Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483 – 492
Low self-control and coworker delinquency A research note Chris Gibsona,*, John Wrightb a
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Durham Science Center 208, 60th and Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68182-0149, USA b Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 600 Dyer Hall ML 0389, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389, USA
Abstract Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi [A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1990], a large amount of research has shown a link between low self-control and delinquency. Some research has revealed that low self-control has not been able to account for the strong effects of peer delinquency on delinquency. Criminological literature has, until recently, neglected the interactional relationship between low self-control and delinquent peers in predicting delinquency. This study used a sample of employed high school seniors to assess the interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency on occupational delinquency. Regression analyses indicated that the interaction term was a strong predictor of occupational delinquency, even after controlling for several established predictors of delinquency. D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory, a large body of research has examined the effects of low selfcontrol on offending behaviors and deviant acts (Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursik, 1993; Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999; Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Gibbs & Giever, 1995; Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996; Polakowski, 1994; Wright & Cullen, 2000). These studies, overall, have generated moderate support for the hypothesis that low self-control is significantly related to offending and analogous behaviors.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-554-3104; fax: +1-402-554-2610. E-mail address:
[email protected] (C. Gibson).
Tests of self-control theory reveal that low selfcontrol has indirect and direct effects on drunk driving and intentions to drink and drive (Keane et al., 1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996), on self-reported juvenile delinquency (Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993), on adult criminal and analogous behaviors (Arneklev et al., 1993; Burton et al., 1999; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993), on negative social consequences (i.e., quality of friendships, quality of family relationships, attachment to church, delinquent peers) (Evans et al., 1997), on excessive alcohol consumption and class cutting (Gibbs & Giever, 1995), and on courtship aggression (Sellers, 1999). Other studies have also shown that the interaction between low self-control and opportunity to offend has significant effects on crime and delinquency (Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Grasmick et al., 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). While these studies are important and implicate the role of self-control in a wide range of problem
0047-2352/01/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 7 - 2 3 5 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 111 - 8
484
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
behaviors and social outcomes, research is only now beginning to understand the complexity of this relationship. Individuals low in self-control likely face a range of interpersonal relationships and situations where their personality differences interact with the expectations and social boundaries established by context of the interaction. The effects of low self-control may ‘‘interact’’ with the social setting in important ways, either by reducing the potentially deleterious effects associated with low self-control, or by exacerbating them. In a recent test of low self-control theory, Evans et al. (1997) found that delinquent peer influences remained a substantial and significant predictor of criminal behavior even after the effects of low self-control were removed. Their findings led them to conclude that self-control and social learning theory may be related in complex, mutually reinforcing ways. ‘‘The tendency of persons with low self-control to engage in criminal and analogous behaviors,’’ state Evans et al. (1997, p. 494), ‘‘can be exacerbated, or strengthened, by exposure to criminal associates and criminal values.’’ Recognizing the potential interactive effects between measures of individual differences and the social setting, Wright and his colleagues (1998) have recently investigated a ‘‘variable effects’’ model of criminal behavior. They suggest that the impact of explanatory variables, specifically social learning and social bonding variables, are strongest for persons that have a predisposition towards crime such as those with low self-control. They argue that sociological correlates of crime have smaller effects on individuals that do not have individual criminal propensities. In a test of their proposed model, Wright et al. (1998) found that the learning variables (i.e., delinquent associates) that exerted positive effects on crime did so most strongly for individuals with criminal propensities. Although few studies have investigated interaction effects of low self-control and social variables predicting offending behaviors, there is reason to believe that these effects will manifest across social contexts such as the work environment. In a recent study of occupational delinquency among high school students, Wright and Cullen (2000) found that occupational delinquency was affected both by underlying criminal propensities and by exposure to delinquent coworkers on the job. They found empirical support for an interaction effect between prior delinquency and delinquency of coworkers that, in turn, amplified involvement in occupational delinquency. It is likely that delinquent youths select themselves into poor work environments where they come into contact with fellow delinquents, which increases delinquent behavior within the workplace (Wright & Cullen, 2000).
