RECKLESS REEVALUATED: CONTAINMENT THEORY AND ITS ABILITY TO
EXPLAIN DESISTANCE AMONG SERIOUS ADOLESCENT OFFENDERS
by
STEPHANIE M. CARDWELL
SUZANNE E. PERUMEAN-CHANEY, COMMITTEE CHAIR
HEITH COPES
SYLVIE MRUG
A THESIS
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Criminal Justice
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2013
Copyright by
Stephanie M. Cardwell
2013
RECKLESS REEVALUATED: CONTAINMENT THEORY AND ITS ABILITY TO
EXPLAIN DESISTANCE AMONG SERIOUS ADOLESCENT OFFENDERS
STEPHANIE M. CARDWELL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ABSTRACT
Social control theorists posit that crime and delinquency occur among members in
society because an individuals‟ behavior is not well regulated. Recent control theories
have emphasized the importance of high self-control and strong bonds to society in
deterring criminal behavior. However, one of the original theories of self-control has
been largely ignored among scholars. Developed by Walter Reckless in the 1960s,
containment theory suggests that individuals are pushed and pulled into crime. Pushes are
elements that pressure individuals to engage in delinquency while pulls draw individuals
away from accepted forms of behavior. The theory states that pushes and pulls are
buffered by inner and outer containments. The inner containment includes self-concept,
goal orientation, frustration tolerance, and norm commitment and retention (i.e., elements
within the individual‟s self). The outer containment includes the social environment in
which the individual resides and reflects socialization within the community (i.e.,
elements outside one‟s self). Utilizing data from the Research on Pathways to Desistance
study, this thesis focused on examining whether: (1) pushes and pulls were associated
with an increase in the frequency of offending, (2) the inner and outer containments were
associated with a decrease in the frequency of offending, (3) the containment variables
had a differential impact on minor and serious offenses, and (4) the containment variables
differed for males and females.
iii
The results of the count models indicated that pushes and pulls were not
significant predictors of offending, regardless of offense type or gender, for high-risk
adolescents. Among the containment variables, only goal orientation and the availability
of meaningful roles were significant at reducing the frequency of offending. Further,
these variables were only effective at reducing the frequency of violent rather than nonviolent offenses. Finally, goal orientation was the only significant predictor for males in
reducing violent offenses. The containment variables were not significant for female
offenders. Theoretical implications and future research suggestions are discussed.
Keywords: containment theory, social control theory, juvenile delinquency, desistance
iv
DEDICATION
This is for Papa Joe. Though not here in the physical, you are always in my heart.
I love you.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many individuals to whom I owe much thanks. First and foremost, I
thank my thesis chair, Dr. Suzanne Perumean-Chaney, for listening to my non-stop
statistical questions, allowing me to vent about the frustrations I encountered with this
thesis, and for being a second mom to me. You have no idea how helpful you have been
in the development of both this project and during my time at UAB. I owe a special
thanks to Dr. Heith Copes (AKA, Boss) for putting up with me over the past two years
and for being part of a non-qualitative thesis. I definitely would not be where I am today
had you not recruited me into the criminal justice masters program. Much of my success
thus far has been because of you and for that, I am forever grateful. Also, thank you to
Dr. Sylvie Mrug for allowing me to work in your research lab as an undergraduate, for
putting up with me during the most difficult statistics/graduate course I have ever taken,
and for your input on this thesis.
Although they were not members of my committee, I thank the faculty members
of the Department of Justice Sciences including Drs. John Sloan, Shelly McGrath, Kent
Kerley, and Kay Morgan. Thank you all for your mentorship and for allowing me to help
with various research projects throughout the past two years. Also, thank you to the
department‟s administrative associate, Davietta McDole, for all your years of service to
UAB and for keeping the department running smoothly.
While not involved in the process of my thesis development, many individuals
were here throughout this time that helped keep me sane and level-headed. Thank you to
vi
my dear heart, Nejla Harris, for being my partner in crime since 2009 (No, we didn‟t
commit any “illegal” crimes, but we did engage in plenty of foolery). You‟re the best! I
would also like to acknowledge my Aunt Julie for introducing me to the awesomeness
that is known as Apple computer products, bantering with me, and for your wise advice
on how to succeed in academia. Also, thanks to my Aunt Nancy and Uncle Dennis for
their emotional support throughout my graduate studies and for being a second set of
parents to me. Last, but not least, I want to thank the most important person in my life:
my mother Lucie Cardwell. I thank you for teaching me the concept of work ethic and for
your encouragement and support throughout not only graduate school but since birth.
You are amazing, and I don‟t know what I would do without you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Control Theories ............................................................................................... 2
Containment Theory .......................................................................................... 9
Pushes and Pulls ............................................................................................ 10
Inner and Outer Containments ...................................................................... 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................................... 14
Empirical Research on Containment Theory ..................................................... 14
Criticisms of the Theory .................................................................................... 18
Current Research ................................................................................................ 21
METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 22
Data .................................................................................................................... 22
Sample................................................................................................................ 23
Procedures .......................................................................................................... 24
Dependent Variables .......................................................................................... 25
Independent Variables ....................................................................................... 26
Pushes and Pulls ............................................................................................ 26
Inner Containment ......................................................................................... 29
Outer Containment ........................................................................................ 31
Covariates .......................................................................................................... 34
Analytic Strategy ............................................................................................... 34
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 37
Descriptive Results ............................................................................................ 37
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multivariate Results: One-Year Follow Up ....................................................... 41
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 45
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 54
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................... 61
B KENDALL‟S TAU-B CORRELATIONS ................................................... 67
C IRB APPROVAL FORM ............................................................................. 70
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Descriptive Statistics of the Overall Sample ........................................................... 38
2
Descriptive Statistics by Gender .............................................................................. 40
3
Negative Binomial Regression of Overall Offending .............................................. 41
4
Negative Binomial Regression of Violent Offending .............................................. 42
5
Negative Binomial Regression of Male Overall Offending .................................... 44
6
Negative Binomial Regression of Male Violent Offending .................................... 45
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1 Visual of Reckless‟ Containment Theory ..........................................................................10
2 Histogram of Overall Offending Outcome Variable .........................................................35
3 Histogram of Violent Offending Outcome Variable .........................................................36
4 Histogram of Non-Violent Offending Outcome Variable .................................................36
xi
INTRODUCTION
Numerous criminological theorists have sought to explain people‟s participation
in crime and delinquency. The majority seek to explain why people commit crime by
assessing social factors that make individuals more or less susceptible to criminal
behavior or argue that certain factors (e.g., biological and psychological) predispose
individuals to crime. However, one group of criminological theories takes a slightly
different approach in explaining deviance by assessing, “what makes people refrain from
crime?” Thus, instead of seeking explanations for crime, they seek explanations for
conformity. Control theorists follow that “crime and delinquency are going to occur
unless people conform to all the social demands placed on them” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball,
2011, p. 89). In short, various social organizations and societal norms and mores impose
limits on societal members preventing them from engaging in deviant behavior (Aday,
1990).
All criminological theories make an assumption of human behavior whether it is
inherent or developed. Control theories follow that people are inherently self-interested
and must be constrained by mechanisms of social control or they will engage in deviance.
One social control theory that had been largely ignored by scholars is containment theory.
Developed by Walter Reckless over a series of research papers, containment theory
follows that individuals are either pushed or pulled into crime. To avoid such pushes and
pulls, an inner and outer element buffer individuals from criminal behavior. The inner
containment entails an individual‟s personality characteristics, beliefs about crime, and
1
level of self-control while the outer containment entail the mechanisms of social control
that restrain individual‟s criminal behavior (e.g., parents, teachers, or legal restraints).
The purpose of this thesis is to empirically test containment theory. This is done
by testing whether both pushes and pulls increased the frequency of offending and
whether the inner and outer containments reduced the frequency of offending. While
previous research assessing the theory has offered little support for it, I argue that few
studies have directly (and adequately) tested its propositions. Thus, we cannot make
accurate conclusions about the viability of the theory. Additionally, Reckless postulated
that containment theory is not capable of explaining more serious crime. Rather, it is
argued to be a middle range theory that can only explain minor incidences of
delinquency. This hypothesis is tested by comparing pushes, pulls, and the containments
on both violent and non-violent offending outcomes.
Control Theories
The concepts of control theories originated from the work of Emile Durkheim
(1895-1982) who believed that the societal structure dictates its members‟ behavior. He
followed that an individual‟s behavior is determined by the greater social system and that
social order is achieved through common societal values. In regards to deviance,
Durkheim viewed it as a normal part of society arguing that “crime is present not only in
the majority of societies of one particular species but in all societies of all types. There is
no society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality” (p. 65). Durkheim
believed that small, close knit communities are able to better regulate behavior and that
collective activity gives purpose and meaning in life. However, as society evolves and
2
communities grow, social bonds between people are weakened and individuals begin to
develop beliefs that differ from the larger social structure. What follows is a break down
in societal norms resulting in a state of normlessness, otherwise referred to as anomie. He
argued that individuals will engage in deviance when there are no norms to guide them.
Durkheim‟s ideas are the foundation for all social control theories. One of the
earliest control theories was developed by Albert J. Reiss (1951). In his article
“Delinquency as a Failure of Personal and Social Controls,” he stated that personal and
social controls protect youth from engaging in delinquency. Personal control refers to
“the ability of the individual to refrain from meeting needs in ways which conflict with
the norms and rules of the community” with social control being “the ability of social
groups or institutions to make norms and rules effective” (p. 196). Reiss argued that
delinquency occurred when individuals fail to conform to these controls. While he did not
specifically identify the “abilities” that lead to conformity, Reiss did note the importance
of primary social groups such as families, schools, and communities in controlling the
behavior of individuals, especially in adolescence. He deemed these groups important in
controlling behavior as well as ensuring that youth internalize the norms of society.
Ultimately, control is lost when these groups fail to meet the needs of its members.
F. Ivan Nye (1958) built upon Reiss‟ theory and sought to explain the infrequency
of delinquent behavior. Nye assessed social control in adolescents and argued that
primary social groups generated four broad types of control: direct control, indirect
control, internalized control, and control through alternative means of satisfaction. Direct
control is administered by groups in the form of punishments and rewards that keep youth
within certain boundaries of behavior. Groups may also exhibit indirect control which is
3
is an individual‟s connection to non-criminal authority figures. This is especially
important in the case of relationships with parents who are essential in controlling
behavior among their children. Internalized control refers to individuals regulating their
own behavior through psychological elements such as a conscious or superego. Nye
argued that persons who exhibit poor external controls but strong internalized controls are
able to avoid delinquency and engage in normative behavior. Finally, social systems that
allow for the achievement of individual, meaningful roles in society reduce the desire for
non-conformity and lower the occurrence of delinquency among its members. While
these four control types were set to operate independently of one another, Nye followed
that they are essential to one another and are all equally important in determining if
individuals will resist deviant behavior.
While Reiss and Nye were essential in the development of self-control theory, by
far, the most prominent social control theories that currently dominate criminology were
developed by Travis Hirchi. He is most notable for the development of the social bond
theory (1969) and self-control theory (also known as the general theory of crime) with
Michael Gottfredson (1990). Hischi‟s (1969) social bond theory follows that the
attachment and bonds between individuals and social institutions are protective against
delinquency. However, when these bonds are weak or absent, delinquency occurs.
Hirschi posited that social bonds are divided into four categories that insulate persons
from engaging in crime: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment
refers to an individual‟s emotional attachment to persons. As was seen in both Nye‟s and
Reiss‟ theories, Hirschi followed that the emotional attachment youth have with parents
is the most important. The idea of attachment follows that youth will be close to their
4
parents who, ideally, emphasize normative behavior. Ideally, such youth will not engage
in deviance, as they are concerned with the opinions and expectations of their parents or
other guardians such as teachers.
