should, wherever applicable, address issues relating to parenting, alcohol and drug misuse, and antisocial peers. 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-restraint or self-control is a fairly universal and stable characteristic, accounting for individual differences in deviant, reckless, and criminal conduct. Parents of young people are frequently blamed for their children's delinquent behavior, and some courts go as far as penalizing parents for their children's antisocial actions. It is believed that weak self-control develops during early childhood, when one's family is the most central socializing agent. Therefore, lack of self-restraint and the resultant deviant behavior stem from familial factors.

This research studies the effects of parenting on children's self-restraint through a large-scale, nationwide sample of children in Canada, considering the roles played by factors such as household size and parental composition. Analyses show that the dimension of self-control differs across family structures — children residing in a traditional household (both biological parents living together) report higher self-control levels compared to children raised in single-parent and reconstituted households. However, parental monitoring partly offsets this relationship. On the whole, regardless of family structure, it is clear that an accepting and nurturing family atmosphere positively impacts self-restraint (Farrington, 2010).

Juvenile delinquency represents a growing and alarming issue in today's world. Kaukinen and Apel (2008) define juvenile delinquency as any minor or major violation of the law — such as theft, robbery, rape, or murder — by children under the age of 18 years. Minor violations include status offenses and misdemeanors. Status offenses represent activities considered illegal for teenagers on account of their age, such as underage drinking and truancy. According to McVie and Smith (2003), 80% of American teenagers admitted to having committed at least one delinquent act worthy of arrest, though they were not arrested. A majority of arrested teens are caught for perpetrating minor offenses. In 1990, 62.6% of all juvenile arrests were for minor misdemeanors rather than serious offenses. Of these, 18.6% faced arrest for violating liquor laws, violating curfew, running away, and other common status offenses, while 16.2% faced arrest for minor drug law violations, drunkenness, vandalism, and disorderly conduct (Apel & Kaukinen, 2008).

In recent times, however, not only is the frequency of delinquent acts rising, but the offenses are also gradually becoming more serious in nature. The shooting incidents in American schools serve as one example of this trend. As juvenile delinquency represents a pressing issue across the nation, studying it and assessing some of its potential underlying causes is essential. This study is grounded in low self-control criminology theory and examines how it contributes to juvenile delinquency as a result of poor parenting. It takes into account the roles of parental composition and household size, and analyzes parental impacts on children's self-restraint through an extensive, nationwide sample of Canadian children.

Thesis Statement

There is a strong correlation between a permissive style of parenting and high levels of delinquency.

Purpose of the Study

This study is aimed at evaluating the relationship between self-reported delinquent behaviors and parenting style. Empirical investigation of this relationship is crucial. The study's hypothesis was that there is a strong correlation between a permissive style of parenting and high delinquency levels. Conversely, an authoritative style of parenting is correlated with low delinquency levels. A significant mean difference was also anticipated in self-reported levels of delinquency among groups identified by parenting style (Hoeve, Blokland, Dubas, Loeber, Gerris, & van dee Laan, 2008).

Significance of the Study

Numerous social factors influence the etiology of juvenile delinquency. Of these, the child's family is a crucial contributing factor that shapes the risk of delinquency (Mmari, Blum, & Tuefel-Shone, 2010). Society stands to benefit in multiple ways from this study's findings; for example, educational programs can be developed regarding the family's significant role in children's lives.

Research Question

Is juvenile delinquency affected by parenting style and family structure?

Background of the Study and Theory

Self-control, or social control, denotes an individual trait established early in life that contributes to deviant conduct (Teasdale & Silver, 2009). Children with low self-control levels are more likely to commit offenses, and this criminal tendency often continues into adulthood. Self-control develops through strong attachments to schools, communities, and other social institutions. These social attachments can weaken and are capable of influencing levels of deviance.

A widely recognized criminological framework, the low self-control theory propounded by Hirschi and Gottfredson (1990), holds that self-control is developed in individuals by the age of 7 to 8 years and remains relatively constant throughout their lives. According to this theory, individuals engage in deviant conduct because it leads to immediate gratification of desires (such as stealing), has no long-term objective, and requires little deliberate thought (Crosswhite & Kerpelman, 2008). These characteristics appeal to adolescents who have poor self-control, as weak self-control is associated with weak self-regulation. The term "self-regulation" refers to the ability to establish and accomplish goals, refrain from problematic activities, and maintain focus on long-term objectives. Teenagers who cannot restrain behavior or sustain goals are at greater risk; the failure to control aberrant tendencies can push children toward deviant or delinquent activities.

Literature Review

Parenting and familial factors are frequently identified as contributing to the risk of developing delinquency (Tompsett & Toro, 2010). Authoritarian and, in particular, indifferent styles of parenting have been found to be linked to negative outcomes in children. Mmari and colleagues (2010) found that children in households where an indifferent style of parenting is practiced show the poorest outcomes on numerous psychological and behavioral measures. Such children exhibit high rates of drug use and problem behavior. The negative impact of parental absence in indifferent home environments on child development was consistent with the findings of other studies (Mmari et al., 2010).

Most participants in that study believed that parental absence was the principal cause of American-Indian juveniles' engagement in violent acts and drug use. Furthermore, because authoritarian parents impose discipline on their children externally, children do not learn self-regulation and instead depend on external and parental controls (Hoeve et al., 2008). By externally imposing authority, there is a greater likelihood of adolescents rebelling and turning delinquent. Most respondents also stated that inadequate or nonexistent discipline by parents was a key factor increasing the risk of delinquency in children. Asher's (2006) findings highlight the critical role parenting styles play in predicting juveniles' behavioral outcomes. That research involved legal guardians and parents of juveniles imprisoned for felony offenses, and it was observed that no fewer than 46% of these guardians and parents had an authoritarian parenting style (Asher, 2006; Hirschi, 2002).

Analysis of the general theory of crime has centered primarily on the impact of poor self-control on criminal behavior. This element was the main focus of Baron's (2003) research on street youth in downtown Vancouver, with whom the researcher conducted 400 interviews covering different types of crime, including violent crime, property crime, and drug use. The researcher found a link between violent conduct and poor self-control, with poor self-control being the strongest predictor of violence. However, Baron (2003) notes that his findings do not necessarily support the claim that weak self-control is strongly associated with all criminal acts; instead, he suggests the theory may best explain certain types of offenses.

Cullen, Dobrin, Piquero, Daigle, and MacDonald (2005) arrived at similar conclusions. This research group examined the relationship between poor self-control, homicide victimization, and violent offenses, and found that poor self-control was indeed related to both. However, self-control was not the sole contributing variable — race, criminal history, and age at the time of first offense also played a role. These researchers consequently contend that, while self-control appears to contribute to violent offending, the general theory of crime does not adequately account for other cultural and social factors that may influence individuals' inclination toward violent crime.

Conclusion and Implications

For preventing the onset of delinquency in children, parents need to adopt effective discipline, problem-solving, and monitoring practices (Crosswhite & Kerpelman, 2008). Effective discipline means recognizing deviant conduct and maintaining consistent monitoring when such behavior occurs. When problematic behaviors are observed, parents should apply consistent consequences to ensure those behaviors do not become reinforced. One crucial point, however, is that unnecessarily harsh punishment will tend to increase, rather than deter, deviant behavior. A child may rightly perceive excessively harsh punishment as unjust and respond by acting out further.

Child monitoring involves parents having knowledge of their children's whereabouts, their friends, and how they spend their leisure time. A 2006 study by Barnes and colleagues found that adolescent monitoring is a powerful predictor of deviant conduct in adolescents, even after controlling for peer deviance. This illustrates the importance of parental involvement in children's lives and confirms that it makes a meaningful difference in curbing and preventing deviant behavior.

Lastly, effective problem-solving is vital to the development of children's communication skills (Crosswhite & Kerpelman, 2008). Inadequate communication may make a child defensive, heighten anger and frustration, and cause rejection of responsibilities — characteristics that can contribute to delinquent behaviors and association with peers who are also engaged in deviant activities. Taken together, the findings of this study underscore the central role that parenting practices play in shaping children's self-control and reducing the risk of juvenile delinquency.

References

Apel, R., & Kaukinen, C. (2008). On the relationship between family structure and antisocial behavior: Parental cohabitation and blended households. Criminology, 46, 35–70.

Asher, A. J. (2006). Exploring the relationship between parenting style and juvenile delinquency. Department of Social Studies and Family Work, Faculty of Miami University.

Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 403.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119.

Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2009). Coercion theory, self-control, and social information processing: Understanding potential mediators for how parents influence deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior, 30(7), 611–646.

Elliot, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95–110.

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

Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency. Transaction Publishers.

Hoeve, M., Blokland, A., Dubas, S. J., Loeber, R., Gerris, R. M. J., & van dee Laan, H. (2008). Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 223–235.

Mmari, N. K., Blum, W. R., & Teufel-Shone, N. (2010). What increases risk and protection for delinquent behaviors among American Indian youth? Findings from three tribal communities. Youth & Society, 41, 382–413.

Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 55–70.

Smith, D. J., & McVie, S. (2003). Theory and method in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. British Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 169–195.

Teasdale, B., & Silver, E. (2009). Neighborhoods and self-control: Toward an expanded view of socialization. Social Problems, 56(1), 205–222.

Tompsett, J. C., & Toro, A. P. (2010). Predicting overt and covert antisocial behaviors: Parent, peers, and homelessness. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 409–485.