Occupational delinquency Modern youths are sophisticated economic actors, often with fairly extensive employment histories established prior to graduating from high school (Wright, Cullen, & Williams, 1997). Even though working appears to be a common experience among in-school youths, numerous studies have found that certain individual differences differentiate youths who work from those who work extensively (Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993; Cullen, Williams, & Wright, 1997; Elliott & Wofford, 1991; Ruggiero, Greenberger, & Steinberg, 1982; Ruhm, 1995; Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991; Wright et al., 1997). Individual differences such as early school performance difficulties, early drug-use, and early delinquent behavior account for part of the correlation between the average number of hours worked per week and a youth’s misbehavior (Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993). Since delinquent youth most likely self-select themselves into premature work roles at a higher rate than conforming youth points to the possibility that the adolescent workplace is an important domain of behavior that mixes youths with varying levels of criminal propensity. This possibility was examined by Ruggiero et al. (1982), who suggested that ‘‘occupational deviance’’ can be attributed to environmental aspects of the job, specifically coworker occupational delinquency and personal characteristics of the individual worker. Using a sample of high school students from Orange County, California, Ruggiero and colleagues found personal characteristics of workers and work environment factors may often reinforce each other, which may produce deviant occupational behavior. The adolescent workplace, while understudied, appears to be a potentially important context for youth (mis)behavior. While all youths do not participate in work-related deviance, some are more likely than others, some jobs are more likely to provide opportunities for delinquency; and some characteristics of persons and jobs, coupled together, generate more occupational deviance than either alone (Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980). Youth employment thus draws attention to the possible interactive effects between low self-control and variables from other criminological theories. Current study This study attempted to build on Wright and Cullen’s (2000) investigation. The present study extended their research by assessing the interaction effect of low self-control and coworker delinquency in predicting occupational delinquency. This study addressed shortcomings in the research that has been conducted on the ‘‘general theory’’ in two different
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
ways. First, given Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claim that their theory predicts crime across social contexts, low self-control should exert a significant, independent effect on occupational delinquency (Wright & Cullen, 2000). Second, this study also assesses the interaction between low self-control and delinquent coworkers on levels of occupational delinquency. Several scholars suggest that individuals with low self-control and who work in an environment with delinquent coworkers should be significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency, even after controlling for competing theoretical variables such as family cohesiveness or school commitment (Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980; Wright & Cullen, 2000).
Methods
485
Dependent variable Occupational delinquency Involvement in occupational delinquency was measured by a nine-item scale, developed and used by Ruggiero et al. (1982), that assessed the degree of participation in a range of misbehaviors while at work, such as taking things from an employer or employee, giving away goods or services without permission, or lying to the employer to get or keep a job (see Appendix A). Responses for each item ranged on a three-point scale from zero (never) through two (often). To compute a general occupational delinquency scale, responses were summed across items where higher scores indicated increased occupational delinquent involvement. An estimated reliability coefficient (a = .79) gave support to the internal consistency of the occupational delinquency scale (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).1
Sample Independent variables Data for the current study came from the TriCities Adolescent Employment Survey (TCAEP). The TCAEP is a cross-sectional self-report survey that was conducted in eight high schools located in northeast Tennessee. The inclusion of high schools was dependent upon whether school officials allowed permission for their students to participate in the survey during the school day. Due to restrictions placed on the investigators by the high schools, only individuals who had reached their senior year in high school were allowed to be surveyed (N = 436); therefore, surveys were administered in homerooms or in classes required of all seniors. All seniors in attendance on the day the survey was administered were allotted a one-hour time span to complete the survey. The survey was completely voluntary and confidential. High schools included in the sample encompassed a wide range of students of varying social and economic backgrounds. Youths in the sample reported an average household size of four, 65 percent reported living with both parents, 89 percent of the sample was White, and 47 percent were male. Given that the current study specifically investigated occupational delinquency, a subsample of respondents was extracted of only those who had been employed during high school (n = 296). Univariate statistics indicated that respondents in the current study worked at jobs in a similar proportion as to seniors nationally (see Steinberg & Caufman, 1994). Given that the sample was of convenience (or nonrandom) and was restricted to a specific geographical region, appropriate caution should be used in generalizing the results to the population of adolescents at-large.