The second bond is commitment, which refers to “the person investing time,
energy, himself, in a certain line of activity” (p. 20). In simpler terms, a person who
engages in an activity, whether it be school or a job, views themselves as having a stake
in conformity. Hirschi posited that when an opportunity of deviance appears an
individual “consider[s] the costs of this deviant behavior, the risks [they] run of losing the
investment [they] made in conventional behavior” (p. 20). Individuals who are committed
to a certain activity will be less inclined to engage in delinquency as the costs exceed the
rewards of crime. Further, “the concept of commitment assumes that the organization of
society is such that the interests of most persons would be endangered if they were to
engage in criminal acts” (p. 21). Thus, individuals are not only committed to various
institutions, they are also committed to conformity and the norms of society. If
individuals chose to follow a “conventional line of action,” they are committed to
conformity as well (p. 21).
The third bond is involvement, which is the time that individuals spend engaging
in conventional activities. Hirschi argued that individuals who have lengthy involvement
in activities “[are] tied to appointments, deadlines, working hours, plans, and the like,”
insinuating that such individuals will be so involved with their duties that “[they] cannot
even think about deviant acts, let alone act out [their] inclinations” (p. 22). Conversely,
individuals are more prone to delinquency when there is a lack of structured activities and
5
a greater amount of leisurely time bringing about a greater opportunity to engage in
crime.
The final bond is referred to as belief. Control theory follows that the larger
society has a value system which determines norms and what behaviors are acceptable.
Whether individuals believe in this system determines if they engage in delinquency. For
example, those who are socialized into accepting criminal norms engage in crime while
those who are socialized to follow the law and conventional beliefs desist from crime.
This acceptance or non-acceptance of norms is largely determined by experiences early
on in life. When adults emphasize the importance of following conventional norms
during childhood, this belief becomes instilled in the youth. Without such events,
however, this bond becomes weakened leading to crime.
The social bond theory is one of the most tested theories in criminology (Agnew,
1985) and established Hirschi‟s dominance among control theorists. While it was the
most dominant control theory for the next three decades, this changed following the
development of the general theory of crime. Developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in
1990, the theory followed that self-control is fully capable of explaining crime and
delinquency. Specifically, they posited that:
Crime does not require deprivation, peer influence, or the gang; it says little about
one‟s biological past and is in no way akin to work. It requires no planning or
skill, and “careers” in crime go nowhere but down. … On the contrary, the
offender appears to have little control over his or her own desires. When such
desires conflict with long-term interests, those lacking self-control opt for the
desires of the moment, whereas those with greater self-control are governed by
6
the restraints imposed by the consequences of acts displeasing to family, friends,
and the law (p. XV).
This theory deviated greatly from Hirschi‟s (1969) previous work by ignoring the
idea of social bonds and attachments to law-abiding authority figures as insulators from
deviance. Rather, self-control is the main determinant of whether or not individuals give
in to the seductions of crime; specifically, low self-control leads to crime. They defined
self-control as “the tendency to avoid acts whose long-term costs exceed their monetary
advantages” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1994; p. 3). It was concluded that individuals with
self-control are more likely to delay gratification, less likely to use violence, less likely to
take risks, and more likely to consider the feelings of others. High self- control is
detrimental for avoiding such things as immediate gratification, short-term benefits, and
risk taking behavior which have been shown to be associated with criminal behavior.
It is posited that low self-control is developed in childhood and is the result of
“ineffective child-rearing” (p. 97). Specifically, “in order to teach the child self-control,
someone must (1) monitor the child‟s behavior, (2) recognize deviant behavior when it
occurs; and (3) punish such behavior” (p. 97). When these three elements are absent, it is
assumed that a child will develop low self-control making them more likely to engage in
crime when presented with the opportunity. Other important elements of the development
of self-control include, but are not limited to, positive attachment between the child and
the parent, parents‟ recognition of deviant behavior and proper punishment of such
behavior, and parental normative behavior resulting in proper role models for the child.
Though the family is considered to be the most important element in developing selfcontrol, the school is also a highly important element. Teachers, like parents, are able to
7
monitor children‟s behavior, provide discipline, and provide structured activities that lead
to decreasing the likelihood of deviance.
Empirical research has found mixed support for self-control theory. One of the
main criticisms of the general theory of crime came from Akers (1991) who stated that
self-control was not operationalized and that the tendency for criminal behavior is
independent of self-control. Specifically, he argued that “since no operational definition
of self-control is given, we cannot know that a person has low self-control (stable
propensity to commit crime) unless he or she commits crimes or analogous behavior” (p.
204). To overcome this shortcoming, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1993) responded by
arguing that Akers critique indicates internal consistency of the theory due to the fact that
behavior is “logically independent of crime” (p. 52).
Following the presentation of his theories, Hirschi began questioning the
propositions of both theories and the fact that they take counter arguments. Regarding
social bonds, he concluded that bonds (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, and
belief) change over time varying by their strength or weakness. This argument was
further bolstered by Sampson and Laub‟s (1993) application of the social bond theory
into a life-course perspective. While Hirschi (1969) argued that positive social bonds and
attachment during adolescence were essential in deferring individuals away from crime,
Sampson and Laub (1993) countered this argument and followed that “salient life events
and social ties in adulthood can counteract, at least to some extent, the trajectories of
early child development” (p. 304). Specifically, propensity for delinquency over the lifecourse is mediated by the stability or instability of social control mechanisms, bonds, and
attachment to other individuals, relative to age.
8
Hirshi also confronted issue with his and Gottfredson‟s theory (1990).
Specifically, regarding their failure to explain how self-control is operationalized.
Originally, they concluded that self-control was along the lines of a personality trait
characterized by impulsivity, selfishness, and risk-taking and is developed in childhood.
However, Hirshi (2004) noted that “self-control involves a cognitive evaluation of
competing interests-an idea central to control theories” (p. 542). Essentially, there are
elements of “cognizance” and “rational-choice” that have been lost within the theory (p.
542). What this ultimately led to was a revised definition of self-control which follows
that it is “the tendency to consider the full range of potential costs of a particular act”
(Hirschi, 2004, p.543). The costs of crimes are the social bonds of attachment, belief,
commitment, and involvement. Essentially, people with high self-control will weigh the
costs and benefits of crime and compare them with the bonds that they hold: if they have
much to lose (i.e., strong bonds), they will desist from crime. However, those with low
self-control are less likely to weigh the costs and benefits and, thus, act impulsively.
Containment Theory
Though less recognized among current criminological research, one of the most
prolific control theories in the 1960s was Walter Reckless‟ containment theory (1961;
1967; 1973). Reckless posited that previous control theories had two major shortcomings.
One, elements of previous theories had not been operationalized but instead were based
on “the logic point of view” rather than “the realities of research findings” (p. 40).
Second, theories were not able to fully determine which individuals committed crime and
which did not. Reckless attempted to account for these shortcomings through the
9
development of containment theory, which broadly posits that people are “pushed” or
“pulled” into crime. The determinants of criminal behavior are inner and outer
containments that “buffer” the relationship between the pulls and pushes and
delinquent/criminal behavior. A visual of containment theory can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Visual of Reckless‟ Containment Theory.
Pushes and Pulls
Reckless suggested that a wide variety of factors “push” and “pull” individuals
into crime. Pushes, or pressures, “consist of adverse living conditions (relative to region
and culture), such as poverty, unemployment, economic insecurity, group conflicts,
minority group status, lack of opportunities, [and] inequalities” (Reckless, 1967, p. 479).
For example, a plethora of research shows that violence exposure (both witnessing and
10
direct victimization) is associated with delinquent/criminal outcomes (Eitle & Turner,
2002; Mrug & Windle, 2010; Patchin, Huebner, McCluskey, Varano, & Bynum, 2006;
Pearce, Jones, Schwab-Stone, & Ruchkin, 2003; Weaver, Borkowski, & Whitman, 2008;
Widom, 1989). Following containment theory (Reckless, 1961), violence exposure would
be considered a push into crime.
“Pulls,” on the other hand, are factors that bring individuals to deviant behavior.
“The pulls draw a person away from [their] original way of life and accepted forms of
living. [They] consist of prestige individuals, bad companions, delinquency of criminal
subculture, deviant groups, mass media, [and] propaganda” (Reckless, 1967; p. 480).
Reckless (1973) argued that individuals might experience what is referred to as the “pull
of companionship,” which follows that delinquent peer associations can pull individuals
into a life of deviance. Thus, individuals who are frequently exposed to delinquent
behaviors and who learn that deviance is an acceptable means of behavior will more
likely be pulled into crime.
Inner and Outer Containments
Reckless stated that “only a minority of individuals, no matter to what internal or
external pushes and pulls they may be subject, get involved in crime and delinquency” (p.
50). Among this minority group, it is hypothesized that they have weak inner and/or outer
containments. The outer or external containment refers to:
The society, the state, the tribe, the village, the family, and other nuclear groups
are able to hold the individual within the bounds of the accepted norms and
expectations. External containment is this holding power of the group. Society,
11
and particularly nuclear groups, contain, steer, shield, divert, support, reinforce,
and limit its members (Reckless, 1967; p. 470).
The outer containment consists of “effective family life, in which problems are averted or
handled; of life in a community which still retains an interest in the activities of its
members; of membership in organizations that are interested in the activities of its
members, etc.,” as well as the influence of “good companions” (Reckless, 1972, pp. 5051). However, over subsequent revisions, he determined that there were three broad areas
that were essential to the outer containment: reasonable limits such as discipline from
parents and adult figures, meaningful roles and activities such as involvement with school
programs and community involvement that instills conformity in its members, and group
reinforcement and supportive relationships breeding acceptance and belonging into
society (Reckless, 1967).
The inner containment was of greater emphasis in Reckless‟ work. As he states,
“internal containment involves the ability to withstand pressures and pulls, to handle
conflicts, to divert oneself from exciting risks, and to stay out of trouble” (Reckless,
1972; p.51). It is posited that this was, in a sense, the dominant containment as it was able
to control individuals‟ behavior regardless of the external environment (Reckless, 1967,
1972). The four main elements of the inner containment include self-concept, goal
orientation, frustration tolerance, and norm retention.
Favorable self-concept is argued to be an insulator of delinquency among
adolescents (Carroll, Houghton, Wood, Perkins, & Bower, 2007; Levy, 2001; Reckless,
Dinitz, & Murray, 1956; Vermeiren, Bogaerts, Ruchkin, Deboutte, & Schwab-Stone,
2004). The idea of self-concept stems from Charles Horton Cooley (1964) with his
12
development of the “looking-glass self.” In short, people develop self-image from their
interactions with those close to them. For Reckless (1967), self-concept is seen as
protective when individuals view themselves as law-abiding citizens. Further, parents are
argued to be the most important means of developing positive self-concept along with
other authority figures such as teachers.
Goal orientation is the second element of the inner containment. Reckless (1976)
defined it as having direction and orientation towards legitimate goals. Further, these
goals must be viewed as attainable by the individual. The third element is frustration
tolerance, which is the result of low self-control. Low frustration tolerance originates
from “upsets, failures, and disappointments in life,” and is characterized by “the inability
to exert self-control, to tolerate frustration, to recognize limits, [and] to relate to others”
(Reckless, 1967; p. 20-21). Self-control is vital to coping with failures, for without it,
individuals are more prone to engage in delinquency as a means to cope with such
stressors.
The final element of the inner containment is norm retention. This refers to
acceptance of societal norms, laws, and the willingness to comply with such laws.
