This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University]
On: 07 March 2012, At: 14:00
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Deviant Behavior
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20
Coercion Theory, Self-Control,
and Social Information
Processing: Understanding
Potential Mediators for How
Parents Influence Deviant
Behaviors
a
Jennifer M. Crosswhite & Jennifer L. Kerpelman
b
a
Department of Family Studies and Interior
Design, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney,
Nebraska, USA
b
Department of Human Development and Family
Studies, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
Available online: 12 Aug 2009
To cite this article: Jennifer M. Crosswhite & Jennifer L. Kerpelman (2009): Coercion
Theory, Self-Control, and Social Information Processing: Understanding Potential
Mediators for How Parents Influence Deviant Behaviors, Deviant Behavior, 30:7,
611-646
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620802589806
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Deviant Behavior, 30: 611–646, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print=1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639620802589806
coercion theory, self-control,
and social information
processing: understanding
potential mediators for how
parents influence deviant
behaviors
Jennifer M. Crosswhite
Department of Family Studies and Interior
Design, University of Nebraska at Kearney,
Kearney, Nebraska, USA
Jennifer L. Kerpelman
Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama, USA
Research has demonstrated that (in)effective
parenting influences whether a child=adolescent
engages in deviant behaviors; however, research is
mixed regarding whether that influence is direct.
After a review of theoretical and empirical
evidence, parenting factors outlined by several
theories appear important in explaining the
association between parenting and deviance. More
importantly, however, is that the parental influence
may not be direct, but rather mediated through a
child=adolescent’s level of self-control and
social information processing skills. As such,
Received 14 February 2008; accepted 28 August 2008.
Address correspondence to Jennifer M. Crosswhite, Assistant Professor of Family Studies,
University of Nebraska at Kearney, OTOL 205B, Kearney, NE 68849, USA. E-mail:
crosswhitejm@unk.edu
611
612
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
evidence suggests that to fully understand the
complex association between parenting and
deviance, parenting and mediating factors from
multiple theories must be explored simultaneously.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the encouraging trend that overall juvenile arrests
have decreased between 1994 and 2004, adolescents are still
engaging in criminal behaviors (Snyder 2006). For example, in
2004 2.2 million adolescent arrests occurred, as well as an
increase in arrests for simple assault and disorderly conduct.
Given how prevalent deviant behaviors still are among adolescents, understanding the etiology of deviance is crucial. As
such, a number of factors have been examined, such as biological predisposition (e.g., neurological deficits; Moffitt 1997),
contextual factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status; Sampson
2000), an association with deviant peers (e.g., Dishion and
Skaggs 2000), and parenting (e.g., Capaldi and Patterson
1996). While there are many different factors that influence
the development of adolescent deviance, evidence indicating
a parental influence on adolescent deviance is quite robust
and has been demonstrated for decades (see e.g., Loeber and
Stouthamer-Loeber 1986). With such knowledge, understanding exactly how parents influence deviant behaviors, and specifically whether there are mechanisms that mediate this
influence, would be an especially fruitful path to explore.
Three theories will be explored that offer explanations
regarding how ineffective parenting is associated with
child=adolescent deviance: coercion theory (Dishion and
Patterson 1997; Patterson 1996, 1997; Patterson and Bank
1989; Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson
1987), Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) A General Theory
of Crime (i.e., self-control), and social information processing as detailed by Dodge et al. (1986), and more recently,
Crick and Dodge (1994). Coercion theory provides an initial
organizing framework as it offers the coercion process; a
bidirectional coercion process between parent and child
that impacts the child’s engagement of deviant behaviors.
Coercion theory also provides a developmental perspective
for understanding differences as to when children or adolescents begin to engage in deviant behaviors (i.e., early and
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
613
late onset trajectories). Further, the theory outlines five
parenting practices theorized to protect against the coercion
process and thus deviant behaviors. These practices are
effective discipline, monitoring, problem solving practices,
positive parenting, and positive reinforcement. The coercion
theory, therefore, describes the direct association between
parenting and child=adolescent deviance, but does not
provide any ‘‘person’’ variables, or potential mediating mechanisms, that explain the association between ineffective
parenting and deviance (Snyder et al. 2003). Snyder et al.
offer self-regulation as a possible mediating mechanism,
and also suggest that an individual’s cognitive system is
important and may be related to self-regulation. Therefore,
it is necessary to explore self-regulation and cognitive skills
as potential mediating mechanisms that may help to explain
the parenting–deviance association.
Two theories that provide such mediating mechanisms are
the general theory of crime and social information processing. The general theory of crime (GTC) suggests self-control,
defined as an individual difference characteristic, whereas
social information processing (SIP) provides a series of cognitive skills, both of which may mediate the parenting–
deviance link. Limited research has indicated that both
self-control and SIP partially mediate the relation between
ineffective parenting and adolescent deviance, and could
potentially explain how ineffective parenting influences
deviance (Hay 2001; Weiss et al. 1992). By examining both
self-control and SIP, it may be possible to determine whether
individual differences and cognitive skills are responsible for
the link between parents and deviance, and whether selfcontrol (i.e., self-regulation) and cognitive skills are indeed
associated with one another. Furthermore, the GTC and SIP
offer additional parenting practices not theorized by coercion
theory (e.g., attachment, communication), but also appear to
be influential in the parenting–deviance association. Taken
together, the three theories provide a new integrative perspective on understanding exactly how parents may influence
whether a child or adolescent engages in deviant behaviors,
and should provide a more comprehensive understanding
of the true etiology of adolescent deviance. The current conceptualization is intended solely as a theoretical contribution,
and is designed to encourage future research in this area.
614
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
COERCION THEORY
According to coercion theory (Dishion and Patterson 1997;
Patterson 1982, 1996, 1997; Patterson and Bank 1989;
Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson
1987), whether an individual engages in deviant behaviors
as a child or an adolescent depends on a bidirectional
coercion process that occurs between the parent and child.
Coercion is defined by an aversive event that leads to reinforcement of a negative behavior, and the coercion process is a
series of feedback loops that escalates over time. For example, when a parent tries to discipline his or her child, the
child responds in an aversive manner (e.g., whining, crying,
throwing a temper tantrum). The parent returns with an
escalated attempt at disciplining the child (e.g., scolding,
threats). However, the child also returns in an escalated aversive manner. This process continues until the parent desists
in trying to discipline the child. As time goes on, the parent
terminates discipline attempts at the first sign of the child
engaging in aversive behaviors. Eventually, the parent
ignores aversive behaviors altogether, allowing the child
to get away with both the initial inappropriate and the
aversive behaviors. The coercive behaviors are further elicited, maintained, and exacerbated through positive and
negative reinforcement each time this sequence of behaviors
occurs. Positive reinforcement occurs as the parent provides
a cue to which the child responds aversively. In this case, the
parents’ attempt to discipline is the child’s cue to begin engaging in the aversive behaviors. Negative reinforcement
occurs when the parents desist in the discipline attempt in
the face of the child’s aversive response. In essence, because
of ineffective parenting, a child learns that it is acceptable to
engage in aversive behaviors to get what she or he wants.
Two points about the coercion process should be noted.
First, some level of coercion occurs within every family;
however, those children who engage in the coercion process
at high rates are reinforced for aversive behaviors and typically engage in deviant behaviors within and outside of the
family context (Kiesner et al. 2001). Second, when the child
is young (i.e., under age 12), she or he engages in overt aversive behaviors such as whining, crying, and throwing temper
tantrums. However, as the child becomes older (i.e., after
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
615
age 12), the behaviors change from overt to covert behaviors
that are considered more serious (e.g., theft, vandalism, drug
and alcohol use; Patterson and Yoerger 1993, 2002; Snyder
et al. 2003). Coercion within the family appears to influence
all rather than specific types of deviant behaviors (Capaldi
and Patterson 1996). Thus, for the current conceptualization
such behaviors will be broadly referred to as deviant
behaviors.
Depending on when the coercion process begins, the path
to adolescent deviance can occur on two different
trajectories—early and late onset. According to Patterson
and colleagues (Dishion and Patterson 1997; Patterson and
Yoerger 1997, 2002), early onset offenders begin to engage
in deviant behaviors during early childhood (i.e., often identified as ‘‘problem children’’ at a young age), and continue to
engage in chronic and serious forms of deviant=criminal
behaviors throughout adulthood (Kiesner et al. 2001;
Patterson 1996; Patterson and Yoerger 1993). Late onset
offenders, however, do not start engaging in deviant behaviors until adolescence, and desist in deviant behaviors near
the end of adolescence when prosocial behaviors are more
reinforcing than deviant behaviors (Patterson and Yoerger
2002). Levels of disrupted parenting differ between parents
of early versus late onset offenders. The parents of late onset
offenders do not engage in disruptive parenting or the coercion process as severely as the parents of early onset offenders, and engage in some degree of effective parenting
practices (Dishion and Patterson 1997; Patterson and
Yoerger 1993, 2002). The problem for late onset offenders
occurs during adolescence when a breakdown of effective
parental management skills takes place (Kiesner et al. 2001).
