DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

2018, VOL. 39, NO. 12, 1533–1551

[Link]

Self-control, parental crime, and discipline across three generations

Stacey Nofzigera and Katherine Newtonb
a
Department of Sociology, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA; bDepartment of Sociology, University of Akron,
Akron, OH, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The objective of this study is to examine the relationships between self-control, Self-control; discipline;
parental crime, and use of discipline across three generations. Data spanning spanking; parental crime
30 years from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, are analyzed using
Structural Equation Modeling. This study focuses on whether different types of
discipline used by parents predict the self-control of each successive genera-
tion. We also examine whether self-control and criminal activities of parents
are predictive of parenting and resulting self-control of children. We find that
discipline has a weak relationship to self-control but that parental crime and
self-control do relate to the self-control of later generations.

Introduction
Self-control theory, also known as the general theory of crime, posits that individuals engage in
crime and similar activities when they lack sufficient self-control to resist the temptation for
immediate gratification of desires that result from these acts. Those who lack self-control are likely
to be “insensitive, physical, risk-seeking, short-sighted, and nonverbal” (Gottfredson and Hirschi
1990:90). These traits lead the individual to be more likely to engage in impulsive behaviors without
considering the potential long-term negative outcomes of their acts. Poor self-control would there-
fore result in higher involvement in deviant, criminal, and a wide range of analogous behaviors.
A great deal of research has tested self-control theory and, as a whole, there is support for the central
claim of the relationship between self-control and problem behaviors (see meta-analyses and reviews by
Duckworth and Kern 2011; Pratt and Cullen 2000). However, there are also a number of questions and
critiques that remain. One area that has drawn attention is the development or causes of self-control. In
their initial description of the theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97) argued that effective parenting is
the necessary requirement for producing children with self-control. Thus, most research examining the
development of self-control has focused on parenting, with some attention being given to other important
sources of socialization, such as peers and schools. A second branch of research has focused on biological
causes of self-control (Beaver et al. 2009; Meaney 2001; Rutter 2012), or heritable personality traits that are
similar to self-control (Connolly and Beaver 2014; Kochanska, Philibert, and Barry 2009).
While there are disagreements on the causes of self-control, there is a fairly strong connection
between the self-control of parents and the self-control of children. This pattern has been termed the
intergenerational transmission of self-control (Boutwell and Beaver 2010). However, only a few
studies have assessed how parental self-control influences their parenting and the subsequent self-
control of children (Boutwell and Beaver 2010; Meldrum et al. 2016; Nofziger 2008). The current
study seeks to extend this area by examining the connections between criminal behavior, self-
control, and discipline through three generations. This work is intended to provide insight for
how problems of crime and poor self-control persist within families.

CONTACT Stacey Nofziger sn18@[Link] 247 Olin Hall, Department of Sociology University of Akron, Akron, OH
44325-1905 330-972-5364
© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
1534 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

This study examines three interrelated research questions. First, we ask if the criminality and self-
control of parents influence the type of practices used to discipline their children. Second, we
examine if the forms of discipline parents use affect the level of self-control in their children. We
expect that parents with low self-control rely on forms of discipline that exact immediate compliance
and require little effort on their part. The use of such practices would fail to provide guidance and an
understanding of the long-term consequences of behavior, thus leading to lower self-control in their
children. Our final question is whether the self-control of one generation operates directly on the
self-control of the next generation or if the relationship is indirect through discipline.

Self-control theory
At its most basic, the general theory of crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) is based on classical
assumptions of hedonistic individuals who act to maximize their own pleasure and avoid pain unless
they are restrained from following these impulses. Self-control is identified as the key source of
restraint that prevents individuals from acting in ways that may cause harm to themselves or others
(Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990:90). While some have argued that self-control theory does not have
the explanatory power that Gottfredson and Hirschi suggested it should (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik Jr.,
and Arneklev 1993; Hay 2001; Pratt and Cullen 2000), the bulk of research substantiates the
existence of the key relationship between self-control and a wide array of problematic behavior
(see Duckworth and Kern 2011; Gottfredson 2008; Hay and Meldrum 2016; Pratt and Cullen 2000).
One study showing the diversity of negative outcomes that are predicted by self-control is by
Moffitt, Poulton, and Caspi (2013). In their longitudinal study, children with low self-control were
more likely to be at risk for substance use and addiction problems as adults, to have higher
conviction rates, and also to have saved less money in adulthood compared to children with high
self-control (Moffitt, Poulton, and Caspi 2013). Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood (2013) found
similar results with self-control measured in middle childhood persisting as a strong predictor of
later adult life outcomes including substance use, crime, and sexual risk-taking. Fergusson, Boden,
and Horwood (2013) also found that those that had low self-control in middle childhood were more
likely to have poorer educational attainment, lower income, and were more likely to be dependent on
welfare. Thus, the central premise of the theory has continued to garner a great deal of support. This
persistent backing has allowed researchers to shift attention to other pieces of the theory, including
an examination of the causes of self-control.

Causes of self-control
Work that has focused on the causes of self-control ranges from biological and heritable personality
traits to examinations of socialization practices. Studies have found a number of important sources
of socialization, such as peers (Beaver et al. 2016; Hirtenlehner, Pauwels, and Mesko 2015; Holt,
Bossler, and May 2012; Meldrum, Miller, and Flexon 2013; Nelson and Boisvert 2011) and schools
(Duckworth et al. 2016; Erath, Bub, and Tu 2016; Honken and Ralston 2013; Kuhnle, Hofer, and
Kilian 2012; Seibert et al. 2016). A few studies have even established that self-control is predicted by
environmental characteristics in neighborhoods (Gibson et al. 2010; Pratt, Turner, and Piquero
2004). Most research on the development of self-control starts with the premise that parents are
central in developing children’s self-control, but the way in which the family and child self-control
are connected has been studied from very different perspectives.
One approach is to examine biological or personality characteristics. Studies have shown that low
self-control can be attributed to neuropsychological deficits and cognitive development (Beaver,
Wright, and DeLisi 2007; Connolly and Beaver 2014). Others examined the potential biological and
genetic origins of self-control. For example, Wright and Beaver (2005) used twin studies to examine
the development of self-control. Their study revealed that parenting had only a small effect and
argued that genetics should be examined when studying the development of self-control. Other
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1535