Low self-control Self-control was measured using a twelve-item scale that was a modified version of that developed by Grasmick et al. (1993) (see Appendix B). Several studies have revealed that this scale is a psychometrically appropriate measure of self-control (Burton et al., 1999; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996). Responses to items ranged on a four-point Likert-type scale from one (disagree strongly) to four (agree strongly). Higher scores on this scale indicated lower selfcontrol. An estimated reliability coefficient (a = .75) revealed that the measure of self-control was internally consistent. Furthermore, similar to findings generated from other studies (Burton et al., 1999; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996), principle components factor ana-
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all variables (n = 296) Variable
Mean
S.D.
Occupational delinquency Low self-control Coworker delinquency Low self-control Coworker delinquency Time spent studying Grade point average Goals/aspirations Family cohesiveness Gender Race Family structure Household size
1.52 26.59 3.10 3.05
2.23 5.00 3.23 26.72
4.81 2.86 10.22 78.57 0.55 0.01 0.32 3.81
4.82 0.76 1.58 15.42 0.50 0.27 0.47 1.15
486
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
lysis indicated that the self-control measure formed a unidimensional construct. Coworker delinquency Similar to the occupational delinquency scale, occupational delinquency of coworkers was measured by a nine-item scale that asked respondents the extent to which their coworkers were involved in misbehavior at work. It should be noted that while the coworker delinquency scale has been used in previous research, ‘‘second hand’’ accounts of others misbehavior in the workplace suffer from many of the same validity problems found in traditional measures of delinquent peers. The scale, which was composed of item responses on a three-point scale ranging from zero (never) through two (often), had an acceptable level of reliability (a=.81) and statistical validity. Future research should, undoubtedly, use better, more sophisticated measures of coworker misbehavior. School commitment School commitment was assessed by two separate measures: (a) time spent studying and (b) grade point average. Time spent studying was measured by a two-item scale that asked respondents the number of hours, on average, they spent studying over the weekdays and weekends, which had a reliability coefficient of .66. Grade point average was measured using a single-item that asked respondents about the average grade they received in their classes. Item responses ranged from one (Mostly F’s) to five (Mostly A’s). Goals and aspirations A three-item scale was used to measure the perceived importance of current and speculative events in the youths’ lives. Respondents were asked how important it was to them to be able to rely on their parents, go to college, and do well in school. Item responses ranged on a four-point Likert scale from one (disagree strongly) to four (agree strongly). Responses were summed across items to create a scale, which had a reliability coefficient of .66. Higher scores indicated increased importance of goals and aspirations. Family cohesiveness The twenty-four-item family cohesiveness scale, derived from the National Youth Survey, was employed to measure the perceived relationships youth had with their mothers and fathers. The scale was composed of four dimensions that included parental reliability, parental supervision, parental conflict, and parental communication (see Appendix C). Responses to items ranged on a five-point Likert type scale from one (never) to five (always). To compute
the family cohesiveness scale, responses were summed across items where higher scores indicated stronger family cohesiveness. An estimated reliability coefficient (a =.87) generated support for the internal consistency of the scale. Demographics Four demographic characteristics were included as controls in our study: (a) gender, (b) race, (c) family structure, and (d) household size. Gender was coded as zero (male) or one (female). Due to limited frequencies in other categories, race was dichotomized and coded as zero (White) or one (other), whereas, minorities accounted for 7 percent of the sample. Family structure was a dichotomized measure that indicated whether or not respondents resided with both parents; therefore, family structure was coded as zero (intact) or one (nonintact). Finally, household size captured the number of people living in the residence of the youth. Due to the large number of missing cases, which would have decreased the sample size, family income was excluded from the analysis. Subsequent regression analyses that were not reported indicated that family income, once entered into the model, did not have a significant effect on occupational delinquency. Interaction term: Low self-control Coworker delinquency The product term between low self-control and occupational delinquency of coworkers was of specific importance to this study; therefore, it was important to explain how the interaction was created. The component factors of the interaction were mean centered prior to multiplication in order to minimize the nonessential ill-conditioning that would most likely cause multicollinearity in a product term (Aiken & West, 1991). When mean centering a variable, it is necessary to subtract the mean score of the variable from the actual variable before multiplying the two component terms. This procedure typically reduces collinearity concerns and reveals low correlations between the interaction term and the independent component parts of the interaction term (Cronbach, 1987).