Parents of early onset offenders, however, are generally less
competent parents and begin engaging in the coercion
process while the child is very young. It should be noted
however, that variability can occur within this phenomenon.
Parental Influences
At the core of the coercion theory is the coercion process,
which demonstrates how parenting is influential in the development of deviant behaviors. Several investigators have
suggested that effective family management is the key to eliminating, or protecting against, coercion within a family, and
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
616
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
thus substantially reducing deviant behaviors (Dishion
and Patterson 1997; Patterson 1996; Patterson and Bank
1989; Patterson and Yoerger 1993; Snyder and Patterson
1987). For example, Patterson and colleagues suggest parents must use effective discipline, monitoring, and problemsolving practices in addition to positive parenting and
reinforcement to protect against the development of deviant
behaviors. First, effective discipline consists of recognizing
inappropriate or deviant behaviors, consistently tracking
behaviors across settings, and using consistent appropriate
discipline when deviant behaviors are performed. Ineffective discipline techniques consist of lax, inconsistent, and
harsh discipline (Snyder and Patterson 1987). Second, monitoring involves parental awareness of the child’s whereabouts, peer group affiliations, and free time activities
(Patterson and Yoerger 1997; Snyder and Patterson 1987).
Monitoring also involves communication regarding rules,
regulations, and consequences. Third, teaching appropriate
social problem-solving skills is necessary. Ineffective social
problem-solving skills are observable during verbal and
physical conflicts, such as a lack of communication, poor
compromising strategies, rejection of responsibilities, poor
problem solving, and increased anger, blaming, and defensiveness (Snyder and Patterson 1987). Fourth, positive parenting practices involve communication that is positive
and indicates interest, caring, and support of the child, and
an emotional attachment between parent and child, as well
as allowing age-appropriate autonomy (Patterson 1996;
Snyder and Patterson 1987). Fifth, it is important for parents
to consistently acknowledge prosocial behaviors with positive reinforcement (Patterson 1996). Patterson and Yoerger
(1993) suggest that families that do not reinforce positive
behaviors, do not effectively punish deviant behaviors, and
reinforce deviant behaviors are more likely to engage in
coercion within the family.
Empirical Research
Overall, empirical research supports coercion theory in that
(a) varying levels of coercion experienced within the family
influence when an individual begins engaging in deviant
behaviors, and for how long (i.e., early and late starters;
Patterson et al. 1998), (b) the coercion process is bidirectional
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
617
and escalates over time (Patterson et al. 1990), and (c) the
coercion process appears to be influential in the development of deviant behaviors (e.g., assault, aversive behaviors,
robbery, rape, externalizing behaviors; Capaldi and
Patterson 1996; Fagot and Leve 1998). Additional empirical
research supports the relevance for most of these five parenting practices. In the only study to examine the relation
among all five parenting practices and the development of
deviant behaviors, Patterson et al. (1992) found that monitoring, discipline, positive reinforcement, and problem solving
were negatively associated with deviant behaviors. Parental
involvement (i.e., positive parenting), however, was not
associated with deviant behaviors. Additionally, a number
of empirical studies have found evidence linking ineffective
monitoring and discipline with an increase in deviant
behaviors (e.g., argues, lies, physical fighting, vandalism,
substance abuse) and coercion within the family (Bank
et al. 1993; Fletcher et al. 1995; Patterson et al. 1984).
Unfortunately, the majority of empirical work has been conducted solely on the association between monitoring and
discipline with deviant behaviors. Future work should continue to examine whether positive reinforcement and problem solving are associated with deviance, and elucidate
whether positive parenting also is associated with deviance.
Finally, as Snyder et al. (2003) suggested, coercion theory
research has focused only on the direct, observable influences ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors. While
these processes are paramount to the coercion theory, the
authors suggested that the theory could be considered an
‘‘empty organism’’ or having a ‘‘black box’’; that is, there
appear to be no person variables (i.e., mediating mechanisms) that demonstrate the link between ineffective parenting
and adolescent deviance. Snyder et al. further suggested that
self-regulation could be a potential mediating link between
ineffective parenting and deviance. Self-regulation includes
executive attentional control (i.e., guides planful goal directed behavior), motivational inhibition (i.e., suppression of
behaviors), and negative emotion reactivity (i.e., negative
dysregulation); all of which involve the cognitive system.
However, because self-regulation has only recently been
introduced into coercion theory, no known empirical
work has addressed whether self-regulation and cognitive
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
618
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
skills, within the context of coercion theory, account for the
parenting–deviance association (see for exception Unnever
et al. 2006). Therefore, future research should assess whether
and how self-regulation and cognitive skills may mediate the
parenting–deviance relation. In the following section, two
potential mediators will be explored that could fill the
‘‘black box’’; self-control and SIP. As will be demonstrated,
the definition of self-control is similar to the definition
Snyder et al. provides for self-regulation. There also appears
to be a link between coercion theory and SIP. Thus, both
self-control and SIP offer promising mediating mechanisms
to fill the ‘‘black box.’’
MEDIATING MECHANISMS
Self-Control as a Mediating Mechanism
Putting forward A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) hypothesized that whether an individual
engages in deviance can be explained by low levels of
self-control. The authors contended that (a) an individual’s
level of self-control influences the level of deviance in which
she or he engages, (b) a lack of effective parenting influences
whether an individual will engage in deviant behaviors due
to low self-control, and (c) low self-control mediates the
relation between parenting and deviance. The authors also
suggested that these associations exist regardless of sex and
cultural background. Furthermore, individuals with low
self-control are likely to engage in a variety of deviant behaviors from crime-analogous behaviors (e.g., alcohol or drug
use, smoking, aggression) to more serious forms of deviance
(e.g., theft, property or violent offenses).
In describing self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
suggested that self-control is an individual difference characteristic that ranges from low to high. Further, they argued that
an individual with low self-control engages in behaviors
that (a) provide immediate and simple ways to receive gratification, (b) are exciting, risky, or thrilling, (c) require little
thought processing, (d) result in the victim(s) feeling pain
or discomfort, and (e) lack long-term goals. Whereas
Gottfredson and Hirschi discuss the concept of self-control,
recall that coercion theory discusses the concept of
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
619
self-regulation (Snyder et al. 2003). These two concepts
overlap considerably, particularly with executive attentional
control and motivational inhibition in that individuals are
able to control or suppress inappropriate responses and sustain behaviors as needed (Snyder et al. 2003). Self-regulation
has been further defined as the ability to set and attain goals,
plan actions, refrain from engaging in problematic behaviors,
and focus on long-term goals (Brody et al. 2002; Brody and
Ge 2001; Weinberger and Schwartz 1990). Similarly, someone who has self-control is able to problem solve, have a
future orientation, have planful goal-directed behavior,
restrain their behaviors, and delay responding for larger
reinforcements (Moffitt 1997; Snyder et al. 2003; Vollmer
et al. 1999; Wills et al. 2002). Finally, both self-regulation
and self-control are thought to form at an early age. Thus,
self-control appears synonymous with self-regulation. For
consistency, the term self-control will be used throughout
the remainder of this article.
Parental Influences
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) hypothesized that four
parenting practices are influential in the development of
self-control: (1) the attachment between parent and child,
(2) parental supervision, (3) recognition of deviant behaviors,
and (4) punishment of deviant acts. According to Gottfredson
and Hirschi, if all four elements of effective parenting
occur, an adequate level of self-control is likely to develop,
resulting in a decreased probability of the child engaging in
deviant behaviors. However, if one of the four elements is
missing, the child is less likely to form an adequate level of
self-control, and in turn, more likely to engage in deviant
behaviors. Looking in depth at the four elements of effective
parenting, attachment is viewed as a parental concern for the
child’s well-being, the level of warmth parents feel toward
their child, and time spent with their child (i.e., parental
investment). Additionally, the higher the levels of communication and affectional identification between parent and
child (i.e., love, respect), the stronger the parent–child attachment will be (Hirschi 1969). Second, parental supervision not only keeps a child from engaging in deviant
behaviors, but also teaches the child how to avoid engaging
in deviant behaviors when she or he is not under direct
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
620
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
supervision (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Third, parents
also must recognize deviant behaviors when they occur,
and at all ages (e.g., talking back, yelling, pushing versus
vandalism, theft). Fourth, effective punishment includes
setting limits, having age-appropriate consequences, and
enforcing the consequences when a rule is broken. In addition, the most effective form of punishment is disapproval
by individuals close to the child (Hirschi 1969). Thus, when
parents feel indifference or hostility toward the child, have
lax, inadequate, or poor supervision skills, fail to recognize
early forms of deviant behaviors, or are too lenient, inconsistent, or harsh with discipline, they are more likely to have
children with low self-control, who in turn, engage in
deviant behaviors.