research on heritable personality traits as a key component of self-control has focused on the gene-
environment interaction (Beaver and Belsky 2012; Boutwell and Beaver 2010; Kochanska, Philibert,
and Barry 2009; Rutter 2012). That research examines both the genetic influences and environmental
aspects that contribute to the development of self-control. This body of work concludes that self-
control is not wholly caused by nature nor is it specifically developed through nurture; rather, it is a
combination of both (Beaver and Belsky 2012; Boutwell and Beaver 2010; Kochanska, Philibert, and
Barry 2009; Meaney 2001; Rutter 2012).
Stemming from the biological research on the development of self-control is the concept of the
intergenerational transmission of self-control (Boutwell and Beaver 2010). This is the notion that
parental self-control is passed on genetically to the child and that maternal and paternal self-control
can predict the child’s level of self-control. Most of the work on this question has not directly
measured self-control but rather deviant behavior or parental personalities when they were adoles-
cents and how these patterns are transmitted across multiple generations (Putkonen et al. 2007;
Smith and Farrington 2004; Thornberry 2005). For example, Smith and Farrington (2004) found that
parents who exhibit antisocial behavior as adults are more likely to have children who exhibited
conduct problems and participated in antisocial behavior later in life. In a study of antisocial
behavior through multiple generations, Thornberry (2005) found adolescent problem behaviors in
the background of the parents had an indirect effect on their children’s delinquency that operated
through parenting styles. Thus, researchers that have studied an intergenerational transmission of
deviance using multiple generations have found such a connection exists. However, most of these
have not found direct relationships, or did not measure self-control.
For Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the primary cause of self-control is socialization, particularly
that done by the parents in early childhood. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97–100),
successful development of self-control requires a parent or caregiver that is strongly attached to the
child and who is both willing and able to carry out three specific tasks. The first task is to supervise the
child consistently, second to recognize when the behaviors of the child are inappropriate, and third to
respond to the problematic behavior by imposing an appropriate form of discipline. Several studies
have used combined measures of parenting (Burt, Simons, and Simons 2006; Meldrum et al. 2016) that
include a mix of monitoring, positive parenting, and discipline items. Others have divided specific
elements, such as parental monitoring and supervision of children’s activities, and different types of
discipline practices (Gibbs and Giever 1995; Hay 2001; Higgins 2009; Hope, Grasmick, and Pointon
2003; Lucassen et al. 2015; Meldrum et al. 2012; Nofziger 2008; Polakowski 1994; Pratt, Turner, and
Piquero 2004; Unnever, Cullen, and Pratt 2003; Verhoeven et al. 2007). As a whole, these studies
indicate that the practices engaged in by parents do influence self-control. For example, Meldrum and
colleagues (2016) found that a composite measure of ineffective parenting, including the use of harsh
discipline and a lack of consistency or structure in parental interactions with their children, led to
noticeably lower self-control in children as young as three years old. Hay (2001) found the use of non-
physical discipline improved self-control of adolescents, and two different studies found spanking
decreased self-control in children (Chapple, Tyler, and Bersani 2005; Nofziger 2008).
While this existing work has established the importance of parenting for building self-control, most
have not directly examined how the self-control of the parent matters for this process. Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990:100) stated that their theory “focuses on the connection between the self-control of the
parent and the subsequent self-control of the child.” To date, only a handful of studies have actually
measured self-control of parents, and assessed how this influences the parenting practices and resulting
self-control of the children. Two of these studies focused on parenting of boys who were under two years
old (Meldrum et al. 2016; Verhoeven et al. 2007). These authors found that parents with lower self-
control are more likely to use ineffective and harsh discipline, leading to lower self-control in their
children even at these young ages. A third study (Boutwell and Beaver 2010) found that both maternal
and paternal self-control predicted the self-control of their children at age three. The final piece shifted to
slightly older children, finding that parental self-control predicted the forms of parenting used when the
child was aged 6 to 7, which in turn predicted their self-control at age 10 or 11 (Nofziger 2008).
1536 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

The current study examines the last step in the suggested process for developing self-control to
assess whether the intergenerational transmission of self-control operates through discipline prac-
tices. Specifically this work attempts to build on existing studies in three ways. First, two of the
previous studies on parenting and self-control were done on the same relatively small sample of 117
boys in the Netherlands (Meldrum et al. 2016; Verhoeven et al. 2007). Eliminating girls from the
samples may be practical, as past work has established persistent sex differences in self-control
(Burton Jr., et al. 1998; Gibbs, Giever, and Martin 1998) but also fails to address criticism of feminist
criminologists that this practice puts boys as the norm and ignores the experiences of girls
(Messerschmidt 1993). Thus, by providing an analysis that includes both boys and girls, and is
based on a larger, nationally representative sample from the United States, the current study
provides a more generalizable test of the role of discipline in the transmission of self-control.
A second contribution is to assess the impacts not only of self-control but also deviance on
parenting, and the resulting self-control of the next generation. We expect self-control to exert an
influence on parenting and subsequent generations’ self-control. But, previous studies find a wide
range of effect sizes of self-control on outcomes. Two different meta-analyses find that the overall
mean effect size of self-control on varied forms of deviant outcomes is less than .30 (De Ridder et al.
2012; Pratt and Cullen 2000). Therefore, it is also important to consider alternative predictors of
children’s self-control. One possibility is the criminality of parents. A long history of research has
established that having criminal parents puts children at risk for delinquency (Farrington, Barnes,
and Lambert 1996; Glueck and Glueck 1950; Putkonen et al. 2007; Smith and Farrington 2004;
Thornberry 2005). In their discussion of this relationship, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:100–102),
argue that crime is not passed on directly through any genetic link between parent and child.
Instead, people with low self-control are more likely both to engage in crime and fail to adequately
socialize their children. In addition to being less than ideal in how they raise their children, parents
who are criminal are also likely to expose their children to a range of experiences that could result in
lower self-control and deviance. For example, the incarceration of parents has been linked to a wide
number of poor outcomes for children, including increased family poverty and living in commu-
nities with higher crime rates, depression and signs of stress or trauma, and of course higher
deviance (Miller 2006; Murray and Farrington 2008). Therefore, the relationship between poor
self-control in parents and children’s self-control may not be due to parenting alone, but to a
wide range of outcomes that result from parents’ poor self-control, including parental criminality.
Finally, this study moves beyond existing work by examining these relationships across three genera-
tions. Parenting styles have been found to be correlated across generations and practices engaged in by one
generation predict those used by their children (Brook et al. 1998; Thornberry et al. 2003). Therefore, we
expect that parenting is largely learned by each generation by modeling the practices of their parents, which
leads to a continuation of parenting that is ineffective in developing self-control. Thus, the intergenerational
transmission of self-control may be due to the continuation of poor parenting. Without having data from
multiple generations, past work has been unable to trace these relationships across any time frame longer
than that between parent and child. This study begins to stretch the limits of past work by using data from
three generations. This allows us to see how self-control and criminality in one generation influences their
use of discipline and the resulting self-control in the next generation.

Data and methods

This study explores the patterns of self-control, parental crime, and the use of discipline across three
generations by using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), a nationally
representative panel survey sponsored by the US Department of Labor. Beginning in 1979, the NLSY
initially sampled 12,686 men and women between the ages of 14 and 21 years. This group, referred to as
NLSY79, was interviewed annually from 1979 to 1994 and has since been interviewed on a biannual basis.
The women from this cohort account for the Generation 1 (Gen1) respondents in the current study.
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1537

Beginning in 1986, additional interviews with these women have been conducted to obtain
information on their children. These interviews are conducted every other year and collect data
from the mothers about their own activities and those of their children. Self-report data from their
children who are between 10 and 14 years old has also been collected since 1986 and beginning in
1994, children who are 15 years or older by the end of the survey year complete a self-report
questionnaire. This group of surveys, including data from the original sample and their children,
make up the NLSY79-Child and Young Adult (CYA). The children of the women in the original
sample are the Generation 2 (Gen2) respondents in the current study.
The Generation 3 (Gen3) subjects in our study are identified using the household roster from the
2014 wave of the NLSY79-CYA. These are individuals who are listed in the roster provided by the
Gen2 respondents as children who are “living in your household” at the time of the interview. The
Gen3 cohort is not surveyed directly so all information related to this generation is provided by Gen2.
The final sample that was used in the analyses was restricted due to empirical and theoretical
considerations. The primary restriction was based on how many Gen2 respondents actually had
children by 2014. The Gen2 respondents were born between 1973 and 2011, and thus ranged in age
from only three years old up to 41 years old by 2014. Clearly, many within this age range would be
unlikely to have their own children, or only have children who are still infants. The age of Gen3 is
important because the items that were used to develop the measures of discipline and self-control are
asked about specific age groups. Thus, we restricted our sample to respondents that had Gen3
children who were at least 6 years old in 2014.
The second limitation was related to issues of missing data in our main measure of self-control. In
most cases, respondents provided full information, but some had missing data on one or two
indicators, and a small percent had no valid data points for any of the measures. While maximum
likelihood estimates (MLE) could still have been used, we did not feel it would be appropriate to
include these cases in the analyses. We therefore eliminated cases that had more than half of the
indicators of self-control missing. These two restrictions left us with a final sample of 1,668 cases,
with information on all three generations.