Research strategy The analysis presented in this article investigated whether individuals with low self-control and who work in environments with delinquent coworkers were more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. First, bivariate correlations were examined to investigate multicollinearity among the product term and its independent components, and to also
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
487
Wright, Moffitt, and Caspi (1998), had a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency. The model accounted for 39 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency. To illustrate the effect of the interaction, a bar graph was created showing different mean levels of occupational delinquency (see Fig. 1). Following Piquero and Tibbetts (1999) and Raine, Brennan, and Mednick (1994), a four-category variable was created that indexed the presence of low self-control and coworker delinquency. The measures of low self-control and coworker delinquency were dichotomized based on their mean scores. Respectively, scores below the mean indicate higher self-control and minimal coworker involvement in delinquency, while scores above the mean indicate lower self-control and more coworker involvement in delinquency. Next, a fourcategory variable was created and was coded according to the following classifications: zero if youth had high self-control and low number of coworkers who were delinquent (n = 103), one if youths had low self-control and a low number of coworkers who were delinquent (n = 73), two if youths had higher self-control and a high number of coworkers who were delinquent (n = 60), and three if youths had low self-control and worked in an environment with high coworker delinquency (n = 110). The final category, indicating low self-control and higher coworker involvement in delinquency, is where the highest risk for occupational delinquency should be found (Evans et al., 1997; Wright et al., 1998; Wright & Cullen, 2000). The results are depicted in Fig. 1. The y-axis represents the mean level of occupational delinquency, while the x-axis indicates the categories of the interaction. As can be seen, those youth in the last category had the highest mean level of occupational
investigate whether there was multicollinearity among other independent variables. Second, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to examine the effect of the interaction term on occupational delinquency in three models: (1) controlling for the independent components of the interaction term, (2) controlling for demographic factors, and (3) controlling for other competing theoretical variables.
Results Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations. A twotailed test of significance at the .05 level was the criteria for all analyses. The bivariate assessment of variables, variance inflation factors, and condition number tests revealed that there were no signs of multicollinearity among the interaction term and the independent components of the interaction term. Additionally, it seems that there were no signs of collinearity among other independent variables. In general, the bivariate relationships were significant and in the predicted direction. Table 3 shows three separate OLS models predicting occupational delinquency. Model one shows that coworker delinquency exerted a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (b=.47), indicating that youth in an environment with more delinquent coworkers were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. Similarly, low self-control generated a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (b=.18), indicating that individuals with low self-control were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. The interaction effect between low self-control and coworker delinquency, as suggested by Evans et al. (1997), and hypothesized by
Table 2 Intercorrelations between all variables (n = 296) Variable X1. Low self-control X2. Coworker delinquency X3. Low self-control Coworker delinquency X4. Time spent studying X5. Grade point average X6. Goals/aspirations X7. Family cohesiveness X8. Gender X9. Race X10. Family structure X11. Household size * P < .05.