Empirical Research
Empirical research guided by the GTC has found that low
self-control is predictive of deviant behaviors in young
children, adolescents, adults, and cross-nationally (Burton
et al. 1999; Normandeau and Guay 1998; Vazsonyi and
Crosswhite 2004; Vazsonyi et al. 2001). Low self-control
also is predictive of a number of different types of deviant
behaviors, such as vandalism, theft, alcohol=drug use,
assault, school misconduct, and rape in adolescents, larceny,
shoplifting, and gambling in college students and criminal
behaviors in adults (Arneklev et al. 1993; Burton et al.
1999; LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Nagin and Paternoster
1993; Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Vazsonyi and Crosswhite
2004; Vazsonyi et al. 2001). Thus, there appears to be robust
empirical evidence suggesting that self-control is associated
with whether an individual engages in deviant behaviors.
However, much of the empirical work that has been conducted using the GTC has focused on the relation between
low self-control and deviance. Limited empirical work has
examined (a) whether the four hypothesized elements
of effective parenting influence self-control or whether
additional parenting practices not originally conceptualized
also are influential and (b) the extent to which self-control
mediates the parenting–deviance association.
Empirical examination of the parenting–self-control
association suggests a number of hypothesized and nonhypothesized parenting practices influence the etiology of
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
621
self-control. For example, parental attachment, monitoring,
supervision, recognition of deviant behaviors, discipline,
consistency in punishment, poor parental efficacy (i.e., low
attachment, as well as a lack of recognition and punishment
of deviant behaviors), and parental management (i.e.,
monitoring, as well as a lack of recognition and punishment
of deviant behaviors) have been found to be associated
with the development of self-control (Cochran et al. 1998;
Gibbs et al. 1998; Hay 2001; Hope and Chapple 2005;
Latimore et al. 2006; Perrone et al. 2004; Pratt et al.
2004; Unnever et al. 2003). However, other evidence suggests that parental supervision and punishment are not associated with self-control (Cochran et al. 1998; Latimore et al.
2006), and parenting factors not originally conceptualized
also have been found to be important in the development
of self-control such as psychological autonomy, effective
parenting (i.e., commitment, involvement, conventional
qualities), parental support, parenting (i.e., consistency,
child-centered), family functioning (i.e., effective problem
solving, cohesion), and parenting (i.e., inductive reasoning,
problem solving, positive reinforcement; Burt et al. 2006;
Feldman and Weinberger 1994; Hay 2001; Jones et al.
2007; Polakowski 1994).
Additionally, when examining the mediation hypothesis,
mixed results emerged regarding whether self-control partially or fully mediated the relation between parenting and
deviance. For example, self-control fully mediated the associations between deviance and (a) parenting, (b) parental
management, and (c) consistency in punishment (Feldman
and Weinberger 1994; Gibbs et al. 1998; Unnever et al.
2003), whereas self-control only partially mediated the
relations between deviance and (a) ineffective parenting, (b)
parental support, (c) parental management, and (d) parental
monitoring (Burt et al. 2006; Gibbs et al. 2003; Hay 2001;
Jones et al. 2007; Perrone et al. 2004; Unnever et al. 2003).
Finally, evidence suggests that associations among parenting,
self-control, and deviance are more complex than originally
conceptualized. For example, Hope and Chapple (2005) indicated that self-control partially mediated the association
between attachment and risky sexual behaviors, but
self-control did not mediate the relation between monitoring
and risky sexual behaviors. Similarly, Chapple et al. (2005)
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
622
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
discovered that self-control fully mediated the relation
between attachment and adolescent substance abuse, but
only partially mediated the association between parental
monitoring and adolescent substance abuse.
Thus, evidence is provided that all four elements of effective
parenting (i.e., attachment, supervision, recognition of deviant
behaviors, and punishment of deviant behaviors) appear
to influence the development of self-control. However,
additional parenting variables beyond what Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) theorized also are responsible for the development of self-control (e.g., psychological autonomy, parental
efficacy; Hay 2001; Perrone et al. 2004). Research also
appears to suggest that self-control at least partially mediates
the link between ineffective parenting and deviance. However, because so few studies have been conducted to examine
the links among effective parenting, self-control, and
deviance, conclusions regarding how parents influence the
development of self-control, and the full extent to which
self-control mediates the parenting–deviance association
can only be speculative.
Research conducted by Brody and colleagues (Brody et al.
2002; Brody and Ge 2001; Brody et al. 1996; Brody et al.
1999; Wills et al. 2000) provides additional evidence that
(in)effective parenting does influence the development of
self-control, and that self-control fully mediates the link
between (in)effective parenting and deviance. For example,
parental involvement, support, monitoring, family cohesion,
close family relationships, and appropriate discipline
positively influence the development of self-control, whereas
interparental conflict and harsh parent–child conflict negatively influence the development of self-control. Further,
each of the constructs that Brody and colleagues have
studied can be linked to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)
theoretical ideas of how to teach self-control. First, involvedsupportive parenting, family cohesion, and family support
can be identified as parents who are involved, and therefore
attached, to their child. Second, monitoring and supervision
provide support for the second step in teaching self-control.
Third, the discussion of appropriate discipline and harshconflicted parent–child relationships can provide empirical
evidence for the final step in teaching self-control; punishment. Thus, the work of Brody and colleagues lends support
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
623
to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theoretical conceptualizations that
parents are influential in the development of self-control, and
that self-control fully mediates relations. However, low selfcontrol is not the only possible mediating mechanism for the
link between ineffective parenting and deviance. Research
has suggested that SIP deficits also mediate this link (Dodge
et al. 1990; Dodge et al. 1995; Weiss et al. 1992).
Social Information Processing as a Mediating Mechanism
Information-processing theories provide information regarding how behaviors are transformed into memory, which in
turn guide future processing and behaviors (Dodge 1993;
Huesmann 1998). Huesmann (1998) suggests that information processing theories are a description of cognitive data
structures that individuals utilize through a sequence of
steps executed to generate cognitions regarding behaviors.
However, with work conducted by Dodge and colleagues
(Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge et al. 1986), informationprocessing theories, such as SIP, are now used as a cognitive
heuristic to help understand how and why individuals
engage in deviant behaviors.
According to Dodge et al. (1986) and Crick and Dodge
(1994), six steps are involved in SIP: encoding social cues,
interpretation of social cues, clarification of goals, response
access=generation, response evaluation, and behavioral
enactment. In the first step, encoding social cues, an individual must scan and attend to environmental cues. However,
because a large number of environmental cues are simultaneously being produced, an individual will selectively attend
to, and focus on, a limited number of environmental cues.
Next, the child must interpret the meaning behind the social
cues. Meaning is assigned to social cues through inferences
about the motives or intent of the behavior, and is related
to the individual’s emotional needs, goals, and physiological
arousal (e.g., angry, using drugs; Crick and Dodge 1994;
Dodge 1993; Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Huesmann 1998).
Third, the individual must select a goal or desired outcome
for the current situation. Such goals are instrumental (e.g.,
solving a problem) or interpersonal (e.g., retaliation), external (e.g., obtaining an object), or internal (e.g., feeling
happy), and can be influenced by the individual’s personality
or emotional state (Dodge and Schwartz 1997). Fourth, an
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
624
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
individual must access all possible behavioral responses
from his or her long-term memory. Some individuals access
multiple responses, whereas for others the first response
accessed is the behavior enacted. Fifth, the individual must
evaluate each response to determine whether the accessed
response will help reach a potential goal, and whether she
or he can perform that behavior effectively (i.e., has selfefficacy). Further, if self-control functions are not properly
in place, the individual is less likely to fully evaluate all
behavioral responses and will engage in the first behavioral
response accessed (Dodge 1993; Dodge and Schwartz 1997).
Finally, behavioral responses are chosen based on the individual’s goals and self-efficacy regarding the behavior. In most
cases, this is an automatic and ongoing process. If, however,
the individual is involved in a new social situation, the
process can be very rational and conscious.
Concurrent and longitudinal research suggests that children
and adolescents who engage in deviant behaviors are more
likely to have the following SIP deficits: encoding and interpreting social cues, response generation, aggressive conflict
problem-solving skills, hostile attributions under ambiguous
and accidental situations, hypervigilance to threatening cues,
and hold more self-efficacy beliefs and positive evaluations
toward aggression (Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge et al.
2003; Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Fontaine et al. 2002; Slaby
and Guerra 1988; Webster-Stratton and Lindsay 1999).