Analytic strategy
Due to the nature of the hypothesized relationships of interest, we employed a structural equation model
(SEM) using the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) statistical program. This program utilizes MLE,
which creates full information models to adjust for missing data, and allows us to simultaneously measure
the latent variables of self-control and criminality, and estimate the paths between the latent and observed
variables. Prior to estimation of the full model, several steps were taken to establish the relationships between
the observed and latent variables and assess the fit of the measures of parental crime and self-control.
A first step was to conduct bivariate analyses to assess the relationships between the potential measures
of self-control for each generation. Specifically, we examined the zero-order Pearson correlations of items
to determine if the observed variables we intended to utilize to measure self-control and criminality were
statistically related. We also used this analysis as a starting point to indicate potential covariance in the
errors of the variables that may influence the fit of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and the final
structural model. As expected based on the correlation results, models that included no covariance between
errors resulted in poor fit. We thus adjusted each model to allow covariance to exist between theoretically
logical variables, as well as those that were highly correlated in the first set of analyses. The final
measurement models (see Appendix A) indicated that the proposed measures provided at least acceptable
fit between the model and data, allowing us to test the structural relationships between the variables.
There are a wide variety of model fit statistics generated by AMOS. The chi-square is often used
to assess the level of fit of the model to the data, but it is dependent on the sample size and normally
distributed data. Therefore, we use the following fit indexes and generally accepted levels to assess
our models: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), where greater than .95
indicates a good fit, .90 to .95 an acceptable fit, and less than .90 as unacceptable (see Bentler 1990;
1538 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Bentler and Bonett 1980; Bollen 1984; Fan, Thompson, and Wang 1999; Walters 2016). A third
indicator is the RMSEA or root mean square error of approximation (Browne and Cudeck 1993).
This measure is useful for estimating complex models, and is less sensitive to sample sizes (Fan,
Thompson, and Wang 1999), with a value of .05 or less representing a good fit of the model to the
data, and under .10 as an acceptable fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Steiger 1990).

Measures
Ideally, we would have liked to develop identical measures for all our key variables of self-control,
criminality, and parenting for all generations. This was not possible due to the availability of
different items across the 30 years of data. Therefore, measures of self-control are developed for
Gen2 and Gen3 using the same set of items, but for Gen1 similar items were not available. Instead,
measures of parental crime for Gen1 and Gen2 are included to assess this impact on both parenting
and children’s self-control. Each of the measures is described below.

Low self-control
For Gen2 and Gen3, low self-control is measured using a subset of items from the Behavior Problem
Index (BPI: Peterson and Zill 1986). This scale is regularly administered both to parents and directly
to children to assess children’s characteristics and behaviors such as anxiety or depression, as well as
aggression or other externalizing behaviors. For this study, Gen1 completed the BPI for each of their
children (Gen2), and Gen2 provides this information for their children (Gen3). Since Gen3 are not
directly interviewed, it would have been impossible to have self-report data from that generation.
There are studies to support the belief that using mother’s reports may not only be acceptable but
preferable to self-reports. One study that would support this argument (Meldrum, et al. 2013b) compares
the relative effects of self-control on deviance using both self- and maternal reports from the BPI. Self-
control, as measured by the adolescent self-report, was a stronger predictor of deviance than that produced
by the mother’s assessment using the same scale. However, both measures were significantly correlated and
both predicted the child’s involvement in deviance. Based on these findings, a parent’s report is an
acceptable way to measure children’s self-control. In fact, it may be beneficial to use parent’s assessments
because a person’s self-control may affect how they respond to different survey items (Hirschi and
Gottfredson 1993). In a meta-analysis comparing measures of self-control, Walters (2016) concluded
that self-reported behaviors are fairly poor measures of low self-control and a more useful approach is to
have behavioral ratings provided by others, such as parents, teachers, or independent observers.
Thus, for the current study, low self-control for Gen2 and Gen3 is measured by the parental reports on
a subset of the BPI items. For each item in the BPI scale, the parent indicates whether the description is
often true, sometimes true, or not true in describing their child (reverse coded from three to one to
indicate increasing problems or low self-control). Consistent with past studies using this scale to test self-
control theory, (Chapple, Tyler, and Bersani 2005; Hay and Forrest 2006; Nofziger 2008; Pratt, Turner,
and Piquero 2004; Turner and Piquero 2002), we identified items that are theoretically consistent with
the concept of self-control and subjected them to correlation and CFA tests. Seven items were identified
across both generations that focus primarily on the impulsive, short-sighted, and insensitive dimensions
of self-control identified by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:89–90). The list of items is provided in
Appendix A, along with the fit statistics from the CFA’s for both Gen2 and Gen3.
The BPI was completed by Gen1 respondents about their children in every survey wave starting in
1986. This scale was included for children in different age groups, depending on the year of the survey.
Across all years, children as young as two were assessed, with most years capping the age at 14.1 Of
course, in various waves information on specific respondents was missing, either due to non-interview of
1
Exceptions to this are in 1986 and 1988 when mothers were asked to complete information about all their children, regardless of
age. Thus in these waves, some older children were included.
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1539

the mother or due to the mother failing to answer individual items in this section. To minimize missing
data, we identified the specific wave in the NLSY-CYA that each individual in Gen2 was closest to
14 years old and that had data on the BPI. Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001) argued that self-control would
be fairly stable at approximately age 8 to 10, but other studies (Boutwell and Beaver 2010; Hay and
Forrest 2006; Meldrum et al. 2016; Turner and Piquero 2002; Verhoeven et al. 2007) indicate stability can
be reached earlier, and as young as two or three years old. Since we do use self-control of Gen2 to predict
their discipline practices when they are themselves parents, we wanted to have a measure of self-control
that was more likely to be reflective of their self-control when they were adults. Thus, we focused on the
oldest age group available and set a lower limit of age eight. For this sample, self-control of Gen2 was
collected between waves 1986 to 2006. Self-control for the majority of the respondents (83%) was
measured at 13 or 14 years old, with 13% between 8 and 12, and only 4% being older than 14.
For Gen3, self-control is measured in 2014, the most recent wave of data available. This wave was
used to maximize the number of respondents in this generation, and to allow for the measurement of
discipline in both the previous wave and in 2014. Of the 1,668 cases in our sample, the children
ranged in age from 6 to 14, with 30% being 6 or 7 years old and just under 15% being 13 or 14 years
old. Therefore, the measure of self-control for Gen3 is slightly younger than Gen2 but includes a very
similar age range, and does use identical indicators.

Parental crime
For Gen1, there was no available measure of self-control that was substantively similar to that used for
Gen2 and Gen3. While various forms of deviant behavior could be used as a proxy for self-control, the
fact that we consider both self-control and parental crime made such an option unacceptable. Thus,
due to the established relationship between self-control and crime, and the hypothesized impact
parental crime may have on children’s self-control, we developed measures of crime for both Gen1
and Gen2. In 1980, the Gen1 respondents completed a module to assess their participation in criminal
and deviant activities in the past year. A total of twelve items (see Appendix A) were examined with a
zero-order Pearson correlation analysis.2 Based on these results, a CFA estimated the significance of
each indicator and possible significant covariance between individual indicators. In the final measure-
ment model, all indicators and included covariances were significant (p < .001), and the fit indices
indicate that the model is an acceptable fit to the data (see Appendix A for items and fit statistics).
For Gen2, we assessed parental crime in 2008. This is the wave after any of the Gen2 self-control
measures were developed, and prior to the waves when Gen2 reported on their own use of discipline for
their children. One reason to include this measure is that there is potentially a long period of time between
the assessment of self-control and when Gen2 become parents. Therefore, the impact of childhood self-
control on discipline may not be directly observed but instead operate indirectly through other character-
istics, including criminal involvement. In addition, past work such as that by Murray and Farrington (2008)
indicates that parental crime may have a direct impact on child outcomes, including that of self-control.