X1
X2
.32* .35*
.05
.25* .18* .34* .32* .13* .04 .03 .07
.05 .07 .08 .16 * .00 .03 .11 .01
X3
.02 .07 .07 .16* .04 .08 .05 .05
X4
.22 * .30 * .01 .28 * .05 .01 .05
X5
.23* .08 .11 .12* .06 .04
X6
.32* .26* .04 .09 .07
X7
.04 .03 .37* .17*
X8
.02 .08 .01
X9
.11 .04
X10
.27*
X11
488
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
Table 3 Estimated standardized regression coefficients predicting occupational delinquency Variable Low self-control Coworker delinquency Low self-control Coworker delinquency Time spent studying Grade point average Goals/ aspirations Family cohesiveness Gender Race Family structure Household size Constant R2 F df
Model 1 (n = 346)
Model 2 (n = 333)
Model 3 (n = 296)
b
b
b
t
t
t
.18
3.96*
.13
2.71*
.09
1.79
.47
10.87*
.49
11.45*
.54
12.09*
.21
4.63*
.23
5.18*
.21
4.45*
–
–
.06
1.29
–
–
.15
3.18*
–
–
.02
0.39
–
–
.03
0.69
– – –
.19 .09 .04
4.40* 2.25* 0.82
.16 .10 .03
3.45* 2.23* 0.69
–
.01
0.27
.01
0.28
3.139* .39 71.35 345
0.85 .44 36.33 332
0.18 .48 23.16 295
Dashes indicate that parameters were not estimated. * P < .05.
delinquency (mean = 2.82), indicating that youth with low self-control and who worked in an environment where coworkers were more delinquent had a substantially higher mean score on occupational delinquent involvement. Turning now to Model 2 of Table 3, demographic controls were included to investigate whether or not
Fig. 1. Mean level of occupational delinquency for interaction groups.
the interaction would retain its significance. The interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency remains the second strongest predictor of occupational delinquency (b =.23). Although the independent effect of coworker delinquency had the strongest effect on occupational delinquency (b =.49), the independent effect of low self-control exerted a positive and significant effect on occupational delinquency (b =.13), indicating that youth with low self-control were significantly more likely to be involved in occupational delinquency. Gender (b = .19) and race (b =.09) both had significant effects on occupational delinquency. Model 2 accounted for 44 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency. Finally, in Model 3 of Table 3, controls for competing theoretical variables that have been established as known correlates of delinquency were introduced, such as school commitment and family cohesiveness. Coworker delinquency still remained as having the strongest overall effect on occupational delinquency (b =.54). The interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency, after control-
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
ling for competing theoretical variables, was still a strong predictor of occupational delinquency (b =.21). The effect of low self-control on occupational delinquency was reduced to statistical insignificance, suggesting that low self-control is indirectly related to occupational delinquency through delinquent coworkers. In regard to other effects, grades (b = .15), gender (b = .16), and race (b =.10) predicted variation in occupational delinquency. The final model accounted for 48 percent of the variance in occupational delinquency.
Discussion Research testing the general theory of crime has yet to investigate the effects of low self-control on occupational delinquency engaged in among youth. This study has attempted to take Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime one step further by assessing the interaction between low selfcontrol and delinquent coworkers in predicting delinquency in the work environment. This study provided one of the first tests to assess the interaction between low self-control and delinquent peers (i.e., coworkers) in predicting occupational delinquency. Results show that the interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency generated a substantial effect on occupational delinquency. A subsequent analysis showed that youths with low self-control in work environments with more delinquent coworkers were substantially more likely to participate in delinquent behaviors in the work environment, such as theft, short-changing customers, and vandalizing employer’s belongings. The effect of the interaction remained a substantial predictor of occupational delinquency even after controlling for several demographic factors and known correlates of delinquency. Coworker delinquency, however, remained as the strongest predictor of occupational delinquency, and, importantly, the independent effect of low self-control was diminished after entering theoretically driven variables into the final model. Although the independent effect of low self-control was accounted for, its indirect effect on occupational delinquency through coworker delinquency indicates its importance, thus, studies should begin to investigate interactions of low self-control and other social learning variables across different contextual manifestations of delinquent behavior. These findings, although still preliminary, were supportive of hypotheses generated by Evans et al. (1997) and Wright et al. (1998), who suggest that delinquent behavior may be exacerbated for persons with low self-control if they are in environments
489
where they are around delinquent associates. The results seem to be consistent with some of the literature on occupational delinquency, which implies that characteristics of the individual coupled with negative work environments may generate more work-place deviance than either of the independent components alone (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1981; Ruggiero et al., 1982). Although the findings in this article lend support for self-control theory, the data in this study still suffered from several limitations. First, due to the fact that the sample was of convenience and limited to a restricted geographical region, extrapolation of these results to other populations should be taken with caution. Second, given that this study was preliminary, delinquency in the context of the work environment was the only outcome measure. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings without limiting the outcome variable to a specific type of delinquency. Findings presented in this article, despite limitations, have implications for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. With the exception of a few studies (Grasmick et al., 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Sellers, 1999), empirical investigations of the general theory have concentrated almost exclusively on the independent effects of low self-control on offending and deviant behaviors. Since the majority of empirical investigations only incorporate the element of low selfcontrol, the moderate amounts of explained variance associated with specific outcome variables might not be due to the minimal predictive validity of the general theory, but to the failure of prior studies to integrate competing theoretical variables with low self-control in the form of multiplicative interaction terms in predicting criminal behavior. In regard to the current study, there was a 5 percent increase in explained variance once the interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency was entered into the equation. Based on their findings that show low selfcontrol could not account for the substantial positive effect that delinquent peers had on criminal behavior, Evans et al. (1997) suggest that low self-control and delinquent peers should not be viewed as competing theoretical entities. Future investigations of the general theory of crime should not only investigate the interaction between low self-control and delinquent peers in predicting different types of delinquency and analogous behaviors, but should also investigate interactions between low self-control and various social bonding variables (e.g., school attachment, family ties, etc.) and their effects on broader forms of offending and deviance (see Wright et al., 1998).
490
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
This study not only focused on theoretical issues pertaining to the general theory of crime, but also on empirical issues surrounding work-related delinquency. Findings from this study raise questions and avenues for future research on occupational delinquency and suggest certain policies. Work programs, for instance, have targeted youth who are at risk for delinquency. There is a widely held belief that employment gives youth access to benefits such as positive social skills, time management, and responsibility. Peters (1987) suggests that employment provides youth with adult work habits and ethics, responsible behavior, problem solving skills, and increased academic skills. Although limited in number, several studies have shown that adolescent work programs do not function to help reduce delinquent involvement, but instead have shown that employment is negatively associated with a range of outcomes, including reduced involvement in school, less time spent engaging in family activities, less concern for others, and an increased use of cigarettes and marijuana (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1981, 1986; Greenberger, Steinberg, & Ruggiero, 1982; Wright et al., 1997). From the results of the current study, youth employment may also give adolescents another outlet to engage in delinquent behavior, and provide a chance for youth to meet delinquent coworkers who, in turn, may contribute to ‘‘on the job’’ delinquency, especially for youths who already have criminal propensities (i.e., low self-control and prior delinquent involvement). This possibility should be explored more thoroughly. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, this study was not capable of delineating the causal ordering of the interaction between low self-control and coworker delinquency on occupational delinquency. In other words, do individuals with low self-control select themselves into work environments surrounded by delinquent peers or do such settings aid in the development of low self-control? Although theoretical positions (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) would state that the process is largely due to self-selection, this is an empirical question that remains to be answered. One of the many fruitful lines of inquiry would be for researchers to disentangle the indirect and direct effects of the interaction effect found in this study.
Acknowledgments The study was made possible by a small grant from East Tennessee State University. We thank Mike Woodruff for his support and guidance.
Appendix A. Individual items measuring occupational delinquency Put more hours on time card than actually worked Purposely shortchanged a customer Gave away goods or services for nothing without permission Took things from the employer or other coworkers Called in sick when not Drank alcohol or used drugs while on the job Purposely damaged employer’s property Helped a coworker steal employer’s property Lied to the employer to get or to keep job
Appendix B. Individual items measuring low self-control I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run I frequently try to avoid projects that I know will be difficult I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit Excitement and adventure are more important than security I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which I might get into trouble I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things harder for other people I will try to get the things I want even when I know it’s causing problems for other people I lose my temper easily When I’m really angry other people better stay away from me It doesn’t take much for me to get really angry or to lose my temper
Appendix C. Individual items measuring family cohesiveness How often do you do things with your parents that you enjoya How often do you talk to your parents about personal or private issues How often do you talk over important decisions with your parents How often do your parents miss important events How often do you feel like your parents are there for you when you need them
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
How often do your parents listen to your side of the argument How often do your parents discuss important issues with you How often do you have a difficult time dealing with your parents How often do you argue or not get along with your parents How often do your parents know where you are at when you are away from home How often do your parents ask where you are going when you leave home to go some place How often do your parents know who you are with when you’re away from home a Individuals were asked to respond to each question twice, once pertaining to their mother and then father.