Reckless (1972) postulated that sometimes “norm erosion” occurs, meaning that an
individual will develop criminogenic norms. Norm erosion has close ties with Sykes and
Matza‟s (1957) techniques of neutralization. Neutralizations are justifications for illegal
behavior that appear to be rational to the individual but differ greatly from normative
behavior. The five neutralization types include denial of responsibility of the act, denial
of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of condemners and appeal to higher loyalties.
Reckless (1972) posits “norm erosion as well as neutralization represent a diminution of
13
inner containment, facilitating the gravitation toward involvement in deviant and criminal
behavior” (p. 52).
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Empirical Research on Containment Theory
While containment theory was one of the most popular control theories of the
1960s it fell out of interest following the development of subsequent control theories
(e.g., Gotfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969) resulting in a paucity of research
directly testing the theory. Much of the early research on the theory comes from Walter
Reckless himself and his colleagues. Additionally, these researchers focused primarily on
self-concept, largely ignoring the other components of the theory. An early study by
Scarpatti, Murray, Dinitz, and Reckless (1960) was conducted to test whether selfconcept was an insulator against delinquency. Specifically, the researchers wanted to
understand why some youths who live in crime ridden areas differentiate from the
majority of those in the surrounding community and chose to stay away from
delinquency. Their sample included 125 white male sixth graders from high delinquency
areas in Columbus, Ohio, who were nominated by their teachers. Teachers were asked to
nominate students that they considered to be “good boys;” those nominated were viewed
by their teachers as having such characteristics as positive attitudes and involvement in
structured activities. The teachers also nominated 101 “bad boys;” teachers nominated
boys who they assumed would have future involvement with the criminal justice system.
Based upon various psychological measures, the good boys exhibited more
favorable self-concepts when compared to the bad boys due to the fact that they had
14
developed law-abiding norms and concepts of self that were protective against
delinquency (Reckless & Dinitz, 1967; Scarpatti, Murray, Dinitz, & Reckless, 1960).
Further, the good boys were restricted from associations with delinquents, viewed their
home lives as satisfactory, had positive relationships with their parents, and reported
satisfaction with school. A follow up was done four years later to assess participants‟
involvement in juvenile court. Among those they were able to locate (103 good boys and
70 bad boys), 39 percent of the bad boys had contact with the juvenile court system for
engaging in delinquency compared to only 4 of the 101 good boys. It was concluded that
“a good self-concept, undoubtedly a product of favorable socialization, veers slum boys
away from delinquency, while poor self-concept, a product of unfavorable socialization,
gives the slum boy no resistance to deviancy, delinquent companions, or delinquent
subculture” (p. 517). Thus, it was determined that positive self-concept or the inner
containment buffers the relationship between pushes and/or pulls and deviancy.
Using the same sample, Reckless, Dinitz, and Kay (1957) assessed whether
school achievement (measured by intelligence test scores, reading scores, and math
scores) were related to delinquent outcomes. It was hypothesized that both groups would
exhibit significantly different scores among the school achievement measures and that
these scores would be significantly related to delinquent outcomes. In addition to the
school achievement measures, participants were administered scales that measured
delinquency proneness and vulnerability as well as social responsibility. Results indicated
that the good and bad boys who had no police or juvenile court involvement scored
significantly lower on the delinquency scales and the social responsibility scale. Further,
the bad boys had lower test scores in reading and math in comparison to the good boys.
15
Researchers postulated that this may be due to respondents‟ unfavorable attitudes toward
school leading to the lower scores in the delinquent sample.
One of the first comprehensive empirical tests of containment theory was done
nearly two decades later by Dodder and Long (1980). They were the first researchers to
operationalize all seven containment variables and assess how each one was related to
delinquency and which combination of the variables best related to delinquency
(measured with self-reports of delinquency and arrest records). Further, they sampled
both males and females. Reckless and his colleagues had only sampled white male youth,
ignoring females altogether leading to a lack of information on gender differences.
Dodder and Long (1980) developed a survey to measure the inner and outer
containments and administered it to 724 high school males and females as well as 68
institutionalized males and females. In all four samples, self-reported delinquency was
not equally related to all seven containment variables. For the inner containment,
retention of norms explained most of the variation in all four regression models while the
internalization of rules explained the most variation for the outer containment. Contrary
to past research, self-concept had one of the weakest correlations with delinquency. The
researchers posited that there was interrelation among all the container variables with
internalization of rules and retention of norms. Thus, it is possible to assume that
variables that were not significantly correlated with delinquency were a product of these
other measures.
Stepwise regression indicated that males and females were highly similar in
regards to the containment variables. All four groups exhibited low levels of frustration
tolerance and scored low on the availability of meaningful roles. Additionally, all four
16
groups scored highest on goal orientation. The biggest difference was seen between
institutionalized and non-institutionalized participants. Among the institutionalized
groups, frustration tolerance was more related to delinquency in comparison to the noninstitutionalized group. Further, the means
for all the containment variables were much lower in the institutionalized group.
Thompson and Dodder (1983) examined the relationship between all seven
container variables to determine if there were differences among various races and
gender. They also sought to determine the “extent of variation in self-reported
delinquency explained by the seven containment variables among the categories of black
males, white males, black females, and white females” (p. 172). Self-administered
questionnaires were given to both high school students and adolescents in juvenile
correctional institutions yielding a total sample of 680 subjects: 67 black males, 78 black
females, 234 white males, and 301 white females. The researchers used the containment
theory survey developed by Dodder and Long (1980) to assess respondents‟ perception of
the containments. Results were mixed. The containments explained the most variation in
the white sample with internalization of rules being the best predictor of delinquency,
regardless of sex. However, the containment variables were much less capable of
explaining delinquency in the black sample. Of the variables that were significant among
the black sample, retention of norms was the best predictor for both black males and
females. Thus, it is questionable as to whether containment theory is capable of
explaining delinquency in general. Thompson and Dodder (1983) concluded that
containment theory was not fully capable of protecting non-white juveniles from
delinquency.
17
Lawrence (1985) utilized the framework of containment theory to assess school
performance and misbehavior. Specifically, the researcher looked at how the inner
containment was a protective factor against delinquency. Questionnaires were
administered to 171 males and females in high school who had and had not been
previously involved with the criminal justice system. To measure containment, the High
School Personality Questionnaire (Cattell & Cattell, 1975) was used. Results indicated
that non-delinquents were more group-oriented, valued social approval, conventional, and
patient and restrained when compared to delinquents (Lawrence, 1985). These
personality traits acted as protective factors against delinquency. A secondary goal of the
analyses was to see if there were racial differences in the ability of containment theory to
explain delinquency. Results indicated that there were no significant differences between
whites and non-whites differing from Thomson and Dodder‟s (1983) results. Thus, the
inner containment was equally capable of protecting both races from delinquency.
Laurence (1985) argued that the reasoning behind the lack of difference between the two
groups may be from the racial composition of the non-white sample as the majority of
them were Hispanics “who have been largely assimilated and acculturated” (p. 88). And
while the white participants scored higher on many of the variables, the differences were
not significantly different from the non-white group.
Criticisms of the Theory
Most of the critiques of containment theory involve shortcomings in the ability to
operationalize the containment variables. Critics argue that Reckless poorly defined the
terminology of the theory making it difficult to conduct empirical tests (Schrag, 1971).
18
This is especially the case in regards to the measurement of self-concept. Reckless
generally specified what this measure was, but it is still difficult to determine what it
means to have a positive self-concept. Though some researchers have attempted to
operationalize its components (Dodder & Long, 1980; Long, 1976, Thompson & Dodder,
1983), results of such tests are mixed and do not adequately measure the theory. Dodder
and Long (1980), who developed the most reliable measure of the theory, failed to
differentiate between positive and negative containment variables. For example, when
measuring self-perception, they utilized questions that ideally would be negatively
correlated to delinquency to tap into a positive inner containment (e.g., “I have a high
opinion of myself”) and those that would be of a negative nature (e.g., “I feel I do not
have much to be proud of”). Rather than separate these out, the researchers combined
both negative inner and outer containment variables. Following Reckless‟ propositions, it
is feasible to assume that a negative inner containment would make a person more likely
to engage in delinquency as opposed to someone who has a positive inner containment.
Because previous studies have failed to make this distinction, it is understandable that
there are mixed results on the explanatory power of the theory.
A shortcoming of previous empirical tests is that researchers have primarily
focused on the inner containment variables. Even Reckless himself placed much of his
focus and research on self-concept, ignoring the other six containment variables. Further,
he argues that the inner containment is more protective of delinquency than the outer
containment. However, this assertion may be unwarranted because there is limited
research testing the outer containment. As previously discussed, research on the matter
has shown that the outer containment has protective capacity (Dodder & Long, 1980;
19
Thompson & Dodder, 1983). Containment theory is classified as a social control theory;
therefore, research focused on the outer containment is a necessary component for its
inclusion in this category of theories.
One of the major issues with previous research is that scholars have not
determined whether or not pushes and pulls lead to offending. Pushes and pulls are
essential to containment theory (Reckless, 1694; 1972). A great deal of research notes
that such factors as poverty, delinquent peers, and unemployment (i.e., pushes and pulls)
make individuals more likely to commit crime (Agnew, 2006; Andresen, 2012;
Weerman, 2011); however, among empirical tests of the theory, these variables have
been excluded from the analyses. What this means is that there is a possibility that results
are misstated. Additionally, it cannot be argued that people are pushed and pulled into
crime if this hypothesis has not been tested.
Finally, Reckless (1967; 1972) argued that containment theory is incapable of
explaining extreme levels of crime. Rather, he believed it to be a middle range theory;
specifically, “[containment theory] does not explain crime or delinquency which emerges
from stronger inner pushes, such as compulsion, hallucinations, and personality disorders,
or from organic impairments. Neither does containment theory explain criminal or
delinquent activity which is a part of „normal‟ and „expected‟ roles and activities in
subculturally deviant families and communities” (Reckless, 1981, p. 67). Reckless asserts
that the theory is more appropriate for minor types of delinquency such as petty theft or
fighting among peers as opposed to extreme forms of delinquency. However, there is no
previous research testing the assumption that containment theory cannot explain more
serious types of delinquency.
20
Current Research
Taking the previous shortcomings into account, it is obvious that containment
theory needs to be assessed. Dodder and Long (1980) say it best: “Containment theory
has been prematurely laid to rest” (p. 81). This thesis focusses on filling the gaps in
previous empirical studies by (1) operationalizing both positive and negative inner and
outer containments, (2) placing focus on assessing the social control aspect (i.e., the outer
containment) of the theory, and (3) determining if containment theory is capable of
explaining serious delinquency. Due to the fact that containment theory has largely been
ignored by scholars, one might ask “why even focus on this theory?” Over the past few
decades, scholars have become interested in the concept of self-control, as can be seen in
the work of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990; 1994; Hirschi, 2004). Self-control was a
major aspect in containment theory and made way for the development of current
criminologists‟ view of the concept. Thus, it is important to go back to one of the
“original” theories of self-control and see if its propositions still stand to this day.
One of the main focuses of this thesis is to conceptualize offending in a different
manner from past studies. Previous researchers have focused solely on looking at
offending as a dichotomy (i.e., those who offend and those who do not). However, it has
of yet to be determined if containment theory is capable of explaining the frequency of
offending. Due to the fact that much of the previous literature on the theory has been
inconclusive on its validity, it is possible that looking at offending in a different manner
will yield alternative results. Dodder and Long (1980; p.81) noted that “it is possible that
persons growing up in environments where there are expectations of them which they
21
consider to be reasonable are more likely to develop favorable self-concepts, to find
meaningful roles, to find group support, to tolerate frustration, and as a result, to commit
less delinquency.”