Discipline
The primary question of interest for this study is whether discipline practices influence the self-control of
children. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97–100), effective parenting requires that parents
monitor children’s behaviors, recognize when deviance occurs, and appropriately punish the child. The
sequence of these events imply that in order to punish children for bad behavior, the parents would have
had to first monitor the child and recognize the act as problematic. In the NLSY-CYA, there are measures
of supervision or time spent with children, but none are consistent across the 30 years of data or for all the
generations that are included in this analysis. However, parents in both Gen1 and Gen2 do indicate how
they would respond to specific hypothetical situations of misbehavior of their children, and these
2
Due to space constraints, these results are not shown but can be provided upon request.
1540 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for discipline practices.

Type of Discipline Number Waves N % Mean StDev
Gen1 Physical 0.564 .739
Zero 978 58.6
One 440 26.4
Two 250 15.0
Ignore 0.122 .367
Zero 1487 89.1
One 158 9.5
Two 23 1.4
Other 1.047 .828
Zero 534 32.0
One 521 31.2
Two 613 36.8
Gen2 Physical 0.238 .522
Zero 1347 80.8
One 245 14.7
Two 76 4.6
Ignore 0.048 .225
Zero 1592 95.4
One 72 4.3
Two 4 .2
Other 1.169 .637
Zero 221 13.2
One 945 56.7
Two 502 30.1

questions are asked across multiple waves. Thus, although more complex measures of actual parenting
would arguably be a better test of the general theory of crime, it is possible to examine parents’ discipline
preferences, and whether these influence the self-control of children.
Since we were interested in having measures that were consistent across the generations, we used
two series of questions that were asked of both Gen1 and Gen2 respondents. The first series focused
on young children up to five years old, and asked the parents: “If your child got so angry that he/she
hit you, what would you do?” For children who were six or older, the prompt and options were
slightly different. The prompt reads “Sometimes children get so angry at their parents that they say
things like ‘I hate you’ or swear in a temper tantrum. Please check which action(s) you would take if
this happened.” Parents indicated whether or not they would use each action from a list of discipline
practices that ranged from spanking or hitting the child, to ignoring the behavior.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) do not just argue that all discipline is equal. Instead, they argue
that “explicit disapproval of unwanted behavior” (p. 100) should be effective. However, as such a
measure is unavailable in these data, we divide the responses into three types of discipline that may
be indicative of more or less effort required by the parents: physical, ignoring, and other (see
Appendix B for list of items). These are not mutually exclusive categories as respondents could
select multiple types of discipline they would use in each proposed situation.
The “physical” option includes cases where the parent indicated they would “hit him/her back” or
“spank him/her” for either of the two prompts. One option for each prompt indicated that the parent
would just ignore the behavior. We expect that both these forms of discipline would lead to poor
self-control as they are ones that do not make it clear what expectations are, and in the case of
corporal punishment, serve as a model for potentially impulsive, violent behavior. There were a wide
variety of other options parents could select beyond physical punishments or ignoring behavior.
While these shifted slightly in different waves or between the prompts, most were related to long-
term consequences of behavior, including sending children to their rooms or requiring a time out,
taking away privileges from children (such as TV or allowances) or making the offending child
complete a household chore. Positive responses to any of these options were combined into the
variable “other discipline” for each respondent. Due to the fact that these require more thought and
effort on the part of the parent, we expect that only those with higher self-control would report these
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1541

as their form of punishment. In addition, as these result in some longer term consequences of
tantrums, they would be more likely to lead to higher self-control in children.
Since parenting may change as the parents themselves become more experienced as parents, and is
specific to the ages of children, two waves of data were included for each type of discipline. Thus, each
measure of discipline could be coded zero (did not select the type of discipline in either wave), one
(selected the type of discipline in one wave), or two (selected the type of discipline in both waves). For
the Gen2 discipline, we used waves 2012 and 2014 to measure discipline, as this series of parenting
questions began in 2012 for this generation. To assess discipline used by Gen1, we selected the two
waves of data that were immediately prior to the wave in which self-control of Gen2 was measured.3 As
an example, if Gen2 self-control was measured in 2002, discipline was assessed in 1998 and 2000.

Findings
Prior to performing the SEM analysis, several descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted.
Table 1 provides descriptive information for each form of discipline examined in this study. The
most common form of discipline for both generations was the “other” category.
This option was selected by 68% of Gen1 and 86.8% of Gen2 for at least one wave. Of course, it is likely
the dominance of this form of discipline is at least partially related to the fact that this included a wider
range of options compared to the physical and ignore categories. For both generations, they were least likely
to ignore bad behavior (10.9% Gen1 and 4.6% Gen2). Corporal punishment shows the biggest difference
between the generations. For Gen1, 41.4% indicated that they would use this form of discipline. Further,
15% responded that they would use this form of discipline in both waves. In contrast, physical discipline
was selected by less than half that number for Gen2 parents. Only 19.3% indicated they would ever use
physical discipline, and only 4.6% indicated they would use physical discipline in both the waves.
The remaining analysis is to examine the three research questions in this study. Specifically, we
examine 1) whether low self-control and parental crime predict the type of discipline parents use, 2)
if different types of discipline predict self-control in children, and 3) whether the direct relationship
between self-control in successive generations is mediated by discipline practices. To answer our
study questions, we utilized SEM to assess the proposed relationships. The model with all hypothe-
sized relationships between key variables is displayed in Figure 1. The findings for the structural
elements in the model is provided in Table 2. Figure 2 displays the final results of the SEM. For

Figure 1. Full Hypothesized Structural Model.

3
There were a few exceptions to this process. If self-control was measured in either 1986 or 1988, there were not two waves of
data prior to these dates, as the NLSY-CYA only began in 1986. Thus, for Gen2 respondents whose self-control was measured in
1986, we used only one wave (1986) for discipline, and for 1998 self-control measures we used both 1996 and 1998.
1542 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Table 2. Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for structural elements of full model.
Endogenous Variables
Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 3
Predictor PhysD Ignore OthD LSC Crime PhysD Ignore OthD LSC
G1_Crime .062* .049 −.102*** .096** .155***
G1_PhysD .097*** .142***
G1_Ignore .041 .009
G1_OthD .000 −.340***
G2_LSC .147*** −.046 −.010 −.005 .074*
G2_Crime .095*** .012 −.103** .092*
G2_PhysD .042
G2_Ignore .066*
G2_OthD −.012
N = 1668
Chi-Square = 1654***
Df = 585
CFI = .92
TLI = .90
RMSEA = .03
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Figure 2. Significant paths in full model (standardized MLE).

clarity, the measurement components of the full model are not included in this figure but are
provided in Table 3.
For our first question, whether self-control and parental crime predict the choice of discipline
practices, the findings are mixed. Parental crime appears to have fairly consistent effects on parenting
for both generations. For both generations, parental crime significantly increases the reported use of
engaging in physical discipline (p < .05 for Gen1 and p < .001 for Gen2). In addition, parental crime also
significantly and negatively predicts the use of other forms of discipline. Thus, parents with higher
criminal involvement are less likely to engage in these “other” discipline practices. These findings are
consistent with our expectations. However, the findings for self-control on parenting are not as
predicted. Gen2 low self-control did not reach significant levels in predicting any of the discipline
practices. However, it did significantly predict Gen2 criminality. Therefore, since Gen2 criminality did
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1543