Notes 1. Although the occupational delinquency measure contains limited variation, it does have sufficient variation for analysis. Several statistical transformations of the measure such as standardization and logarithmic adjustment, were conducted to correct for potential scale bias and skewness. Ultimately, all analyses that were computed (i.e., logistic and OLS regressions) indicated that there were no meaningful differences when correcting for the distribution of the scale (see Wright & Cullen, 2000).
References Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage Publications. Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursik, R. J. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225 – 247. Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. (1993). How part-time work intensity relates to drug use, problem behavior, time use, and satisfaction among high school seniors: are these consequences or merely correlates? Developmental Psychology, 29, 220 – 235. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F., Evans, D., Alarid, L., & Dunaway, G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123 – 147. Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M., & Dunaway, R. G. (1999). Age, self-control, and adults’ offending behavior: a research note assessing a general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45 – 54. Cronbach, L. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: flaws in analysis recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414 – 417. Cullen, F. T., Williams, N., & Wright, J. P. (1997). Work conditions and juvenile delinquency: is youth employ-
491
ment criminogenic? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8, 119 – 144. Elliott, D., & Wofford, S. (1991). Adolescent employment. Boulder, CO: Institute for Behavioral Science, University of Colorado (Brief prepared for press release available from the authors). Evans, D., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Dunaway, G., & Benson, M. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475 – 504. Gibbs, J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: an empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231 – 255. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursik, R., & Arneklev, B. (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. Greenberger, E., & Steinberger, L. D. (1980). Adolescents who work: effects of part-time employment on family and peer relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 189 – 202. Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1981). The workplace as a context for the socialization of youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 185 – 210. Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1986). When teenagers work: the psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York: Basic Books. Greenberger, E., Steinberg, L. D., & Ruggiero, M. (1982). A job is a job is a job. . . or is it? Work and Occupations, 9, 79 – 96. Keane, C., Maxim, P., & Teevan, J. (1993). Drinking, driving, self-control, and gender: testing a general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 3 – 46. LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41 – 72. Peters, J. (1987). Youth, family, and employment. Adolescence, 22, 465 – 473. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (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. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1999). The impact of pre/perinatal disturbances and disadvantaged familial environment in predicting criminal offending. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 1 – 19. Polakowski, M. (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. Raine, A., Brennan, P., & Mednick, S. (1994). Birth complications combined with early maternal rejection at age 1 year predispose to violent crime at age 18 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 984 – 988. Ruggiero, M., Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1982).
492
C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492
Occupational deviance among adolescent workers. Youth and Society, 13, 423 – 448. Ruhm, C. J. (1995). The extent and consequences of high school employment. Journal of Labor Research, 16, 293 – 302. Sellers, C. S. (1999). Self-control and intimate violence: an examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology, 37, 375 – 404. Steinberg, L. D., & Caufman, C. (1994). The impact of employment on adolescent development. Annals of Child Development, 11, 131 – 166. Steinberg, L. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Negative correlates of part-time employment during adolescence: replication and elaboration. Developmental Psychology, 27, 304 – 313.
Wood, P., Pfefferbaum, B., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Risk taking and self-control: social psychological correlates of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 111 – 130. Wright, B. R., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (1998). Predispositions, social environments, and crime: a model of varying effects. A paper presented at the Annual American Society of Criminology in Washington, DC. Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Juvenile involvement in occupational delinquency. Criminology, 38, 863 – 896. Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Williams, N. (1997). Working while in school and delinquent involvement: implications for social policy. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 203 – 222.