Ultimately, I seek to determine whether or not the theory is capable of explaining
the frequency of offending over time among a group of high-risk delinquents. One reason
to analyze the data this way is to determine whether the seven containment variables are
capable of reducing offending longitudinally. This thesis will test five main hypotheses:
H1: Pushes and pulls will be associated with a significant increase in the
frequency of offending.
H2: The inner containment will be associated with a decrease in the frequency of
offending.
H3: The outer containment will be associated with a decrease in the frequency of
offending.
H4: Containment variables will predict minor (i.e., non-violent) delinquency
when compared to serious (i.e., violent) delinquency.
H5: There will be gender differences in regards to these elements of containment
theory.
METHOD
Data
This thesis is a secondary data analysis of data from the Research on Pathways to
Desistance, a longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders (Mulvey, 2010). The
study was designed to 1) identify factors that lead to desistance in serious adolescent
22
offenders, 2) understand the roles that social context and developmental changes have in
assisting in this change, and 3) assess how sanctions and interventions assist in such
changes. Baseline interviews were conducted between 2000 and 2003 with 1,354 youths
from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania. Participants were followed for seven years to assess
psychological development, mental health, social relations, and subsequent involvement
with the justice system to gain a comprehensive understanding of their behaviors and
characteristics over time. For more information on sampling see previous research using
Pathways to Desistance (Mulvey, & Schubert, 2012; Piquero & Brahme, 2008;
Schulman, Cauffman, Piquero, & Fagan, 2011).
Sample
For inclusion in the study, participants were required to be between the ages of 14
and 18 at the time that they committed a serious criminal offense and must have been
found guilty of the act. The majority of participants were found guilty of felony offenses
such as murder, robbery, burglary, or possession of illegal substances while a minority
group of participants were found guilty of misdemeanors, property offenses, or weapons
offenses. Inclusion in the Pathways to Desistance study required that participants had to
have been convicted of a serious offense (N=1,354). However, 10 participants claimed
that they had never committed a crime. These participants were deleted from the sample.
The final sample size was 1,344. The sample was primarily male (86 percent), the
average age was 16.05 (SD=1.16) with a range from 14 to 18 years old. The majority of
23
the participants were black (42 percent) followed by Hispanic (33 percent), white (20
percent), and other races (5 percent) (see Table 1).
Many studies on crime and delinquency have found that males commit far more
offenses then females. Among the studies that have looked at gender differences, it
appears that there are differences in the containment variables and their predictive value
(Thompson & Dodder, 1983). Thus, all analyses were separated by gender. Of the males
in the sample (n=1,162), the average age was 16.05 (SD=1.16) years with 42 percent
being black followed by Hispanic (34 percent), white (19 percent), and other races (5
percent). Females (n=182) had an average age of 15.99 (SD=1.03) years. The majority of
females were black (37 percent) followed by Hispanic (30 percent), white (27 percent),
and other races (5 percent) (see Table 2).
Procedures
Researchers of the Pathways to Desistance study collected data through in-person
interviews with participants. Baseline interviews were conducted within 75 days of
adjudication for respondents in the juvenile system or within 90 days of adjudication for
participants in the adult court system. Follow-up interviews were done every six months
for the first three years of the study and then annually through the seven year collection
period. Data was collected through computer-assisted interviews which took
approximately two hours to complete. Financial compensation was given for each
interview that was completed with payments ranging from $50 to $115 dependent upon
the interview period.
24
Interviews were administered in various locations including participant‟s homes,
public places such as libraries, and detention centers. A trained researcher was present at
all the interviews and read both questions and responses off of the computer to
participants. Participants had the option of reporting their responses out-loud or entering
their answers on a keypad. Participants were encouraged to answers questions honestly
and were ensured confidentiality. Supplemental data for the study included collateral
interviews with either parents or friends of the respondent as well as official court and
arrest records. Further, release interviews were done for participants when they left a
residential setting (e.g., prisons or detention centers). These were completed within 30
days of release and were conducted separately from the time point interviews.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were assessed as the one year follow up of the Pathways
to Desistance study (Mulvey, 2010) and included overall offending, violent offending,
and non-violent offending. All three types of offending were count variables that were
created by adding all the respective self-reported measures of offending. The dependent
variables were adapted from Huzinga, Esbensen, and Weihar‟s (1991) Self-Report of
Offending (SRO) inventory, which measured adolescents‟ account of involvement in
criminal behaviors. Adolescents were asked about committing crime within the past year
at year one. The SRO includes a total of 24-items that question participants‟ involvement
in a wide variety of crimes (e.g., burglary, robbery, arson, and theft). The overall
offending variable was created from 20 SRO items that identified the number of different
25
criminal acts an adolescent committed during the past year.1 This measure was used to
test the first three hypotheses. To test the fourth hypothesis, the violent and non-violent
offending count variables were used. Violent offending included 8 self-offending
measures and non-violent offending included 12 items.2
Independent Variables
The independent variables comprised pushes, pulls, and the inner and outer
containment measures. All these measures were completed at baseline. Refer to
Appendix A for specific questions to each questionnaire.
Pushes and Pulls
The pushes included violence exposure (both witnessing and being a direct
victim), parental hostility, neighborhood conditions, and low socioeconomic status.
Violence exposure was measured with Selner- O‟Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbusch,
and Earls‟ (1998) Exposure to Violence Inventory and assessed participant‟s exposure to
a number of violent events. The variable was averaged from six items that measured
1
While there are a total of 24 SRO items (Huzinga, Esbensen, & Weihar, 1991), only 20 items were used
for the current study. Two items (“ever went joyriding” and “ever broke into a car to steal”) were added to
the study after a large amount of subjects had been given the baseline survey and first follow up interview
resulting in a large amount of missing data. Further, two other items (“ever forced sex” and “ever killed
someone”) are masked in the publicly available data set.for the current study. Two items (“ever went
joyriding” and “ever broke into a car to steal”) were added to the study after a large amount of subjects had
been given the baseline survey and first follow up interview resulting in a large amount of missing data.
Further, two other items (“ever forced sex” and “ever killed someone”) are excluded from the publicly
available data set.
2
To assess violent offending, participants were asked the number of times they had engaged in 8 violent
crimes during the recall period: carjacked, shot at someone with a hit, shot at someone without a hit,
robbery with a weapon, robbery without a weapon, beaten someone up, been in a fight, and been in a fight
as a gang. To assess non-violent offending, participants were asked the number of times they had engaged
in 12 non-violent crimes during the recall period: destroyed property, set fire, broke into a place to steal,
shoplifted, received stolen property, used credit card illegally, stole a car/motorcycle, sold marijuana, sold
other drugs, carried a gun, drove drunk or high, and paid for sex.
26
direct victimization (e.g., “Have you ever been chased where you thought you may be
seriously hurt?”) while seven items measured witnessed violence (e.g., “Have you ever
seen someone else being raped, an attempt made to rape someone or any other type of
sexual attack?”) (
.67). Responses were coded so that “1-yes” and “0-no.” Higher
scores on the scale indicate that participants had been exposed to more incidents of
violence.
Parental hostility was assessed as a push. This measure was adapted from the
Quality of Parental Relationships Inventory (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994)
for the Pathways to Desistance study and taps into respondents‟ relationships with their
parents. The parental hostility variable is the average scores of the maternal hostility (12
items) and paternal hostility (12 items) scales. Participants answered responses on a fourpoint Likert scale ranging from “1-Always” to “4-Never.” Higher scores indicated poor
relations with parents. Example questions include “How often does your mother get
angry with you?” and “How often does your father throw things at you?”3
To measure poor neighborhood conditions, a 21-item questionnaire adapted from
the Neighborhood Conditions Measure was used (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). Items
measured both physical disorder (i.e., neighborhood look; “How often do you see graffiti
and tags?”) and social disorder (i.e., actual community member‟s behavior; “How often
do you see adults fighting or arguing loudly?”). The variable is an average of all items.
The items were measured on a four-point Likert scale from “1-Never” to “4-Often” with
higher scores indicating a greater level of neighborhood disorder (α = .94).
Finally, socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed as a push. To measure SES,
participants answered questions regarding their parents‟ educational level and occupation
3
Alpha level not available.
27
based on Hollingshead‟s (1957) index of social position. A parental index of social
position was then computed by taking the education and occupation variables and coding
them on a seven-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (skilled workers; professional
degree) to 7 (unskilled workers; nonprofessional degree). The index of social position
variable was then computed based on Hollingshead‟s formula [(Occupation score x 7) +
(Education score x 4)]. Higher scores indicate poorer social position.
Two pulls were measured for this study: associations with delinquent peers and
gang involvement. Associations with delinquent peers were measured from a subset of
the Peer Delinquent Behavior items from the Rochester Youth Study (Thornberry,
Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, & Jang, 1994). Questions regarding antisocial behavior
focused on assessing the frequency of participants‟ friends who engage in delinquent acts
(e.g., “How many of your friends have sold drugs?”). The scale contains the average
scores of seven items measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1-None of
them” to “5-All of them”
.92).
Gang involvement was a dichotomous variable that assesses whether or not
individuals have ever been involved in a gang (1 = yes and 0 = no). The measure was
adapted from a questionnaire developed by Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, and
Jang (1994) and assesses current and past gang involvement. A total of 8 percent of
participants in the study were involved in a gang.
Because pushes and pulls are “secondary” to the theory, the four original pushes
variables were combined into one variable, “Pushes,” and the two original pulls variables
were combined into one variable, “Pulls.” Further, many of these variables were
statistically significant. The intercorrelation of the push variables ranged from .092 to
28
.227 while the two push variables had a correlation of .138. Although these correlations
were not strong, I still combined them for parsimony (the correlation table can be seen in
Appendix B). To create the combined variables, the original variables were initially zscored in order to standardize the variables to the same scale and then the respective
number of z-scored variables was then added together.
Inner Containment
To measure positive inner containment, the four inner containers developed by
Reckless (1967) were assessed: self-concept, norm retention, goal orientation, and
frustration tolerance.
Self-concept. The Psychosocial Maturity Measure developed by Greenberger, Josselin,
Knerr, & Knerr (1974) was used to measure self-concept. This scale includes variables
assessing self-reliance, identity (i.e., self-esteem), and work orientation. All variables
were measured on a four-point Likert scale from “1-Strongly Agree” to “4-Strongly
Disagree.” The measure used for this study is the average score of all questions
administered. Questions included “Luck decides most of the things that happen to me”
and “I hate to admit it, but I give up on my work when things go wrong.” All measures
are coded so that higher scores indicate more responsible behavior (α =.89).
Norm retention. Norm-retention was measured through the Mechanisms of Moral
Engagement scale (Bandura, Barbarnelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). The scale
measured respondents‟ views on the treatment of others through eight dimensions: moral
29
justification, euphemistic language, advantageous comparison, displacement of
responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distorting consequences, attribution of blame,
and dehumanization. The variable contains the average scores of 32 and measured on a
three-point Likert scale ranging from “1-Disagree” to “3-Agree.” This measure was
reverse coded so that higher scores indicated more normative thinking (α = .88).
Goal orientation. The Future Outlook Inventory developed by Cauffman and Woolard
(1999; unpublished) was used to measure the construct of goal orientation. This measure
contains 15 items from the Life Orientation Task (Scheier & Carver, 1985), the Zimbardo
Time Perspective Scale (Zimbardo, 1980), and the Consideration of Future Consequences
Scale (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). The variable is an average of
all items administered. Participants were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = “Never
True” to 4 = “Always True”) the degree to which each statement reflects their actions
(e.g., “I will keep working at difficult, boring tasks if I know they will help me get ahead
later”). Higher scores indicate greater levels of future consideration and planning (α =
.68).