Table 3. Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for measurement components in full model.
Gen 1 Criminality MLE Covariances
1 Vandal 0.604*** e1<->e2 0.051***
2 Fight 0.384*** e1<->e12 0.019***
3 Shoplift 0.575*** e2<->e7 0.102***
4 StealSm 0.537*** e2<->e8 0.077***
5 StealBig 0.702*** e2<->e9 0.220***
6 Force 0.620*** e3<->e4 0.048***
7 HitThreat 0.445*** e4<->e5 0.017***
8 Attack 0.565*** e4<->e10 −0.093***
9 Marij 0.317*** e4<->e11 −0.021***
10 Con 0.502*** e5<->e6 0.018***
11 Car 0.530*** e5<->e11 −0.017***
12 BrokeIn 0.503*** e5<->e12 0.031***
e7<->e8 0.124***
Gen 2 Criminality
13 Fight 0.505*** e16<->e17 0.021***
14 Steal 0.271***
15 Threat 0.556***
16 Convict 0.245***
17 Probation 0.215***
Gen2 Self-Control
18 Temper 0.736*** e18<->e22 −0.064***
19 Stubborn 0.722*** e18<->e20 −0.019*
20 Restless 0.550*** e19<->e22 −0.064***
21 Impulsive 0.622*** e20<->e24 0.050***
22 DiffCon 0.645***
23 Mood 0.537***
24 Demands 0.498***
Gen3 Self-Control
25 Temper 0.619*** e25<->e26 0.055***
26 Stubborn 0.610*** e25<->e30 0.042***
27 Restless 0.641*** e25<->e29 −0.028***
28 Impulsive 0.733*** e26<->e30 0.044***
29 DiffCon 0.621*** e27<->e29 0.071***
30 Mood 0.517***
31 Demands 0.528***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

predict two forms of discipline, it is possible that self-control of Gen2 is important for predicting
parenting due to its impact on crime for this generation.
For our second question, we examine the relationships between parenting practices and resulting
self-control. For both generations, discipline had only minimal effects on self-control. Physical
discipline used by Gen1 is a strong predictor of poorer self-control in Gen2 (p < .001). However,
ignoring the behavior or using other forms of punishment were not significantly related to Gen2
self-control. Similarly, only one form of discipline used by Gen2 was directly predicting low self-
control of Gen3. In this case, ignoring the behavior increased lower self-control for Gen3 (p < .05).
Therefore, there is not a strong case for the impact of the role of discipline practices on predicting
children’s self-control found in the current study.
Our final question focuses on whether the relationship between self-control across generations is
mediated by discipline practices. It is clear in this model that this is not the case. Self-control and/or
criminality of the previous generation remain as significant predictors of self-control in their
children, even when accounting for discipline. In fact, it appears that the strongest predictors of
self-control for each generation is the self-control and criminal activities of the parent, with
discipline having very limited impact.
The final set of relationships in the model were between parenting practices in successive
generations. It is logical to believe that if Gen1 practiced spanking their children would be more
likely to use these discipline practices as well, as it is what they grew up with as a model for
discipline. Thus, while not specifically part of our hypotheses, we did allow for this relationship in
1544 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

the model. As expected, spanking by Gen1 predicted increased spanking by Gen2 (p < .001).
However, the other two forms of parenting were not related as expected. First, ignoring behavior
between the generations was not significant. Of course, this was the least common form of discipline
used, with only 10.9% of Gen1 and 4.6% of Gen2 reporting that they would ignore tantrums in their
child. However, using other forms discipline by Gen1 actually decreased the use of these practices in
Gen2, in spite of nearly 87% of Gen2 parents reporting that they do use these behaviors.
It is important to note that the model is an acceptable fit to the data but cannot be considered a
strong fit. This study focused only on discipline that parents report they would use in certain
hypothetical situations. It is not a direct measure of how often they actually use these practices. They
may therefore report they would use forms of discipline that they believe are more socially
acceptable, rather than what they actually do. It is also likely that other elements of parenting,
such as affection between parent and child, supervision, and the parenting provided by other adults
in the household would all contribute to the self-control of the child. In spite of the lack of additional
items in the model, the CFI is .92 and the TLI is .90, indicating an acceptable model fit. In addition,
the RMSEA is strong, at only .03, indicating a good fit with the data. These findings indicate the
proposed relationships in our model at least adequately represent the data.

Conclusion
This study examines the importance of discipline practices on self-control over three generations. While
studies have examined the role of parenting practices in developing self-control (Baumrind 1991, 1996;
Colman et al. 2006; Hay 2001; Higgins et al. 2011; Nofziger 2008; Perrone et al. 2004; Power and
Chapieski 1986), to date, this is the only study to examine the relationship between self-control of
parents, parental criminality, discipline practices, and resulting self-control of children across multiple
generations. If self-control has lasting impacts, not only in the activities of the individual, but through
multiple generations, it would be evidence that we need to find ways to improve self-control in children
to prevent involvement in crime and deviance for generations to come. However, as Belsky and Jaffee
(2006) noted, parenting techniques vary from person to person, and more broadly, what was considered
to be effective parenting for one generation may be viewed as problematic for the next. For example,
spanking has long been viewed as an acceptable form of discipline, but that has shifted quite dramatically
over the last several decades, with an increasing percentage of the population viewing this as bad
parenting. Because of the trends in parenting, it is difficult to predict how the next generation will
parent. However, we argue that having parents with high self-control would result in the use of more
effective parenting regardless of current cultural trends.
The first research question in this study is whether parental crime and self-control influence the specific
discipline practices used by parents. This is the case only for parental crime. While parental criminality for
both Gen1 and Gen2 increase the reported use of physical discipline, and decrease the use of other
discipline forms, the low self-control of Gen2 does not have any direct significant effects on discipline.
Thus, while self-control might be relevant in predicting parents’ crime, and thus be related to discipline
indirectly, this is not consistent across generations and is not a strong relationship in the current study.
Our second research question was whether the types of discipline used affect self-control in
children. Similar to several past studies that found the use of corporal punishment, such as
spanking, decreases self-control (Beaver, Wright, and Matt 2007; Chapple, Tyler, and Bersani
2005; Hay 2001; Nofziger 2008), we also found this to be a significant predictor for the self-
control of Gen2, but this failed to reach significance for Gen3. Similarly, doing nothing by
ignoring the behavior, perhaps the most passive and thus easiest form of discipline, decreases
self-control in children, but only for Gen3. Thus, while some forms of discipline are important in
predicting self-control, there is clearly a great deal that is predicting self-control other than the
measures of discipline in the current study.
Our final question was whether the relationship between self-control across generations was
mediated through discipline. In this study, this was not the case. These findings differ from those of
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1545