Further, while research has predominantly explored the association between SIP deficits with aggression, some empirical
research has suggested that SIP deficits are related to multiple
types of deviant behaviors such as vandalism, theft, murder,
rape, assault, dating violence, and using a weapon (Brendgen
et al. 2002; Fontaine et al. 2002; Slaby and Guerra 1988).
Although there appears to be robust evidence linking SIP deficits with deviant behaviors, little research has explained
why some children, but not others, have SIP deficits. In order
to understand how deficits are formed, early parental
experiences must be examined.
Parental Influences
Although not part of the SIP heuristic, several researchers
have suggested, theoretically, that ineffective parenting
influences the development of SIP deficits. Reviews have
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
625
suggested that parenting practices, such as ineffective=harsh
discipline, physical abuse, effective monitoring=supervision,
emotional involvement=warmth (i.e., attachment), communication, and witnessing aggression may influence the development of SIP, and in turn, influence the development of
deviant behaviors (Dodge 1993; Dodge and Pettit 2003;
Dodge and Schwartz 1997; Pettit 1997). For example, physical abuse is associated with the development of hypervigilance toward hostile cues and hostile attribution biases,
witnessing parental aggression is thought to teach children
to evaluate positively the use of aggression, and attachment
is thought to influence SIP through (in)secure attachments
and (mal)adaptive schemas (Dodge et al. 1990; Huesmann
1998; Dodge and Schwartz 1997). SIP researchers have suggested that monitoring=supervision and communication also
are important in the development of deviant behaviors.
However, these constructs have not been tested in relation
to SIP. Overall, ineffective=harsh discipline and physical
abuse are the most extensively studied. Further, very little
empirical work has been conducted to fully understand the
origins of SIP (Dodge and Schwartz 1997), and whether the
aforementioned hypothesized parenting practices do influence the development of SIP.
Empirical Research
In the limited empirical work that has been conducted, evidence suggests that physical abuse, punishment=discipline,
parent-to-child aggression, and maternal support and control
do influence the development of SIP deficits (e.g., encoding
errors, accessing aggressive responses, increased hostile
attribution bias, positive evaluations of aggression, positive
attitudes toward violence, sensitivity toward hostile cues,
aggressive response selection; Brendgen et al. 2002; Dodge
et al. 1990; Dodge et al. 1995; Gomez and Gomez 2000;
Gomez et al. 2001; Weiss et al. 1992). However, much more
work is needed to fully examine the origins of SIP. Furthermore, evidence suggests that SIP deficits partially mediate
the relation between ineffective parenting and deviant behaviors (e.g., aggression, externalizing behavior problems, physical violence [e.g., fighting, using a weapon], and dating
violence). However, there are mixed results regarding which
SIP steps mediate the ineffective parenting–aggression link.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
626
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
For example, encoding errors and accessing aggressive
responses mediated the relation between physical abuse and
externalizing behavior problems, whereas hostile attributions
and positive evaluations of aggression did not (Dodge et al.
1995). Therefore, future research needs to be conducted to
examine the full extent to which SIP may mediate associations
between parenting and deviance.
Finally, it is noteworthy that low self-control appears to be
linked with SIP. For example, Dodge et al. (1997) found evidence suggesting that impulsivity (i.e., low self-control) was
related to encoding errors (SIP step 1), and that encoding
errors were associated with reactive aggression (i.e., when
an individual responds angrily or defensively without thought
when frustrated or provoked) rather than proactive aggression
(i.e., when an individual deliberately behaves aggressively to
achieve a goal). Therefore, SIP deficits may mediate the link
between self-control and reactive aggression. Further, Dodge
(1993) argued that individuals who engage in reactive aggression are less likely to fully evaluate all possible behavioral
choices (step 5) and engage in the first response accessed.
This sounds like a lack of self-control in that the individual
fails to stop and think about other possible choices. Thus, it
seems that self-control also would be related to step 5
(response evaluation) and, in turn, related to reactive aggression. Although only speculative, it appears that self-control
can be linked to SIP through two SIP steps: step 1 (encoding
social cues) and step 5 (response evaluation). However, no
known empirical work has been conducted to examine
whether self-control is linked with any of the SIP steps. Interestingly, Guerra (1993) suggested that self-control is related to
problem-solving skills (i.e., SIP), and Gibbs et al. (1996) noted
that low self-control may not lead to aggression or other
deviant behaviors unless some form of cognitive deficit is present. Thus, it appears that self-control and SIP are linked, and
future work should examine theorized associations between
self-control and SIP, as well as how such associations
influence the development of deviant behaviors.
DISCUSSION
Two possible mechanisms (i.e., self-control and SIP) have been
presented that may mediate the link between ineffective
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
627
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
parenting (e.g., coercion theory) and deviant behaviors. At
present, there appears to be some empirical evidence
suggesting that self-control and SIP partially mediate the
influence ineffective parenting has on deviant behaviors. In
the section that follows, a proposed integrated model will
be presented by beginning with a discussion of three areas
in which coercion theory, GTC, and SIP converge, followed
by a discussion of the research implications for the integrated
model including research questions and data collection procedures. Finally, limitations and contributions the model
provides to the field will be considered.
Areas of Convergence
Parenting Practices
There appear to be eight main parenting variables that
should be assessed when examining how parents influence
the development of self-control, SIP, or deviant behaviors:
attachment, supervision=monitoring, discipline=punishment,
communication, recognition of deviant behaviors, problem
solving, positive parenting, and positive reinforcement.
Coercion theory, GTC, and SIP scholars appear to agree that
attachment, supervision=monitoring, discipline=punishment,
and communication are important influences on self-control,
SIP, and deviant behaviors. Recognition of deviant behaviors
is found within two of the theories: coercion theory and GTC.
Finally, coercion theory offers three additional parenting
variables that GTC and SIP researchers do not consider:
problem solving, positive parenting, and consistent positive
reinforcement for socially appropriate and competent
behaviors.
Mediating Mechanisms
The second area in which coercion theory, GTC, and SIP
converge is in the area of mediating mechanisms. First,
self-control appears to fill the ‘‘black box,’’ as discussed by
Snyder et al. (2003), linking ineffective parenting with
deviant behaviors. It seems likely that if a parent engages
in ineffective parenting practices (e.g., coercive parenting),
self-control would be underdeveloped resulting in an increased likelihood of engaging in deviant behaviors. In fact,
Unnever et al. (2006) found that coercive parenting negatively
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
628
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
influenced self-control, and that self-control partially
mediated coercive parenting and deviance. The authors
suggested that when parents engage in a coercive style of
parenting, parents are likely to be modeling low self-control
in that the parents are punishing their children angrily and
erratically, and potentially in an impulsive manner, in turn,
suggesting that the parents themselves have low levels of
self-control.
Second, SIP also may help to fill the ‘‘black box’’ (Snyder
et al. 2003). For example, effective parenting, according to
coercion theory, is responsible for teaching a child how to
maintain positive social interactions with others, regulate
emotions within social interactions, problem solve, and have
internal or cognitive resources (Peterson and Leigh 1990;
Snyder et al. 2003). SIP involves generating and evaluating
possible ways to respond in social situations with the end
result of maintaining positive social interactions with others.
Throughout this process, the individual must ‘‘problem
solve’’ to decide the most appropriate response. Further, it
is implied that the individual regulates his or her emotions
so as not to engage in socially unacceptable behaviors.
Therefore, it is possible that effective parenting, as demonstrated by coercion theory, also may be influential in the
development of socially relevant SIP skills. As a result, SIP
would mediate the association between parenting and
deviant behaviors. One such possible ineffective parenting
strategy is that of coercive parenting. In fact, Unnever et al.
(2006) found that coercive parenting was associated with
the development of SIP deficits (i.e., holding aggressive
attitudes), and that SIP deficits partially mediated the association between coercive parenting and deviant behaviors.
Third, research appears to suggest that low self-control is
influential in the development of SIP deficits (i.e., encoding
errors [step 1]; evaluating all possible behavioral choices
[step 5]), and that SIP deficits partially mediate the link
between low self-control and reactive aggression (Dodge
1993; Dodge et al. 1997). Individuals with low self-control
seem to have deficits while encoding social cues and have
an inability to fully evaluate all behavioral choices. Thus,
such individuals are more likely to view social cues inappropriately and engage in deviant responses quickly. Additionally, Snyder et al. (2003) suggested that self-regulation
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
629
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
(i.e., self-control) processes were associated with cognitive
skills. Having a cognitive deficit is likely to decrease an
individual’s ability to plan behaviors or ability to suppress
inappropriate behaviors. Moffitt (1993) further suggested
when an individual has difficulties with self-control, she or
he is likely to have deficits within the cognitive system
(i.e., the ‘‘executive’’ functions). Therefore, it appears that
self-control and cognitive skills (i.e., SIP) are associated in
some manner, and are associated with an increase in deviant
behaviors.