Frustration tolerance. The final element of the inner containment, frustration tolerance,
was measured with the temperance scale from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory
(Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). The measure of temperance contains the average of 15
items assessing impulse control and suppression of aggression. Participants were asked to
rank how much (1=False; 2 = Somewhat False; 3 = Not Sure; 4 = Somewhat True; 5
=True) their behavior over the past six months matches a series of questions (e.g., “I say
30
the first thing that comes into my mind without thinking enough about it” and “People
who get me angry better watch out”). The scale was coded so that higher scores indicate
more impulse control and greater suppression of aggression
.84).
Outer Containment
As stated in the review of the literature, the majority of control theorists assume
that outer containment is highly important in protecting adolescents against delinquency
(Nye, 1958; Reiss, 1951). Previous assessments of containment theory have not focused
on such mechanisms of social control. This could very well be why researchers have
found a lack of empirical support of the protective nature of the outer containment. To
measure positive outer containment, the three inner containers developed by Reckless
(1967) were assessed: internalization of rules, group reinforcement, and availability of
meaningful roles.
Internalization of rules. Three variables were used to assess the internalization of rules:
parental warmth, parental monitoring, and community involvement. The parental warmth
measure was adapted from the Quality of Parental Relationships Inventory (Conger, Ge,
Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994) for the Pathways to Desistance study. The measure taps
into respondents‟ relationships with their parents. The parental warmth variable is the
average of both the maternal warmth (9 items) and paternal warmth (9 items) scales.
Participants answered responses on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “1-Always” to
“4-Never” (e.g., “How often does your father tell you he loves you?” and “How often
31
does your mother let you know she cares about you?”). Higher scores indicate more
supportive/nurturing relations with parents.4
The measure for parental monitoring was adapted from the Parental Monitoring
Inventory (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992) to assess parental supervision of
participants. First, questions were asked to identify the participant‟s single caretaker who
was primarily responsible for them (X). Participants were then asked five questions that
measured parental knowledge (e.g., “How much does X know about how you spend your
free time?”) that were assessed on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1-doesn‟t know
anything” to “5-knows everything.” The variable contains the average scores of all five
questions. If youths lived with their primary care taker, they were given an additional
four items to assess parental monitoring. These items were on a four-point Likert scale
that ranged from “never” to “always.”5
Involvement in structured activities was measured by the count of endorsed
community activities that the youth has ever participated in. The four activities included
sport teams, scouts, church related groups, and volunteer work. The scale ranged from 0
to 4 with higher counts indicating greater involvement in the community.
For parsimony purposes the three original variables (parental warmth, parental
monitoring, and community involvement) were combined into one variable,
“Internalization of Rules.” To create the combined variables, the original variables were
initially z-scored in order to standardize the variables to the same scale. Scores were then
added together and divided by the respective number of z-scored variables (i.e., 3).
4,5
Alpha level not available.
32
Group reinforcement. Group reinforcement was measured by peer antisocial influence
and the count of the four closest friends arrested. Peer antisocial influence contained
seven items that were adapted from the Rochester Youth Study (Thornberry, Lizotte,
Krohn, Farnworth, & Jang, 1994) and assessed the number of delinquent peers that
pressure participants to engage in antisocial behavior (e.g., “How many of your friends
have suggested that you should sell drugs?”). Items were measured on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from “1-None of Them” to “5-All of Them.” The measure contains the
average scores of questions regarding peer influence and was reverse coded so that higher
scores would reflect that fewer peers pressured respondents to engage in delinquency
(
.89). The count of the participant‟s four closest friends who were arrested was also
used to assess group reinforcement. The scale ranged from 0 to 4 and was reverse coded
so that with higher counts indicated fewer friends who had been arrested. Variables were
coded in this manner because I was looking at the effect that containment variables have
on desistance. Thus, I coded them so that higher scores would equate to more normative
peer behavior. Group reinforcement items were z-scored, combined together, and
divided by the number of variables (i.e., 2) to create the variable “Group Reinforcement.”
Availability of meaningful roles. To measure the availability of meaningful roles, a
subscale from the Social Capital Inventory was used (Nagin & Paternoster, 1994).
Referred to as perceived opportunity for work, this scale contains a total of five items
assessing respondents‟ perceptions of legitimate job opportunities (e.g., “Employers
around here often hire young people from this neighborhood”). The variable contains the
average scores of all five items which were measured on a five-point Likert scale from
33
“1-Strongly Disagree” to “5-Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicate more opportunities
for legitimate work (α = .76).
Covariates
The covariates were the baseline measures of age (years), gender (1=male and
0=female), race/ethnicity and the count of offenses ever committed by the participant.
Race/ethnicity was measured as white, black, Hispanic, and other race. Each race was
recoded as a dichotomous variable (1=yes; 0=no). White was the comparison group for
the analyses.
Analytic Strategy
Given that the dependent variables (overall, violent, and non-violent offending)
were count data, it was determined that the main analyses would either be Poisson or
Negative Binomial Regressions (NBREG). Most of the outcome variables exhibited
overdispersion (see figures 2 – 4 for histograms of all three outcome variables). While
overdispersed count data is typically suited for a NBREG, Poisson models were also run
in concordance with the NBREG analyses to determine which would be a better fit for
the data. The likelihood ratio test indicated that the negative binomial regression was a
better fit for all of the outcome variables. Because all three one year follow up variables
appeared to have a large amount of excess zeros, both zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and
zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) were considered for these models.
The Voung test for zero-inflation indicated that the ZINB model was appropriate
34
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Overall
Offending
0 1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 2. Histogram of the Overall Offending Outcome Variable.
for the overall non-violent offending model. One of the assumptions of zero-inflated
models is that the model must be theoretically justified in differentiating between
individuals who are “true zeros” and “non-zeros.” Due to the fact that the sample is
comprised of youth who were convicted of violent offenses, we can assume that there
was a large number of offenders who did not commit non-violent offenses (i.e., “true
zeros”) while other offenders committed non-violent offenses that were not recorded due
to the offender not being caught or the more serious offenses being recorded instead (i.e.,
non-zeros). Thus, a zero-inflated model is deemed necessary to determine the likelihood
of true or non-zeros occurring for this variable. Overall, the models identified for the
analyses were the NBREG for overall and violent offending and the ZINB for the nonviolent offending. For the gender differences, the likelihood ratio and the Vuong test‟s
indicated that the NBREG was appropriate for the overall and violent offending models
for both males and females. For non-violent offending, the NBREG was the best model
for males while the ZIP was the best model for the females.
35
800
600
400
Violent Offending
200
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Figure 3. Histogram of Violent Offending Outcome Variable.
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Non-violent
Offending
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
10
Figure 4. Histogram of Non-Violent Offending Outcome Variable.
The Kendall‟s tau-B correlation matrix was utilized to assess for multicollinearity
(see Appendix B). There was some evidence of multicollinearity as a few variables
exceeded .70. Among the variables that were above .70, they were between the outcome
variables. This is not an issue because these will be separated by different models.
While 63 percent of cases had missing data, only 2 percent of the data points were
determined to be missing. To assess the pattern of missing data, t-tests and chi-square
tests were conducted on dummy variables coded as missing versus non-missing to assess
36
whether there were significant differences on potentially related variables. There were
significant differences among some variables, which indicated that the data is not missing
at random. Such data is argued to be biased, and the missing data could be estimated to
remove the bias. However, there is difficulty in determining the exact pattern of
missingness. Thus, a full case analysis was conducted and missing data were not
estimated.
RESULTS
Descriptive Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the entire sample. Participants
committed an average of 7.16 offenses at baseline (SD=4.59) with an additional 1.60
offenses committed between baseline and the one-year follow-up (SD=2.59). When the
offenses are examined by violent and non-violent categories, respondents committed
fewer violent offenses (2.27; SD=1.65) when compared to non-violent offenses (4.51;
SD=3.01) at baseline. This trend was also consistent between baseline and the one-year
follow-up [.74 (SD=1.20) and .86 (SD=1.67), respectively]. Among the “push” variables,
participants experienced, on average, 5.36 incidents of violence exposure (SD=2.99).
Participants reported low levels of parental hostility [1.27 (SD=.49)] and average
neighborhood conditions [2.35 (SD=.75)]. Respondents noted that their parents had low
social position [51.36 (SD=12.30)]. Regarding the “pull” variables, participants reported
that 2.33 of their friends engaged in antisocial behavior (SD=.93). Further, 8 percent had
been in a gang at some point in their lives (SD=.27).
37
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Overall Sample
Variables
Outcome Variables
Overall Offending
Violent Offending
Non-Violent Offending
Independent Variables
Pushes
Pulls
Violence Exposure
Parental Hostility
Neighborhood Conditions
Parent Index of Social Position
Peer Antisocial Behavior
Gang
Inner Containment
Self-Concept
Goal Orientation
Norm Retention
Frustration Tolerance
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
Parental Warmth
Parental Monitoring
Community Involvement
Group Reinforcement
Peer Antisocial Influence
Friends Arrested
Availability of Meaningful Roles
Covariates
Age
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Male
Baseline Overall Offending
Baseline Violent Offending
Baseline Non-Violent Offending
Note. N=1344.
38
Mean
SD
Min
Max
1.60
.74
.86
2.59
1.20
1.67
0
0
0
18
8
10
.00
-.07
5.36
1.27
2.35
51.36
2.33
.08
.57
.74
2.99
.49
.75
12.30
.93
.27
-1.47
-.86
0
.50
1
11
1
0
1.88
2.71
13
3.46
4
77
5
1
3.02
2.33
2.13
2.87
.46
.55
.37
.85
1.10
1
1
1
4
4
3
5
.01
2.43
2.80
.64
.00
1.77
1.29
3.44
.66
.88
.86
.88
.77
.86
1.16
.71
-1.52
.50
1
0
-2.92
1
0
1
2.33
4
4
4
1.02
5
4
5
16.04
.20
.42
.33
.05
.86
7.16
2.27
4.51
1.14
.40
.49
.47
.21
.34
4.59
1.65
3.01
14
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
18
1
1
1
1
1
20
7
12
For the inner containment variables, participants indicated a strong self-concept
which is indicative of more responsible behavior [3.02 (SD=.46) on a 4-point scale].
They also reported strong norm retention which is indicative of more normative thinking
[2.13 (SD=.37) on a 3-point scale]. They reported about average on goal orientation and
future consideration and planning [2.33 (SD=.55) on a 4-point scale and 2.13 (SD=.37)
on a 3-point scale, respectively]. As might be expected, participants reported low
frustration tolerance which indicates a lack of impulse control and the ability to control
one‟s aggression [2.87 (SD=.85) on a 5-point scale].
Regarding the outer containment, participants reported average scores for both
parental warmth [2.43 (SD=.88)] and parental monitoring [2.80 (.86)]. They exhibited
very low counts of community involvement [.64 (.88)] and had, on average, 1.29 friends
who had been arrested (SD=1.16). Participants reported high scores on the social capital
inventory [3.44 (SD=.71)] indicating that they viewed themselves as having good job
prospects in the future.