Meldrum et al. (2016) where only indirect effects between maternal self-control and early childhood
self-control existed, with that relationship being mediated by ineffective parenting. We did find that
some forms of discipline influenced self-control for each generation, indicating that parenting
practices may be very important in predicting self-control. However, the limited forms of parenting
that were consistent across the three generations in the current study may not allow us to examine all
aspects of parenting adequately.
This study was a first attempt to establish if there are multi-generational effects of self-control on
parenting and self-control in later generations. A great deal more work is needed and there were
several limitations in the current analysis to consider. Future work that focuses on self-control
parenting should include other elements, including supervision and the more challenging aspect of
recognizing deviance. Gottfredson and Hirschi in fact indicated that it is extremely difficult for social
scientists to agree which behaviors reflect low self-control, let alone for parents to understand this
connection and thus recognize such behavior as problematic and in need of correction (1990:102). For
this study, we were not able to include these other parenting elements that are crucial to developing
self-control. Since we were dependent on secondary data, and to only using items that were consistent
over a 30-year time frame across multiple generations, we were limited in our ability to measure
parenting beyond specific discipline practices. It would be possible to create some measures of
supervision and more complex understandings of the time parents spend with children, but only
with a much smaller group that would target very specific waves of data. We hope that as the NLSY
continues to be collected, the third generation will be included in self-report studies, making additional
measures concerning the relationship between the parents and child available.
In addition, this study does not address the potential “child effect” on parenting (Bell 1968;
Meunier, Roskam, and Browne 2010; Pettit and Loulis 1997). The child effect is the possibility that
children are not just passive in the parent-child relationship but that their behaviors, even at
extremely young ages, can affect parenting practices. For example, a parent who had previously
tried without success to correct behavior using time outs, may have discovered that their child more
quickly responded to being ignored during a tantrum. In contrast, a parent who has a child who
never has tantrums, may not be able to imagine any situation where they would resort to hitting
their child. The current study used measures of discipline that were not directly observed measures
of what the parents actually do on a regular basis. Instead, they were hypothetical situations.
Whether parents picked each type of discipline may have been influenced by social desirability, or
by their own experiences with their child. Thus, we are not able to determine whether what parents
actually do is consistent with what they claim they would do, let alone whether their parenting is
subject to any reciprocal child effects.
A final limitation in this study was the lack of controls in our model that may explain differences
in self-control or parenting practices. For example, it is likely that parents who were older at the time
of their child’s birth, who have more education, or even who have previous experience parenting an
older child, may engage in different forms of discipline than younger parents. However, such details
were unavailable for the Gen3 individuals, and thus could not be assessed adequately.
In spite of these limitations, the current study adds to the literature in two ways. First, we offer
evidence that provides additional support for the intergenerational transmission of self-control. It is
very clear that self-control of parents predicts self-control of their children, and in addition that
criminality of parents predicts not only crime in their children (as in the case between Gen1 and
Gen2), but also the children’s self-control. The nature of these relationships however remains
unclear, as most of the hypothesized relationships to explain the transmission of self-control across
generations were not significant.
Second, we stretch the limits of past work examining the role of parents to assess how the
relationship between self-control of parents and discipline can extend not just to their children’s self-
control but to an additional generation. Understanding how crime and poor self-control is trans-
mitted across multiple generations can lead to potential targets for intervention, and a wide range of
better life outcomes associated with higher self-control.
1546 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Notes on contributors
Stacey Nofziger is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Akron. She received her
Ph.D. from the Department of Sociology at the University of Arizona (1999). Her research interests include juvenile
violence and victimization, experiences of children in foster care, and self-control theory. She has published in outlets
including Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Violence and Victims, Deviant Behavior, and Feminist
Criminology
Katherine Newton is a current Ph.D. student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Akron. She earned
her B.A. in Psychology from Ohio Dominican University in Columbus, Ohio in 2010, and earned her M.A. in
Sociology from Cleveland State University in 2013. Her primary research interests are in crime, victimization, deviant
behavior, and quantitative methodology. Her most recent publication appeared in Applied Research in Quality of Life.

References
Baumrind, Diana. 1991. “The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use.” Journal of
Early Adolescence 11(1):56–95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004.
Baumrind, Diana. 1996. “The Discipline Controversy Revisited.” Family Relations 45:405–14. doi:10.2307/585170.
Beaver, Kevin M. and Jay Belsky. 2012. “Gene-Environment Interaction and the Intergenerational Transmission of
Parenting: Testing the Differential-Susceptibility Hypothesis.” Psychiatric Quarterly 83:29–40. doi:10.1007/s11126-
011-9180-4.
Beaver, Kevin M., J. Eagle Shutt, Brian B. Boutwell, Marie Ratchford, Kathleen Roberts, and J.C. Barnes. 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(1):41–60. doi:10.1177/
0093854808326992.
Beaver, Kevin M., Mohammed Said Al-Ghamdi, Ahmed Nezar Kobeisy, Fathiyah H Alqurashi, Joseph A Schwartz,
Eric J Connolly, and Jamie M Gajos. 2016. “The Effects of Low Self-Control and Delinquent Peers on Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Drug Use in a Sample of Saudi Arabian Youth.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 60(13):1569–87. doi:10.1177/0306624X15583670.
Beaver, Kevin M., John Paul Wright, and DeLisi. Matt. 2007. “Self-Control as an Executive Function: Reformulating
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Parental Socialization Thesis.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(1):1345–61. doi:10.1177/
0093854807302049.
Bell, Richard Q. 1968. “A Reinterpretation of the Direction of Effects in Studies of Socialization.” Psychological Review
75(2):81–95. doi:10.1037/h0025583.
Belsky, Jay and Sara R. Jaffee. 2006. ““The Multiple Determinants of Parenting.” Pp. 38–85 in Developmental
Psychopathology, Second, edited by Dante Cicchetti and Donald J. Cohen. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin 107(2):238–46.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bentler, P. M. and Douglas G. Bonett. 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance
Structures.” Psychological Bulletin 88(3):588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1984. “Multiple Indicators: Internal Consistency or No Necessary Relationship?” Quality and
Quantity 18(4):377–86. doi:10.1007/BF00227593.
Boutwell, Brian B. and Kevin M. Beaver. 2010. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Low Self-Control.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(2):174–209. doi:10.1177/0022427809357715.
Brook, Judith S., Li Jung Tseng, Martin Whiteman, and Patricia Cohen. 1998. “A Three Generation Study:
Intergenerational Continuities and Discontinuities and Their Impact on the Toddler’s Anger.” Genetic, Social
and General Psychology Monographs 24:335–51.
Browne, Michael W. and Robert Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. in ”Testing Structural
Equation Models, edted by Kenneth A. Bollen and J. Scott Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Burt, Callie Harbin, Ronald L. Simons, and Leslie G. Simons. 2006. “A Longitudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting
and the Stability of Self-Control: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime.” Criminology 44(2):353–96.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00052.x.
Burton, Velmer S., Jr., Francis T. Cullen, T. David Evans, Leanne F. Alarid, and R. Gregory Dunaway. 1998. “Gender,
Self-Control, and Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(2):123–47. doi:10.1177/
0022427898035002001.
Chapple, Constance L., Kimberly A. Tyler, and Bianca E. Bersani. 2005. “Child Neglect and Adolescent Violence:
Examining the Effects of Self-Control and Peer Rejection.” Violence & Victims 20(1):39–53. doi:10.1891/0886-
6708.2005.20.1.39.
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1547