Types of Deviant Behaviors
The third and final area in which coercion theory, GTC,
and SIP converge pertains to the types of deviant behaviors
in which individuals engage. Although research conducted
on coercion theory, self-control, and SIP has included different age participants, has used different methodologies, and
the majority of SIP research has examined aggression only
(see e.g., Capaldi and Patterson 1996; Dodge et al. 1990;
Vazsonyi et al. 2001; Weiss et al. 1992), it appears, overall,
that coercion theory, GTC, and SIP address many similar
types of deviant behaviors. For example, all three theories
are predictive of vandalism, physical aggression=assault,
sexual assault (e.g., rape), and theft=stealing (Capaldi and
Patterson 1996; Dishion 1990; Fontaine et al. 2002;
LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Slaby and Guerra 1988;
Vazsonyi et al. 2001). In addition, there are many similarities
between at least two of the three theories. For example, both
coercion theory and SIP address externalizing behaviors
(Dodge et al. 1995; Fagot and Leve 1998), both coercion theory and GTC address verbal aggression and alcohol=drug use
(Brody et al. 1996; Dishion 1990; Vazsonyi et al. 2001), and
both GTC and SIP address whether an individual carries a
weapon (Brendgen et al. 2002; Burton et al. 1999). Therefore, it appears that the same types of deviant behaviors
are all associated with the coercion theory, GTC, and SIP.
Research Implications
From the research examined and discussed thus far, it is
apparent there are many areas in which coercion theory,
the GTC, and SIP overlap that offer avenues for potential
integration and future research. It should be noted that
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
630
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
traditionally Patterson et al. (1992) have held the position
that internal cognitive structures do not mediate the link
between parenting and deviance, and Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) have argued against theoretical integration
and that self-control solely mediates the parenting–deviance
link. However, empirical evidence suggests that both
self-control and SIP mediate the association between ineffective parenting and deviance, and that coercive parenting is
associated with both self-control and SIP. As such, possible
theoretical integration should be explored.
Recently, Simons et al. (2007) supported the notion of
studying factors that may mediate the association between
parenting and deviance, and alluded to the idea of integrating theories. Specifically, the authors examined whether
self-control (GTC), anger=frustration (strain theory), hostile
view of relationships (SIP), and deviance acceptability and
conventional goals (social learning and social control theories) mediated the parenting–deviance association. Results
indicated that self-control and deviance acceptability mediated the association between monitoring=discipline and
deviance, and self-control and anger=frustration mediated
the association between harsh=rejecting parenting and deviance. Results also indicated that self-control and hostile
views were correlated. The authors concluded that theories
that have historically been thought of as competing may
actually be complementary. Overall, the study points to
the importance of examining various mediating mechanisms
from multiple theories to understand the parenting–deviance
association, and provides empirical evidence that multiple
theories may work together in the explanation of deviance.
Additionally, the study provides some correlational evidence
that self-control and SIP are associated. However, the study
is limited in that only a few parenting practices were examined; the very limitation that the authors argue with respect
to past research. Secondly, the authors only examined hostile
views of relationships, a SIP deficit in the interpretation of
social cues (step 2). The proposed integration of coercion
theory, GTC, and SIP will help to address many of the deficits
in past theorizing about the etiology of deviance, offers a
number of novel research questions that generally have been
untested, and provide advancement in the theoretical understanding regarding the etiology of deviance.
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
631
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Research Questions
Figure 1 offers a guide for testing six novel research questions. First, what specific parenting practices are influential
in the development of self-control, SIP, and deviance? Are
additional parenting practices involved in the etiology of
self-control and SIP beyond the original conceptualizations?
On the left side of Figure 1, an effective parenting construct
is defined by eight parenting variables theorized across
coercion theory, GTC, and SIP. The figure suggests that an
overall effective parenting construct is associated with the
development of self-control, SIP, and deviance. Originally,
FIGURE 1 Final Integrated Model.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
632
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that all four of the
hypothesized parenting practices must be present in order for
an adequate level of self-control to be developed, and
research has found that overall effective parenting
constructs are influential in the etiology of self-control and
deviance (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2003, 1998; Perrone et al.
2004). However, it is possible that the eight parenting constructs may each individually impact the etiology of
self-control, SIP, and deviance, as past research also has
demonstrated. The question then arises as to whether all parenting practices impact self-control, SIP, and deviance in the
same manner, as theoretically implied, or do some parenting
practices matter more than others for the development of
self-control, SIP, or deviance. Therefore, future research
should elucidate whether and how, uniquely or additively,
these parenting variables influence self-control, SIP, and
deviance. Furthermore, is possible that additional parenting
variables not theorized may still be influential in the development of self-control, SIP, and deviance (e.g., psychological autonomy; Hay 2001). As such, future research also
should examine non-theorized parenting variables to determine their association with self-control, SIP, and deviance.
Second, are self-control and SIP correlated? Does selfcontrol impact how an individual encodes social cues (step 1)
and evaluates responses (step 5)? Is self-control also associated with the remaining steps of SIP? Lines are indicated in
Figure 1 from self-control to SIP suggesting that self-control
impacts SIP. Thus far, it seems that self-control and SIP steps
1 and 5 are theoretically associated. Furthermore, empirical
evidence has indicated that self-control was correlated with
hostile views of relationships and holding aggressive attitudes (deficits in step 2: interpretation of social cues and
step 5: response evaluation as the child positively evaluated
aggressive responses; Simons et al. 2007; Unnever et al.
2006). Given that past research has suggested possible links
between self-control and SIP, future research needs to fully
examine the interrelationship between self-control and SIP.
Third, to what extent do both self-control and SIP mediate
the association between parenting and deviance? As indicated in Figure 1, self-control and SIP both demonstrate an
indirect link between parenting and deviance. As past
research has demonstrated, self-control and SIP at least
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
633
partially mediate the parenting–deviance link. However,
given the possibility that self-control and SIP are associated,
would the inclusion of this association and, thus, both variables in a model help to explain more variance in the development of deviance? Future research should explore
simultaneously how the inclusion of both self-control and
SIP in the model explains the parenting–deviance association. Additionally, it is possible that self-control and SIP
may mediate the association between specific types of parenting practices with specific types of deviant behaviors
differently. For example, Hope and Chapple (2005) and
Chapple et al. (2005) provide one illustration of the complexities regarding how parenting and deviance factors are associated. Recall in their analyses, self-control fully mediated
the relation between maternal attachment and adolescents’
substance abuse, but only partially mediated the relation
between attachment and adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors.
Additionally, self-control partially mediated the relation
between parental monitoring and substance abuse, but did
not mediate the relation between monitoring and risky
sexual behaviors. Thus, it is possible that self-control fully
mediates the relation between some parenting–deviance
relations, but only partially between other parenting–
deviance relations, and this idea may be extrapolated to
SIP. As such, future research should examine how selfcontrol and SIP mediate the associations between various
types of parenting and deviant behaviors.
Fourth, does the proposed model explain all types of
deviance? An overall deviance construct is indicated in
Figure 1 to suggest that the etiology of all types of deviant
behaviors (i.e., crime analogous behaviors, aggression, criminal behaviors, etc.) would be explained. Thus far, empirical
research conducted on coercion theory, GTC, and SIP all
allude to similar types of deviant behaviors being explained.
However, more research is needed to determine whether the
proposed parenting variables and mediating mechanisms
explain varied types of deviance in similar ways. As such,
to fully test the theory, all types of deviant behaviors should
be included in that conceptualization.
Fifth, how does the bidirectional coercion process
between parent and child impact the development of selfcontrol and SIP? Figure 1 demonstrates a bidirectional arrow
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
634
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
between effective parenting and deviance indicative of the
bidirectional coercion process between parent and child.
Given the theoretical and empirical support for the bidirectional coercion process, future research should examine
whether this bidirectional process also helps to explain the
development of self-control and SIP. It seems that the coercion process would negatively impact the development of
self-control and increase the likelihood of SIP deficits resulting in deviant behaviors. That is, because of ineffective parenting, the child would develop lower levels of self-control
and higher levels of SIP deficits. In fact, Unnever et al.
(2006) empirically validated this assumption. Furthermore,
because the coercion process is bidirectional, the child’s
behaviors also would impact the specific parenting practices.
Therefore, it seems that as the child engages in the deviant
behaviors, the parents would change their parenting to more
negative parenting practices. As a result, self-control and SIP
would be further negatively impacted. This assumption seemingly falls in line with how the coercion process occurs;
however, future research does need to explore whether
and how self-control and SIP are associated with the bidirectional coercion process.