Descriptive statistics stratified by gender can be seen in Table 2. As can be
seen, males committed more offenses than females among all three outcome variables at
baseline. Females, however, committed more offenses between baseline and the year
follow-up than males among all three outcome variables. Further, both males and females
committed more non-violent offenses when compared to violent offenses at both baseline
and year one. Among the inner containment variables, both genders exhibited similar
scores with each other and to the overall sample. However, only four percent of females
reported ever being in a gang (SD=.28). For the outer containment, similar scores were
seen among males and females for most of the variables. The exceptions are that females
39
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics by Gender
Variables
Outcome Variables
Overall Offending
Violent Offending
Non-Violent Offending
Independent Variables
Pushes
Pulls
Violence Exposure
Parental Hostility
Neighborhood Conditions
Parent Index of Social Position
Peer Antisocial Behavior
Gang
Inner Containment
Self-Concept
Goal Orientation
Norm Retention
Frustration Tolerance
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
Parental Warmth
Parental Monitoring
Community Involvement
Group Reinforcement
Peer Antisocial Influence
Friends Arrested
Availability of Meaningful Roles
Covariates
Age
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Male
Baseline Overall Offending
Baseline Violent Offending
Note. N=1344.
40
Males (n=1162)
Mean
SD
Female (n=182)
Mean
SD
1.54
.72
.83
2.55
1.17
1.65
1.98
.92
1.06
2.83
1.35
1.75
-10
-.25
.5.51
1.26
2.35
51.63
2.36
.09
.56
.58
2.98
.48
.74
12.38
.93
.28
.02
-.04
4.41
1.27
2.35
49.66
2.11
.04
.57
.76
2.87
.53
.83
11.69
.87
.19
3.02
2.33
2.12
2.86
.45
.55
.37
.84
3.04
2.36
2.21
2.91
.49
.55
.37
.91
-.01
2.47
2.76
.66
.22
1.79
1.34
3.44
.62
.88
.86
.87
.67
.87
1.17
.70
.02
2.20
3.05
.55
-.03
1.62
.99
3.41
.66
.88
.81
.89
.78
.74
.99
.76
16.05
.19
.42
.34
.05
7.45
2.37
4.70
1.16
.39
.49
.47
.21
4.60
1.67
3.01
15.99
.30
.37
.30
.05
5.32
1.65
3.34
1.03
.44
.49
.46
.23
3.80
1.38
2.67
reported higher scores for parental monitoring [3.05 (SD=.81)] and had fewer friends that
were arrested [.99 (SD=.99)].
Multivariate Results: One Year Follow Up
The results of the NBREG for overall offending can be seen in Table 3
(p=.004; x2 = 22.37). None of the independent variables were significant. However, the
availability of meaningful roles was significant at the one-tail level (p=.085). Among the
covariates, a one-unit increase in age at baseline was associated with an 11 percent
Table 3
Negative Binomial Regression of Overall Offending
Variable
β
p
95% CI
Pushes
-.0806601
.517
-.32 - .16
Pulls
.0289421
.768
-.16 - .22
Inner Containment
Self Concept
.150777
.292
-.13 - .43
Goal Orientation
-.1734327
.125
-.40 - .05
Norm Retention
-.0101936
.958
-.39 - .37
Frustration Tolerance
.0097367
.909
-.16 - .18
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
.0880626
.358
-.10 - .28
Group Reinforcement
-.045531
.658
-.25 - .16
Availability of Meaningful Roles
-.1394786
.085
-.30 - .02
Covariates
Age
-.1136118
.030 -.23 - -.01
Black
-.0410492
.779
-.33 - .26
Hispanic
-.0823375
.620
-.41 - .24
Other
.1077465
.713
-.47 - .68
Male
-.4035148
.008 -.70 - -.11
Baseline Overall Offending
.0277103
.144
-.01 - .06
2
Note. N=846; p = .004; x = 22.37; Log likelihood = -1389.2851; CI = Confidence
Interval; IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio.
41
IRR
.92
1.03
1.62
.84
.99
1.01
1.09
.96
.87
.89
.96
.92
1.11
.67
1.03
decrease in the rate of overall offending, holding all other variables constant (IRR 6=.89).
Regarding gender, males were 33 percent less likely to commit offenses than females at
the one year follow up (p=.008; IRR=.67). Thus, females exhibited higher frequencies of
offending over time.
The violent offending model for the overall sample was significant (p=.035; x2
= 25.56). Results are shown in Table 4. Among the containment variables, goal
orientation was the only significant variable that was associated with lower rates of
violent offending (p=.018). More specifically, a one-unit increase in goal orientation was
Table 4
Negative Binomial Regression of Violent Offending
Variable
β
p
95% CI
Pushes
.0177437
.882
-.22 .25
Pulls
.0023524
.980
-.18 .19
Inner Containment
Self Concept
.1954594
.153
-.07 .46
Goal Orientation
-.2587827
.018
-.47 -.05
Norm Retention
.0382056
.835
-.32 .40
Frustration Tolerance
-.445867
.584
-.20 .12
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
.0693675
.452
-.11 .25
Group Reinforcement
-.0964142
.315
-.28 .09
Availability of Meaningful Roles
-.066702
.393
-.22 .09
Covariates
Age
-.1082827
.033
-.21 -.01
Black
-.1043449
.459
-.38 .17
Hispanic
-.2404696
.136
-.56 .08
Other
-.0546338
.846
-.61 .50
Male
-.3487985
.015
-.63 -.07
Baseline Violent Offending
.0150505
.767
-.63 -.07
Note. N=849; x2 = 25.56; p = .035; Log likelihood = -967.87842; CI = Confidence
Interval; IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio.
6
IRR=Incidence Rate Ratio.
42
IRR
1.02
1.00
1.21
.77
1.04
.64
1.07
.91
.94
.90
.90
.79
.95
.71
1.02
associated with a 23 percent decrease in the rate of violent offending, holding all other
variables constant (IRR=.77). Thus, having legitimate goals is associated with
committing less violent offenses over time. Gender was also significant (p=.015) in that
being male was associated with a 20 percent decrease in the rate of violent offending,
holding all other variables constant (IRR = .80).
Unlike overall and violent offending, the non-violent offending models were
not statistically significant. The ZINB for the overall sample was significant at the one
tail level (p=.095; x2 = 10.33). Again, the female model was not significant in predicting
non-violent offending. The male model was close to significance (p=.061; x2 = 10.99)
and the availability of meaningful roles was significant at the one tail level (p=.068).
When stratifying the analyses by gender, only the male models were
statistically significant for two of the three dependent variables. Thus, the female models
are not shown. For overall offending, the male model (see Table 5) was significant
(p=.001; x2 = 17.46). Among the containment variables, the availability of meaningful
roles was significant (p=.046). Thus, a one- unit increase in the availability of meaningful
roles is associated with a 17 percent decrease in the rate of male offending, holding all
other variables constant (IRR = .83). None of the other independent variables were
significant in the model. Age was the only other significant variable in the model
(p=.017). A one unit increase in age at baseline was associated with a 13 percent
decrease in the rate of male offending, holding all other variables constant (IRR=.87).
Table 6 shows the significant male model for violent offending (p=.013; x2 =
21.77). Only two variables that were significant. The first variable was goal orientation
43
Table 5
Negative Binomial Regression of Male Overall Offending
Variable
β
p
95% CI
Pushes
-.0495982
.722
-.32 .22
Pulls
.0517625
.613
-.15 .25
Inner Containment
Self Concept
.0450185
.779
-.27 .36
Goal Orientation
-.205324
.099
-.45 .04
Norm Retention
-.0781223
.709
-.49 .33
Frustration Tolerance
.0374351
.693
-.15 .22
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
.0827671
.438
-.13 .29
Group Reinforcement
-.067047
.546
-.28 .15
Availability of Meaningful Roles
-.1841262
.046
-.36 -.00
Covariates
Age
-.1368121
.017
-.25 -.02
Black
-.0004689
.998
-.32 .32
Hispanic
-.1102801
.551
-.47 .25
Other
.1837823
.576
-.46 .83
Baseline Overall Offending
.0194022
.340
-.02 .06
2
Note. N=707; p = .001; x = 17.46; Log likelihood = -1128.3157; CI = Confidence
Interval; IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio.
IRR
.95
1.05
1.05
.81
.92
1.04
1.09
.94
.83
.87
1.00
.90
1.20
1.02
(p=.005). A one unit increase in goal orientation was associated with a 29 percent
decrease in the rate of violent offending, controlling for all other variables in the model
(IRR=.71). The only other significant variable in the model was age (p=.013).
Specifically, a one-unit increase in age at baseline was associated with a 10 percent
decrease in the rate of violent offending, holding all other variables constant (IRR=.90).
44
Table 6
Negative Binomial Regression of Male Violent Offending
Variable
β
p
95% CI
IRR
Pushes
.0725835
.586
-.19 .33
2.07
Pulls
.0197586
.837
-.17 .21
1.02
Inner Containment
Self Concept
.0831056
.585
-.21 .38
1.09
Goal Orientation
-.3371387
.005 -.57 -.10
.71
Norm Retention
.0712214
.719
-.32 .46
.1.07
Frustration Tolerance
-.0249457
.780
-.20 .15
.98
Outer Containment
Internalization of Rules
.026999
.789
-.17 .23
1.03
Group Reinforcement
-.0964955
.343
-.30 .10
.91
Availability of Meaningful Roles
-.0988564
.263
-.27 .07
.91
Covariates
Age
-.1353575
.013 -.24 -03
.87
Black
-.0370479
.814
-.34 .27
.96
Hispanic
-.1949713
.271
-.54 .15
.82
Other
.0224584
.943
-.59 .64
1.02
Baseline Violent Offending
.0041168
.939
-.10 .11
1.00
2
Note. N=710; x = 21.77; p = .013; Log likelihood = -783.31518; CI = Confidence
Interval; IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this thesis was to test the applicability of containment theory in
explaining the frequency of offending. That is, I examined whether this high delinquency
group is still committing crime. Overall, it appears that containment theory is inadequate
at explaining such offending patterns. Only one of the five hypotheses was fully
supported while two others were partially supported. For the first hypothesis, I posited
that pushes and pulls would be associated with increases in the frequency of offending.
As the results indicated, neither pushes or pulls were predictors of overall, violent or nonviolent offending over time. Thus, in this sample, the two key components related to why
45
adolescents engage in delinquency according to containment theory were not upheld.
This finding is contrary to previous research. For example, Robert Agnew‟s general
strain theory (2006) states that stressors in life are highly associated with criminal
outcomes as a means to cope with stress. Such things as poor neighborhood conditions,
victimization, and poor parenting have been shown to increase criminal behavior. A large
amount of criminological literature also indicates that stressors and delinquent peers are
predictive of an increase in criminal behavior (Andresen, 2012; Weerman, 2011).
My thesis is the first attempt at assessing pushes and pulls within the context of
containment theory. The discrepancy between my results and previous research is that
my sample was comprised solely of serious adolescent offenders. Pushes and pulls may
be more relevant to the initiation of delinquency and not the persistence of delinquency as
would be the case for my sample. This possible explanation would need to be examined
further with various samples containing both non-offenders and offenders.
The second and third hypotheses followed that the inner and outer containment
variables would be associated with decreases in the rate of offending. While much of the
research on containment theory has been mixed, previous studies have shown that selfconcept and norm retention are essential in diverting youth from delinquency (Carroll,
Houghton, Wood, Perkins, & Bower, 2007; Dodder & Long, 1980; Reckless & Dinitz,
1967; Reckless, Dinitz, & Murray, 1956; Levy, 2001; Scarpatti, Murray, Dinitz, &
Reckless, 1960; Vermeiren, Bogaerts, Ruchkin, Deboutte, & Schwab-Stone, 2004). My
results differ largely from previous research and show that neither of the previously
significant containments was relevant in the current analyses. In this study, it was found
that both goal orientation (i.e., inner containment) and the availability of meaningful roles
46
(i.e., outer containment) were important in reducing the frequency of offending by
serious offenders. No prior studies have shown that either of these variables are
important in predicting delinquency. The fact that only one inner and one outer
containment was significant again leads to the conclusion that containment theory may
not be appropriate for explaining desistance in high-offending youth.