Colman, Rebecca A., Sam A. Hardy, Myesha Albert, Marcela Raffaelli, and Lisa Crockett. 2006. “Early Predictors of
Self-Regulation in Middle Childhood.” Infant and Child Development 15:421–37. doi:10.1002/icd.469.
Connolly, Eric J. and Kevin M. Beaver. 2014. “Examining the Genetic and Environmental Influences on Self-Control
and Delinquency: Results from a Genetically Informative Analysis of Sibling Pairs.” Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 29(4):707–35. doi:10.1177/0886260513505209.
De Ridder, Denise TD, Gerty Lensvelt-Mulders, F. Catrin Finkenauer, Marijn Stok, and Roy F. Baumeister. 2012.
“Taking Stock of Self-Control: A Meta-Analysis of How Trait Self-Control Relates to A Wide Range of Behaviors.”
Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1):76–99. doi:10.1177/1088868311418749.
Duckworth, Angela L., Rachel E. White, Alyssa J. Matteucci, Annie Shearer, and James J. Gross. 2016. “Strategic Self-
Control in High School and College Students.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108(3):329–41. doi:10.1037/
edu0000062.
Duckworth, Angela Lee and Margaret L. Kern. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of the Convergent Validity of Self-Control
Measures.” Journal in Research and Personality 45(3):259–68. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.02.004.
Erath, Stephen A., Kristen L. Bub, and Kelly M. Tu. 2016. “Responses to Peer Stress Predict Academic Outcomes
across the Transition to Middle School.” Journal of Early Adolescence 36(1):5–28. doi:10.1177/0272431614556350.
Fan, Xitao, Bruce Thompson, and Lin Wang. 1999. “Effects of Sample Size, Estimation Methods, and Model
Specification on Structural Equation Modeling Fit Indexes.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 6(1):56–83. doi:10.1080/10705519909540119.
Farrington, David P., Geoffrey Barnes, and Sandra Lambert. 1996. “The Concentration of Offending in Families.” Legal
and Criminological Psychology 1(1):47–63. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00306.x.
Fergusson, David M., Joseph M. Boden, and John Horwood. 2013. “Childhood Self-Control and Adult Outcomes:
Results from a 30-Year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
52(7):709–17. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.04.008.
Gibbs, John J. and Dennis Giever. 1995. “Self-Control and Its Manifestations among University Students: An Empirical
Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Justice Quarterly 12(2):231–56. doi:10.1080/07418829500092661.
Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin. 1998. “Parental Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test
of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(1):40–70.
doi:10.1177/0022427898035001002.
Gibson, Chris L., Christopher J. Sullivan, Shayne Jones, and Alex R. Piquero. 2010. “‘Does It Take a Village?’: Assessing
Neighborhood Influences on Children’s Self-Control.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(1):31–62.
doi:10.1177/0022427809348903.
Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gottfredson, Michael R. 2008. ““The Empirical Status of Control Theory in Criminology.” Pp. 77–100 in ”In Taking
Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. Vol. 15, Advances in Criminological Theory, edted by Francis T. Cullen,
John Paul Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Grasmick, Harold G., Charles Tittle, Robert J Bursik Jr., and Bruce J Arneklev. 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. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001002.
Hay, Carter. 2001. “Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory.” Criminology 39(3):707–
36. doi:10.1111/[Link]-3.
Hay, Carter and Walter Forrest. 2006. “The Development of Self-Control: Examining Self-Control Theory’s Stability
Thesis.” Criminology 44(4):739–74. doi:10.1111/[Link]-4.
Hay, Carter and Ryan Meldrum. 2016. Self-Control and Crime over the Life Course. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Higgins, George E. 2009. “Parental Criminality and Low Self-Control: An Examination of Delinquency.” Criminal
Justice Studies 22(2):141–52. doi:10.1080/14786010902975416.
Higgins, George E., EmmaLeigh E. Kirchner, Melissa L. Ricketts, and Catherine D. Marcum. 2011. “Developing Self-
Control: The Role of Parental Stress.” Criminal Justice Studies 24(2):183–98. doi:10.1080/1478601X.2011.561647.
Hirschi, Travis and Michael R. Gottfredson. 1993. “Commentary: Testing the General Theory of Crime.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(1):47–54. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001004.
Hirschi, Travis and Michael R. Gottfredson. 2001. “Self-Control Theory. in ”Explaining Criminals and Crime: Essays in
Contemporary Criminological Theory, edited by Raymond Paternoster and Ronet Bachman. Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury Press.
Hirtenlehner, Helmut, Lieven Pauwels, and Gorazd Mesko. 2015. “Is the Criminogenic Effect of Exposure to Peer
Delinquency Dependent on the Ability to Exercise Self-Control? Results from Three Countries.” Journal of Criminal
Justice 43(6):532–43. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.05.006.
Holt, Thomas, Adam Bossler, and David May. 2012. “Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations, and Juvenile
Cyberdeviance.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 37(3):378–95. doi:10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3.
Honken, Nora B. and Patricia A. S Ralston. 2013. “High-Achieving High School Students and Not so High-Achieving
College Students: A Look at Lack of Self-Control, Academic Ability, and Performance in College.” Journal of
Advanced Academics 24(2):108–24. doi:10.1177/1932202X13482466.
1548 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Hope, Trina L., Harold G. Grasmick, and Laura J. Pointon. 2003. “The Family in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General
Theory of Crime: Structure, Parenting, and Self-Control.” Sociological Focus 36(4):291–311. doi:10.1080/
00380237.2003.10571226.
John Paul, Wright and Kevin M. Beaver. 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(4):1169–202.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00036.x.
Kochanska, Grazyna, Robert A. Philibert, and Robin A. Barry. 2009. “Interplay of Genes and Early Mother-Child
Relationship in the Development of Self-Regulation from Toddler to Preschool Age.” Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 50(11):1331–38. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02050.x.
Kuhnle, Claudia, Manfred Hofer, and Britta Kilian. 2012. “Self-Control as Predictor of School Grades, Life Balance,
and Flow in Adolescents.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4):533–48. doi:10.1111/[Link]-4.
Lucassen, Niole, Rianne Kok, Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marinus H Van lJzendoorn, Vincent W. V Jaddoe,
Albert Hofman, Frank C Verhulst, Mijke P Lambregtse-Van Den Berg, and Henning Tiermeier. 2015. “Executive
Functions in Early Childhood: The Role of Maternal and Paternal Parenting Practices.” British Journal of
Developmental Psychology 33(4):489–505. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12112.
Meaney, Michael J. 2001. “Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge.” Annals of the New York Academy of
Science 935(1):50–61. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03470.x.
Meldrum, Ryan C., Holly Miller, and Jamie L. Flexon. 2013. “Susceptibility to Peer Influence, Self-Control, and
Delinquency: Crime and Delinquency.” Sociological Inquiry 83(1):106–29. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2012.00434.x.
Meldrum, Ryan C., Marjolein Verhoeven, Marcel A. Marianne Junger, G. Van Aken, and Deković. Maja. 2016.
“Parental Self-Control and the Development of Male Aggression in Early Childhood: A Longitudinal Test of Self-
Control Theory.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology:1–23. doi:10.1177/
0306624X16662921.
Meldrum, Ryan C., Jacob T. N Young, Callie Harbin Burt, and Alex R Piquero. 2013. “Maternal versus Adolescent
Reports of Self-Control: Implications for Testing the General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Criminal Justice 41
(1):24–32. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.10.003.
Meldrum, Ryan C., Jacob T. N Young, Carter Hay, and Jamie L Flexon. 2012. “Does Self-Control Influence Maternal
Attachment? A Reciprocal Effects Analysis from Early Childhood through Middle Adolescence.” Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 28:673–99. doi:10.1007/s10940-012-9173-y.
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Meunier, Jean Christophe, Isabelle Roskam, and Dillon T Browne. 2010. “Relations between Parenting and Child’s
Behavior: Exploring the Child’s Personality and Parental Self-Efficacy as Third Variables.” International Journal of
Behavioral Development 35(3):246–59. doi:10.1177/0165025410382950.
Miller, Keva M. 2006. “The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children: An Emerging Need for Effective
Interventions.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(4):472–86. doi:10.1007/s10560-006-0065-6.
Moffitt, Terrie E., Richie Poulton, and Avshalom Caspi. 2013. “Lifelong Impact of Early Self-Control.” American
Scientist 101:352–59. doi:10.1511/2013.104.1.
Murray, Joseph and David P. Farrington. 2008. “The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children.” Crime and Justice
37(1):133–206. doi:10.1086/520070.
Nelson, Matthew S. and Danielle Boisvert. 2011. “Testing the Effects of Delinquent Peers and Self-Control on
Disruptive Behaviors in the College Classroom.” Criminal Justice Studies 24(2):165–81. doi:10.1080/
1478601X.2011.561646.
Nofziger, Stacey. 2008. “The ‘Cause’ of Low Self-Control: The Influence of Maternal Self-Control.” Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 45(2):191–224. doi:10.1177/0022427807313708.
Perrone, Dina, Christopher J. Sullivan, Travis C. Pratt, and Satenik Margaryan. 2004. “Parental Efficacy, Self-Control,
and Delinquency: A Test of A General Theory of Crime on A Nationally Representative Sample of Youth.”
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48(3):298–312. doi:10.1177/
0306624X03262513.
Peterson, James L. and Nicholas Zill. 1986. “Marital Disruption, Parent-Child Relationships, and Behavior Problems in
Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family 48(2):295–307. doi:10.2307/352397.
Pettit, Gregory S. and Susan Loulis. 1997. “Introduction to Special Issue: Reciprocity and Bidirectionality in Parent-
Child Relationships: New Approaches to the Study of Enduring Issues.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
14:435–40. doi:10.1177/0265407597144001.
Polakowski, Michael. 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(1):41–78.
doi:10.1007/BF02221008.
Power, Thomas G. and M. Lynn Chapieski. 1986. “Childrearing and Impulse Control in Toddlers: A Naturalistic
Investigation.” Developmental Psychology 22(2):271–75. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.271.
Pratt, Travis C. and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of
Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 38(3):931–64. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x.
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1549