Sixth and finally, do levels of self-control and SIP deficits
change in accordance with the early and late onset trajectories? Given that the developmental trajectories individuals
follow are influenced by the coercion process and the coercion process has been empirically linked with self-control
and SIP, it seems possible that levels of self-control and SIP
deficits may change in accordance with the developmental
trajectories. Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) do
not specify developmental trajectories, they have suggested
that varying levels of deviance are a result of varying levels
of self-control, which are initially formed by varying levels
of ineffective parenting. Therefore, it seems that adolescents
who have parents that are highly ineffective would engage in
deviance for longer durations (i.e., early onset offending) and
adolescents who have parents with moderate levels of
effective parenting would engage in deviance for shorter
durations (i.e., late onset offending). Furthermore, it seems
that individuals who follow the early onset trajectory are
individuals with the least amount of self-control and the
highest levels of SIP deficits, and individuals who follow
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
635
the late onset trajectory are individuals with a moderate level
of self-control and SIP deficits. As such, it seems important to
ascertain whether various levels of self-control and SIP deficits exist between the early and late onset trajectories, and
how various levels of ineffective parenting influence the
development of self-control and SIP.
Research Agenda
Overall, a number of novel research questions emerge
with the proposed integrated model. As such, it is important
to consider methods for testing it. It seems that to best analyze this model, a multi-trait multi-method data collection
procedure should be utilized to collect new cross-sectional
and longitudinal data. By utilizing a multi-trait multi-method
data collection procedure, common method variance, multicollinearity, and interrater biases can be reduced, and the
reliability and validity of results should be increased. For
both the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, observational and self-report data should be collected from the
children, as well as the parents, care-providers, and teachers.
Observational data will be particularly important for children
who are younger, and cannot complete a self-report questionnaire, as well as for parent–child interactions.
Initially, cross-sectional data could be collected from
children of various ages to begin examining the correlational
relations within the model until longitudinal data can be
obtained. Simultaneously, a longitudinal data collection
study could begin with the youngest of the cross-sectional
participants with the intentions of following the participants
through young adulthood. At a minimum level, data would
need to be collected on the eight parenting variables
described in the model, self-control, the first five steps of
SIP, the coercion process, and several types of deviance.
When collecting data, the conceptualization of each
construct should be consistent with the definitions provided
earlier. As such, it is possible that some constructs may need
to be developed while other previously established measures
may be adopted. For example, Grasmick et al.’s (1993)
self-control measure assesses an individual’s self-control
according to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control
description. Of course, all measures utilized must be age
and informant appropriate.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
636
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
A number of longitudinal datasets are available for
empirically examining some of the aforementioned questions, such as the National Longitudinal Youth Survey and
the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. However, the problem with conducting secondary
data analysis is that the data generally do not capture all constructs that one would like to examine, and when a construct
can be created, the construct generally does not measure
the variables entirely consistent with theory. As such, carefully designed original data collection remains important to
testing the proposed integrated model.
Supporting the Proposed Model
It is anticipated that support would be found for the proposed model. Specifically, it is expected that more variance
in deviance would be explained compared to prior investigations, and fewer direct relations between parenting and
deviance will result from self-control and SIP mediating the
parenting–deviance association. Additional support for the
model would include finding that (a) self-control does indeed
impact the development of SIP, at least with regard to steps 1
and 5, (b) the coercion process is associated with self-control
and with SIP, (c) the eight hypothesized parenting variables
are uniquely or additively associated with self-control, SIP,
and deviance, and (d) self-control and SIP deficits follow
along early and late onset trajectories. One note of caution
though with respect to mediation: if self-control and SIP do
not together fully mediate the association between parenting
and deviance in all instances, it does not mean a lack of support for the model. Rather it would suggest that additional
mediating mechanisms may be important for the parenting–deviance association, or that mediation may depend
on the specific parenting and deviance constructs measuring.
CONCLUSION
The proposed model has potential to make a number of contributions to the current field. First, eight main parenting variables (i.e., attachment=investment, supervision=monitoring,
discipline=punishment, communication, recognition of deviant behaviors, problem solving, positive parenting, and positive reinforcement) appear to be influential in development
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
637
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
of self-control, SIP, and deviant behaviors. Second, low
self-control appears to be influential in the development of
SIP deficits. Third, it is possible that both self-control and
SIP could fill the ‘‘black box’’ of coercion theory as discussed
by Snyder et al. (2003). Fourth, it is apparent that coercion
theory, self-control, and SIP are all predictive of similar types
of deviance. Fifth, the coercion process may be influential in
the etiology of self-control and SIP. Sixth and finally, selfcontrol and SIP deficits may follow along the early and late
onset trajectories of deviance.
LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL MODEL EXPANSIONS
While pushing the field forward in a number of ways, the
current conceptualization is not without its limitations. First,
the present conceptualization only explored the possibility of
two mediating mechanisms. There is a possibility that additional mediating mechanisms exist. For example, according
to Strain Theory, anger=frustration is thought to influence
the engagement of deviance when parents produce strain
by rejecting, neglecting or abusing the child, as well as utilizing strict, harsh, or inconsistent supervision=discipline
(Agnew 2001). In fact, given that anger impacts the meaning
individuals assign to social cues (step 2 of SIP), anger is not
inconsistent with the proposed model. Additionally, Hirschi
(1969) suggested that the social bond an individual feels with
society is influential in the development of deviant behaviors. While the theory does not outright predict that an individual’s social bond would mediate the link between
ineffective parenting and deviance, the possibility does exist
as parents are responsible to a certain extent for the development of their child’s social bond with society. As such, the
ideas of anger=frustration and having a social bond with
society do imply that there may be other variables beyond
self-control and SIP that mediate the link between ineffective
parenting and deviance. As such, future research and theory
expansion should continue to explore the possibility of
additional mediating mechanisms.
Second, constructs typically associated with social learning theory have not been considered within the current
conceptualization. As coercion theory has roots within social
learning theory (Patterson 1982), it seems plausible to also
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
638
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
include constructs such as modeling and positive reinforcement of deviant behaviors. In fact, Unnever et al. (2006)
found that parental reinforcement of aggression was directly
associated with delinquency, as well as indirectly via
self-control. Therefore, including social learning theory constructs within empirical examinations of the current model
would not be outside the realm of the current conceptualization, and could be further explored.
Third, the current conceptualization only explores how
parenting influences the development of self-control, SIP,
and deviant behaviors. The current conceptualization
does not explore the extent to which peers are influential
in the development of deviance. However, as observed
within both the early and late onset trajectories, peers are
influential in child and adolescent deviance (Kiesner et al.
2001). Further, research has indicated that peers were associated with SIP deficits and deviance (Dishion and Skaggs
2000; Dodge et al. 2003). Thus, it is necessary to examine
how peers and ineffective parenting uniquely and additively
influence the development of self-control, SIP, and deviant
behaviors.
Fourth and finally, the present conceptualization has not
explored the possibility that sex may influence how parenting influences self-control, SIP, or deviance. Research has
suggested, in some cases, there does appear to be differences
between males and females in how the coercion process and
SIP influence deviance (Dishion and Skaggs 2000; Fontaine
et al. 2002); however, sex does not appear to moderate the
relation between self-control and deviance (see e.g., Burton
et al. 1999). Thus, it remains a possibility that the present
model may be moderated by sex warranting examination
in future research.
Despite these limitations, the current conceptualization
and integrated model does push theory and research forward
by demonstrating that coercion theory, GTC, and SIP can be
integrated to gain a better understanding of the etiology of
deviance. By conducting research according to the proposed
model, researchers should have a deeper, more enriching
developmental perspective as to how parenting influences
the etiology of deviance. With a more complete understanding of how ineffective parenting influences deviance, intervention and prevention efforts could be tailored to better
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
639
meet the needs of children, adolescents, and families and
truly decrease child and adolescent deviance.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert. 2001. ‘‘Building on the Foundation of General Strain
Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime
and Delinquency.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
38:319–361.
Arneklev, Bruce J., Harold G. Grasmick, Charles R. Tittle, and Robert J.
Bursik. 1993. ‘‘Low Self-Control and Imprudent Behaviors.’’ Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 9:225–247.
Bank, Lew, Marion S. Forgatch, Gerald R. Patterson, and Rebecca A.
Fetrow. 1993. ‘‘Parenting Practices of Single Mothers: Mediators of
Negative Contextual Factors.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family
55:371–384.
Brendgen, Mara, Frank Vitaro, Richard E. Tremblay, and Brigitte Wanner.
2002. ‘‘Parent and Peer Effects on Delinquency-Related Violence and
Dating Violence: A Test of Two Mediational Models.’’ Social Development 11:225–244.
Brody, Gene H., Shannon Dorsey, Rex Forehand, and Lisa Armistead.