For this thesis, goal orientation referred to participant‟s level of future
consideration and planning. Previous research has noted that non-delinquents and lowrisk youth differ among goal setting and conforming/non-conforming behaviors (Carroll,
Hattie, Durkin, & Houghton, 2001). Specifically, non-delinquents are more likely to have
goals that coincide with the norms in society (e.g., educational achievement). Following
the framework of rational choice theory (Cornish & Clark, 1986), people weigh the costs
and benefits of crime. If the costs of crime are high, people are less likely to engage in
delinquency. What determines whether an individual will engage in crime is largely
dependent on background factors such as upbringing and family environment that are
considered when making a decision to or not to commit crime. Thus, it is possible that the
participants with high goal orientation viewed the costs of crime as high and, therefore,
committed fewer instances of delinquency. It is important to note that goal orientation
was only significant in the violent offending models. It has been previously shown that
low future orientation (i.e., viewing one‟s future negatively) is associated with risk
seeking behaviors such as illegal drug use among adolescents (Robbins, 2004).
Specifically, high levels of future orientation are significantly related to lower levels of
risky behavior. It can be argued that violent/serious criminal behaviors (i.e., robbery,
shooting at someone, and carjacking) are classified as “riskier” offenses due to their
47
nature (e.g., harsher punishments or prison time). Thus, participants may view such
offenses as risky making them less likely to commit these types of crimes if they have
other goals that they want to achieve.
A similar argument can be made for the availability of meaningful roles. The
measure was coded so that higher scores coincided with more opportunities for legitimate
work. Previous research has noted that lack of job opportunities and unemployment are
associated with crime (Agnew, 2006). Increased availability of meaningful roles was with
lower rates of overall offending in this sample of high-risk adolescents. It could be that
those adolescents who believed they would have legitimate work opportunities exhibit
lower frequencies of offending because they want to keep such options available to them
in the future. What these findings indicate is that interventions and policies should be
geared towards increasing both goal orientation as well as making sure that legitimate
opportunities for work are made available to serious adolescent offenders.
The fourth hypothesis was that the elements of containment theory would be
more predictive of minor delinquency than more serious delinquency. Reckless (1967;
1972) stated that containment theory was a middle range theory and was incapable of
explaining crime beyond that of minor offenses. The results indicate that, at least for this
sample, this is not the case. Rather, it was shown that containment theory was more
applicable, albeit weak, to violent offending than non-violent. This finding suggests that
these containments may be applicable to different types of offending dependent upon the
sample composition (i.e., serious or non-serious offenders). For example, if the sample is
composed of minor delinquents, the results may show that containment theory is more
applicable to non-violent offending and, as was the case with this sample, vice versa.
48
Future research will need to assess this contention further by examining containment
theory on a wide range of offender types. Ultimately, the results indicate that
containment theory may be more capable of explaining a broader variety of crimes.
The final hypothesis specified that there would be gender differences in the
elements of containment theory. This hypothesis was supported in that that the two
containments, goal orientation and availability of meaningful roles were only predictive
of male offending while no inner or outer containments were predictive of female
offending. Among the previous research on containment theory, scholars have found that
males and females are more alike than not in their assessments (Dodder & Long, 1980;
Lawrence, 1985). One of the most interesting findings was that male offenders were
significantly less likely to commit both overall and violent offenses than female offenders
at the one-year follow up. This goes against much criminological research, which follows
that males are more likely to commit delinquency than females (Agnew, 2006;
Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996; LaGrange & Silverman, 2006).
The gender disparity within the results suggests the importance of developing
interventions focused on reducing recidivism rates for serious female adolescent
offenders. It is possible that female adolescent offenders are less likely to be adjudicated
to a detention center than male offenders. This could have two consequences. First,
because the females are not incarcerated, they have the potential to commit new crimes.
Also, male offenders who are detained may have access to resources that improved their
goal orientation and availability of meaningful roles to which female offenders did not
have access to because they were released back into the care of their parent or guardian.
Future research studies need to assess the gender differences in persistent offending.
49
One possible reason that the female models were not significant is that there
may not enough statistical power in these models. Many of the beta coefficients between
the male and female models were similar, indicating that this is a possibility. Further, due
to the small sample size of females (n=182) and fourteen independent variables in each
model I ran into the issue of inadequate frequencies among some cells. Future studies
make sure to include a larger sample size of females in order to overcome such issues.
There are some noted limitations with the current study. The first has to do
with the sample used for the analyses. The Pathways to Desistance dataset was selected
because it was the only dataset publically available that included variables that would
capture the different areas of containment theory. I was also interested in the frequency
of offending and needed a sample that consisted solely of delinquents. But as the results
show, there was a lack of support for containment theory in general. Containment theory
was developed to differentiate between those adolescents who initiate delinquency and
those that do not. This study provides some support for this contention in that
containment theory was not adept at explaining the persistence of delinquency among
delinquent youths. In the future, samples containing both delinquents and nondelinquents should be utilized which would allow to compare and contrast the
containments between these two groups. A second limitation is that the results cannot be
extrapolated to populations containing other types of offenders or non-delinquents.
A third limitation involves the measurements used to test the theory. Because
this thesis was a secondary data analysis and the Pathways to Desistance study was not
developed to measure containment theory, one might question whether the variables truly
measure the proposed constructs. It is important to note that one of the main critiques of
50
Reckless‟ (1967) theory was that he poorly defined the elements of containment theory
(Schrag, 1971). Thus, there is still ambiguity in regards to measuring the constructs. To
overcome this I placed great emphasis on using variables that best matched the concepts.
For example, I encountered difficulty in differentiating between pushes and pulls. It can
be argued that they are one in the same. That is, what is the difference between being
pushed or pulled into crime? After breaking Reckless‟ (1967; 1972) concepts down, it
was determined that pushes can be classified as „background factors.‟ These are elements
that are included in a person‟s development such as family life and past experiences.
Pulls, on the other hand, are classified as „foreground factors‟ or elements that are
presented to individuals in the present such as peer associations. Keeping these
definitions in mind, I was able to differentiate between the concepts and identify
variables that best measured them. Future research should focus on using questionnaires
that focus specifically on containment theory such as that used by Dodder and Long
(1980).
Finally, there are issues regarding the relationships between variables at
baseline and the one year follow up. As indicated by the correlation table in Appendix B,
baseline pushes and pulls were associated with baseline delinquency but were not
associated with the one-year follow-up delinquency. This is potentially why there are
only a few variables that were significant in the models. What this infers is that
participants may have been more truthful in their responses during the baseline survey.
However, the lack of interrelation could also be due to the fact that participants may have
been incarcerated during or at the time of the follow-up interview. This could have
restricted participants from offending during the one-year follow-up. While there are
51
arrest records in concordance with the Pathways to Desistance study, I did not have
access to these files because they have not been made publically available.
In conclusion, it is my hope that this thesis will motivate other researchers to
look at the theory in their future studies. While I attempted to bridge the literature gap
related to this theory, there is still more that needs to be done. Researchers need to: (1)
look more closely at how pushes and pulls are related to criminal behavior, (2) make sure
to examine gender differences, (3) utilize a diverse sample of offenders (both youth and
adult), and (4) further test whether these containments are better at explaining the
initiation to crime or the frequency of offending using other samples.
Despite the lack of significance among most of the variables, some of the
results indicated that containment theory is capable of reducing future offending among
high-risk youth. As discussed throughout the paper, past researchers have solely looked at
containment theory in assessing the initiation into delinquency or offending as a
dichotomy (i.e., those who commit crime and those that do not). While the findings from
such studies have been mixed in regards to the theory‟s predictive value, it is still likely
that the theory is more beneficial in explaining delinquency in such contexts. However,
due to the fact that this is the first time containment theory has been looked at in this
manner, and it is the first study to include pushes and pulls into the regression equations,
future studies are needed to actually determine whether these findings can withstand
other empirical assessments. One highly important contribution that this research does
offer is that it shows containment theory‟s applicability to a broader variety of offenses,
especially for serious violent offenses, and not just to minor non-violent offenses. Some
of the containments made serious male adolescent offenders commit fewer crimes in the
52
long-term. Programs aimed at reducing juvenile offenses in high risk youths may want to
examine improving males‟ planning of their future and connections for work
opportunities. More research needs to focus on female serious offenders.
53
REFERENCES
Aday, D.P. (1990). Social Control at the Margins: Toward a General Understanding of
Deviance. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
Agnew, R. (1985). Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal test.
Criminology, 23, 47-61.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory.
Roxbury Publishing Company: Los Angeles.
Akers, R.L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 7, 201-211.
Andresen, M.A. (2012). Unemployment and crime: A neighborhood level panel data
approach. Social Science Research, 41, 1615-1628.
Bandura, A., Barbarnelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Carroll, A., Hattie, J., Durkin, K., & Houghton, S. (2001). Goal-setting and reputation
enhancement: Behavioural choices among delinquent, at-risk and not at-risk
adolescents. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 165-184.
Carrol, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Perkins, C., & Bower, J. (2007). Multidimensional
self-concept. School Psychology International, 28, 237-256.
Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, M. D. (1969). The High School Personality Questionnaire.
Champaign, IL: Inst. Pers. Ability Testing.
54
Cauffman E., & Woolard J. (1999). The future outlook inventory. Unpublished
manuscript.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder Jr, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic
stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child
Development, 65, 541-561.
Cooley, C.H. (1964). Human Nature & Social Order. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Cornish, D., & Clark, R.V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice
Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer.
Dodder, R.A., & Long, J.R. (1980). Containment theory reevaluated: An empirical
examination. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 74-84.
Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The Rules of the Sociological Method. Trans. W.D. Halls.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Eitle, D.J., & Turner, R.J. (2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult
crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other
stressful life events. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 39, 214-237.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of
crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47-54.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1994). Aggression. In M.R. Gottfredson & T. Hirschi
(Eds.), The Generality of Deviance (pp. 24-45). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. (1974). The measurement and
55
structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127143.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (Eds.),
Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 537-552).
New York: Guliford Press.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1957). Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven,
Connecticut: Yale University.
Huzinga, D., Esbensen, F., & Weiher, A. (1991). Are there multiple paths to
delinquency? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82, 83-118.
LaGrange, T.C., & Silverman, R.A. (2006). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing
the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in
delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.
Lawrence, R. (1985). School performance, containment theory, and delinquent behavior.
Youth and Society, 17, 69-95.
Levy, K.S. (2001). The relationship between adolescent attitudes towards authority, selfconcept, and delinquency. Adolescence, 6, 333-346.
Lilly, R.J., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2011). Criminological Theory: Context and
Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Long, J.R. (1976). An empirical explication of issues in containment theory. (Doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University).
Mulvey, E.P. (2010). Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and
56
Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010. ICPSR29961-v1. Ann
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
[distributor], 2012-08-20. doi:10.3886/ICPSR29961.v1.
Mulvey, E.P., Schubert, C.A. (2010). Some initial implications from the Pathways to
Desistance study. Victims and Offenders, 7, 407-427.
Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2010). Prospective effects of violence exposure across multiple
contexts on early adolescents‟ internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 953-961.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1994). Personal capital and social control:Tthe
deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences of offending.
Criminology, 32, 581-673.
Nye, F.I. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. Oxford, England: John
Wiley.
Patchin, J.W., Huebner, B.M., McCluskey, J.D., Verano, S.P., & Bynum, T.S. (2006).