Pratt, Travis C., Michael G. Turner, and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. “Parental Socialization and Community Context: A
Longitudinal Analysis of the Structural Sources of Low Self-Control.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
41(3):219–43. doi:10.1177/0022427803260270.
Putkonen, Anu, Olli-Pekka Ryynänen, Markku Eronen, and Jari Tiihonen. 2007. “Transmission of Violent Offending
and Crime across Three Generations.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42(2):94–99. doi:10.1007/
s00127-006-0139-y.
Rutter, Michael. 2012. “Gene-Environment Interdependence.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9
(4):391–412. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.661174.
Seibert, Gregory S., Ross W. May, Michael C. Fitzgerald, and Frank D. Fincham. 2016. “Understanding School
Burnout: Does Self-Control Matter?” Learning and Individual Differences 49:120–27. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2016.05.024.
Smith, Carolyn A. and David P. Farrington. 2004. “Continuities in Antisocial Behavior and Parenting across Three
Generations.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45(2):230–47. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00216.x.
Steiger, James H. 1990. “Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach.”
Multivariate Behavioral Research 25(2):173–80. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.
Thornberry, Terence P. 2005. “Explaining Multiple Patterns of Offending across the Life Course and across
Generations.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602(1):156–95. doi:10.1177/
0002716205280641.
Thornberry, Terence P., Adrienne Freeman-Gallant, Alan J Lizotte, Marvin D Krohn, and Carolyn A Smith. 2003.
“Linked Lives: The Intergenerational Transmission of Antisocial Behavior.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychiatry
31:171–84. doi:10.1023/A:1022574208366.
Turner, Michael G. and Alex R. Piquero. 2002. “The Stability of Self-Control.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30(6):457–
71. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00169-1.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Travis C. Pratt. 2003. “Parental Management, ADHD, and Delinquent
Involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Justice Quarterly 20(3):471–500. doi:10.1080/
07418820300095591.
Verhoeven, Marjolein, Marianne Junger, Chantal Aken, Maja Deković, and Marcel A. G Van Aken. 2007. “Parenting
during Toddlerhood: Contributions of Parental, Contextual and Child Characteristics.” Journal of Family Issues 28
(12):1663–91. doi:10.1177/0192513X07302098.
Walters, Glenn D. 2016. “Are Behavioral Measures of Self-Control and the Grasmick Self-Control Scale Measuring the
Same Construct? A Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 41(2):151–67. doi:10.1007/s12103-015-
9317-3.
1550 S. NOFZIGER AND K. NEWTON

Appendix A: Standardized MLE and model Statistics from CFA for Parental Criminality
and Self-Control

Parental Criminality
Gen1 On this form are descriptions of types of activities that some young people can get into trouble for. I
want you to read each item, and put a check mark after the category which best describes the number
of times in the last year you have done the activities described.
Item Wording MLE*
BrokeIn Broken in to a car or building to steal something or just to look around 0.638
Car Taken a vehicle for a ride or drive without the owner’s permission 0.432
Con Tried to get something by lying to a person about what you would do for him, that is tried 0.468
to con someone
Marij Smoked Marijuana or Hashish (“Pot,” “Grass,” “Hash”) 0.303
Attack Attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing them 0.546
HitThreat Hit or seriously threatened to hit someone 0.399
Force Used force or strong arm methods to get money or things from a person 0.632
StealBig Other than from a store, taken something not belonging to you worth $50 or more 0.757
StealSm Other than from a store, taken something not belonging to you worth under $50 0.591
ShopLift Taken something from a store without paying for it 0.587
Fight Gotten into a physical fight at school or work 0.337
Vandal Purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you 0.744
CFI = .940, TLI = .888, RMSEA = .073
Gen2
In the last year (last 12 months) have you. . . MLE*
Fight been in a physical fight at school or work 0.609
Steal taken something worth $50 or more 0.273
Threat ever hit or seriously threatened to hit someone 0.465
Since date of last interview/have you ever. . .
Convicted been convicted of any charges other than a minor traffic violation 0.243
Probation been on probation 0.203
CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, RMSEA = .002

Appendix A: Standardized MLE and model Statistics from CFA for Parental Criminality
and Self-Control (continued)

MLEa
Self-Control (Gen2 and Gen3) Gen2 Gen3
These statements are about behavior problems many children have. As you read each item, think about
your child’s behavior over the last three months. Then circle the number that goes best with each item.
Temper Child has a very strong temper and loses it easily 0.726 0.612
Impulsive Child is impulsive, or acts without thinking 0.609 0.712
Demands Child demands a lot of attention 0.496 0.553
Stubborn Child is stubborn, sullen, or irritable 0.785 0.611
Restless Child is restless or overly active, cannot sit still 0.526 0.630
DiffCon Child has difficulty concentrating/paying attention 0.646 0.598
Mood Child has sudden changes in mood or feeling 0.533 0.493
Gen2: CFI = .987, TLI = .965, RMSEA = .047
Gen3: CFI = .995, TLI = .981, RMSEA = .035
a All significant at p < .001
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 1551

Appendix B: Discipline Items

Over different waves and ages, specific options shifted slightly in the “other” category. The listed items below were included in
the measure of “other discipline” every year they were available.
Sometimes children get so angry at their parents that they say things like “I hate you” or swear in a temper tantrum. Please
check which action(s) you would take if this happened. (Circle all that apply.)
Asked of parents with children aged 6–9, 6–18, or in two sections including ages 6–9 and 10–14, or 10 and older depending on
survey year
Physical Spanking
Ignore Ignore it
Other Grounding
Talk with child
Give him or her household chore
Send to room for more than 1 hour
Take away his/her allowance
Take away TV, phone, or other privilege
Most children get angry at their parents from time to time. If your child got so angry that he/she hit you, what would you do?
(Circle all that apply)
Asked of parents with children aged 3 through 5
Physical Hit her/him back
Spank him/her
Ignore Ignore it
Other Send him/her to his/her room
Talk to him/her
Give him/her a household chore
Take away his/her allowance
Put child in a short “time out”
Copyright of Deviant Behavior is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.