2002. ‘‘Unique and Protective Contributions of Parenting and
Classroom Processes to the Adjustment of African American
Children Living in Single-Parent Families.’’ Child Development
73:274–286.
Brody, Gene H. and Xiaojia Ge. 2001. ‘‘Linking Parenting Processes and
Self-Regulation to Psychological Functioning and Alcohol Use During
Early Adolescence.’’ Journal of Family Psychology 15:82–94.
Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman, and Douglas Flor. 1996. ‘‘Parental
Religiosity, Family Processes, and Youth Competence in Rural
Two-Parent African American Families.’’ Developmental Psychology
32:696–706.
Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman, Trellis Smith, and Nicole M. Gibson.
1999. ‘‘Sibling Relationships in Rural African American Families.’’
Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:1046–1057.
Burt, Callie H., Ronald L. Simons, and Leslie G. Simons. 2006. ‘‘A Longitudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting and the Stability of
Self-Control. Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime.’’
Criminology 44:353–396.
Burton, Velmer S., T. David Evans, Francis T., Cullen, Kathleen M.
Olivares, and R. Gregory Dunaway. 1999. ‘‘Age, Self-Control, and
Adults’ Offending Behaviors: A Research Note Assessing A General
Theory of Crime.’’ Journal of Criminal Justice 27:45–54.
Capaldi, Deborah M. and Gerald R. Patterson. 1996. ‘‘Can Violent
Offenders be Distinguished from Frequent Offenders: Predictions from
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
640
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Childhood to Adolescence.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 33:206–231.
Chapple, Constance L., Trina L. Hope, and Scott W. Whiteford. 2005.
‘‘The Direct and Indirect Effects of Parental Bonds, Parental Drug
Use, and Self-Control on Adolescent Substance Use.’’ Journal of Child
and Adolescent Substance Abuse 14:17–38.
Cochran, John K., Peter B. Wood, Christine S. Sellers, Wendy Wilkerson,
and Mitchell B. Chamlin. 1998. ‘‘Academic Dishonesty and Low
Self-Control: An Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime.’’
Deviant Behaviors 19:227–255.
Crick, Nicki R. and Kenneth A. Dodge. 1994. ‘‘A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children’s Social
Adjustment.’’ Psychological Bulletin 115:74–101.
Dishion, Thomas J. 1990. ‘‘The Family Ecology of Boys’ Peer Relations in
Middle Childhood.’’ Child Development 61:874–892.
Dishion, Thomas J. and Gerald R. Patterson. 1997. ‘‘The Timing and
Severity of Antisocial Behavior: Three Hypotheses within an Ecological Framework.’’ Pp. 205–217. In Handbook of Antisocial Behavior,
edited by David M. Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack D. Maser.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Dishion, Thomas J. and Nani M. Skaggs. 2000. ‘‘An Ecological Analysis
of Monthly ‘Bursts’ in Early Adolescent Substance Use.’’ Applied
Developmental Science 4:89–97.
Dodge, Kenneth A. 1993. ‘‘Social-Cognitive Mechanisms in the Development of Conduct Disorder and Depression.’’ Annual Review of
Psychology 44:559–584.
Dodge, Kenneth A., John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1990.
‘‘Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence.’’ Science 250:1678–1683.
Dodge, Kenneth A., Jennifer E. Lansford, Virginia S. Burks, John E. Bates,
Gregory S. Pettit, Reid Fontaine, and Joseph M. Price. 2003. ‘‘Peer
Rejection and Social Information-Processing Factors in the Development of Aggressive Behavior Problems in Children.’’ Child Development 74:374–393.
Dodge, Kenneth A., John E. Lochman, Jennifer D. Harnish, John E.
Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 1997. ‘‘Reactive and Proactive
Aggression in School Children and Psychiatrically Impaired
Chronically Assaultive Youth.’’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology
106:37–51.
Dodge, Kenneth A. and Gregory S. Pettit. 2003. ‘‘A Biopsychosocial
Model of the Development of Chronic Conduct Problems in Adolescence.’’ Developmental Psychology 39:349–371.
Dodge, Kenneth A., Gregory S. Pettit, John E. Bates, and Ernest Valente.
1995. ‘‘Social Information-Processing Patterns Partially Mediate the
Effect of Early Physical Abuse on Later Conduct Problems.’’ Journal
of Abnormal Psychology 104:632–643.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
641
Dodge, Kenneth A., Gregory S. Pettit, Cynthia L. McClaskey, and Melissa
M. Brown. 1986. ‘‘Social Competence in Children.’’ Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development 51:1–85.
Dodge, Kenneth A. and David Schwartz. 1997. ‘‘Social Information Processing Mechanisms in Aggressive Behavior.’’ Pp. 171–180. In Handbook of Antisocial Behavior, edited by David M. Stoff, James Breiling,
and Jack D. Maser. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Fagot, Beverly I. and Leslie D. Leve. 1998. ‘‘Teacher Ratings of Externalizing Behavior at School Entry for Boys and Girls: Similar Early
Predictors and Different Correlates.’’ Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 39:555–566.
Feldman, S. Shirley and Daniel A. Weinberger. 1994. ‘‘Self-Restraint as
a Mediator of Family Influences on Boys’ Delinquent Behavior. A
Longitudinal Study.’’ Child Development 65:195–211.
Fletcher, Anne C., Nancy Darling, and Laurence Steinberg. 1995.
‘‘Parental Monitoring and Peer Influences on Adolescent Substance
Use.’’ Pp. 259–271. In Coercion and Punishment in Long-Term
Perspectives, edited by Joan McCord. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Fontaine, Reid G., Virginia S. Burks, and Kenneth A. Dodge.
2002. ‘‘Response Decision Processes and Externalizing Behavior
Problems in Adolescents.’’ Development and Psychopathology
14:107–122.
Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and George E. Higgins. 2003. ‘‘A Test of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory using Structural Equation
Modeling.’’ Criminal Justice and Behavior 30:441–458.
Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin. 1998. ‘‘Parental
Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s General Theory.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 35:40–70.
Gibbs, John C., Granville B. Potter, Alvaro Q. Barriga, and Albert K. Liau.
1996. ‘‘Developing the Helping Skills and Prosocial Motivation of
Aggressive Adolescents in Peer Group Programs.’’ Aggression and
Violent Behavior 1:283–305.
Gomez, Rapson and Andre Gomez. 2000. ‘‘Perceived Maternal Control
and Support as Predictors of Hostile-Biased Attribution of Intent
and Response Selection in Aggressive Boys.’’ Aggressive Behavior
26:155–168.
Gomez, Rapson, Andre Gomez, Lesley DeMello, and Ron Tallent. 2001.
‘‘Perceived Maternal Control and Support: Effects on Hostile Biased
Social Information Processing and Aggression Among Clinic-Referred
Children with High Aggression.’’ Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 42:513–522.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of
Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
642
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik, and Bruce J.
Arneklev. 1993. ‘‘Testing the Core Empirical Implications of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.’’ Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:5–29.
Guerra, Nancy G. 1993. ‘‘Cognitive Development.’’ Pp. 45–62. In
Handbook of Clinical Research and Practice with Adolescents, edited
by Patrick H. Tolan and Bertram J. Cohler. Oxford, England: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hay, Carter. 2001. ‘‘Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of
Self-Control Theory.’’ Criminology 39:707–736.
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. The Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Hope, Trina L. and Constance L. Chapple. 2005. ‘‘Maternal Characteristics, Parenting, and Adolescent Sexual Behavior: The Role of
Self-Control.’’ Deviant Behavior 26:25–45.
Huesmann, L. Rowell. 1998. ‘‘The Role of Social Information Processing
and Cognitive Schema in the Acquisition and Maintenance of
Habitual Aggressive Behavior.’’ Pp. 73–109. In Human Aggression:
Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy, edited by
Russell Geen and Edward Donnerstein. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Jones, Shayne,, Elizabeth Cauffman, and Alex R. Piquero. 2007. ‘‘The
Influence of Parental Support among Incarcerated Adolescent Offenders. The Moderating Effects of Self-Control.’’ Criminal Justice and
Behavior 34:229–245.
Kiesner, Jeff,, Thomas J. Dishion, and Francois Poulin. 2001. ‘‘A Reinforcement Model of Conduct Problems in Children and Adolescents:
Advances in Theory and Intervention.’’ Pp. 264–291. In Conduct Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Jonathan Hill and
Barbara Maughan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LaGrange, Teresa C. and Robert A. Silverman. 1999. ‘‘Low Self-Control
and Opportunity: Testing the General Theory of Crime as an Explanation for Gender Differences in Delinquency.’’ Criminology 37:41–72.
Latimore, T. Lorraine, Charles R. Tittle, and Harold G. Grasmick. 2006.
‘‘Childrearing, Self-Control, and Crime: Additional Evidence.’’ Sociological Inquiry 76:343–371.
Loeber, Rolf and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. 1986. ‘‘Family Factors as
Correlates and Predictors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency.’’ Crime and Justice 7:29–149.
Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. ‘‘The Neuropsychology of Conduct Disorder.’’
Development and Psychopathology 5:135–151.
———. 1997. ‘‘Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Offending: A Complementary Pair of Developmental Theories.’’ Pp. 11–54.
In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, edited by
Terence P. Thornberry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
643
Nagin, Daniel S. and Raymond Paternoster. 1993. ‘‘Enduring Individual
Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.’’ Law and Society
Review 27:467–496.
Normandeau, Sylvie and Frederic Guay. 1998. ‘‘Preschool Behavior
and First-Grade School Achievement: The Mediational Role of
Cognitive Self-Control.’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 90:
111–121.
Patterson, Gerald R. 1982. Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR:
Castalia Publishing Company.
———. 1996. ‘‘Some Characteristics of a Developmental Theory for
Early-Onset Delinquency.’’ Pp. 81–124. In Frontiers of Developmental Psychopathology, edited by Mark F. Lenzenweger and Jeffrey J.
Haugaard. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1997. ‘‘Performance Models for Parenting: A Social Interactional Perspective.’’ Pp. 193–226. In Parenting and Children’s
Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory,
edited by Joan E. Grusec and Leon Kuczynski. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Patterson, Gerald R., John B. Reid, and Thomas J. Dishion. 1992.
Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, Gerald R. and Karen Yoerger. 1993. ‘‘Developmental Models
for Delinquent Behavior.’’ Pp. 140–172. In Mental Disorder and
Crime, edited by Sheilagh Hodgins. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
———. 1997. ‘‘A Developmental Model for Late-Onset Delinquency.’’
Pp. 119–177. In Motivation and Delinquency, edited by D. Wayne
Osgood. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
———. 2002. ‘‘A Developmental Model for Early- and Late-Onset
Delinquency.’’ Pp. 147–172. In Antisocial Behavior in Children
and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis and Model for Intervention, edited by John B. Reid, Gerald R. Patterson, and James
Snyder. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Patterson, Gerald R. and Lew Bank. 1989. ‘‘Some Amplifying Mechanisms for Pathologic Processes in Families.’’ Pp. 167–209. In Systems
and Development, edited by Megan R. Gunnar and Esther Thelen.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patterson, Gerald R., Lew Bank, and Mike Stoolmiller. 1990. ‘‘The
Preadolescent’s Contributions to Disrupted Family Process.’’
Pp. 107–133. In From Childhood to Adolescence: A Transitional
Period, edited by Raymond Montemayor, Gerald R. Adams, and
Thomas P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patterson, Gerald R., Marion S. Forgatch, Karen L. Yoerger, and Mike
Stoolmiller. 1998. ‘‘Variables that Initiate and Maintain an EarlyOnset Trajectory for Juvenile Offending.’’ Development and
Psychopathology 10:531–547.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
644
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
Patterson, Gerald R., Thomas J. Dishion, and Lew Bank. 1984. ‘‘Family
Interaction: A Process Model of Deviancy Training.’’ Aggressive
Behavior 10:253–267.
Perrone, Dina, Christopher J. Sullivan, Travis C. Pratt, and Satenik
Margaryan. 2004. ‘‘Parental Efficacy, Self-Control, and Delinquency:
A Test of a General Theory of Crime on a Nationally Representative
Sample of Youth.’’ International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 48:298–312.
Peterson, Gary W. and Geoffry K. Leigh. 1990. ‘‘The Family and Social
Competence in Adolescence.’’ Pp. 97–138. In Developing Social
Competency in Adolescence, edited by Thomas P. Gullotta, Gerald
R. Adams, and Raymond Montemayor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pettit, Gregory S. 1997. ‘‘The Developmental Course of Violence
and Aggression.’’ Anger, Aggression, and Violence 20:
283–299.
Piquero, Alex and Stephen Tibbetts. 1996. ‘‘Specifying the Direct and
Indirect Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offenders’ Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational
Offending.’’ Justice Quarterly 13:481–510.
Polakowski, Michael. 1994. ‘‘Linking Self- and Social Control with
Deviance: Illuminating the Structure Underlying a General Theory
of Crime and its Relation to Deviant Activity.’’ Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 10:41–78.
Pratt, Travis C., Michael G. Turner, and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. ‘‘Parental
Socialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of the
Structural Sources of Low Self-Control.’’ Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 41:219–243.
Sampson, Robert J. 2000. ‘‘A Neighborhood-Level Perspective on Social
Change and the Social Control of Adolescent Delinquency.’’ Pp. 178–
188. In Negotiating Adolescence in Times of Social Change, edited by
Lisa J. Crocket and Rainer K. Silbereisen. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Simons, Ronald L., Leslie G. Simons, Yi-Fu Chen, Gene H. Brody, and
Kuei-Hsiu Lin. 2007. ‘‘Identifying the Psychological Factors that
Mediate the Association Between Parenting Practices and Delinquency.’’ Criminology 45:481–517.
Slaby, Ronald G. and Nancy G. Guerra. 1988. ‘‘Cognitive Mediators of
Aggression in Adolescent Offenders: 1. Assessment.’’ Developmental
Psychology 24:580–588.
Snyder, Howard. 2006. ‘‘Juvenile Arrests 2004.’’ Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at
(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp) (accessed January 11, 2008).
Snyder, James and Gerald Patterson. 1987. ‘‘Family Interaction and
Delinquent Behavior.’’ Pp. 216–243. In Handbook of Juvenile
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
Understanding How Parents Influence Deviance
645
Delinquency, edited by Herbert C. Quay. Oxford, England: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Snyder, James, John Reid, and Gerald Patterson. 2003. ‘‘A Social
Learning Model of Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior.’’
Pp. 27–48. In Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency,
edited by Benjamin B. Lahey, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Avshalom Caspi.
New York: Guilford Press.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Robert Agnew. 2006. ‘‘Why is
‘Bad’ Parenting Criminogentic? Implications from Rival Theories.’’
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:3–33.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and Travis C. Pratt. 2003. ‘‘Parental
Management, ADHD, and Delinquent Involvement: Reassessing
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.’’ Justice Quarterly
20:471–500.
Vazsonyi, Alexander T. and Jennifer M. Crosswhite. 2004. ‘‘A Test of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime in African
American Adolescents.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 41:407–432.
Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Lloyd E. Pickering, Marianne Junger, and Dick
Hessing. 2001. ‘‘An Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime: A
Four-Nation Comparative Study of Self-Control and the Prediction
of Deviance.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:
91–131.
Vollmer, Timothy R., John C. Borrero, Joseph S. Lalli, and Dency Daniel.
1999. ‘‘Evaluating Self-Control and Impulsivity in Children with
Severe Behavior Disorders.’’ Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
32:451–466.
Webster-Stratton, Carolyn and Deborah W. Lindsay. 1999. ‘‘Social
Competence and Conduct Problems in Young Children: Issues in
Assessment.’’ Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 28:25–43.
Weinberger, Daniel A. and Gary E. Schwartz. 1990. ‘‘Distress and
Restraint as Superordinate Dimensions of Self-reported Adjustment:
A Typological Perspective.’’ Journal of Personality 58:381–417.
Weiss, Bahr, Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit.
1992. ‘‘Some Consequences of Early Harsh Discipline: Child
Aggression and a Maladaptive Social Information Processing Style.’’
Child Development 63:1321–1335.
Wills, Thomas A., Frederick X. Gibbons, Meg Gerrard, and Gene H.
Brody. 2000. ‘‘Protection and Vulnerability Processes Relevant for
Early Onset of Substance Use: A Test among African American
Children.’’ Health Psychology 19:253–263.
Wills, Thomas A., James M. Sandy, and Alison M. Yaeger. 2002.
‘‘Moderators of the Relation Between Substance Use Level and
Problems: Test of a Self-Regulation Model in Middle Adolescence.’’
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 111:3–21.
646
J. M. Crosswhite and J. L. Kerpelman
JENNIFER M. CROSSWHITE, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Family Studies at the
University of Nebraska at Kearney. Her current research interests include understanding
the etiology of deviance. Specifically, examining how parents are influential in child and
adolescent deviance, what processes may mediate the parenting–deviance association,
and the theoretical advancement regarding these associations.
Downloaded by [Auburn University] at 14:00 07 March 2012
JENNIFER L. KERPELMAN, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Auburn University. She conducts basic and applied research in
the areas of adolescent identity development and adolescents’ relationships with parents,
peers, and romantic partners. She also has created multiple resources designed to promote
positive youth development, and is directing a 5-year, federally funded evaluation study of a
youth-focused relationship education curriculum.