Exposure to community violence and childhood delinquency. Crime and
Delinquency, 52, 307-332
Pearce, M.J., Jones, S.M., Schwab-Stone, M.E., & Ruchkin, V. (2003). The protective
effects of religiousness and parent involvement on the development of conduct
problems among youth exposed to violence. Child Development, 74, 1682-1696.
Piquero, A. R., & Brame, R. W. (2008). Assessing the race-crime and ethnicity-crime
relationship in a sample of serious adolescent delinquents. Crime & Delinquency, 54,
390-422.
Reckless, W.C. (1961). A new theory of delinquency and crime. Federal Probation, 25,
57
42-46.
Reckless, W.C. (1967). The Crime Problem. New York: Meredith Publishing Company.
Reckless, W.C. (1973). The Crime Problem. New York: Meredith Corporation.
Reckless, W.C. (1981). Containment theory: An attempt to formulate a middle-range
theory of crime. In. I.L. Barak-Glantz et. al (Eds.), Mad, the Bad, and the
Different, (pp. 67-75). New York: Lexington Books.
Reckless, W.C., & Dinitz, S. (1967). Pioneering with self-concept as a vulnerability
factor in delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science.
58, 515-523.
Reckless, W.C., Dinitz, S., & Kay, B. (1957). The self component in potential
delinquency and potential non-delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22,
566-570.
Reckless, W.C., Dinitz, S., & Murray, E. (1956). Self concept as an insulator against
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 21, 744-746.
Reiss, A.J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American
Sociological Review, 16, 196-207.
Robbins, R.N. (2004). Relationships between future orientation, impulsive seeing, and
risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19,
428-445.
Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change
matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of
58
Sociology, 105, 603-651.
Scarpatti, F.R., Murray, E., Dinitz, S., & Reckless, W.C. (1960). The “good” boy in a
high delinquency area: Four years later. American Sociological Review, 25, 555558.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectations. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Schrag, C. (1971). Crime and Justice: American Style. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Shulman, E., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A., & Fagan, J. (2011). Moral disengagement
among serious juvenile offenders: A longitudinal study of the relations between
morally disengaged attitudes and offending. Developmental Psychology, 47,
1619-1632.
Selner-O‟Hagan, M., Kindlon, D., Buka, S., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998).
Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 215-224.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of
female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.
Steinberg, L, Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on
adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of
future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
59
Sykes, G.M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Thompson, W.E., & Dodder, R.A. (1983). Juvenile delinquency explained? A test of
containment theory. Youth and Society, 15, 171-194.
Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Farnworth, M. & Jang, S.J. (1994).
Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of
interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47-83.
Vermeiren, R., Bogaerts, J., Ruchkin, Deboutte, D., & Schwab-Stone, M. (2004).
Subtypes of self-esteem and self-concept in adolescent violent and property
offenders. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 405-411.
Weaver, C. M., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L. (2008). Violence begets
violence: Childhood exposure and adolescent conduct problems. Journal of
Community Psychology, 36, 1-17.
Weerman, F. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of
selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253-286.
Weinberger, D.A., & Schwartz, G.E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate
dimensions of self-reported adjustment: a typological perspective. Journal of
Personality, 58, 381- 417.
Widom, C (1989), Child abuse, neglect, and violence criminal behavior. Criminology, 27,
251–271.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1990). The Stanford Time Perspective Inventory. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.
60
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES
61
Questionnaires
Exposure to Violence
Inventory
Quality of Parental
Relationships Inventory
Neighborhood Conditions
Measure
Peer Delinquent Behavior
Psychosocial Maturity
Measure
Mechanisms of Moral
Engagement Scale
Future Outlook Inventory
Weinberger Adjustment
Inventory
Parental Knowledge
Parental Monitoring
Inventory
Social Capital Inventory
Authors
Selner-O‟Hagan, Kindlon,
Buka, Raudenbusch, &
Earls (1998)
Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz,
& Simons (1994
Sampson & Raudenbusch
(1999)
Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn,
Farnworth, & Jang (1994)
Greenberger, Josselin,
Knerr, & Kneer (1974)
Bandura, Barbarnelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli (1996)
Cauffman & Woolard
(1999)
Weinberger & Schwartz
(1990)
Steinberg, Dornbusch, &
Darling (1992)
Steinberg, Dornbusch, &
Darling (1992)
Nagin & Paternoster (1994)
62
Availability
Yes
Not publically available
Yes
Yes
Not publically available
Not publically available
Not publically available
Not publically available
Not publically available
Yes
Not publically available
Exposure to Violence Inventory
1. Have you ever been chased where you thought you might be seriously hurt?
2. Have you ever been beaten up, mugged, or seriously threatened by another
person?
3. Have you ever been raped, had someone attempt to rape you or been
sexually attacked in some other way?
4. Have you ever been attacked with a weapon, like a knife, box cutter, or bat?
5. Have you ever been shot at?
6. Have you ever been shot?
7. Have you ever seen anyone get chased where you thought they could be
seriously hurt?
8. Have you ever seen anyone else get beaten up, mugged, or seriously
threatened by another person?
9. Have you ever seen someone else being raped, an attempt made to rape
someone, or any other type of sexual attack?
10. Have you ever seen someone else get attacked with a weapon, like a knife,
box cutter, bat, chain, or broken bottle?
11. Have you ever seen someone else get shot at?
12. Have you ever seen someone else get shot?
13. Have you ever seen someone else get killed as a result of violence, like
being shot, stabbed, or beaten to death?
Response options were coded as 0 = "No" and 1 = "Yes".
If respondents answered yes to any of these questions, they were asked about
the frequency of the event occurring.
If the respondent indicated that they were raped, four additional follow up
questions were asked: "Has this happened more than one time?", "How is this
person related to the subject?", "Where did this happen?", and "Location if in
other place".
63
Neighborhood Conditions Measure
How often does each of the following occur within your neighborhood?
1. Cigarettes on the street or in the gutters?
2. Garbage in the streets or on the sidewalk?
3. Empty beer bottles on the streets or sidewalks?
4. Boarded up windows on buildings?
5. Graffiti or tags?
6. Graffiti painted over?
7. Gang graffiti?
8. Abandoned cars?
9. Empty lots with garbage?
10. Condoms on sidewalk?
11. Needles or syringes?
12. Political messages in graffiti?
13. Gangs (or other teen groups) hanging out?
14. Adults hanging out on the street?
15. People drinking beer, wine or liquor?
16. People drunk or passed out?
17. Adults fighting or arguing loudly?
18. Prostitutes on the streets?
19. People smoking marijuana?
20. People smoking crack?
21. People using needles or syringes to take drugs?
Response options were coded as 1 = "Never", 2 = "Rarely", 3 = "Sometimes", and
4 = "Often".
64
Peer Delinquent Behavior
Response options: None of them to all of them
During the past 6 months
1. How many of your friends have purposely damaged or destroyed property
that did not belong to them?
2. How many of your friends have hit or threatened to hit someone?
3. How many of your friends have sold drugs?
4. How many of your friends have gotten drunk once in a while?
5. How many of your friends have carried a knife?
6. How many of your friends have carried a gun?
7. How many of your friends have owned a gun?
8. How many of your friends have gotten into a physical fight?
9. How many of your friends have been hurt in a fight?
10. How many of your friends have stolen something worth more than
$100?
11. How many of your friends have taken a motor vehicle or stolen a car?
12. How many of your friends have gone in or tried to go into a building to
steal something?
13. How many of your friends have gotten high on drugs? (this item was
added in version 01.16 and is not used in any computations)
14. How many of your friends have suggested that you should go out
drinking with them?
15. How many of your friends have suggested or claimed that you have to
get drunk to have a good time?
16. How many of your friends have suggested or claimed that you have to be
high on drugs to have a good time?
17. How many of your friends have suggested that you should sell drugs?
18. How many of your friends have suggested that you should steal
something?
19. How many of your friends have suggested that you should hit or beat
someone up?
20. How many of your friends have suggested that you should carry a
weapon?
Response options were coded 1 = "None of Them", 2 = "Very Few of
Them", 3 = "Some of Them", 4 = "Most of Them", and 5 = "All of Them".
Questions 1-13 are used for the peer antisocial behavior sub-scale while
questions 14-20 are used for the beer antisocial influence sub-scale.
65
Parental Monitoring Inventory
1. How often do you have a set time to be home on school or work nights?
2. How often do you have a set time to be home on weekend nights?
3. How often does X know what time you will be home when you've gone
out?
4. If X is not at home, how often do you leave a note, call, or communicate
with X in some way about where you are going?
Response options are coded 1 = "Never", 2 = "Sometimes", 3 = "Usually",
and 4 = "Always".
X refers to the primary caregiver.
66
APPENDIX B
KENDALL‟S TAU-B CORRELATIONS
67
Kendall's tau-B Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1. Overall Offending
-
2. Violent Offending
.80
-
3. Non-Violent Offending
.78
.47
-
4. Pushes
.02
.03
.02
-
5. Pulls
.04
.05
.03
.31
-
6. Self-Concept
.02
.02
.02
-.11
-.10
-
7. Goal Orientation
-.01
-.03
.02
-.05
-.07
.14
-
8. Norm Retention
-.02
-.02
-.00
-.21
-.23
.23
.12
-
9. Frustration Tolerance
-.03
-.05
-.01
-.24
-.24
.23
.14
.33
-
10. Internalization of Rules
.00
.00
-.01
-.00
-.11
.10
.12
.14
.11
-
11. Group Reinforcement
-.04
-.05
-.02
-.28
-.44
.09
.09
.23
.26
.15
-
12. Availability of Mean
-.01
-.02
-.01
-.09
-.10
.05
.08
.08
.05
.07
.07
-
13. Age
-.04
-.04
-.03
.06
.07
.02
.05
.01
.01
-.16
-.11
.00
-
14. White
.01
.01
-.01
-.12
-.03
.04
-.07
.04
-.06
.07
.02
-.04
-.04
-
15. Black
-.00
.00
.00
-.03
-.04
.15
.12
.07
.12
-.03
.09
.05
.04
-.43
-
16. Hispanic
.01
-.01
.01
.14
.06
-.18
-.07
-.10
-.06
-.01
-.06
-.02
-.02
-.36
-.60
-
17. Other
-.02
-.03
-.01
-.01
.04
-.04
.01
-.02
-.05
-.04
-.04
.00
.04
-.11
-.19
-.16
-
18. Gender
.06
.09
.02
-.02
-.07
-.01
.01
-.09
.01
.02
-.07
.04
.03
-.01
-
-.10
.09
.03
.14
-
20
-.06
-.05
-.05
19. Baseline Overall
.05
.06
.04
.34
.41
-.08
-.11
-.26
-.32
-.16
-.40
-.07
.14
-.01
20. Baseline Violent
.04
.05
.03
.34
.36
-.08
-.07
-.27
-.29
-.14
-.33
-.08
.08
-.11
-.01
.10
.02
.16
.71
-
21. Baseline Non-Violent
.04
.05
.03
.31
.38
-.08
-.12
-.24
-.31
-.16
-.40
-.06
.15
-.05
-.14
.09
.03
.14
.89
.56
Note. Bolded correlations are significant
68
21
-
Kendall's tau-B Correlations Among Push and Pull Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Exposure to Violence
2. Parental Hostility
.110
3. Neighborhood
-.017
.227
4. Parent Social
-.002
.015 .092
5. Peer Antisocial Behavior
.438
.149 .186 .043
6. Gang
.117
.060 .038 .062 .138 Note. Bolded correlations are significant.
69
APPENDIX C
IRB APPROVAL FORM
70
71