خودکنترلی ضعیف و بزهکاری همسالان: یک یادداشت پژوهشی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38546||2001||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5580 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 29, Issue 6, November–December 2001, Pages 483–492
Abstract Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi [A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1990], a large amount of research has shown a link between low self-control and delinquency. Some research has revealed that low self-control has not been able to account for the strong effects of peer delinquency on delinquency. Criminological literature has, until recently, neglected the interactional relationship between low self-control and delinquent peers in predicting delinquency. This study used a sample of employed high school seniors to assess the interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency on occupational delinquency. Regression analyses indicated that the interaction term was a strong predictor of occupational delinquency, even after controlling for several established predictors of delinquency.
Introduction Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990)General Theory, a large body of research has examined the effects of low self-control on offending behaviors and deviant acts Arneklev et al., 1993, Burton et al., 1999, Evans et al., 1997, Gibbs & Giever, 1995, Keane et al., 1993, Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996, Polakowski, 1994 and Wright & Cullen, 2000. These studies, overall, have generated moderate support for the hypothesis that low self-control is significantly related to offending and analogous behaviors. Tests of self-control theory reveal that low self-control has indirect and direct effects on drunk driving and intentions to drink and drive Keane et al., 1993 and Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996, on self-reported juvenile delinquency (Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993), on adult criminal and analogous behaviors Arneklev et al., 1993, Burton et al., 1999 and Grasmick et al., 1993, on negative social consequences (i.e., quality of friendships, quality of family relationships, attachment to church, delinquent peers) (Evans et al., 1997), on excessive alcohol consumption and class cutting (Gibbs & Giever, 1995), and on courtship aggression (Sellers, 1999). Other studies have also shown that the interaction between low self-control and opportunity to offend has significant effects on crime and delinquency Burton et al., 1998, Grasmick et al., 1993 and LaGrange & Silverman, 1999. While these studies are important and implicate the role of self-control in a wide range of problem behaviors and social outcomes, research is only now beginning to understand the complexity of this relationship. Individuals low in self-control likely face a range of interpersonal relationships and situations where their personality differences interact with the expectations and social boundaries established by context of the interaction. The effects of low self-control may “interact” with the social setting in important ways, either by reducing the potentially deleterious effects associated with low self-control, or by exacerbating them. In a recent test of low self-control theory, Evans et al. (1997) found that delinquent peer influences remained a substantial and significant predictor of criminal behavior even after the effects of low self-control were removed. Their findings led them to conclude that self-control and social learning theory may be related in complex, mutually reinforcing ways. “The tendency of persons with low self-control to engage in criminal and analogous behaviors,” state Evans et al. (1997, p. 494), “can be exacerbated, or strengthened, by exposure to criminal associates and criminal values.” Recognizing the potential interactive effects between measures of individual differences and the social setting, Wright and his colleagues (1998) have recently investigated a “variable effects” model of criminal behavior. They suggest that the impact of explanatory variables, specifically social learning and social bonding variables, are strongest for persons that have a predisposition towards crime such as those with low self-control. They argue that sociological correlates of crime have smaller effects on individuals that do not have individual criminal propensities. In a test of their proposed model, Wright et al. (1998) found that the learning variables (i.e., delinquent associates) that exerted positive effects on crime did so most strongly for individuals with criminal propensities. Although few studies have investigated interaction effects of low self-control and social variables predicting offending behaviors, there is reason to believe that these effects will manifest across social contexts such as the work environment. In a recent study of occupational delinquency among high school students, Wright and Cullen (2000) found that occupational delinquency was affected both by underlying criminal propensities and by exposure to delinquent coworkers on the job. They found empirical support for an interaction effect between prior delinquency and delinquency of coworkers that, in turn, amplified involvement in occupational delinquency. It is likely that delinquent youths select themselves into poor work environments where they come into contact with fellow delinquents, which increases delinquent behavior within the workplace (Wright & Cullen, 2000). Occupational delinquency Modern youths are sophisticated economic actors, often with fairly extensive employment histories established prior to graduating from high school (Wright, Cullen, & Williams, 1997). Even though working appears to be a common experience among in-school youths, numerous studies have found that certain individual differences differentiate youths who work from those who work extensively Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993, Cullen et al., 1997, Elliott & Wofford, 1991, Ruggiero et al., 1982, Ruhm, 1995, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991 and Wright et al., 1997. Individual differences such as early school performance difficulties, early drug-use, and early delinquent behavior account for part of the correlation between the average number of hours worked per week and a youth's misbehavior (Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993). Since delinquent youth most likely self-select themselves into premature work roles at a higher rate than conforming youth points to the possibility that the adolescent workplace is an important domain of behavior that mixes youths with varying levels of criminal propensity. This possibility was examined by Ruggiero et al. (1982), who suggested that “occupational deviance” can be attributed to environmental aspects of the job, specifically coworker occupational delinquency and personal characteristics of the individual worker. Using a sample of high school students from Orange County, California, Ruggiero and colleagues found personal characteristics of workers and work environment factors may often reinforce each other, which may produce deviant occupational behavior. The adolescent workplace, while understudied, appears to be a potentially important context for youth (mis)behavior. While all youths do not participate in work-related deviance, some are more likely than others, some jobs are more likely to provide opportunities for delinquency; and some characteristics of persons and jobs, coupled together, generate more occupational deviance than either alone (Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980). Youth employment thus draws attention to the possible interactive effects between low self-control and variables from other criminological theories. Current study This study attempted to build on Wright and Cullen's (2000) investigation. The present study extended their research by assessing the interaction effect of low self-control and coworker delinquency in predicting occupational delinquency. This study addressed shortcomings in the research that has been conducted on the “general theory” in two different ways. First, given Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) claim that their theory predicts crime across social contexts, low self-control should exert a significant, independent effect on occupational delinquency (Wright & Cullen, 2000). Second, this study also assesses the interaction between low self-control and delinquent coworkers on levels of occupational delinquency. Several scholars suggest that individuals with low self-control and who work in an environment with delinquent coworkers should be significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency, even after controlling for competing theoretical variables such as family cohesiveness or school commitment Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980 and Wright & Cullen, 2000
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations. A two-tailed test of significance at the .05 level was the criteria for all analyses. The bivariate assessment of variables, variance inflation factors, and condition number tests revealed that there were no signs of multicollinearity among the interaction term and the independent components of the interaction term. Additionally, it seems that there were no signs of collinearity among other independent variables. In general, the bivariate relationships were significant and in the predicted direction. Table 2. Intercorrelations between all variables (n=296) Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X1. Low self-control X2. Coworker delinquency .32* X3. Low self-control×Coworker delinquency .35* .05 X4. Time spent studying −.25* −.05 −.02 X5. Grade point average −.18* −.07 −.07 .22* X6. Goals/aspirations −.34* −.08 −.07 .30* .23* X7. Family cohesiveness −.32* −.16* −.16* .01 .08 .32* X8. Gender −.13* .00 −.04 .28* .11 .26* −.04 X9. Race .04 .03 −.08 .05 −.12* −.04 .03 .02 X10. Family structure .03 .11 .05 .01 −.06 −.09 −.37* .08 .11 X11. Household size −.07 −.01 .05 −.05 .04 .07 .17* .01 −.04 −.27* * P<.05. Table options Table 3 shows three separate OLS models predicting occupational delinquency. Model one shows that coworker delinquency exerted a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (β=.47), indicating that youth in an environment with more delinquent coworkers were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. Similarly, low self-control generated a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (β=.18), indicating that individuals with low self-control were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. The interaction effect between low self-control and coworker delinquency, as suggested by Evans et al. (1997), and hypothesized by Wright, Moffitt, and Caspi (1998), had a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency. The model accounted for 39 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency. Table 3. Estimated standardized regression coefficients predicting occupational delinquency Dashes indicate that parameters were not estimated. Variable Model 1 (n=346) Model 2 (n=333) Model 3 (n=296) β t β t β t Low self-control .18 3.96* .13 2.71* .09 1.79 Coworker delinquency .47 10.87* .49 11.45* .54 12.09* Low self-control×Coworker delinquency .21 4.63* .23 5.18* .21 4.45* Time spent studying – – −.06 −1.29 Grade point average – – −.15 −3.18* Goals/aspirations – – .02 0.39 Family cohesiveness – – −.03 −0.69 Gender – −.19 −4.40* −.16 −3.45* Race – .09 2.25* .10 2.23* Family structure – −.04 −0.82 −.03 −0.69 Household size – −.01 −0.27 .01 0.28 Constant −3.139* −0.85 0.18 R2 .39 .44 .48 F 71.35 36.33 23.16 df 345 332 295 * P<.05. Table options To illustrate the effect of the interaction, a bar graph was created showing different mean levels of occupational delinquency (see Fig. 1). Following Piquero and Tibbetts (1999) and Raine, Brennan, and Mednick (1994), a four-category variable was created that indexed the presence of low self-control and coworker delinquency. The measures of low self-control and coworker delinquency were dichotomized based on their mean scores. Respectively, scores below the mean indicate higher self-control and minimal coworker involvement in delinquency, while scores above the mean indicate lower self-control and more coworker involvement in delinquency. Next, a four-category variable was created and was coded according to the following classifications: zero if youth had high self-control and low number of coworkers who were delinquent (n=103), one if youths had low self-control and a low number of coworkers who were delinquent (n=73), two if youths had higher self-control and a high number of coworkers who were delinquent (n=60), and three if youths had low self-control and worked in an environment with high coworker delinquency (n=110). The final category, indicating low self-control and higher coworker involvement in delinquency, is where the highest risk for occupational delinquency should be found Evans et al., 1997, Wright et al., 1998 and Wright & Cullen, 2000. Mean level of occupational delinquency for interaction groups. Fig. 1. Mean level of occupational delinquency for interaction groups. Figure options The results are depicted in Fig. 1. The y-axis represents the mean level of occupational delinquency, while the x-axis indicates the categories of the interaction. As can be seen, those youth in the last category had the highest mean level of occupational delinquency (mean=2.82), indicating that youth with low self-control and who worked in an environment where coworkers were more delinquent had a substantially higher mean score on occupational delinquent involvement. Turning now to Model 2 of Table 3, demographic controls were included to investigate whether or not the interaction would retain its significance. The interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency remains the second strongest predictor of occupational delinquency (β=.23). Although the independent effect of coworker delinquency had the strongest effect on occupational delinquency (β=.49), the independent effect of low self-control exerted a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (β=.13), indicating that youth with low self-control were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. Gender (β=−.19) and race (β=.09) both had significant effects on occupational delinquency. Model 2 accounted for 44 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency. Finally, in Model 3 of Table 3, controls for competing theoretical variables that have been established as known correlates of delinquency were introduced, such as school commitment and family cohesiveness. Coworker delinquency still remained as having the strongest overall effect on occupational delinquency (β=.54). The interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency, after controlling for competing theoretical variables, was still a strong predictor of occupational delinquency (β=.21). The effect of low self-control on occupational delinquency was reduced to statistical insignificance, suggesting that low self-control is indirectly related to occupational delinquency through delinquent coworkers. In regard to other effects, grades (β=−.15), gender (β=−.16), and race (β=.10) predicted variation in occupational delinquency. The final model accounted for 48 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency.