<%BANNER%>

Exploring the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a General Theory of Crime

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042829/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a General Theory of Crime
Physical Description: 1 online resource (176 p.)
Language: english
Creator: ALVAREZ-RIVERA,LORNA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ACCULTURATION -- ASSIMILATION -- CRIME -- DELINQUENCY -- HISPANICS -- THEORY
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EXPLORING THE CROSS-CULTURAL APPLICABILITY OF A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME Gottfredson and Hirschi?s General Theory of Crime is proposed to be general in its explanation of all crimes and to have applicability cross-culturally, though the latter has seldom been tested. Their theory focuses attention on early childhood socialization but it does not specify adequately how features of socialization operate to foster self-control. This study examines Gottfredson and Hirschi?s General Theory of Crime cross-culturally and in relation to maternal and paternal attachments. In addition, it accounts for acculturation and assimilation measures to determine whether cultural affiliation impacts self-control. A self-report survey was administered to a sample of 454 college students attending either the University of Florida or Texas A & M International University. This research examines how various measures of attachment relate to self-control and how both attachment during high school and self-control predict analogous behavior (e.g., cheating, substance use) and crime during college. Attachments and self-control relate to analogous behaviors and crime. Self-control, however, did not fully mediate all the effects of attachment, acculturation or assimilation on analogous behaviors or crime. The strength of the relationships was diminished but not eliminated. Directions for future research and policy implications are also discussed here.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by LORNA ALVAREZ-RIVERA.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042829:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042829/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a General Theory of Crime
Physical Description: 1 online resource (176 p.)
Language: english
Creator: ALVAREZ-RIVERA,LORNA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ACCULTURATION -- ASSIMILATION -- CRIME -- DELINQUENCY -- HISPANICS -- THEORY
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EXPLORING THE CROSS-CULTURAL APPLICABILITY OF A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME Gottfredson and Hirschi?s General Theory of Crime is proposed to be general in its explanation of all crimes and to have applicability cross-culturally, though the latter has seldom been tested. Their theory focuses attention on early childhood socialization but it does not specify adequately how features of socialization operate to foster self-control. This study examines Gottfredson and Hirschi?s General Theory of Crime cross-culturally and in relation to maternal and paternal attachments. In addition, it accounts for acculturation and assimilation measures to determine whether cultural affiliation impacts self-control. A self-report survey was administered to a sample of 454 college students attending either the University of Florida or Texas A & M International University. This research examines how various measures of attachment relate to self-control and how both attachment during high school and self-control predict analogous behavior (e.g., cheating, substance use) and crime during college. Attachments and self-control relate to analogous behaviors and crime. Self-control, however, did not fully mediate all the effects of attachment, acculturation or assimilation on analogous behaviors or crime. The strength of the relationships was diminished but not eliminated. Directions for future research and policy implications are also discussed here.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by LORNA ALVAREZ-RIVERA.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042829:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXPLORING THE CROSS CULTURAL APPLICABILITY OF A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME By LORNA L. ALVAREZ RIVERA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F OR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Lorna L. Alvarez Rivera

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost thanks to God for always being a part of my life and never abandoning me in my time of need. Thanks are also in order to all my family and friends who encouraged me and supported me throughout this entire process; I could not have done it without them. To my father for being the driving force behind everything I do. Thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Lonn Lanza Kaduce for all his help and support and for believing in this project form the get go. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Ronald Akers, Dr. Christopher Gibson and Dr. Marian Borg for their advice and encouragement. Addition ally, I want to thank Dae Hoon Kwak for his help in the data collection process and Dr. Wesley Jennings for helping sort the data, without them this study would not have been possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ ...... 16 Self Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16 Criticism of a Gener al Theory of Crime ................................ ................................ ... 32 3 PRIOR RESEARCH ................................ ................................ ................................ 37 Self Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Self C ontrol and Parenting ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 Parenting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 46 Acculturation, Assimilation and Immigration ................................ ........................... 50 Immigration ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Acculturation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 54 Assimilation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58 Cross Cultural Self Control Studies ................................ ................................ ........ 59 4 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 65 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 65 Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 65 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ .............................. 74 Control Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 75 Analyt ic Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 76 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 83 Bivariate Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 83 Hypothesis 1: A ttachment will predict low self control ................................ ...... 86 Hypothesis 2: Attachment will predict analogous behaviors ............................. 88 Hypothesis 3: Attachment will predict crime ................................ ..................... 89 Hypothesis 4: Self Control will predict analogous behaviors ............................ 89 Hypothesis 5: Self Control will predict cr ime ................................ .................... 90 Hypothesis 6: Assimilation and Acculturation will predict analogous behaviors among Hispanics ................................ ................................ .......... 91

PAGE 6

6 Hypothesis 7: Assimilati on and Acculturation will predict crime among Hispanics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 91 Multivariate Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 92 Multivariate analysis results of analogous be haviors in all sub samples .......... 93 Multivariate analysis results for crime in all sub samples ................................ 97 Multivariate analyses focusing on ac culturation and assimilation ................... 102 Multivariate analyses and the mediation hypotheses ................................ ..... 105 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 126 APPENDIX A STUDENT CONSENT ................................ ................................ .......................... 136 B SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 137 C SCALES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 153 D CORRELATIONS MATRIX ................................ ................................ ................... 161 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 163 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 176

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Descriptive Statistics by Sub samples ................................ ................................ 79 4 2 University Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 4 3 Community Profile ................................ ................................ .............................. 81 4 4 ................................ ................................ ............ 82 5 1 Descri ptive Statistics and Chi Square Results by Sub samples ....................... 110 5 2 Descriptive Statistics and T test Results by Sub samples ................................ 110 5 3 Descriptive Statistics and F test Results by Sub samples ................................ 111 5 4 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment Predicting Low Self Control .............. 111 5 5 Self Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 112 5 6 OLS Regressions: Paternal Attachment Predicting Low Self Control ............... 112 5 7 Control ... 112 5 8 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment Predicting Analogous Behavior in College ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 112 5 9 OLS Regressions: Paternal Attachment Predicting Analogous Behavior in College ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 113 5 10 OLS Regressions: Mate rnal Attachment Predicting Crime in College .............. 113 5 11 OLS Regressions: Paternal Attachment Predicting Crime in College ............... 113 5 12 O LS Regressions: Low Self Control Predicting Analogous Behavior in College ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 113 5 13 Control Predicting Analogous Behavior in College ................................ ................................ .......................... 114 5 14 OLS Regressions: Low Self Control Predicting Crime in College ..................... 114 5 15 Control Predicting C rime in College ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 114 5 16 OLS Regressions: Acculturation Predicting Analogous Behavior in College .... 114

PAGE 8

8 5 17 OLS Regressions: Assim ilation Predicting Analogous Behavior in College ...... 115 5 18 OLS Regressions: Acculturation Predicting Crime in College .......................... 115 5 19 OL S Regressions: Assimilation Predicting Crime in College ............................ 115 5 20 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Analogou s Behavior in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub sample ................................ .............. 116 5 21 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Analo gous Behavior in College within UF Hispanic Sub sample ................................ ........................... 117 5 22 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the UF White Sub sample ................................ ......................... 118 5 23 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in Col lege within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub sample ................................ ................................ ............ 119 5 24 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College withi n the UF Hispanic Sub sample ................................ ................................ .................. 120 5 25 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within the UF Whit e Sub sample ................................ ................................ ...................... 121 5 26 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilation along with Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 122 5 27 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilation along with Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the UF Hispanic Sub Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12 3 5 28 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilatio n along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub Sample ............... 124 5 29 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturat ion, and Assimilation along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within the UF Hispanic Sub Sample ..................... 125

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXPLORING THE CROSS CULTURAL APPLICABILITY OF A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME By Lorna L. Alvarez Rivera M ay 2011 Chair: Lonn Lanza Kaduce Major: Criminology Law, and Society explanation of all crimes and to have applicability cross culturally, though the latter has seldom been tested. Their theory focuses attention on early childhood socializa tion but it does not specify adequately how features of socialization operate to foster self culturally and in relation to maternal and paternal attachments In addition, it accounts for acculturation and assimilation measures to determine whether cultural affiliation impacts self control. A self report survey was administered to a sa mple of 454 college students attending either the University of Florida o r Texas A & M Int ernational University This research examines how various measures of attachment relate to self control and how both attachment during high school and self control predict analogous behavior (e.g., cheating substance use) and crime during college Attachm ents and self control relate to analogous behaviors and crime. Self control, however, did not fully mediate all the effects of attachment, acculturation or assimilation on analogous

PAGE 10

10 behaviors or crime The strength of the relationships was diminished but n ot eliminated. Directions for future research and policy implications are also discussed here.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) introduced a criminological theory that has generated an extensive debate by its attempt to explain ALL cri minality. The scholars proposed the ability to explain all crimes through self control and emphasized the generalizability of their construct in accounting for all deviant behavior across age, gender, and cultures. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that low se lf control may lead to deviant behavior should the opportunity present itself. They further contend that the presence or absence of self control results from the early child rearing process, which ual traits. According to the theory, the effectiveness of this determinant process can be measured by the ability or Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that later sociali zation is mediated through self control so that self control predicts both crime and resemble crimes but are not criminal like excessive drinking and smoking. In a recent reformulation of the general theory, Hirschi, at tempted to reconcile the general theory of crime with his social control theory (2004). That theory was premised on social bonds bonds through attachments to beliefs about commitment to and involvement with conventional others and activities (Hirschi 19 69) Hirschi now argues that self control and attachment are one in the same. Whether these two theoretical constructs are essentially the same is still a highly debated theoretical inquiry. However, rather than self control and social control being able to tap into the same phenomenon it may be that self control is impacted differently by varying levels of social control, an

PAGE 12

12 issue that the theory fails to develop, and an argument that contradicts the recent claims that self control and attachment are on e in the same. This study will analyze the relationship between perceived attachments between college students and their parents and the ir level of self control presumably instilled in them through their parents. The current study is an attempt to take a closer look at the theory by examining its applicability among cross cultural sample s of college students. The samples were selected so that different Hispanic g roups as well as White students were included so that the effect of acculturation and assimila tion can be examined. A focus of the study is to examine how much an individual's investment in their culture or that of the United States will influence their levels of social control (primarily via parental bonds ) to affect the likelihood of engaging in criminality or analogous behaviors To date, little cross cultural research has attempted to examine these issues. The lack of cross cultural data attempting to get at self control and parental ties in particular has made the empirical assessment of these concepts impractical. The complex challenge of creating research instruments that adequately operationalize constructs so they are applicable to diverse cultures may deter researchers from conducting studies that try to discern the impact of self control and attachments on crime cross culturally. Self reported data will be collected from college students from diverse backgrounds. The sample consists of students attending the University of Florida and Texas A & M International University. The sites were c hosen to provide a compilation of subjects that would incorporate Whites and Hispanics residing in the continental United States.

PAGE 13

13 The study of family ties among Hispanics is of particular importance due to the idiosyncratic differences in existence among Hispanics and their families (Sabogal, Marin, Otero Sabogal, Marin, & Perez Stable, 1987). Susana Zarankin and Hector Sabelli (1996:692) describe the relationship found among Latin families as: The importance of separation from the extended family is part icularly important because the Latin family has not been shrunk, as American families often are, to the so parents play a role in raising their grand children, assisting the mother, and liberating her for other activities. Th is kind of support is actually greater among higher income Mexican Americans than among the poorer ones living in the affiliation over confrontation, and cooperation over competition. Familism is viewed as a cultural value that defines Hispanics and sets them apart from many other ethnic groups (Santisteban, Muir Malcolm, Mitrani, & Szapocznik, 2002). It is considered t o be a mechanism that enables Hispanic immigrants to grasp on to their heritage (Sabogal et al.) and serves as a protective factor from involvement in drug and alcohol abuse (Gil, Wagner, & Vega, 2000; Ramirez et al., 2004). Ghazarian, Supple, and Plunkett (2008) examine familism, parent adolescent relationships, and developmental effects for a sample of 97 Armenian adolescents in immigrant families. Their results suggest that adolescents who stress family needs over their own tend to shes, have greater respect for parental authority, and disclose more information to parents about their activities (Ghazarian et al, 2008). A positive relationship was found between familism and self esteem while a negative association was evident between familism and self derogation among Armenian adolescent immigrants (Ghazarian, 2008). Hispanics are the fastest growing minority migrant population in the United States ( U.S Census Bureau, 2004 ). As such, Hispanic groups afford an opportunity to

PAGE 14

14 consider the effects of processes that concern individuals migrating to a different country, acculturation and assimilation. Acculturation and assimilation have been loosely defined and at times utilized interchangeably In an effort to properly assess their impact within the Hispanic sub samples surveyed clear and separate definition s for each concept will be employed. Korzenny (1998) defines the concepts as follows : acculturation is the while assimilation is the acculturation occurs when migrants adapt to the culture of their host country without disposing of the values of their country of origin and assimilation takes place when immigrants replace their culture with that of their host country. Incorporating these concepts into research assessing Hispanics is crucial in understanding the processes that affect the behavior of Hispanics and in determining the effects of acculturation and assimilation. This study will incorporate the prospect that both may relate to crime and analogous behaviors. Whether criminological processes occur in the same manner for Hispanics holds a great deal of theoretical importance for it allows us to determine whether cert ain child rearing practices are better suited for the development of attachments. As proclaimed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) the general theory is said to be general in its ability to explain all crimes across all cultures ; therefore the theory is pu rported to predict deviance and crime among Hispanics. Results suggesting that Gottfredson and would not only provide evidence supporting their claims but it would also hold policy implications. It is important to understand how to effectively socialize individuals who

PAGE 15

15 hold divergent cultural values and beliefs in order to establish statutes and programming that would truly aid in implementing effective crime prevention a nd punishment strategies for those of different cultural backgrounds.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Self Control A General Theory of Crime (1990) proposes a novel theory for explaining criminal behavior that is arguably superior to all other crimin ological theories. The theory of self control is intended to explain analogous behaviors actions that to some extent are similar to criminal behaviors but are not criminal, deviance and crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). According to Gottfredson and H different types of crimes the theorists concluded that the differences among crimes are unimportant ; what is of importance is that they are all executed in the pursuit of self interest (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). They further contend that their theory is simply a theory of possibility, implying that a lack of self control does not necessarily entail that an individual will engage in criminal activity but that it will be likely to take place if the opportunity to do so is present. They also indicate that self control is not a causal mechanism limited to contributing to crime but it can also be seen as a determinant of other analogo us behaviors like smoking, reckless driving, substance abuse and alcohol abuse (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Self control theory is a prime example of a control theory in that it asks the question why is it that individuals desist or refrain from conti nuing a path of crime after initial involvement in criminal behavior. For Hirschi (1969) it is clear that individuals would engage in deviance and crime if they had the courage to. Therefore, the question to be answered is not what causes people to engage in crime, but instead why do they abstain? While control theories often separate themselves from the rest of the theories

PAGE 17

17 by establishing their lack of intent on explaining why individuals commit crimes instead arguing that their goal is to understand what it is that prevents individuals from engaging in deviance and crime the results are oftentimes the same. In developing their theory Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:87) concluded that there susceptibility towards crime. For Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), self control, is the invariant individual characteristic suggesting that once individual s have reached their level of self control that level will remain constant throughout their lifetime According to the author s by the age of eight children who have developed high levels of self control will likely abstain from a life of crime where those that did not cultivate adequate levels of self control will likely engage in deviance in crime if t he opportunity becomes available to them. In their view, self control unites the classical view that crime results from external social controls with the idea that people may find themselves vulnerable to engaging in crime. Self control thus explains why p eople abstain from engaging in crime as opposed to why they engage in crime. It further assumes that individuals do not require criminal involvement, and therefore that no extraordinary skills, needs or motivations are needed in order to engage in criminal activity (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the idea of self control unites the classical view that crime results from external social controls with the idea that people may find themselves vulnerable to engaging in crime. Self control thus, in their opinion, explains why people abstain from engaging in crime as opposed to why they engage in crime. The general theory further assumes that individuals do not require criminal involvement to have a lack of self contro l since as self control is developed through

PAGE 18

18 effective parental socialization and would manifest itself in criminality only if the opportunity to engage in crime is available to the individual if that is not the case then an contr ol would be evidenced in their involvement in analogous essence, nonexistent, therefore that no extraordinary skills, needs or motivations are needed in order to engage in cr iminal activity (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:89). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), criminal, deviant, dangerous, and exciting acts do not require any unique skills and they are available to anyone. However, they do argue that low self control does not unavoidably result in the occurrence of criminal or deviant acts, but it does presuppose that having this trait allows for the likelihood of deviance to occur. For example, those with low self control will not commit crime if they lack the opport unity to do so. On the other hand, they extend this claim by emphasizing that the presence of high self control in an individual will more than likely reduce the possibility of crime all other things being equal (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Gottfredso n and Hirschi (1990) assert that the variance explained by self control will be greatly superior to that explained by numerous other variables like attachment, control was subsumed under attachment ; ho wever, Gottrfesdson and Hirschi argued that self control is the key trait mediating the effects of attachment, commitment, involvement and belief on crime and deviance (Akers and Sellers, 2004). Low self control consists of six elements that Gottfredson an d Hirschi (1990) consider representative of individuals who demonstrate having low self control.

PAGE 19

19 Impulsiveness : is o bserved among individuals who do not consider the negative consequences of their actions. The insensitive individual is that person who doe s not factor how or if their decisions will harm them in the future. Short sightedness : occurs w hen individual s take into account mainly the short term consequences of their actions and do not factor in the unintended or long term consequences that may fol low their actions. Physicalit y : is a preference for physical activities (i.e. extreme sports) as opposed to intellectual activities (i.e. reading) It is believed to be present among people exhibiting low self control. People who tend to be more physical will be more prone to resolving problems by use of physical force then by discussing the nature of the conflict. Risk seeking : is a need for involvement in exiting activities and it is commonplace, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), among indiv iduals with low self control. People who tend to enjoy high risk activities like bungee jumping and sky diving will fall under this category. Self centeredness : is a n inability or unwillingness to consider how actions may impact others and it is a t rait evident among people with low self control. Temper : is shown among t hose who become irritated or unhappy easily They are said to have a low threshold for frustration and are believed to be more liable to display low self control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that criminal and/or deviant acts provide immediate gratification and that people with low self control are more likely to be attracted to behaviors that will suffice their needs now rather than later (impulsivity). Individuals who lac k self control are thought to lack persistence. Gottfredson and

PAGE 20

20 Hirschi (1990) contend that individuals with low self control would perhaps be more intrigued by criminal/deviant behavior since they crave simple or easy gratification and criminal acts requi re simple tasks. Deviant behavior can be exciting; therefore, risk taking characterizes individuals lacking low self control. Gottfredson and Hirschi stress that people with low self control tend to be active and favor physical actions as oppose to menta lly oriented ones, and are adventure seekers, as opposed to those with high levels of self control who they self control can also be observed among individuals with short or explosive tempers and w ith high thresholds for physical pain and discomfort. The authors affirm that criminal/deviant acts provide few long term benefits and get in the way of the formation of long term commitments (short sightedness). People with low self control, therefore, ar e more likely to have unstable personal lives and resumes and to engage in activities providing short term benefits (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have a set of core characteristics that they believe illustrate pro totypical individuals with low self control, they do not provide a source for the cause of self control. As an alternative they have argued that they do not propose that people are born criminals but that individual differences among people shape their cap ability to be efficiently socialized (Cullen and Agnew, 2003). If individual differences are contributing factor s in the ability for an individual to be effectively socialized it is safe to suggest that individual characteristics arising from an individua culture or place of residence c ould have a hand in shaping that person s amenability to be able and/or willing to be successfully socialized. While the general theory does not

PAGE 21

21 make allowances for the possibility of individual differences based on race, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 95) do suggest that a shortage in training, nurturance, and discipline is the source for low self control is improbable in the raining, nurturance, and discipline come instinctively to all individuals, it is safe to conclude that the capacity to do so would involve a great degree of knowledge and socialization and that in turn socialization will indeed vary by race, ethnicity, cu lture and country of origin as well as numerous other cultural factors that shape who individuals are and how they function on a daily basis. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) challenge the popular ideas of ongoing learning and socialization by explicitly sta ting that neither of them is the cause of low self control. Once self control is added into a model the variance explained by social learning theory will be less than that explained by self claim that th ere is no need for positive learning in order for crime to occur (Pratt and to be social animals who must learn to recognize the potential benefits of force and fraud, an imals who engage in such activities only when they have the support of learned According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) the relationship between peers and delinquen cy is spurious and they reject the contention that an interaction between parent s and their child can educate or cause the child to be become predisposed to deviant/criminal behavior.

PAGE 22

22 Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that pleasure is obtained directly as a result of the deviant/criminal act, while the pains resulting from such act are not clear or direct. They further predict a discrepancy between what individuals believe to be a negative or painful outcome but not between what individuals will percei ve as a pleasure inducing result. This is evidenced by the concept that not every single person have been involved in illegal activities. Reactions to the feelings of oth ers may perhaps not be regarded the same by all individuals; the same could be true about parenting. does not mean that the child will care how the parent feels as a r esult of their involvement in deviance or crime. Having over involved parents may be a testimony of love for some children, but it may also cause others to feel overwhelmed and feel the need to disconnect themselves from the hovering parent(s). It is in si tuations of this nature that culturally sensitive variables should be accounted for ; a parent s hovering ways may be understood by Hispanic children who are not fully assimilated to the ture of this country may feel suffocated by the constant parental involvement that is commonplace among Hispanic families. It is for these reasons that th is study attempts to incorporate acculturation into the study of self control among Hispanics and comp are the influence that these variables have among Hispanics that reside in a more homogenous Hispanic environment to those that attend a culturally diverse university in which the dominant culture remains to be that of White non Hispanics. Considering the differences among all three sub sample s (UF Whites and Hispanics and TAMIU Hispanics) w i ll provide

PAGE 23

23 knowledge regarding the impact of cultural variables that would enlighten the study of behavioral processes in general and deviance and crime more specifical ly. If the nonexistence of nurturance, training, and discipline is widespread among individuals exhibiting low self control, then it makes sense to recognize caregivers as the significant party in developing self control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Un successful child rearing is, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the primary source of low self control. In order for a child to be successfully reared Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 97) emphasize three conditions that must be met during the proce ss of raising a child. Caregivers must be able to: 1) monitor the child 2) in order to recognize undesirable behavior, and 3) discipline the child All of these can certainly be affected by cultural factors that may hinder or foster a caregive willingness or ability to take in the caregiver s actions. For instance, suppose that a n immi grant mother does not have the ability to monitor a child because she has two jobs I n addition she fail s to recognize undesirable behavior because such behavior is acceptable in her country of origin (i.e. underage drinking) and she is unable to discipl ine the child because her culture do es not view the behavior as undesirable. That child will more likely fail to develop high levels of self control and cultural factors played a role in that deficiency. T his is one reason, among others, that suggest the p otential importance of cultural variables for understanding crime and deviance. A s the number of Hispani cs living in the continental United States increases ( and with the increase of

PAGE 24

24 interracial marriages involving Hispanics) th ose cultural values should be expected to play out in parenting in ways that affect crime and deviance According to control theories, parental attachment is central in order to accomplish conformity (Hirschi, 2002). Attachment refers to the affection and respect that an individua l holds toward significant others such as parents, teachers, and peers (Agnew, 1985). Control theories presuppose that the stronger the bond between parent and child, the more the child will take that bond into account when contemplating criminal acts. Hir schi (2002: 86) views the parent child bond or attachment as the presence as opposed to physical presence is considered most important when debating whether or not to engage i attachment to parents is not present, a child will not feel attachment to anyone else. Therefore, a child is not peer pressured into delinquency, but will in fact have a lack of concern when co mmitting delinquent acts regardless of the societal circle he/she is in. Social control theory views attachment as an external factor that is customized according to the level of attachment present between the child and the conforming individual or parent (Hirschi, 2002). Not only is attachment viewed as a variable factor among different people but it is also considered to be unpredictable for the same person over time (Hirschi, 2002). Even though, Gottfredson and Hirschi did not give parental attachment a an important factor in the development of self control. rearing is dependent, to a certain extent, upon parental attachment. They define

PAGE 25

25 definitions provided by Hirschi in his 1969 work (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:98). Social control theory defined attachment in many ways, but legitimate concern is not 86). Hirschi (1969) goes on to pronounce that the idea of a delinquent youth p ortrayed by criminological theories is that of a child who is not troubled by the discontent of his/her parent due to his engagement in deviant/illegal activities. Gottfredson and Hirschi believe that a breakdown in child rearing can come about in four wa ys (1990:98). First, a breakdown could occur if the parents do not express any type of concern for the child. Second, if they do care for their child, they may not have the amount of time or the adequate resources to keep an eye on the ird, even in the existence of legitimate concern for the child alongside with the time, energy, and resources, the parent might not be able to recognize undesirable behavior when the child is engaging in it. Finally, assuming that all the other conditions are present, parents may not have the desire or the means to chastise the undesired behavior. The attachment concept of social control theory seems pertinent as laid out by Hirschi (1969) to the development of self control. If the parents refrain from exp ressing concern for the child, the child can fail to form an attachment to his/her parents. If the parent is limited in the amount of time he/she can devote to the child, it is important for them to form that psychological presence as oppose to physical pr esence which Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) consider to be of great significance. The presence of

PAGE 26

26 strong attachments between a parent and child allows the parent to exert a certain level of control over the child as the child will take his/her parents into account during the decision making process. Finally, in order for parents to distinguish undesirable behavior from permissible behavior, attachment is not necessary but in order to have the desire to correct unwanted behavior attachment is fundamental. If the parent has a lack of concern for the child, he/she will not experience the need to discipline the child. The parent has to have a connection or attachment to the child and an interest in the positive socialization of that child in order to accomplish an investment in the socialization of the child. Assuming effective socialization is the driving force behind self control, then it can be anticipated that the level of attachment parents and/or guardians have with their child has a significant impact on t feelings into consideration when pondering whether or not to engage in deviant and/or criminal acts. Furthermore, it is important to consider the interplay between the attachment and effective social may not be that the parent lacks the ability or willingness to monitor, recognize, and discipline the child but that the child simply did not materialize a strong enough bond with his/her caregiver to actually be troubled with the consequences of their actions and how these actions can have the capacity to anguish their parents. Whether attachment levels of self con trol in a child, it is important to account for cultural diversity in any given sample. It may be that factors like acculturation and assimilation are thwarting the development of attachment, especially amongst first generation parents and their

PAGE 27

27 children, as they may be unable to connect with their children as a result of their different reality and experiences. While parenting is important to the development of self control, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) are clear that low self control is the answer to in volvement in deviant and criminal behavior. Based on that assumption, the effect of parenting should be fully mediated by self control once it is developed, as the trait is considered to be constant throughout the life course (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990 ). The prospect of mediation has been raised by others. Akers and Sellers (2004: 123) propose that bonding variables will also be mediated by self control is the key variable and that the social bonds affect crime o nly indirectly, through their effects on self In the same vein self control should also be able to mediate the effect of acculturation and assimilation as the authors conten d that self control is an a ll compassing trait subsuming everything inclu ding race. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that self control is the cause of analogous behavior and crime. If that is the case, then the effect of all other processes should be blocked and their effects entirely neutralized. This is one way in which the mediation effect that self control can be suggested. Then again, however, there are conceptual difficulties with the theoretical argument about mediation. To the extent that attachments, acculturation, or assimilation processes are ongoing and changin g, it is difficult to comprehend how a stable trait developed early in life can mediate ongoing processes. Regardless, empirical research can address whether self control is able to eradicate or diminish the effect of other variables on analogous behavior and crime.

PAGE 28

28 The expectation is that any impact on crime or deviance by variables like attachment will be diminished when self control is included in the analysis. Based on the f commitment, involvement) are subsumed under self control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). As a result any statistical model incorporating aspect s of social control and self control, in its pure form, should expect to obtain results suggesting that self c ontrol mediates any effects that may exist between the bonds and behavior. control states that social control and self control are for all intent and purposes the same thing. If the new version of self control is correct and self control and social control are conceptually the same thing it would be expected that self control would mediate any variance explained by social control variables in any statistical model including both concepts. In 2004 Travis Hirsch i attempted to explain or redefine the concept of low self control in an effort to fine tune the general theory of crime. Hirschi (2004) attempted to address some of the criticisms that have plagued the general theory since it was introduced in 1990, but instead it has provided scholars with more ammunition to attack some of the fundamentally controversial arguments made by the theory and has generated more questions than answers. This new take on the general theory lends itself to the drawing of conclusions that were once forbidden under the general theory and serves as the starting point for this study. H irsc h i (2004: 543) re defined s elf return to the four bonds (attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement) introduced in social control theory.

PAGE 29

29 Individuals with high affection and respect (i.e., attachment) are expected to be less likely to engage in delinquency because they do not want to sustain injury or anticipated investment in conventional activities such as getting an education, building up a business, or acquiring a reputation from virtue (Hi rschi, 1969). Individuals who are committed are less likely to be delinquent because they have too much to lose in essence too many stakes in conformity. Involvement refers to the amount of time spent occupied with conventional activities such as reading or doing homework (Hirschi, 1969). Individuals who spend much of their time engrossed in conforming or conventional activities will have less time for delinquency. Belief refers to the Agnew, 1985). Individuals who believe they should obey the rules of society will be less likely to engage in delinquency as they are more likely to abide by the legal and moral codes because they agree with them not merely because they are against the nor m. He argues that the conceptualization of self control must contain portions of rational choice and cognizance (Hirschi, 2004). T he incorporation of a cognitive portion to self control does not imply that behavior is learned or that specific definitions about crime or deviance are held as suggested by cognitive behavioral, differential association and social learning theory what it does suggest is that individuals will tend to consider the cost and benefits or consequences of their actions when engaging i n behavior ( Hirschi, 2004). This is a clear departure from the original conceptualization of the theory where Gottfredson and Hirschi suggest that the mere absence of self control allows for the possibility of deviance and crime to occur if the opportunit y is presented (1990).

PAGE 30

30 Hirschi's reformulation attempts to reconcile aspects of control and rational choice theories and in essence suggests that the weakening of the bonds allows for low self control to manifest itself. Under the revamped version of self control both self control and social control are viewed as constant con cept s and are therefore argued to not only function in the same manner but to be inherently the same mechanism (Hirschi, 2004). If as Hirschi (2004) suggest s, self contro l and attach ment are essentially the same concept then weak bonds ( parental attachment for purposes of this study ) would not allow for low self control to develop Where children grow up without bonds, low self control would prevail Parental attachment therefore suggests that individuals possess strong levels of self control that would be associated with lower levels of deviance and crime. that fostering parental bond s can cause a reduction in delinquency and crime Thus, efforts sh ould be made to uncover the varying factors that influence the development of parental attachments factors that may operate differently across divergent racial and/or ethnic groups. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) do not allow for variations across age, r ace, gender and ethnicity in the exercise of self control but, Hirschi (2004) does. He now suggests that differences in self control can occur across a number of demographics by way o f their influence on the bonds., in this way h e invites researchers to e xplore the influence of culture. This study will assess differences in culture of White s and Hispanics while focusing on attachment and self control. The main hypothesis in this research is that self control will vary depending on the race (Hispanic/White ) of the individual ; Hirschi's reformulation calls for empirical consideration of such questions. Having both versions of self control theor y tested against each other in a cross cultural study would allow for the theories to be

PAGE 31

31 examined in a way that the y have seldom been analyzed before. Basically having both theories pi tt ed against each other w ill let us to make assertions regarding the viability of either the general theory in its original form or the new and improved reformulation. If the results of this study provide support for this hypothesis it would suggest that the original general theory was on point. That conclusion will be strengthened if parental attachment is significant to the process, suggesting that self cont rol and social control are one in the same. If in fact there are differences in terms of attachment and self control among Hispanics it is expected that attachments will be greater within that ethnic group because of familism, which will serve as a prote ctive factor shielding individuals from deviant/criminal involvement. The concept of familism introduced above would imply that among Hispanics familial interdependence is welcomed and encouraged and therefore not viewed, in general, as meddling. Consequen tly, it would be expected that among this group attachments would have a more of a positive effect than among ethnic groups where independence and personal space are highly valued. For this reason, it is also important to examine acculturation and assimil ation. The control exerted through parental attachment due to familism should be least among those Hispanics who are most assimilated into the dominant White non Hispanic culture. Within Hispanics who are less assimilated it is possible that parental atta chment may be lower and as a result their levels of self control should also be lower. This group w ill likely have higher involvement in deviance and crime. Conversely, individual s who are loosely assimilated will be more likely to remain tightly bonded to their parents and therefore refrain from deviant/criminal involvement.

PAGE 32

32 Criticis m of a General Theory of Crime The general theory of crime has found both supporters and critics among criminologists and many of them have made attempts to validate or refute the theory and the results have been mixed. The use of behavioral measures to predict the possibility of criminal involvement is a main point of contention for its tautological implications (Akers, 1991). In order to avoid the tautology, Akers (2004:125), recommends that theoretical definitions be made of both self control and propensity to becomes tautological by failing to identify the traits that make up self control and cr iminal/deviant behavior independently, but instead continue to use behaviors to predict future behavior. To counter this criticism, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that Akers criticism is in effect a compliment as it i the their aim is to show the considerable relationship between the character traits of the offender and the characteristics of the offense (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1993). for crime and self control should be operationalized autonomously in order to steer clear of tautological problems (Akers and Sellers, 2004). One way to circumvent t he tautology problem is to operationalize the trait by measuring the defining characteristics of the trait. Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) developed a scale composed of 24 questions designed to tap into each of the six elements that make up self control. Though the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale has been the main instrument used by researchers to measure self control, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that it is inadequate for its failure to account for actual behaviors. Instead

PAGE 33

33 it relies on attit udes toward behaviors that could or could not manipulate whether an individual engages in deviant or criminal behavior. Along th i reformulation moves closer toward solving the problem of tautology to the extent that self control conceptual ized as attachment can be measured attitudinally circumventing the problem of using behavior to measure behavior. criminology arousing a number of debates with its controversial a ssumptions regarding crime and criminals. The general theory attempts to explain all crimes across age, gender, and cultures. Critics question whether the theory is in effect able to do so. S oes not explain white collar offending (Steffensmeier, 1989), corporate crimes (Simpson and Piquero, 2002) and organized crimes (Vold, Bernard, and Snipes, 1998) Contrary to what Gottfredson and Hirschi would expect behavioral measures of lo w self control fail to predict likelihood of involvement in corporate offending (Simpson and Piquero, 2002). Similarities between white collar offenders and street criminals are reported and research demonstrates that any specialization lies in minimal cri minal involvement compared to the common criminal (Benson and Moore, 1992). Gottfredson and Hirschi negate the existence of any form of organized criminality and contend that any form of organization is simply temporary (1990). White collar crime and corp orate crime are, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, rare types of crime s yielding a diminutive amount of profit (1990). But, on the contrary, white collar crimes and corporate offending have become fairly common in recent years and produce a great deal of revenue for offenders causing immense economic loss for the

PAGE 34

34 including those crimes that it can explain, ignoring those that the theory is unable to explain (Polk, 1 991). Nonetheless, the authors maintain that their theory is general in its capability in explaining criminality of all types. Other criticisms have stemmed from the narrow focus that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) place on crime, the propensity to engage in crime and the causes for crime. The failure to explain the effect of sociological factors like unemployment, immigration and poverty on criminal behavior cast doubt on the theory and not surprisingly produced criticism for the theory (Polk, 1991). The concept of criminal opportunity while introduced as an important factor in determining whether or not an individual would engage in crime was not fully developed (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). The interaction of self control with criminal opportunity is said to establish an Grasmick et al. 1993). However, the lack of attention Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) bestow upon the concept of opportunity is a source of debate (Barlow, 1991). Without the ability to predict when an individual will be likely to engage in crime, the theory is borderline useless (Barlow, 1991). Criminal opportunity is a significant predictor of crime independent of self control ( Grasmick et al. 1993). This findi ng is not only important because it limits the significance of self control as the sole explanatory variable for crime, but it leaves room for speculation about how to incorporate other theoretical constructs and the effect that other measures may have on explaining criminal involvement.

PAGE 35

35 Disapproval for the theory has surfaced as a result of Gottfredson and Hirschi's contention that the theory can explain crime and deviance cross culturally (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Marenin and Resig (1995) suggest t hat self control in its original form is unable to explain crimes in all cultures. Similarly, Nakhaie and colleagues (2000) suggest a strong relationship between behavior and ethnicity pointing towards a need to account for cultural factors when examining self control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that crime and deviance are not bound by culture and as a result can be explained by their theoretical construct. Therefore, crime, deviance and analogous behaviors can be predicted by self control indepen dent of race, ethnicity, or country of origin. In order for the theory to adequately predict crime cross culturally, the theorists argue that only behaviors that are free of cultural indicators and that are norm violations should be used to assess the theo ries validity (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). By examining self control through norm violations you bypass the "cultural" impact on behaviors; therefore probing the effect of self control on behaviors that are norm violations in that specific cultural set ting. In essence, the authors contend that it would be ludicrous to study the ability of self control to predict behaviors that are legal or accepted in a specific setting. But it would be safe to assume that anytime a behavior involves a certain level of risk the theory should be able to explain it in the same way that it is used to predict behaviors that are analogous to crime or that resemble crime but are not criminal. While the general theory imposes restrictions on the illegal behaviors that the theo ry can account for, Hirschi (2004) allows for the possibility of cultural concepts to influence self control T herefore variability among race/ethnicity and

PAGE 36

36 acculturation/assimilation needs to be examined to see how it affects self contro l and crime and deviance This study will help bridge the gap between culture and crime by tapping into the likelihood of deviance among Hispanics. At the same time the study will be able to determine the effect of parenting and acculturation/assimilation on self control and in turn crime. Including measures of parenting, acculturation, and assimilation will provide a better understanding of how self control operates in the context of culture. Now that Hirschi (2004) opens the door for the incorporation of cultural differences the applicability of self control can be examined in a cross cultural setting while at the same time investigating the difference in its ability to explain deviance/crime among ethnically diverse samples both in its original form as w ell as the new reformulation.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 PRIOR RESEARCH Self Control The relationship between age, gender and crime is the subject of a vast amount of empirical research assessing the general theory of crime. Measures of self control account for a signi ficant portion of the relationship between crime/deviance and age and gender (Tittle, Ward, and Grasmick, 2003). Among Canadian middle and high school students the association between age, gender, and delinquency remains (Nakahaie, Silverman, and La Grange 2000). Risk taking, one of the core elements of self control, is effective at explaining gender differences in drunk driving as well as criminal behavior in general within a Canadian sample (Keane, Maxim, Teevan, 1993). Vazsonyi and Crosswhite (2004) sug gest that self control is a valid predictor of delinquency among Black males and females. suggest that self control, regardless of how it is measured, is a considerable predictor of both crime and analogous behaviors (Pratt and Cullen, 2000). Studies suggest that self control predicts cheating (Muraven, Pogarsky, and Shmueli, 2006), binge drinking (Piquero, Gibson, and Tibbetts, 2002), drug use (Baron, 2003), violent offending (Piq uero, McDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, and Cullen, 2005), and criminal victimization (Stewart, Elifson, and Sterk, 2004). Pratt and Cullen (2000) reported findings signifying that self control considerably predicts crime and deviance across diverse sample groups providing support for the cross cultural assessment of the general theory. Individuals scoring low on the self control scale were more likely to be arrested for violent, property, white collar, and nuisance offenses than individuals scoring high on

PAGE 38

38 the sca le (Delisi, 2001). All in all, self control has effectively predicted numerous offenses, while research demonstrates that the theory more effective at predicting less crime. Research examining self control among a sample of juvenile offenders, reported self control as being fully mediated by attachment (Longshore, Chang, and Messina, 2005). On the other hand, n either self control nor social bonding variables mediate th e association between abuse and delinquent behavior (Rebellon and Van Gundy, 2005). Furthermore, some researchers argue that self control and social control work together in predicting childhood aggression and misconduct (Brannigan, Gemmel, Pevalin and Wad e, 2002). Whether both theories interact to better predict childhood aggression and misconduct is one way of analyzing what may in fact suggest that measures currently used to assess the reformulation of self control may be driving most of the explanatory power in the models. crime relationship is invariant by arguing that the general theory does not explain differences in criminal/deviant behavior across diverse age groups (Bur ton, Evans, Cullen, Ovares and Dunaway, 1999). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) state that self control is a relatively stable trait and therefore will not vary greatly during the life course; the only variation that could be observed will be due to the oppo rtunity an individual has to commit crime. Tittle and Grasmick (1997) investigated the relationship between age crime and found that some individuals persist offending through adulthood while others desist around the age of twenty (1997). Arneklev, Grasmic k, and Bursick (1999)

PAGE 39

39 evaluated the invariance of self control in two different samples at diverse locales and their results supported the invariability and latency of the trait. Because the self control trait is established early in life, later onsets of analogous behaviors and crime contradict the age invariance of the theory. Turner and Piquero (2002) establish mixed support for the stability hypothesis; they used a national probability sample and used behavioral and attitudinal measures of self control from childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (Turner and Piquero, 2002). Turner and Piquero (2002) reported findings indicating significant differences between self control levels among offenders and non offenders; non offenders reported higher levels of self control during childhood and early adolescence while offenders showed higher levels of self control during late principal and most divisive assumptions put forth by t he general theory; the invariance of the self control construct. While the general theory claims that self control does not individual differences lends itself to examine the invariance of the new version of the trait. If individual differences affect the bonds it is likely that age will cause individual control. Benda (2005) examined the allegat ion that everything is subsumed under self control. The author provides results suggesting that the ability of self measure of self control, the ty pe of delinquency being examined and the social characteristics included in the model (Benda, 2005:435) as well as other social conditions (Piquero et al., 2005; Lynam, Caspi, Moffitt, Wikstrom, Loeber, and Novak,

PAGE 40

40 2000). Benda (2005) examines the likelihoo d that self control measured using behavioral and attitudinal measures would remain significant when being assessed in a model concurrently. Using a sample of 3,335 public school high school students, the study found that at predicting drug and alcohol use as well as property and violent crimes both measure s were significant even when including other theoretical constructs in the model (Benda, 2005). Likewise, Piquero et al (2005) examined the ability of self control to predict violent offending and victimi zation among a sample of youths incarcerated at the California Youth Authority, their results uncovered t hat self control was able to predict both violent offending and victimization but failed to mediate the effects of other risk factors. Among the factor s that were effective at predicting violent offending were race, early onset, and age at release among others while race, street time, and sample composition predicted homicide victimization (Piquero et al., 2005). Consequently, it is important to consider race when asse ssing involvement in deviance and crime as well as factors that may be affecting members of specific racial/ethnic groups to better grasp the impact that race and its underlying cultural pushes and pulls can have on behavior. As suggested by Lynam et al (2000), behavior may be product individual differences, but also of the social circumstances in which those with low self control are embedded. While the majority of research suggests that social factors mediate self control, current researc h maintains that self control is a persistent predictor of misconduct that operates independently of social integration (Welch, Tittle, Yonkonski, Meindinger, and Grasmick, 2008). Whereas social integration might include cultural factors it is important to scrutinize the relationship between the two and whether the fact remains that self

PAGE 41

41 control operates independent of social integration. This study will define social integration in terms of acculturation, process of adopting a second culture, and assimilat ion, or the process of abandoning your native culture for a new one (Korzenny, 1998). It is expected that acculturation/assimilation will be associated with deviance/crime and self control and though the general theory would suggest that such differences w ill not affect self control, the reformulation of the same concept allows the assessment of variables of social integration while remaining theoretically consistent (Hirschi, 2004) Although self control has generated a large amount of empirical support, th e measure does not always yield the strongest level of significance when other theoretical constructs are controlled for (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Due, in part, to recent research questioning the ability of self control to predict crime and assertions made regarding the importance of concepts derived from social control theory, Hirschi (2004) redefined self control. Hirschi (2004, p. 543) defines self In essence, se lf control incorporates the Furthermore, Hirschi (2004) reclaims allegations of social control theory by suggesting that control stems from concern for the opinion of others (i.e ., parents, peers, and teachers). When control is weak or fails it paves the way for low levels of self control to emerge (Hirschi, 2004). control has received limited empirical attention. Piquero and Bouffard reformulation of self control and discovered that the new definition predicted drunk

PAGE 42

42 driving and sexual coercion more successfully than the original definition of self control. eformulation, researchers have recently tested whether separate measures of self control and attachment account for deviance. For example, Hinduja and Ingram (2008) examined music piracy among college students and found that self control mediated the effe ct of peer associations and behavior reinforcements. Nonetheless, additional research examining the importance of deviant peer association on digital piracy found that while self control was correlated with digital pirating, the effect vanished once peer associations were introduced into the model (Wolfe & Higgins, 2009). Research assessing the impact of family structure (one parent versus two parent households) on self control among Canadian children indicates that children residing in a two parent hous ehold possessed more self control than those living with only one parent (Phythian, Keane, & Krull, 2008). Furthermore, research also proposes that adolescents in one parent households were more likely to be involved in both general and serious adolescent deviance compared to youth in two parent households (Miller, Esbensen, & Freng, 1999). Hardwick and Brannigan (2008) argue that self control can directly influence offending while the opportunity (i.e. lack of parental supervision) is present. Research investigat ing the effect of parental efficacy on self control among African Americans found that self control did not fully mediate the effects of parental efficacy on delinquency (Burts, Simons, & Simons, 2006). Furthermore, parental efficacy, attachment to teachers, and association with prosocial peers control and reduced likelihood of delinquency (Burts et al., 20 06). Doherty (2006: offending independent of a control and

PAGE 43

43 parental attachment have been shown to be important predictors of deviance among Hispanics. For example, Miller, Jennings, Alvarez Rivera and Lanza Kaduce (2009) discovered that maternal attachm ent was correlated with self control and that both constructs predicted deviance within a Hispanic sample More specifically, Hispanics who engaged in deviant behaviors were significantly less attached to their mothers and reported considerably lower leve ls of self control compared with non deviant Hispanics. Self Control and Parenting Gibbs, Giever and Martin (1998), tested self control theory by conducting a path analysis, used to determine whether a theoretical path is empirically viable. Their goal was to test the effect of parental management on self control using a sample of 289 college students. They tested self control, first, by using it as a dependent variable and then as an intervening variable mediating the effects of parental management on devi ant behavior. Gibbs et al. (1998) found a fair amount of support for Gottfredson and contrary to what Gottfredson and Hirschi would expect. They found that self control is mediated or influenced by parental management, when used to predict deviance, defined as alcohol use, cheating in school, academic expulsion or suspension, and cutting class (Gibbs et al., 1998). Hay (2001) looked at the effects of parenting on self c ontrol and delinquency, utilizing a sample of urban high school students in the southwest U.S., he examined two control theory. First he examined whether all the variables that encompass effective pare nting would be negatively related to self control. Second, he looked at the ability of low self control to interfere with the impact of effective parenting on delinquency (Hay, 2001). In accordance with the

PAGE 44

44 theory, Hay (2001) found that effective parenti ng is significantly and negatively related to low self control. The relationship between the variables is moderate, though it increased once he added more parenting variables. In terms of the second hypothesis, Hay (2001:20) reported that about one fourth of the effect of parental monitoring discipline on delinquency operated through self control. These findings are contrary to control should explain most, if not all, of the effect of monitoring discipline on de linquency. Unnever, Cullen and Pratt (2003) examined the effect of attention deficit disorder on self assertion that parental supervision is the driving force behind self repor ted and official delinquency (i.e. arrests). The findings indicated that self control mediated the effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Unnever et al., 2003). Additionally, the study suggests that an increase in self control is asso ciated with parental monitoring, which had direct effects on delinquency (Unnever et al., 2003). Wright and Beaver (2005) examine the effect of parenting on self control, accounting for genetics. Their finding suggests that controlling for genetics, paren ting has a weak and inconsistent effect on self control (Wright and Beaver, 2005). Not only does genetics appear to affect the level of self control exhibited by individuals, parental self control predicts level of self control exercised by their children, but the relationship operates through parenting style choices (Nofziger, 2008). This study further supports the need to consider individual differences when testing the general theory and its recent reformulation. If genetics affect self control levels an d parenti ng styles it is probable that individual

PAGE 45

45 differences arising from race/ethnicity or culture may also affect levels of self control and the ability to effectively parent a child. Perrone and Colleagues (2004) assessed the relationship between self control, parental efficacy, and delinquency using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The authors report findings that suggest a relationship between parental efficacy and delinquency, but contrary to what Gottfredson and Hirsch i, would predict self control did not totally mediate the effect of parental efficacy (Perrone et al., 2004). Accordingly, research assessing the impact of family structure (one parent versus two parent households) on self control among Canadian children i ndicates that children residing in a two parent household possessed more self control than those living with only one parent (Phythian, Keane, & Krull, 2008). Pratt, Turner and Piquero (2004) looked at both the effect of parental socialization on self con trol and the way community structure influenced parental socialization. The study provided several important findings; the first result s provided conditions, both parental comparably significant. Their most significant finding for the purposes of the current study is the race differences discovered between parental socialization and neighborhood conditions (Pratt et al., 2004). In contrast to what Gottfredson and Hirschi would predict, among White non Hispanics poor parental supervision and high parental monitoring predicted low self control while for non Whites poor parental supervision and poor parental monitoring i s significantly and positively associated with self control. Unnever, Cullen, and Agnew (2006) examined the claim made by numerous

PAGE 46

46 criminological theories including self control, differential association, and social learning e effects on their children. In the study the authors report that low self control and aggressive attitudes predicted and partially mediated the effect of parenting measures on delinquent behavior (Unnever et al., 2006). Parenting Research has shown that t he parents of delinquents are less likely to have as strong a level of attachment with their child as parents of non delinquent children (Gleuck and Gleuck, 1950). According to Gleuck and Gleuck (1950), the fathers of delinquents were less likely to show w armth to their child as oppose to the fathers of non delinquents In regards to the mothers of delinquent children they found that they of non delinquent children (Gl e uck and Gl e u ck, 1950: 12 5 128). Johnson (1987) conducted a study looking at the difference between attachment to mothers and attachment to fathers and its effect on delinquency. The results indicated that both males and females are closer to their mother and that attachment to fa ther is a better indicator of delinquency. Krohn and Massey (1980) looked at the four different elements of the bond as described by Hirschi (1969). They found moderate support for the theory and reported that of the four bonds attachment reported the leas t explanatory power. They did find differences among attachment to father and attachment to mother, attachment to mother being the stronger predictor among the two, especially for males. Notably parental attachment added little explanatory power than eithe r attachment to mother or attachment to father separately. Affectional ties appear to have an effect on delinquency at an early age and vice versa; the relationship then fades and delinquency influences affectional parental ties later in life (Agnew,

PAGE 47

47 1985) Jang and Smith (1997), on the other hand, found no relationship between affectional ties and delinquency. Research looking at family structure and parental attachment among middle school students in south Florida, found a significant direct relationship between attachment to parents and the reported deviant/delinquent behaviors which included both major and minor delinquency, cigarette, drug, and alcohol consumption (Sokol Katz, Dunham and Zimmerman, 1997). A significant direct association was also evide nt between parental attachment and conformity, suggesting that adolescents with stronger parental attachment were more likely to abstain from delinquency (Sokol Katz et al., 1997). After analyzing data from the National Youth Survey, Warr (1993) found sup port for the idea that time spent with parents can reduce or eliminate the effects of peers on delinquency. In contrast, he did not find any relationship between attachment to parents and a decrease in delinquency, though there is some evidence of parental attachment affecting the initial delinquent peer selection process (Warr, 1993). Aseltine (1995) found a weak correlation between parental influence and deviant behavior in a longitudinal study looking at peer and parental influences on deviant behavior t marijuana use is .135 and .036 at time one and .016 and .006 at time two (p<.05) respectively, which gives little to no support for control theories. The evidence suggests that there i delinquency.

PAGE 48

48 The empirical scrutiny of the relationship between parenting and delinquency suggests, to some extent, that the relationship between parents and future delinquency i s complex. Perceived parental supervision is negatively associated with delinquency and diminishes over time (Jang and Smith, 1997). Negative parenting is common among children who act out while parents who talk to their children are more likely to have we ll behaved children (Brems and Sohl, 1995). A coercive parenting style is a strong predictor of delinquency, but the causal order by which it operates is not clear (Unnever, Colvin and Cullen, 2004). Ineffective parenting produces maladjustment in children between the ages of 2 and 11 but the relationship is somewhat mediated by marital conflict (Buelher and Gerard, 2002). Marital conflict affects maladjustment by pare nt child conflict (Buelher and Gerard, 2002). Ineffective parenting is additionally correlated with initial alcohol use and continued alcohol abuse (Barnes, Reifman, Farrell, Dintcheff, 2000). A study examining the relationship between mother's age at chil dbearing reported that children born to women who had children early in life were more likely to become delinquent (Pogarsky, Lizote, and Thornberry, 2003). The authors contend that while being a young mother affects delinquency through its effect on house hold stability it remains significant independent of household stability (Pogarsky et al., 2003). Improvements in parenting seem to reduce involvement in delinquent behavior among children residing in a small town with both parents present (Simons, Johnson Conger, and Elder, 1998)

PAGE 49

49 vement in delinquency as a whole and across age groups (Wright and Cullen, 2001). Authoritative parenting styles as well as collective efficacy reduce deviant peer associations and delinquency (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, Curtona, 2005). Inmates asked to retrospectively assess the parenting styles of their parents, reported having parents that were either authoritative or permissive as opposed to their non inmate counterparts (Chipman, Olsen, Klein, Hart, Robinson, 2000). Furthermore Warr (2005) contends that delinquency is associated with parenting and attachment through their influence on peer deviant associations. Crosnoe and Colleagues (2002) conducted a longitudinal study looking at family relationships and school factors. Their results suggest that family and school factors reduce the effect of delinquent peers, delinquency, and substance use (Crosnoe et al., 2002). Analysis of the relationship between parenting and delinquent behavior in the context of legal sanctions indicates that the effect of p arenting on delinquency is partially mediated by legal sanctions (Stewart, Simons, Conger, and Scaramella, 2002). Parenting evident ly affects involvement in deviant and criminal behavior, whether it is by its impact on parenting style of its effect on affe ctional ties. Nonetheless, the fact remains that parents are significant in the development of behavior and behavioral patterns; therefore accounting for individual racial and cultural differences that may influence the parent child relationship is essenti al in order to better understand behavior.

PAGE 50

50 Acculturation, Assimilation and Immigration In recent times the cultural makeup of the United States has changed. More frequently families made up of different cultural backgrounds or mixed cultures can be seen i n modern neighborhoods. Therefore the consideration of parenting and its effect on behavior is incomplete if we do not account for the manner in which diverse people adjust to life in the United States and how their immigration into the United States affec t their parenting and the likelihood for criminality. Immigration The effects of immigration on culture and group sociology have been discussed in the sociological and criminological literature for decades. Early work by Sellin (1938), for example, inte rconnected border sharing, colonization, and immigration to cultural conflict. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of assimilation and their consequent application to crime and delinquency merit further discussion. Two theoretical concepts have emerged in resea rch in association with assimilation: classical assimilation and segmented assimilation. Classical assimilation theory suggests that immigrant youth will undoubtedly presuppose the normative behaviors of the host country, eventually (Gordon, 1964). The t suggesting that assimilation implies becoming incorporated to the core of the White American way of life (Golash Boza, 2006). An immigrant is therefore, fully assimilated when they abandon their cultu ral norms and values for those held by European Americans (Chapman and Pereirra, 2005). By contrast, segmented assimilation theory proposes the existence of several pathways of assimilation, resulting in either a downward or an upward assimilation for eth nic groups dependent on the mainstream culture to which the immigrant group assimilates (Wildsmith, 2004). Immigrant

PAGE 51

51 assimilation is dependent upon the economic and human capital available to each immigrant (Cook, Hofstetter, Kang, Hovell, and Irvin; 2009) towards assimilation is going to be directly influence by the segment of society into which each individual immigrant chooses to reside in. While some immigrants may effortlessly assimilate into the White middle class others with t he same ease might infiltrate the underclass or even remain immersed within the immigrant community staying true to their cultural norms and values (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Rumbaut, 1994; Portes and Zhou, 1993). For example, immigrants who find shelter i n inner cities will be more likely to assimilate to inner city values whereas immigrants who settle into middle class neighborhoods or suburbs will be more apt to assimilate to middle class values. Within the context of popular culture and normative behavi ors, immigrants are likely to assume deviant and delinquent behavior as a result of the negative or adverse conditions experienced by immigrants. Alba and Nee (1997) further suggested that as time passes, each subsequent generation of immigrants is going to be further entrenched in the host society and in turn is expected to be further assimilated. For some immigrants, assimilation seems to shield them from delinquent/criminal involvement, providing evidence for a segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Portes and Zhou (1993) suggest that assimilation is dependent on environmental factors, like available opportunities and contact with members of other ethnic groups. The authors suggest that when immigrants do not have strong family ties, t hey have a propensity to assimilate into disadvantaged neighborhoods, adopting the normative behaviors of inner city subcultures and therefore are at a higher risk of criminal involvement (Portes and Zhou, 1993). On the contrary, immigrants who

PAGE 52

52 preserve s trong attachments to their culture resist the assimilation process and consequently are sheltered from involvement in crime and delinquency (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Providing support for the idea that immigrant s who are less assimilated will have the stron gest parental attachments and as a result will be less involved in deviant or criminal activity. Paulson and Rhine (2008) suggest that assimilation will reduce crime rates by propose carrying cash for all transactions, increasing their likelihood of criminal victimization. Morenoff and Astor (2006) examined the existing literature on c rime, immigration and assimilation theory (classical and segmented) with data from the Project of Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The authors studied violent crime across generational status, length of time of first generation immigran ts in the U.S., linguistic acculturation, concentrated disadvantage, and percent of immigrants in the neighborhood. Their research fails to provide support for the notion that immigrants engage in more crime than natives do, it also establishes that lengt h of residence in the U.S. and greater assimilation increases the likelihood of criminal involvement. Consequently, their evaluation of segmented assimilation theory generated results ate into inner city neighborhoods are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. While literature examining the connection between immigration and crime is generally underdeveloped and sometimes incongruous, research suggests that the arrival of immigrant s and the processes associated with immigration reduce crime,

PAGE 53

53 perhaps contrary to popular opinion and political rhetoric. At the individual level, Martinez and Lee (2000) studied offending among particular immigrant groups and reported that Haitian, Jamai can, and Mariel Cuban immigrants in Miami offended less than native born individuals. The authors also demonstrated that patterns of violence have declined since 1980 as these immigrant groups have become larger, more established, and grown older. Macro l evel studies linking immigration to crime generally find consistent results. In their study of metropolitan areas from 1980 to 1990, Butcher and Piehl (1998) failed to discover a relationship between the population proportion of immigrants and the crime r ate. Similarly, Reid and colleagues (2005) assessed the link between immigration and crime at the macro level using 2000 census data and Uniform Crime Report data. Their results suggest that at the aggregate level immigration does not increase property o r violent crime rates. Stowell, Messner, McGeever, and Raffalovich (2009) examined the impact of immigrant concentration on metropolitan areas. Their results found that increases in immigrant concentration were associated with reduction in crime, especially for robbery offending (Stowell et al., 2009). Likewise, Martinez, Jr., Stowell and Lee (2010) found that in San Diego, Latino non White and White neighborhoods with high concentration of immigrants experienced reductions in the levels of homicide victimiz ation. On the other hand, Shihadeh and Barranco (2010) report that while immigrants may not be engaging in criminal behavior at a higher rate their presence in inner city neighborhoods accounts for an inc rease in crime among Blacks. They suggest that the c ompetition for low level jobs (i.e. agriculture,

PAGE 54

54 constructions, retail etc. ) increases the unemployment rate among Blacks and their involvement in crime (Shihadeh and Barranco, 2010). At the community level, Lee et al. (2001) propose that immigration may p ropel inner cities by revitalizing and rejuvenating their economies. Seemingly, the demand for ethnic shops and goods will also positively affect trade and thus the availability of jobs for natives and immigrants alike (Kotkin, 2000). Rosenfeld and Tiend a (1999) argue that increasing immigration will cause comparative increases in the availability of service jobs (law enforcement, firefighters, etc.), and that this enhanced job availability will bring more economic opportunities to natives. Moreover, Lau risten (2001) uncovered a negative relationship between immigration and crime in inner cities, immigration and crime in suburban areas. Collectively, these results suggest factors that may influence criminal involvement for immigrants but not for natives. One plausible explanation for differential effects across residential areas is the potential discontinuity in assimilation and acculturation for immigrants particularly immigrants may find it more difficult to assimilate in the inner city, a conclusion that is consistent with the fundamental propositions of social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay, 1942). Another possibility is that immigrants may assimilate into inner city subcultures in accordance with the propositions of segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Acculturation The effect of assimilation and acculturation on behavior has sparked empirical research in recent years. While most of the r esearch has centered on family relations some has addressed the effect of assimilation and acculturation on crime. Social

PAGE 55

55 process theories take into account the socialization of children and contend that the way children are raised consequently affects the ir criminal propensity. Therefore it is of interest to consider how acculturation and assimilation impacts the socialization. attitudes and behavior patterns by immigrants, or by other groups historically excluded from the larger society" (Johnson, 2004:1). Hence in order to understand crime among immigrants there needs to be an understanding of how their acculturation/assimilation affects their propensity to crime. In terms of parenting, research demonstrates a link between acculturation and parenting styles. Fathers emigrating from India have a propensity to engage in their children's lives if they are highly acculturated to the American way of life (Jain and Belsky 1997). Acculturated Indian mothers were more likely to have adolescent children with problem behavior (Atzaba Poria and Pike, 2007). Mexican American mothers who have successfully acculturated are less likely to erratically discipline their children (Dumka, Roosa and Jackson, 1997). On the other hand, acculturation disrupts family relationship in multiple ways, Mexican American children who are highly acculturated are less likely to frequent their grandparents and lose affection for them over time (Silverstein an d Chen, 1999). Mexican American families whose members are highly acculturated report having more family conflict then less acculturated families (Pasch, Deardorff, Tschann, Flores, Penilla, Pantoja, 2006). Acculturated Hispanic teens residing in areas wit h a low concentration of Hispanics are at a higher risk of engaging in sexual behaviors (Upchurch, Aneshensel, Mudgal, and McNeely, 2001) and less likely to use some form of contraception as a way

PAGE 56

56 of preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (Unger and Molina, 2000). Acculturation is associated with risk for drug use and abuse among Hispanic adolescents (Valencia and Johnson, 2008) but females and those residing in urban areas are more susceptible to drug use and abuse (Vega, Aldere te, Kolody, Aguilar Gaxiola, 1998). Gil and colleagues (2000) found that alcohol use was significantly higher among the U.S. born Hispanics compared to native born Hispanics; further, alcohol use was positively related to years living in the U.S. While a cculturation may lead to an increase in heavy drinking among Hispanics, for women, in particular, it is associated with binge drinking (Caetano, 1987). The inability to acculturate is associated with a series of factors that can in turn influence delinque nt or criminal involvement; among them depression (Oh, Koeske, Sales, 2002), self esteem (Meyler, Stimpson, and Peek, 2006) psychiatric problems and Fitzpatrick, 2008) a nd political cynicism (Michelson, 2003). Among Muslims, acculturation may lead to short term or long term depression (Asvat and Malcarne, 2008). Iranians, on the other hand, tend to achieve better mental health statuses as their levels of acculturation inc rease (Ghaffarian, 1998). Older Mexican Americans experience high levels of self esteem as they become more acculturated, independent of the slight mediation effect of depression (Meyler et al., 2006). Asian Indian adolescents who had acculturated to U.S. culture had higher GPAs than did adolescents who were separated or marginalized (Farver, Badha, and Narang, 2002). A causal link has not been established between acculturation and likelihood of intimate partner victimization among Mexican Americans (Ramire z, 2007). But, research

PAGE 57

57 published by Caetano et al. (2000) suggests that acculturated [measured by a scale including questions assessing use of English in social relationships and media preference (Hispanic v. Anglo)] Hispanics, reported higher involvement in intimate partner violence. Research exploring the relationship between acculturation and delinquency generally finds that greater levels of acculturation among Hispanic adolescents increase the risk for future delinquent and criminal behavior (i.e. dri nking, intimate partner violence). On the contrary, when looking at gang membership among Mexican Americans in California, Lopez and Brummett (2003) found that there is higher representation of non acculturated, or individuals with Mexican American orienta tion, in gangs. Involvement in gangs of less acculturated immigrants may perhaps result from gang involvement prior to their migration into the United States. Likewise, research looking at DUI recidivism among Hispanics found that less acculturated Hispa nics were more likely to report repeat DUI convictions than more acculturated Hispanics (Hunter et al., 2006). This finding might be evidence of strain related to delinquent behavior, as it can ility to do so could increase Likewise, attitudes toward gender roles mediate the relationship between acculturation and violence against women within a sample of south Asian college students (Bhanot and Senn, 2007). Vietnamese and Korean males, scoring lower on the Marin and Marin Acculturation Scale report higher likelihood of supporting pro violence attitudes (Kim Gho and Baello, 2008).

PAGE 58

58 Acculturation is equally credited with promoting prosocial behaviors among immi grants. Some studies suggest that Latinos who successfully acculturate to the United States consume less alcohol then Latinos who have not been able or willing to take on American cultural values (Lee, Lopez, Cobly, Tejada, Garcia Coll, & Smith, 2006). Ira nian immigrants with lower resistance towards U.S. culture and higher levels of acculturation report better mental health than non acculturated Iranians (Ghaffarian, 1998). Assimilation Processes of assimilation may also influence criminal or deviant beha vior for non natives. Assimilation is the process in which persons and groups attain memories, sentiments and attitudes from others and by sharing their experience and history are incorporated with them in a common cultural life (Park & Burgess, 1924). Ty pically assimilation is measured by immigrant status (first or second generation, etc.) or by looking at the extent to which individuals rely on the English language (the more English an individual speaks the more assimilated that individual is believed to be). Among Asian immigrants, higher levels of assimilation result in ineffective parental control and an increase in association with delinquent peers, in turn facilitating involvement in delinquency (Jang, 2002; Wong, 2000). Jang (2002) found that amon g Asian American youth, failure to fully assimilate is associated with reduced involvement in deviant behavior. Various researchers have uncovered a series of negative consequences in association with increased levels of assimilation. Among those consequ ences are increased alcohol use (Kitano et al., 1988), cigarette smoking (Wiecha, 1996), and drug use (James et al., 1997). Nagasawa et al. 2001 examined marijuana use among Asian Pacific and reported that adolescents who spoke English at home engaged in marijuana

PAGE 59

59 use 43% more than adolescents who did not speak English to their parents. In terms of generational status, the authors found that immigrants were 61% less like than later generations to smoke marijuana (Nagasawa, et al. 2001). It appears that i mmigration, albeit legal, is not inherently associated with involvement in deviance and/or delinquency/crime, but that it is the manner in which immigrants acculturate/assimilate into the host country that dictates their propensity for criminality. Further more it may be the way in which acculturation/assimilation impacts familial relationships that influences criminal involvement. While acculturation/assimilation is not a Hispanic phenomenon, Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority in the Uni ted States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) and as a result especial attention must be given to the processes that influence the behavior of this racial and ethnically diverse group. Cross Cultural Self Control Studies Marenin and Reisig (1995) assessed whether General Theory could account for normal, political economic, and riotous crime in Nigeria. The authors suggest that the theory cannot account for crimes in Nigeria because the characteristics of the construct do not fit th e range of crimes that take place in that country and cannot tap into the underlying values of Nigerians (Marenin and Reisig, 1995). The inability of the general theory to transcend and explain crime among Nigerians suggests that self control, as tradition ally conceptualized, is not able to explain crime cross culturally due to its failure to be culturally sensitive to other customs. Nakhaie and colleagues (2000) while examining the association between self control, social control, age, gender and ethnicit y among high school students in Alberta,

PAGE 60

60 Canada concluded that self control is a very powerful predictor of all types of delinquency. For the purpose of the current study, their most important finding is the strong association found between ethnicity and d elinquency even when controlling for both social and self control (Nakhaie et al., 2000) This suggests a relationship between cultural values independent of social control measures or of self control as outline by the general theory. Vazsonyi, Pickering, J unger, and Hessing (2001) analyzed self control among the following four nations: United States, Hungary, Netherlands, and Switzerland. The study reported that self control accounted for 20 percent of the variance explained in total deviance (Vazsonyi et a l., 2001). This study provides support for Gottfredson and cultural applicability. Baron (2003) examined whether self control successfully predicted criminal behavior among Canadians. Sel f control effectively predicted criminal behavior independent of other theoretical constructs (i.e. differential association, strain theory) and predicted violent offending better then minor offending (Baron, 2003). The generalizability of the theory was t ested using a sample of 335 Japanese adolescents employing Grasmick et al. (1993) Normative Deviance Scale (NDS) to measure self control (Vazsonyi, Wittekind, Bellinston and Loh: 2004). Vazsonyi et al (2004) reached the same conclusion as did Vazsonyi et al. (2001), that self control is a reliable measure of deviance both for male and female subjects across cultures. Furthermore, they concluded that self control is in fact a multidimensional trait and that it is invariant across all different types of dev iance, with the exception of alcohol consumption between Japanese and American adolescents (Vazsonyi et al., 2004).

PAGE 61

61 Some scholars have reported contradict ory findings suggesting that the general theory may not have the same applicability across cultures. S elf control predicts criminal behavior among Russians as expected, but when individual motivations towards crime are controlled the effect is fully mediated (Tittle and Bothcovar, 2005). Additionally, the long term consequences of criminal behavior have no impact on involvement in crime, while informal consequences do impact involvement independent of self control (Tittle and Bothchkovar, 2005). Self control positively predicts deviant and criminal behavior across a racially diverse jail inmate population, although inmates expressed varying levels in self control with Blacks exerting higher levels of self control then Hispanics and Whites (Li, 2005). Miller, Jennings, Alvarez Rivera and Lanza Kaduce (2009) discovered that maternal attachment was correlated w ith self control and that both constructs significantly predicted deviance among Puerto Rican high school students. The inconsistent relationship between self control and crime among varying ethnic populations has seldom been explored. Proximity and accul turation might could be that cultures closer to the U.S. in either proximity or customs may be better that have more differing views or are farther away in distance, self control may not adequately explain the criminal behavior of its population. Cross Cultural Parental Attachment Studies Parenting differences can be found among various cultures and can ac count for the diverse parent child relationships witnessed cross culturally. Escovar and Lazarus

PAGE 62

62 (1982) reported findings of closer bonds between mother and child among Hispanic families than among Euro American families. They also found evidence of the fo cus of American parents on the self reliance of their children rather than the constant support that accentuated Hispanic parenting. Ethnic parents (i.e. Asian American, Black, and Hispanic ) have a tendency to be more involved in their children's live, emp hasizing the need for educational attainment and self control than White parents (Julian, McKenry, McKelvey, 1994). Culturally, Hispanics tend to have strong attachments with their family, referred to as familism (Desmond & Turley, 2009). Familism invol ves consideration of the whole & Contreras, 2003; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 19 94). Additionally, attachments to religion and school are especially important among Hispanics given that these institutions often serve as a second home for Hispanics and may even replace family in the socialization process (Ellison et al., 2005; Pantoja et al., 2005) a s they tend to form stronger attachment with schools than Whites (Lin and Dembo, 2008). Therefore, examining these factors within a Hispanic sample is important for understanding ways in which institutions and self control influence the l ikelihood of deviance among young Hispanic adults. Matos, Barbosa, Milheiro de Almeida and Costa (1999) examined the relationship between attachment to parents and identity among 361 Portuguese adolescents. Their study concluded that parental attachment is significantly associated with identity though they observed gender differences in the sample. For males

PAGE 63

63 relationship with their mother seemed to be important in terms of identity formation xamined among European Americans, American Indian, and Mexican American women (Rastogi and Womber, 1999). Evidence points to stronger attachments between American Indian women and their mothers with the lowest levels of attachment found among European Amer icans (Rastogi and Womber, 1999). Tacn and Caldera (2001) examined parental attachment among Mexican American and non Hispanic white American college women. They found no differences Their finding implies that Hispanics and Whites are more alike than it has been thought in the past crime is free from cultural influences. In a study examining ethnic variation in parenting styles, researchers looked at a group of Asian Americans and their relationship with their parents and its effect on smoking (Shakib, Mouttapa, Anderson Johnson, Ritt Olson, Trinidad, Gallaher, and Unger, 2003). The sample is a gro up of southern California sixth graders of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Shakib et al (2003) found that Asian Americans reported experiencing less parental monitoring than Hispanics and less parental communication then that reported by other ethnic groups. A dditionally, for the Hispanic youth all parental monitoring and communication served as a protective factor from adolescent smoking. While parental communication and monitoring also served as a protective factor for White adolescents, the effect was lower than that found among Hispanics (Shakib et al., 2003). On the contrary, parental smoking was significantly associated to

PAGE 64

64 interest of future research to take into account ethnic differences the basis of this particular study Hahm, Lahiff, and Guterman (2003) looked at the effects of acculturation on alcohol use and the possibility of parental management mediating the relationship among Asian Americans. They evaluated a sample of 714 Asian American boys and girls in grades seven through twelve from the National Longitudinal Adolescent Health Survey. They reported that among Asian Americans, those with low levels of parental attachment and who were highly Americanized wer e 11 times more likely to use alcohol than those who were not acculturated. In addition, the Asian American youth that had modest to high levels of attachment with their parents reported similar, although lower, levels of alcohol use (Hahm et al., 2003). A ttachment to school significantly predicts delinquency status among Chinese adolescents (Zhang and Messner, 1996). Attachment to parents, therefore, appears to shiel d individual s from involvement in a host of deviant and delinquent/criminal behavior s among ethnic minorities validating the need for research controlling for cultural variables to better understand the causal mechanisms by which they impact criminality.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 METHODS Hypothese s Few cross cultural studies exist to evidence how attachme nt relates to self control across and within race and ethnicity. The current study focuses on this under researched area by examining attachment among a diverse sample consisting of White non Hispanics and Hispanics living in the continental United States activities and as a result the effect of attachments may vary widely from those experienced by Americans and by Hispanics that have been successfully assimilated into Ame rican culture. Extending from this knowledge and based on the premises of self control theory the following novel hypotheses will be addressed: 1 Attachment will predict self control. 2. Attachment will predict analogous behavior (s). 3. Attachment will p redict crime. 4. Self control will predict analogous behavior(s). 5. Self control will predict crime. 6. Acculturation /Assimilation will predict analogous behavior (s). 7. Acculturation /Assimilation will predict crime. 8 The effects of attachment on anal ogous behavior will be mediated by self control. 9 The effects of attachment on crime will be mediated by self control. 10. The effects of a cculturation /assimilation will be mediated by self control. Data The data used in this study was collected from co llege students during the spring and fall semesters of 2010. The sample was obtained from social science departments at Texas A & M International University in Laredo, TX and the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL. The reason for administering the su rveys in different university

PAGE 66

66 campuses is to target an ethnically diverse sample with special interest in examin ing differences between White non Hispanics and Hispanics 1 (19 reformulation of self control theory. By utilizing a diverse sample this study will be able to determine the applicability of these theoretical constructs cross culturally as we ll as establish whether these theories work independently of each other or are better able to predict crime and analogous behaviors together. Students were emailed a participation letter providing information regarding the study and the survey they were b eing asked to participate in. The participation letter included a link, which could be used to access the survey should the student agree to participate. Consent forms were not directly distributed but the students did have to agree to voluntarily partici pate after reading information about the survey, its risks and benefits, and our commitment to maintaining confidentiality. In addition, students were notified that their answers would be completely anonymous, that no one other than the researcher would ha ve access to the answers, and that they were free to answer only the questions that they felt comfortable answering. The notice will emphasize that students should take the survey alone in order to better ensure the privacy of the information provided by t hem. The fact that the instrument was not a test and that as a result there were no right or wrong answers was also addressed prior to beginning the survey. Students were able to skip through questions that did not apply to them as well 1 To give some context to the samples used in these analyses detailed tables (Ta bles 4 1, 4 3 and 4 4) are included at the end of this chapter marking the differences between these students, the campuses and the surrounding neighborhood.

PAGE 67

67 as save the survey and come back to it at a later time. Reminder emails were sent to ensure the best possible response rate. A total of four hundred and fifty four college students were administered the survey. The sample was divided into three sub sample s TAMIU Hispanics ( n=240), UF Hispanics (n=68) and UF Whites (n=146). Table 4 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the TAMIU Hispanics, the UF Hispanics, and the UF Whites sub samples There was a greater percentage of males among the TAMIU Hispanics (40.8%) compared w ith the UF Hispanics (35.3%) and the UF Whites (32.9%). Similarly, there were a much higher percentage of students who were raised in natural two parent hous eholds among the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample (74 .2%) compared with the UF White sub sample (58.9%) a nd the UF Hispanic sub sample (41.2%). There was a relatively low prevalence of only children in all three groups, ranging from 8.8% (UF Hispanic sub sample ) to 16.4% (UF White sub sample ). Roughly one third of the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample and the UF Hi spanic sub sample reported that their mother was the primary disciplinarian in their household, whereas only one in five of the UF Whites reported their mother as the primary disciplinarian. Relatively comparable percentages were reported for the father b eing the primary disciplinarian, ra nging from 6.7% (TAMIU Hispanic sub sample) to 8.8% (UF Hispanic sub sample ). On average, the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample w as roughly four years older (M=23.95) than the UF Hispanic sub sample (M=19.87) and UF White sub sa mple (M=19.79). Inasmuch as the effects of the variables of interest might be contextualized or operate differently from one context to another (e.g., assimilation could be segmented), information is provided regarding both the university and larger comm unity contexts of

PAGE 68

68 tho se universities. See Tables 4 2 and 4 3 The profile for UF and its students is quite different from th at of TAMIU as seen in Table 4 2 Some of the most striking differences are: UF is larger, has a higher proportion of full time students, has a smaller proportion of older students, has a smaller percentage of students on federal aid, has a larger percentage on loans, has much higher graduation and retention rates, a lower admission rate, a lower percentage of female students, a lo wer percentage of Hispanic students, and higher percentage of Black students. The community comparisons also yield some striking differences. See Table 4 3 Gainesville is smaller, less densely populated, has a higher percentage of adults, smaller househ olds and families, higher per capita income, higher levels of education, a smaller percentage of Whites, and a much lower percentage of Hispanics. Table 4 1 also compares the sub samples on variables that will be used in the analyses ( see below for a descr iption of t h ose measures). The TAMIU Hispanic sub sample and the UF White sub sample were very similar in their degree of maternal attachment (as measured by means) and both of these groups reported a marginally greater amount of attachment to their mothe r compared with the UF Hispanic sub sample In contr ast, the UF Hispanic sub sample reported the greatest amount of attachment toward their father followed by the UF White sub sample and the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample While all three groups were virtuall y identical in their average levels of low self control as measured by the Grasmick et al. scale, the UF Hispanic sub sample and the UF White sub sample reported marginally higher levels of low self control on average compared with the TAMIU Hispanic sub s ample according to control scale. Regarding acculturation and assimilation, the UF

PAGE 69

69 Hispanic sub sample reported higher levels of acculturation than their TAMIU Hispanic count erparts, yet the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample reported higher levels of assimilation In addition, the UF Hispanic sub sample and the UF White sub sample reported having a greater amount of definitions favorable to committing crime on average c ompared with the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample Finally, the mean for analo gous behaviors for the UF Hispanic sub sample was twice that for UF Whites and nearly twice as much as that for TAMIU Hispanics; the UF Hispanics also reported a slightly greater amount of involvement in crime compared with the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample a nd the UF White sub sample. Independent Variables of Theoretical Interest Attachment and self control variables are expected to affect analogous behavior(s) and crime. Students were asked to self report their involvement in deviant/ delinquent and criminal behavior as well as to provide their views regarding deviant and criminal behavior during high school as well as their current involvement in analogous behavior(s) and crime. Additionally, they were asked a series of ques tions that were used to create sca les regarding their maternal and paternal attachment. Separate reliability analyses were conducted across all sub samples as well as within each sub sample to determine whether the measurement scales created s. The results for the independent variable scales (and other scales) used in the bivariate and multivariate analyses are presented in Table 4 4. The alphas produced are all acceptable with one possible exception (the analogous behavior dependent variable for the UF Hispanic sub sample). For this

PAGE 70

70 reason, only the overall reliability across all three sub samples is discussed in the sections below. Paternal and maternal attachments were measured by creating two separate scales consisting of 38 items each. The alphas for those scales across the sub samples are 0.958 2 and 0.952 respectively. Both attachment scales were coded in a manner that higher values represent stronger levels of attachment. The survey items that were used to construct the respective s cales are presented in the Appendix. Low Self Control. The key variable for Gottfredson and Hirschi is self control, usually measured using the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale. In accordance to previous research, this study will employ the Grasmick, Tittle, B ursick, and Arneklev (1993) scale to measure self control and it will be used as both an independent and a dependent variable depending on the analysis. Regardless of the fact that Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that their theory should be tested with beh avioral measures instead of attitudinal measures, the Grasmick et al. scale is the quintessential and most recognized measure of self control, primarily for its ability to bypass the tautological pitfall and secondly for its consistency at adequately measu ring self control (Alvarez Rivera and Fox, 2010; Benda, 2005; Longshore et al, 2005; Pratt and Cullen, 2000; Arneklev et al, 1999). The items included in the self control scale stem directly from Grasmick et al. (1993) scale. Specifically, the items that a re included measure the following six dimensions: impulsivity, short sightedness, physical activity, risk taking, self centeredness and temper. The full Grasmick scale was used to measure self control (23 items) ; with higher values suggesting that the resp ondents have lower levels 2 Table 4 per sub sample

PAGE 71

71 of self control. The alpha for this scale is 0.859 indicating that indeed it is a reliable measure. The items are presented in the Appendix. There has been a longstanding debate on whether or not the Grasmick et al. self control scale is valid and/or reliable and on whether behavioral or attitudinal measure are best for measuring self control. For example, Longshore, Turner and Stein (1996) studied the Grasmick et al. (1993) using a sample of drug offenders. Their results suggest partial support for the validity of the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale. By conducting a factor analysis the authors were able to tap into five of the concepts that Gottfredson and Hirschi describe and that the Grasmick et al. scale attempts to measure, but t hey were unable to differentiate between impulsivity and self centeredness (Longshore et al., 1996). The authors suggest that self reported methods are valid but that they have ioral measures (Longshore et al.,1996: 222). Furthermore, Longshore et al. (1996) suggest that risk taking, impulsivity, and self centeredness predict crimes of fraud as well as the self control scale as a whole and that temper and risk seeking are good pr edictors of Grasmick et al. (1993) scale yielded similar results as those reported by Longshore et al. (1996). Specifically, they found that the self control scale can fit to a one factor model, that it can be reliable and valid across genders, and that it was able to predict crimes of force and fraud as well as the five factor model developed by Longshore et al. (1996). On the contrary, Delisi and colleagues (2003) examined the dimensionality of the scale and concluded that the scale is not one dimensional.

PAGE 72

72 Consistent with what Gottfredson and Hirschi would predict, Piquero et al. (2000) control influence d self reports. Tittle and colleagues (2003) looked at behavioral and attitudinal measures to determine which was better at predicting crime/deviance measures. The results Gen eral Theory (Tittle et al., 2003). Tittle, Ward, and Grasmick (2004) looked at the ability and the willingness to exercise self control, and concluded that both are necessary in order for an individual to conform. According to the authors, crime/delinquenc y are better predicted when both ability and desirability are taken into account, although for some behavior ability operates through desirability (Tittle et al., 2004). control a separate s cale was created consisting of 12 items that he deems necessary to measure the newly redefined concept. The scale provided a slightly lower alpha (0.844) then the Grasmick et al. scale (0.859). The following questions made up the scale: I spoke to my mom o ften my mom listened to my problems My mom knew where I was when I was not at home I share d my thoughts and feelings with my mom I wanted to be like my mom my mom met my HS friends s chool was important to me m y teachers were my friends s chool was i mportant in order to obtain job skills g etting good grades was important to me g etting good grades was important to get the job I want to get after graduation and I cared what my teachers thought of me Students were asked to answer these questions rega rding their perceptions in high school on a scale of 1 to 4 ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The Grasmick et al. measure and the

PAGE 73

73 reformulated measure of self co ntrol are not highly correlated in the aggregate across the three sub samples or in the respective sub samples. Moreover, they are not highly correlated with attachment or other variables. See Appendix D. Acculturation. For purpose of this study acculturation was defined as the 98). While there has been a number of ways in which acculturation has been measured, this study will tap into the construct by composing a scale that will measure the following concepts central to the process of acculturation: language usage, media behavio r and cultural ties The scale for acculturation was constructed using 9 items and was coded in a way that higher values indicate more acculturation and offered an alpha of 0.813. Language usage was measured using questions that addressed the amount of E nglish used by the individual in a number of situations [i.e. which language do you prefer to speak or write in with the following individuals or under the following circumstances? (mom, dad, friends, co workers, in general, in writing)] Media behavior Qu leisure activities will be utilized to construct a measure of media behavior. Individual will be asked in what language they prefer to listen to music, watch TV, and read (i.e. books, magazines etc.) Cultural ties will be assessed with a series of questions designed to determine which culture the respondent leans more towards. Students will be asked to determine which culture they feel most proud of, most close to, most knowledgeable of, and which c ulture has had the greatest impact on their life (i.e. Hispanic or American).

PAGE 74

74 Assimilation. As with acculturation, assimilation has been measured in numerous ways sparking controversy about the manner in which it should be operationalized. For this study a assimilati on. The assimilation index was created with information obtained regarding employment, socioeconomic status, spatial concentration, and generational status. Dependent Variables The dependent variables in this study are analogous behavior and crime. Analog ous behavior. Analogous behavior was measured by constructing a scale of various non criminal behaviors. Self reports on analogous behavior were combined into an index, which serves as a dependent variable in the analyses. Students will be asked to indicat e whether they participated in any of the following behaviors within the last thirty days (i.e. during college) and how often they participated in the behaviors : had sex before marriage, cheated in school and skipped school. Reliability analysis generated a n alpha of 0.678 for this scale, the lowest alpha for any of the scales (and the alpha within the UF Hispanic sub sample was even lower (alpha= 0.569). Crime. Current involvement in different types of crimes was obtained via self reported behavior. Stud ents will be asked to report their involvement during the last thirty days (i.e. college) and frequency of involvement in a series of criminal behavior s The scale consisted of six items that constitute the following crimes; shoplifted, smoked marijuana, d rove after drinking reproduced copyrighted material, was picked up by the cops, was formally sentenced. R eliability analysis reported an alpha of 0.701.

PAGE 75

75 Control Variables A number of variables were controlled for in the multivariate models in order to m aintain their influence on the dependent variable constant The variables controlled for are the following: Male, which coded as a dummy variable where 0=female and 1= male. Age, a continuous variable, with a mean of nearly 24 for TAMIU Hispanic sub samp le and almost 20 for UF Hispanics and Whites alike. Whether or not the individual is an only child was controlled for and coded as a dummy variable 0= no and 1= yes; 10% of the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample consisted of only children, 8.8% of the UF Hispanic sub sample, and 16.4% of the UF White sub sample. Family structure is controlled for with a variable labeled two natural parent household, where 1= yes and 0= other living arrangements. The majority of the TAMIU Hispanic (74.2%) sub sample grew up with bot h natural parents in the household, 41.2% of the UF Hispanic sub sample and 58.9% of the UF White sub sample. Being discipline by their mother or their father was coded as dummy variables where 0= when the characteristic is not present and 1= when it is. Of the sample 32.5% of TAMIU Hispanic sub sample 32.4% of UF Hispanic s ub sample and 20.5% of UF White sub sample were disciplined by their mother. Students whose father were the primary disciplinarian made up 6.7% of the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample, 8.8% of the UF Hispanic s ub sample and 6.8% of the UF White s ub sample Beliefs are important to bonding, but Hirschi argues that social control operates through general conventional orientations rather than specific beliefs about crime or deviance. This diff erence is one that distinguishes social control from social learning approaches. Hence, r espondents were asked about their own defin itions favorable towards crime ( to separate it from the self control /bonding focus of this research ). The

PAGE 76

76 scale which was r everse coded meaning that higher values signify more positive definitions towards crime consisted of 6 items and supplied an alpha of 0.868. A list of items the scales is presented in the Appendix. Familism is a cultural value that is traditionally used as groups (Santisteban et al., 2002). The concept was measured using the Family Impact Scale (Colon, 1998). The items loaded on two separate factors after therefore two scales were created where h igher values indicate highe r levels of familism involvement (8 items) with an alpha of 0.864 and familism attachment (3 items) with an alpha of 0.728 instilling confidence in their reliability. Regardless, t his measure was only included in the surveys adm inistered to the UF sample as IRB did not find the questions used to measure the construct divergent en ough to justify adding them to the survey as a result the measure was absent from the survey provided to the TAMIU sample. Familism is not used in the mu ltivariate analyses. Analytic Strategy The analysis proceeded in several steps. First, descriptive statistics are reported by site to illustrate the general levels of the key variables of interest. Second, a series of bivariate comparisons were conducte d using chi square tests, t tests, analysis of variance tests, and correlations depending on the level of measurement on all of the theoretical and control variables used in the analysis that follows. Specifically, these bivariate comparisons will permit an examination of whether the key concepts such as attachment, self control, assimilation, analogous behavior, and crime significantly vary across the two sites and within sites (i.e. UF White sub sample, UF Hispanic sub sample ).

PAGE 77

77 The next stage of the anal ysis will further examine the nature of the association between attachment, self control, assimilation, analogous behavior, and crime in a multivariate context. Specifically, it is expected that ordinary least squares regressions will be used to determine if attachment predicts self control across race and ethnicity and within Hispanics (hypothesis 1). Ordinary least squares analysis will be conducted to assess h ypotheses 2 7 analogous behavior; attachment crime; self control analogous behavior; self control crime; assimilation analogous behavior; assimilation crime). Following the estimation of these models, multivariate regression models will be estimated in a similar fashion. Multivariate models were employed to examine the mediatio n hypotheses (hypotheses 8 and 9). Specifically, the effects of attachment and self control were estimated simultaneously when predicting analogous behavior and crime. The results of these models will be compared to the previous models that included only attachment when predicting analogous behavior and crime in order to determine if the effect of attachment is partially or completely mediated by the inclusion of self control in the model. In the final stage of the analysis a series of coefficient compa rison tests will be estimated to determine if the effect of these particular theoretical constructs (e.g., attachment and self control) significantly varies across race and ethnicity when predicting analogous behavi or and crime (Paternoster, Brame, Mazzero le, & Piquero, 1998). This statistical test will determine if the effect of attachment on self control and if the effect of attachment on analogous behavior and crime is significantly greater for

PAGE 78

78 Hispanics compared to Whites. Specifically, the z test allo ws researchers to compare regression coefficients across groups. The null hypothesis is that the coefficients do not significantly differ across groups. After applying the coefficient comparison test, an obtained z test statistic of (+ / ) 1.96 or great er would suggest that the coefficients between one of the sub samples (e.g., the TAMIU Hispanic s the UF Hispanics, or the UF Whites) is significantly different from the coefficient of another group. The statistical formula for performing the coefficient comparison test is below: z =

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 1 Descriptive Statistics by Sub samples 3 Variables TAMIU Hispanics (n=240) UF Hispanics (n=68) UF Whites (n=146) Gender 40.8% M 59.2% F 35.3% M 64.7% F 32.9% M 67.1% F Natural Two Parent Household 74.2% 41.2% 58.9% Only Child 10.0% 8.8% 16.4% Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 32.5% 32.4% 20.5% Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 6.7% 8.8% 6.8% Acculturation 2.74 3.00 -Assimilation 3.05 2 .52 -Familism (Involvement) -16.33 15.71 Familism (Attachment) 4.86 5.25 Age 23.95 19.87 19.79 Maternal Attachment 2.35 2.20 2.36 Paternal Attachment 2.08 2.25 2.17 Grasmick et al. 2.07 2.02 2.02 sed Low Self Control 1.65 1.73 1.77 Social Learning (definitions) 1.23 1.57 1.52 Analogous Behavior in College 5.96 10.01 4.91 Crime in College 7.67 8.74 6.97 3 All numbers not reported as percentages in this table are mean values.

PAGE 80

80 Table 4 2 University Profile 4 Texas A & M International Universit y (TAMIU) University of Florida (UF) Sector Public Public Total Students 5, 856 51,725 Full time Students 3,238 44,845 Part time Students 2, 618 6,880 Percent of Undergraduates over the age of 25 0.21% 0.04% Dorm Capacity 686 7,357 In state Tuition $ 4,180 $3,257 Out of State Tuition $10,852 $17,841 Percent of Students on Financial Aid 94% 99% Percent of Students on Federal Aid 53% 19% Percent of Students on Student Loans 8% 21% Graduation Rate 38% 81% Retention Rate 58% 95% Percent Admitted 54% 42% ACT/SAT Scores 20/900 30/1380 Accreditation Year 1913 1970 Size Medium Large Gender 62% F 38% M 53% F 47% M Non Resident Alien 341 3,785 Black Non Hispanic 41 4,267 Hispanic 5,282 6,226 Asian/Pacific Islander 27 3,953 American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 227 White Non Hispanic 153 31,388 Race Unknown 10 1,628 4 Data obtained from www.stateuniversity.com and www.collegestats.org

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 3 Community Profile 5 Laredo, Texas Gainesville, Florida Total Population 225,388 100,681 Population Density 2,873 2,090 Male 48.1% 49.3% Female 51.9% 50.7% 18 years + 64.5% 82.2% 65+ years 7.8% 9.8% Median Age 26.8 28.8 Married 61.7% 57.4% Single 38.3% 42.6% Number of Households 46,852 37,279 Avg. Household size 3.7 2.2 Avg. Family size 4.1 2.9 Median Household Income 35,859 33,527 Per Capita Income 13,668 20 ,347 Unemployment Rate 8.1% 6.5% Did not complete High School 29.9% 19.1% Completed High School 20% 17.8% Some College 16.9% 17.4% Associates Degree 6.6% 10.4% 10.3% 22.5% Graduate Degree 6.3% 22.8% African American 0.4% 24.4% Wh ite 81.9% 65.1% American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.5% 0.3% Asian 0.5% 5.6% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.1% Hispanic or Latino 94.7% ethnicity 8.3% ethnicity Other 16.6% 4.7% 5 Data obtained from www.bestplaces.net

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 4 Scales Over all TAMIU Sub sample UF Hispanic Sub sample UF White Sub sample Acculturation (9 items) Analogous Behavior in College (3 items) Crime in College (6 items) Familism attachment (3 items) Familism involvement (8 i tems) Grasmick et al (23 items) Reformulation (12 items) Maternal Attachment (38 items) Paternal Attachm ent (38 items) Social Learning (Personal Definitions 6 items)

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The results are presented in two major sections. The first section presents results from the vari ous bivariate analyses, including some comparisons across the three sub samples (TAMIU Hispanics, UF Hispanics, and UF Whites) as well as some preliminary bivariate regression analyses conducted in each of the sub samples. The first seven hypotheses are e xplored initially by using basic bivariate O rdinary L east S quares (OLS) regression. For the purposes of this study acculturation and assimilation are examined solely among Hispanics; therefore the TA MIU and UF Hispanic sub samples will only be incorporat ed in the analyses that deal with these variables (see hypotheses 6, 7 and 10). The second section presents results from multivariate analyses to see whether the bivariate results hold up when more variables are incorporated into the models. A more comp lete picture is obtained regarding the first seven hypotheses and the final three mediation hypotheses are examined. Bivariate Results Table s 5 1 5 2 and 5 3 display the bivariate comparisons across the three sub samples, TAMIU Hispanics, UF Hispanics, an d UF Whites. The results of a series of chi square tests (performed when the outcome variables were measured at the nominal .05) demonstrated significant associations across the three groups (see Table 5 1) Specifically, there was a significantly greater proportion of natural two parent households observed among the TAMIU Hispanics while there was a significantly smaller prop ortion of households where the mother was

PAGE 84

84 the primary disciplinarian among the UF White s ub sample Whether the respondent was an only child and whether or not the father was the primary disciplinarian were not significantly related to which sub sample th e respondent was in. Because acculturation and assimilation were measured only for the Hispanic sub samples, t tests were used to determine whether the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample was different from the UF Hispan ic s ub sample (see Table 5 2) T test compari sons between the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample and the UF Hispanic s ub sample demonstrated that the UF Hispanic s ub sample w as significantly more acculturated than the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample (t= 2.92, p<.01), but the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample were signific antly more assimilated than the UF Hispanics (t= 3.25, p<.01). This is quite the culture of the host country. While, on the contrary acculturation refers to the process of adapting to the new country without losing the cultural values of the country of origin. It could be expected that the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample would be more acculturated as oppose to be ing more assimilated because they are more concentrated in number s and because they are closer in proximity to country of origin. On the other hand the UF Hispanic s ub sample would be expected to assimilate instead of acculturate because they are fewer in numbers and as a result may socialize more with people of ethnic backgrounds different from their own. Instead the results may be due to a need by the UF Hispanic s ub sample to hold on to their roots for fear of losing their identity and a desire by the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample to assimilate to prove they belong in thi s country.

PAGE 85

85 Familism was measured to assess whether it impacted Hispanics differently than Whites. The measure was only included within the UF sample as the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at TAMIU felt the measure was redundant as compared to other measur es being used to account for attachments Consequently when factor analysis where conducted the measures loaded on two separate factors therefore two familism scales were created, one including measures associated with attachment variables and the other wi th involvement variables. Independent sample t tests were conducted on both familism scales and revealed no significant difference s between the UF Hispanic s ub sample and UF White s ub sample for either scales. As a result the scales were omitted from fut ure analyses to avoid multicoliniarity issues, as it seems that the scal es operate similarly to some social control variables (see APPENDIX D ). One way analysis of variance ANOVA tests were used to look for significant diffe rences across the remaining variables, measured at the ordinal or interval level (see Table 5 3) The results indicated that age (F= 42.59, p<.001) and maternal (F= 2.81, p<.10) and paternal (F= 3.32, p<.05) attachment were significantly different across t he three sub samples albeit maternal attachment was marginally significant. s ub sample was significantly older than the UF Hispanics and the UF Whites, whereas the TAMIU Hispani c s ub sample and the UF White s ub sample reported significantly greater attachment to their mothers compared with the UF Hispanic s ub sample In contrast, the UF Hispanic s ub sample and the UF White s ub sample reported significantly greater attachment to their fathers than did the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample Additional ANOVA and post hoc tests suggested that the UF Hispanic s ub

PAGE 86

86 sample and the UF White s ub sample held significantly more favorable definitions toward committing crime compared with the TAMIU H ispanic s ub sample (F= 35.54, p<.001). Finally, all of the group comparisons for analogous behavior were significantly (F= 52.15, p<.001) different from one another, with the UF Hispanic s ub sample reporting significantly greater involvement in analogous behavior than the TAMUI Hispanic s ub sample and the UF White s ub sample and the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample reported significantly greater involvement in analogous behavior compared with the UF White s ub sample These same significant differences and post hoc comparisons were also observed for involvement in crime while in college (F= 12.22, p<.001). Hypothesis 1: Attachment will predict low self control The first hypothesis examines the relationship between two attachment scales (maternal and paternal) an d self control measured using the Grasmick et al. scale as control scale The relevant result s are presented in Tables 5 4 through 5 7 The hypothesis receives mixed support. Maternal a ttachment predicted the Grasmick et al. scale for respondents in all three sub samples (see Table 5 4 ). The relationship was strongest among UF Hispanic s ub sample (beta= .460) and statistically significant at p< .001. It explained 19 percent of the variance in self control. The relationship was weaker among the UF White s ub sample (beta= .172, p< .05) and TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample (beta= .159, p< 0.05) but still significant. Maternal attachment could explain only about two percent of the variance in self control in these sub samples. Likewis e, maternal attachment predicted self control across all three sub control measure (see Table 5 5) The relationship was stronger for the UF White sub sample

PAGE 87

87 (beta= 0 .426, p<.001) followed by TAMIU Hispanic s ub sam ple (beta= 0 .402, p<.001) and UF Hispanic s ub sample (beta= 0 .347, p< .01). The variance explained in the revised self control scale by maternal attachment is highest among the UF White sub sample (Adjusted R Square= .18). Generally, students wh o reported higher levels of maternal attachment indicated having more self control regardless of the measure being used Paternal attachment, on the other hand, was onl y significantly related to self control a mong the UF Hispanic s ub sample (see Table 5 6 ). The relationship was moderate (beta= 0 .239, p<.05) suggesting that within this sub sample students who indicated having stronger attachments to their fathers were also prone to having higher levels of self control than were those who did not report being strongly attached to their fathers. For UF Hispanics, paternal attachment could only explain about four percent of the variance in self control. There was no relationship between paternal attachment and self control for the TAMIU Hispanics and UF Whites sub samples Paternal attachment, on the other hand was able to predict self control when control scale among the TAMIU Hispanics and UF Whites sub samples (see Table 5 7). The relationship was stronger for the UF White sub sa mple (beta= 0 .425, p<.001) than for the TAMIU Hispanics sub sample (beta= 0 .111 p<.10) There was no relationship between the revised self control scale and paternal attachment for the UF Hispanics sub sample. The variance in the revised self control scal e explained by paternal attachment was greater among for the UF White sub sample (Adjusted R Square= .18). In general, paternal attachment was able to predict

PAGE 88

88 self control across the three sub samples, but the ability of paternal attachment to predict self control was dependent on the measure of self control being employed. Hypothesis 2: Attachment will predict analogous behaviors The results for the basic OLS regression analyses that address the second hypot hesis are reported in Tables 5 8 and 5 9. Table 5 8 examines the relationship between maternal attachment and analogous behaviors; T able 5 9 focuses on paternal attachment. When no control variables are included in the analyses, the hypothesis is generally supported, especially regarding maternal attac hment in that lower attachment is associated with more involvement in analogous behaviors. Students who reported being strongly attached to their mothers were less likely to acknowledge involvement in analogous behaviors (see Table 5 8 ) The association be tween maternal attachment and analogous behaviors was strongest among UF Hispanics ( beta = 0 .296 p<0.5). The ability for maternal attachment to predict analogous behavior was also significant among UF Whites ( beta = 0 .250 p<.01) and TAMIU Hispanics ( beta = 0 .143 p< .05) but the relationship s w ere slightly weaker. Maternal attachment accounted for between two (TAMIU Hispanics) and seven (UF Hispanics) percent of the variance according to the adjusted R square statistics. Paternal attachment predicts analog ous behavior only in the UF sub sample s (see Table 5 9 ) Respondents who indicated being highly attached to their fathers were more apt to report being less engaged in analogous behaviors. While the relationship was a bit stronger among the UF White s ub s ample ( beta = 0 .245, p<.01 ) than for UF Hispanic s ub sample ( beta = 0 .213 p<.1). The explained variance accounted for was five percent for the UF White s ub sample and three percent for UF Hispanic s ub

PAGE 89

89 sample Paternal attachment was unrelated to analogous behaviors in the TAMIU sub sample Hypothesis 3: Attachment will predict crime Tables 5 10 and 5 11 show respectively how maternal and paternal attachment predicts crime in college among all groups using the basic model. Generally, those individuals who were more strongly attached to their mothers reported less involvement in criminal behavior across all groups, but paternal attachment predicted crime only in the UF Hispanic sub sample The relationship between matern al attachment and crime (Table 5 10 ) was strongest among UF Hispanic s ub sample (beta= 0 .342, p<.01) but still significant among UF White s ub sample (beta= 0 .227, p<.01) and TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample (beta= 0 .125.p<.05). Paternal attachment (see Table 5 9 ) was only able to significantly predi ct criminal behavior among UF Hispanics (beta= 0 .291, p<.05). The explained variance (adjusted R square) was highest among the UF Hispanic s ub sample for both maternal and paternal attachments. Hypothesis 4: Self Control will predict analogous behaviors I n accordance with Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) low self control predicts involvement in analogous behaviors across al l sites surveyed (see Table 5 12 ). While low self control was significantly related to analogous behavior for all three groups of partici pants the effect was much stronger for UF Hispanic s ub sample ( beta= 0 .529 p<.001) than for the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample ( beta=.171 p<.0 1 ) and the UF White s ub sample ( beta= 0. 189 p<.05). The explained variance was high only among UF Hispanic s ub sample (adjusted R square=.27).

PAGE 90

90 The abi to predict analogous behavior was assessed across all three sub samples (see Table 5 13) able to predict analogous behavior among all three sub samples; the rel ationship was strongest among UF Whites (beta = 0 .294, p< .001) than UF Hispanics (beta= 0 .233, p< .10) and TAMIU Hispanics (beta=0 .135, p <.05) The variance explained in crime was highest among UF Whites (Adjusted R Square= 08). Regardless of the self control low self control predicts involvement in analogous behavior across all three sub samples Hypothesis 5: Self Control will predict crime Table 5 1 4 demonstrates that individuals with lower levels o f self control self reported more criminal behavior than those with higher levels of self control. The relationship was stronger f or UF Hispanics ( beta= 0 .321 p<.01) than for UF Whites ( beta= 0 .171 p<.05) and TAMIU Hispanics ( beta= 0 .134 p<05). Although m uch lower than it was for analogous behaviors, the variance in crime explained by self contro l was again highest among the UF Hispanics (R square = .09). In addition, the relationship between self control and crime was assessed using ion (see Table 5 15) Again the reconceptualization of self control was significantly associated to crime throughout the sub samples, though the relationship was strongest for the UF White s ub sample (beta= 0 .246, p<.01) than for UF Hispanic s ub sample (bet a= 0 .233, p<.1 0 ) or the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample (beta= 0 .220, p<.001). The variance in crime explained by the measure was small among all three sub samples, but it was highest among UF Whites (Adjusted R Square=.05).

PAGE 91

91 Hypothesis 6: Assimilation and Accultur ation will predict analogo us behaviors among Hispanics The assimilation and acculturation arguments app ly only to the two Hispanic sub sample s so only results for the TAMIU and UF Hispanics are used to assess hypothesis 6. As proposed, assimilation and ac culturation were positively and significantly related to analogous behavior ( see Table 5 1 6 and 5 1 7 respectively ). This finding suggests that for Hispanics adopting the American way of life is a risk factor ; acculturation predict s analogous behavior and t he impact was stronger among UF Hispanics ( beta= 0 .318 p<.01) than for TAMIU Hispanics ( beta= 0 .393 p<.001) T he same was discovered for assimilation. It predict s analogous behaviors among both UF Hispanics ( beta= 0 .342 p<.01) and TAMIU Hispanics ( beta= 0 .324 p< .001) The explained variance ranged from 15 percent for acculturation among TAMIU Hispanics to 10 percent for assimilation among both the TAMIU and UF Hispanic s ub samples to nine percent among UF Hispanic s ub sample for acculturation. Hypoth esis 7: Assimilation and Acculturation will predict crime among Hispanics A ssimilation and acculturation are also expected to predict crime among the Hispanic sub sample s As with analogous behavior, the results reported i n Table s 5 1 8 and 5 1 9 show statis tically significant positive relationship s between crime and both acculturation and assimilation in both Hispanic sub sample s The relationship between acculturation and crime among UF Hispanics was moderate (beta= 0 .361, p<.01); the relationship between as similation and crime among UF Hispanics was a bit weaker (beta= 0 .293, p< .05). A mong TAMIU Hispanics both acculturation ( beta= 0 .315 p< .0 0 1 ) and assimilation ( beta = 0 .230 p<.001) predict crime This implies that Hispanics who have become acculturated a nd assimilated into the United States are more

PAGE 92

92 involved in criminal activity. The explained variance in crime due to acculturation and assimilation ranged from five percent (assimilation among TAMIU Hispanics) to 12 percent (acculturation in UF Hispanics) Multivariate Results This section presents results that allow for a re examination of many of the hypotheses presented in the previous section using all the variables of theoretical interest as well as the control variables For Hypotheses 2 through 5 a nd H ypotheses 8 and 9 separate analyses are run for both analogous behaviors and crime in each of the three sub sample s. The theoretically derived variables are maternal attachment, paternal attachment, the Grasmick et al formulation of the original self control s reformulation of self control and the control variables which include sex (male), being from a natural two parent household, being an only child, having mom as the primary disciplinarian, having dad as the pri mary disciplinarian, age, and definitions (personal) The results for the analyse s that regressed analogous behaviors on the other va riables are presented in Tables 5 20 through 5 22 Those for the analyse s that regressed crime on the other vari ables are presented in Tables 5 23 through 5 25 Hypotheses 6, 7, and 10 examine the effects of acculturation and assimilation on analogous behaviors and crime. Because acculturation and assimilation factors have little variability in the UF White sub sample, the analyses incorporating these variables are performed only on the TAMIU and UF Hispanic sub samples (s ee Tables 5 26 through 5 29). Hypotheses 8 and 9 address the prospect of mediation. Akers and Sellers (2004: control is the key var iable and that the social bonds affect crime only indirectly, through their effects on self control should

PAGE 93

93 mediate the effects of attachment on analogous behaviors and crime the position taken in hypothese s 8 and 9. Hypothes is 10 is an extension of the mediation prospect. It applies to the effects of acculturation and assimilation. The research looks to see if their effects will also be mediated by self control. Again these examinations only occur among the Hispanic sub sa mples. Multivariate analysis results of analogous behaviors in all sub samples The results in Tables 5 20 through 5 22 help examine the impact of attachments (Hypothesis 2) and self control (Hypothesis 4) on analogous behaviors across the three sub sam ples. Coefficient comparison tests across the three sub samples revealed no s ignificant differences. Maternal attachment, paternal attachment, the Grasmick et al. measure of self control, and the reformul ated measure operated similarly across the TAMIU Hispanic, UF Hispanic, and UF White sub samples. Due to collinearity concerns in the UF Hispanic models, the two familism scales (involvement with family and attachment to family) were not included in the final models presented here. T hese scales tended t o operate in a way similar to that of maternal attachment. Table 5 20 presents multivariate results for predicting analogous behaviors within the TAMIU sub sample. Model 1 contains all of the control variables as well as the attachment variables (materna l and paternal). Model 2 includes both maternal and paternal attachment, both self control measures, and the control variables. The table provides results relevant to hypotheses 2 and 4. In the multivariate analyses, the significant impact of maternal att achment found in the bivariate analysis (beta= 0.143) survived for Model 1 (beta= 0.134) but not for Model 2 when self control variables were

PAGE 94

94 added (beta= 0.106) 6 H ypothesis 2 therefore, receives only mixed support for the TAMIU sub sample. Paternal attach ment was unrelated to analogous behaviors in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses. The significant relationships between both self control measures and analogous behaviors found in the bivariate relationships (beta=0.171 for the Grasmick et al. m easure and beta=0.135 for the reformulated one) did not survive the multivariate analysis. As can be seen in Model 2 of Table 5 20 neither the Grasmick et al. measure of the original formulation of self mea sure (beta=0.41) were significantly related to analogous behaviors. Hypothesis 4 is not supported by the multivariate results for the TAMIU sub sample Model 1 suggests that in addition to maternal attachment being male (beta=0 .343 ) and growing up with both biolog ical parents (beta= 0 .112 ) are also significant predictors of analogous behavior within this sub sample, though only 12 percent of the variance in analogous behavior was explaine d by the variables included in M odel 1. Generally, students were l ess likely to engage in analogous behavior if they reported having strong attachments to their mother and lived with both natural parents. Males, consequently, were more likely to self report participation in analogous behaviors. Once the self control me asures were introduce into the model (Model 2) f or the TAMIU sub sample the only variables significantly predicting involvement in analogous behavior are being male (bet a= 0 .324 ) and growing up with both biological parents 6 Given som e of the moderate correlations between several of the independent variables, variance inflation factors (VIF) scores were estimated as a further check of multicollinearity. Although there is little agreement as to how high a VIF score must be to indicate collinearity, based on the cutoff of 4 proposed by Fisher and Mason (1981), it did not appear to be an issue for concern for any of the multivariate models.

PAGE 95

95 (beta= 0 .113 ). Only 12 percent of the variance in analogous behaviors was explained by the variables included in both models in this sub sample Neither H ypothesis 2 (attachment will rela te to analogous behaviors) nor H ypothesis 4 (self control will predict analogous behaviors) is suppor ted among the TAMIU Hispanics (see Table 5 20) Table 5 21 reports the results of both the multivariate models for UF Hispanics. When the control variables were included in either Model 1 or Model 2, what had been a significant bivariate relationship betwe en maternal attachment and analogous behaviors (beta= 0.296) was reduced to insignificance (beta= 0.121 in Model 1 and beta= 0.063 in Model 2). Paternal attachment fared somewhat better. The significant bivariate relationship (beta= 0.213) actually incre ased in Model 1 and remained significant (beta= 0.298 ). Although it retained its strength in Model 2 (beta= 0.237), paternal attachment was no longer statistically significant. Hypothesis 2 received, at best, mixed support as regards paternal attachments Two control variables helped to explain analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanic sub sample (in both models). Both age and social learning definitions were significantly related to analogous behaviors among this sub sample. Older students and those with more favorable definitions towards crime were more prone to self report involvement in analogous behaviors. Model 1 accounted for 25 percent of the variance in analogous behavior within this sub sample. When low self control was incorporated into the model (Model 2) the following measures were significant at predicting analogous behavior; self control as measured by the Grasmick et al. scale (beta= 0 .392), age (beta= 0 .299 ), a nd definitions (beta= 0 .254 ) were related to involvement in analogous behavior. The variables explained 39 percent of the variance

PAGE 96

96 in analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanic s ub sample Because the Grasmick et al. scaling of the original formulation of self control retained its importance in the multivariate analysis, the fourth hypothesis is supported for the UF H ispanic sub sample. Table 5 22 reports the results when examining the ability of attachment and self control variables to predict analogous behaviors for the UF White sub sample once the control variables were include d. Hypothesis 2 receives support in that both maternal and paternal attachments are significantly related to analogous behaviors in Model 1 (beta= 0.317 for maternal a ttachment and beta= 0.196 for paternal attachment ) and Model 2 (beta= 0.298 for matern al attachment and beta= 0.167 for paternal attachment). Both measures had predicted analogous behaviors in the bivariate analysis (beta= 0.250 for maternal attachment and beta= 0.245 for paternal attachment) as well. In addition to the attachment variabl es, Model 1 shows the following variables as statistically significant at predicting analogous behavior within the UF White sub sample; being a n only child (beta= 0.323 ), dad being the primar y disciplinarian (beta= 0.161), age (beta=0.296 ) and personal de finitions (beta= 0.105 ). Students who reported being an only child, who were older and who had more favorable definitions towards crime were more likely to report partaking in behaviors analogous to crime. Whereas students stating that their dad was the pri mary disciplinarian and who had strong attachments were less involved in analogous behaviors. This model was able to explain 37 percent of the variance in analogous behavior within the UF White sub sample.

PAGE 97

97 The effect of the self control measures on analo gous behaviors among those in the UF White sub sample can be seen by examining the results for Model 2 in Table 5 22. Hypothesis 4 does not receive any support from these results. Whereas in the bivariate analyses both the Grasmick et al. self control me asure (beta=0 .189 ) and the reformulated approach (beta= 0.294 ) were significant, neither were significantly related to the anal ogous behaviors of the UF White sub sample in the multivariate analysis. The magnitude of the beta dropped to 0.027 for the Gras mick et al. measure and to 0.076 for the reformulated self control measure. Among UF Whi tes, several control variables along with the attachment variables accounted for analogous behaviors ; being an only child (beta= 0 .316 ), dad as primary disciplinarian (beta= 0 .167), and age (beta= 0 .386 ) predicted analogous behaviors. All the variables in Model 2 explained 36 percent of the variance in analogous behaviors one percent less than M odel 1 but neither of the self control measures were significantly related to analogous behaviors among UF Whites, contrary to the expectations of self control theory. These analyses provide at best mixed support for the role of either attachments or self control in accounting for analogous behaviors. Since both were thought to be part of the general explanations of crime, there was no reason to expect them to apply only in some cultural groupings. To that extent, neither boding/attachment theoretical orientations nor self control ones are supported well in these data. Multivari ate analysis results for crime in all sub samples The theoretical expectations were not met well in the crime analyses either; although th e multivariate models produced some interesting results (see Tables 5 23 through 5 25). The results in these tables help examine the impact of attachments

PAGE 98

98 (Hypothesis 3) and self control (Hypothesis 5) on criminal involvement across the three sub samples. Coefficient comparison test results found n o significant differences across the three sub samples Due to collinea rity concerns in the UF Hispanic models, the two familism scales (involvement with family and attachment to family) were not included in the final models presented here. T hese scales tended to operate in a way similar to that of maternal attachment. The crime results for the TAMIU Hispanics sub sample were similar to those for analogous behavior (see Table 5 23). Inasmuch as neither maternal nor paternal attachments were significantly related to crime among the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample in the bivariate analysis, it is not surprising that they remained unrelated in the multivariate analysis. Model 1 shows the results once the control variables are introduced but without the self control measures. Hypothesis 3 receives no support for the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample. What does predict crime in Model 1 of Tab le 5 23 is being male (beta=0 .284 ), having a natural two pare nt household (beta= 0 .171 ) and being an only child (beta= 0 .049 ), but the explained variance is not large (R square= .10). TAMIU Hispanic ma les tended to report more criminal involvement; however those students who were only children and who resided with both natural parents were less prone to engage in such behavior When the model was further analyzed with the self control measures included (Model 2), nothing changed regarding attachments. Neither maternal nor paternal attachment predicted crime. Several control variables did: being male ( beta= 0 .263 p< .001) and having a natural two parent household (beta= 0 .168, p<.05) increased the like lihood of involvement in criminal activity just as they did involvement in analogous

PAGE 99

99 behavior Model 2 could only explain about 11 percent of the variance in crime among TAMIU H i spanics. The results for Model 2 presented in Table 5 23 provide mixed suppo rt at best for Hypothesis 5. Among TAMIU Hispanics, both the Grasmick et al. self control scale and the reformulated measure predicted crime at the bivariate level (beta=0.134 p<.05 and beta=0.220 p<.001 respectively). Nei ther variable fared as well in M odel 2 The Grasmick et al. measure shrunk (beta=0.063) to nonsiginificance and the reformulation was diminished (beta=0.155 p<.05). Of the control variables, only being male (beta=0.263 p<.001) and having a two parent household (beta= 0.168 p<.05) predi cted crime among the TAMIU Hispanics. Adding the self control variables added very little to the explained variance (10 percent in Model 1 to 11 percent in Model 2). Table 5 24 presents multivariate results for the UF Hispanic sub sample. Some of the r esults for crime among UF Hispanics were also s imilar to the models examining analogous behavior Model 1 shows the results produced when crime was regressed on the attachment and control variables for the UF Hispanic sub sample. Hypothesi s 3 receives supp ort as to paternal attachment but not as to maternal attachment. Paternal at the bivariate level (beta= 0.291 p<.05), remains significantly related to crime in both Model 1 (beta= 0 .356, p<.05) and Model 2 (beta= 0.336 p<.05). On the other hand, maternal attachment, which was related to crime at the bivariate level (beta= 0.342 p<.01), was diminished to insignificance in both Model 1 (beta= 0.139) and Model 2 (beta= 0.066). In Mo del 1, a number of control variables were related to crime among the UF Hispanics: being male (beta= 0 .180, p<.001), growing up in a two natural parent

PAGE 100

100 household (beta=0 .187, p<.01), being an only child (beta= 0 .090, p<.001), age (beta= 0 .215, p<.10), and p ersonal definitions favorable to crime (beta=.275, p<.05). Only children and those reporting high levels of attachment were less likely to report involvement in crime. On the other hand students who were older, male, had more favorable definitions towards crime, and grew up with both natural parents were more likely to self report increased levels of criminal involvement. The variance explained in crime by Model 1 was 28 percent for this sub sample. The results for Model 2 in Table 5 24 address Hypothesis 5 for the UF Hispanic sub sample. In the bivariate analyses, both the Grasmick et al. self control scale (beta=0.321 p<.01) and the reformulated self control measure (beta= 0 .233 p<.05) predicted crime in this sub sample. Neither predicted crime in the m ultivariate analysis. In Model 2, the beta for the Grasmick et al. scale drops to 0.137 (not significant) and that for the reformulated measure to 0.073 (not significant). The multivariate results provide no support for Hypothesis 5 for the UF Hispanics. Note that adding the self control variables to Model 2 increased the explained variance very little (from 28 percent in Model 1 to 29 percent in Model 2). reported crime as seen in the Mode l 2 results of Table 5 24. Both age (beta= 0 .299, p<.05) and definitions (beta= 0 .249; p<.05) were significantly related to crime among the UF Hispanics. In addition, those reporting mom as the primary disciplinarian were more likely to engage in crime (be ta= 0 .284, p<.05). For the UF Hispanic sub sample p aternal attachment remained significant in the multivariate analysis ( beta= 0 .336 p<.05) confirming the relationship found at the bivariate level and in Model 1.

PAGE 101

101 Table 5 25 presents the results for th e multivariate analysis of crime among the UF White sub sample. Both Model 1 and Model 2 provide support for Hypothesis 3, but only in regards to maternal attachment. The bivariate relationship between maternal attachment and crime (beta= 0.227 p<.01) su rvived the introduction of the controls (Model 1) plus the controls and the self control measures (Model 2). The strength of the relationship did not diminish much at all in the multivariate analyses (beta= 0.256 p<.01 for Model 1 and beta= 0.209 p<.05 in Model 2). Paternal attachment, on the other hand, was not related to crime among UF Whites at the bivariate level (beta= 0.014) or in either Model 1 (beta=0.062) or Model 2 (beta=0.097). Several control variables were significantly related to crime amo ng the UF Whites in both models. Being an only child predicted crime (beta=0.165 p<.05 in Model 1 and beta=0.316 p<.05 for Model 2) ; Social learning definitions did as well (beta=0.254 p<.01 for Model 1 and beta=0.238 p<.01 for Model 2). Being male (beta= 0.140 p<.10) and age (beta=0.071 p<.10) predicted crime among UF Whites but only in Model 1. Model 2 of Table 5 25 presents the results relevant to Hypothesis 5 for the UF White sub sample. At the bivariate level, both the Grasmick et al. scale and the r eformulated self control measures were significantly related to crime in this sub sample (beta=0.171 p<.05 and beta=0.246 p<.01 respectively). In the multivariate analysis examining crime within the UF White sub sample both drop out. In Model 2 the beta for the Grasmick et al. scale is only 0.097 (not significant); that for the reformulated measure is only 0.068 (not significant). Hypothesis 5, therefore, receives no support in the multivariate analysis. Self control did not predict crime among UF Whit es.

PAGE 102

102 Moreover, adding both self control measures to the multivariate model had not effect on explained variance; it was 14 percent in both Models 1 and 2. Multivariate analyses focusing on acculturation and assimilation Hypotheses 6 and 7 focus attentio n on acculturation and assimilation. Tables 5 26 through 5 29 provide the relevant multivariate results. Again two models are presented. Model 1 includes the attachment variables and the control variables; Model 2 adds the self control measures to the m ix. Coefficient comparison test results report a statistically significant difference in the low self control coefficients (z= 1.97) suggesting that the effect of low self control on analogous behavior in college was more salient for the UF Hispanic sub sample than the TAMIU one The age coefficients were also significantly different (z= 2.29) and their effects were in opposite directions (negative for the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample and positive for UF Hispanic sub sample ). Hypothesis 6 concerns analogo us behaviors and the relevant results are presented in Table 5 26. Model 1 looks at the effect of acculturation and assimilation on analogous behavior among the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample when attachment and control variables are included in the multivaria te analysis; Model 2 does the same with the self control measures added to everything else. Recall that in the bivariate analyses both acculturation (beta=0.393 p<.001) and assimilation (beta=0.324 p<.001) were significantly related to analogous behaviors among TAMIU Hispanics. The multivariate results did not change that; both acculturation (beta=.358, p<.001) and assimilation (beta= 0 .211, p<.001) continued to predict analogous behaviors among TAMIU Hispanics. The same was true in Model 2 when the self c ontrol variables were added to the analysis (beta=0.368 p<.001 for acculturation and beta=0.228 p<.001 for assimilation). Hypothesis 6 was supported.

PAGE 103

103 Two control variables also explained analogous behavior among the TAMIU Hispanics. Being male was signif icantly related to analogous behaviors at the .001 level (beta=0.337 in Model 1 and beta=0.307 in Model 2). Age also predicted analogous behaviors among the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample (beta= 0.148 p<.01 for Model 1 and beta= 0.129 p<.05 for Model 2). The total variance in analogous behavior explained by the variables used in this Model 1 is 32 percent; that for Model 2 (adding the self control measures) is 34 percent. Table 5 27 presents the results for a parallel analysis performed on the UF Hispanic sub sample. The results are quite different from those for the TAMIU one. Recall that both acculturation (beta=0.318 p<.01) and assimilation (beta=0.342 p<.01) were significantly related to analogous behaviors in the bivariate analyses. Both, however, drop ped out of significance in the multivariate analyses. For Model 1, the beta for acculturation was 0.101 (not significant) and that for assimilation was 0.130 (not significant). For Model 2, the betas were 0.028 for acculturation and 0.116 for assimilatio n ( neither was significant). Hypothesis 6 is not supported for the UF Hispanic sub sample. The only control variable that relates to analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanics is age (beta=0.221 p<.10 for Model 1 and beta=0.253 p<.05 for Model 2). The mo st important predictor in these multivariate analyses of analogous behavior is the Grasmick et al. self control scale (beta= 0 .367 p<.05). Hypothesis 7 deals with acculturation and assimilation and crime. Tables 5 28 and 5 29 present the relevant multivari ate results and the h ypothesis is mostly supported. Table 5 28 deals with the TAMIU sub sample. For this sub sample, both acculturation and assimilation were related to crime in the bivariate analysis

PAGE 104

104 (beta=0.315 p<.001 and beta=0.230 p<.001 respectively) From Model 1 in Table 5 28, note that acculturation (beta=0 .259, p<.001) and assimilation (beta= 0 .160, p<.05) continue to predict crime when the attachment variables and control variables are included. The same is true in Model 2 when the self control v ariables are added (beta=0.273 p<.001 for acculturation and beta=0.174 p<.001 for assimilation). Hypothesis 7 is supported. Several control variables contribute to both crime models among the TAMIU Hispanics. Males (beta= 0 .279, p<.001 for Model 1 and be ta=0.249 p<.001 for Model 2) are more apt to engage in crime G rowing up with both natural parents is significantly related to crime but in opposite directions in the two models (beta= 0 .108, p<.10 for Model 1 and beta= 0 .101 p<.10 for Model 2). Social le arning definitions predicts crime among the TAMIU sub sample in both models (beta= 0 .140 p<.05 for Model 1 an d beta= 0 .114 p<.05 in Model 2). Both models account for at least 20 percent of the variance in crime explained. Table 5 29 focuses on the crime anal ysis for the UF Hispanic sub sample. For this sub sample, the bivariate analyses had yielded significant relationships between crime and both acculturation (beta= 0 .361 p<.001) and assimilation (beta= 0 .293 p<.05). Those bivariate relationships survived th e multivariate analyses for the most part. Both acculturation (beta= 0 .294, p<.05) and assimilation (beta=0 .233, p<.05) were significantly related to involvement in crime among the UF Hispanics in Model 1 (with the inclusion of control and attachment varia bles). The same was true for acculturation in Model 2 (beta= 0 .327 p<.05) when the self control variables were added. Assimilation, however, dropped out of Model 2 (beta= 0 .194, n.s.). Hypothesis 7 is

PAGE 105

105 mostly supported among the UF Hispanic sub sample. Onl y one control variable was important, and it predicted crime among the UF Hispanics in both models. Mom being the primary disciplinarian was negatively related to crime (beta= 0 .340 p<.01 for Model 1 and beta= 0 .365 p<.01 for Model 2). Multivariate anal yses and the mediation hypotheses Hypotheses 8, 9, and 10 deal with mediation through self control. To look for mediation effects, multivariate analyses before (Model 1) and after (Model 2) the inclusion of the self control measures can be compared. Hyp othesis 8 asserts that the effects of attachment on analogous behaviors will be mediated by self control. The relevant comparisons are found in Table 5 20 (for FAMIU Hispanics), Table 5 21 (for UF Hispanics), and Table 5 22 (for UF Whites). Hypothesis 9 makes the same prediction regarding crime and its respective comparisons can be found in Tables 5 23 through 5 25. Hypothesis 10 turns the attention to whether the effects of acculturation and assimilation are absorbed by self control measures. The relev ant comparisons for that hypothesis are in Tables 5 26 through 5 29. Hypothesis 8 posits that the effects of attachments on analogous behaviors will be mediated (across all sub samples) by self control. In the multivariate analyses of analogous behavio rs maternal attachments washed out of the analyses for the TAMIU sub sample (beta= 0 .134 p<.05 in Model 1 to beta= 0 .106 and not significant in Model 2). It is difficult; however, to attribute that to self control since neither of the measures were signif icantly related to analogous behaviors among the TAMIU Hispanics in Model 2 either. See Table 5 20. There was clearly no mediation in either of the UF sub samples. Among the UF Hispanics (Table 5 21), maternal attachment was unrelated to analogous behav iors in Model 1 (beta= 0 .121 not significant) so there was nothing left

PAGE 106

106 to mediate in Model 2. Maternal attachment (beta= 0 .317 p<.001) was significantly related to analogous behavior among UF Whites in Model 1 (Table 5 22), but it was not mediated when the self control measures were added to Model 2 (beta= 0 .298 p<.001). Thus, for none of the sub samples is there good evidence of mediation in regard to maternal attachment. In only one of the sub samples is there an indication of mediation of paterna l attachment by self control measures, but the evidence is not strong. Among UF Hispanics (Table 5 21), paternal attachment was significantly related to analogous behaviors in Model 1 (beta= 0 .298 p<.10) but it was diminished and became insignificant in M odel 2 (beta= 0 .237) when the self control variables were added. The Grasmick scale did predict analogous behaviors for the UF Hispanics. That mediation pattern was not evident for the other two sub samples. Paternal attachment was also significantly re lated to analogous behaviors among the UF White sub sample in Model 1 (beta= 0 .196 p<.01). See Table 5 22. I ts effect was reduced in Model 2 when self control measures were added, but there are two problems with the mediation explanation. Parental attac hment remained significantly related but at the 05 level (beta= 0 .167) in Model 2 and neither self control measure predicted analogous behaviors for the UF Whites (beta= 0 .027 for the Grasmick et al. scale and beta= 0 .076 for the reformulated approach). Am ong the TAMIU Hispanics (Table 5 20), paternal attachment was unrelated to analogous behaviors (beta= 0 .0 71) in Model 1 as a result there was nothing to mediate when self control was included in Model 2. Hypothesis 8 is unsupported for the most part; there is little evidence that self control mediates attachments.

PAGE 107

107 The mediation of attachments by self control fared little better in the crime analyses. The relevant comparisons are in Tables 5 23 through 5 25 for the respective sub samples. The first set of results focus on maternal attachment. For the TAMIU sub sample (Table 5 23), maternal attachment was unrelated to crime in Model 1 (beta= 0 .068) so there was nothing to mediate when self control was added in Model 2. Thus there was nothing to mediate. The same was true for the UF Hispanic sub sample (Table 5 24). Maternal attachment was unrelated to crime in Model 1 (beta= 0 .139) so there was nothing for the self control variables to mediate in Model 2. For the UF White sub sample (Table 5 25), matern al attachment was significantly related to crime in Model 1 (beta= .256 p<.001). Its effect was diminished in Model 2 but remained significant (beta= 0 .209 p<.05) and neither of the self control measures predicted crime (beta= 0 .068 for the Grasmick et al. scale and beta= 0 .097 for the revised formulation). In regard s to maternal attachment, these results do not provide support for mediation by self control as posited in Hypothesis 9. No evidence emerged regarding paternal attachments across the three sub samples either. For the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample (Table 5 23), paternal attachment (beta= 0 .014) was unrelated to crime in Model 1 so there was nothing for self control to mediate when it was introduced in Model 2. Paternal attachment did predict crime a mong the UF Hispanic sub sample (Table 5 24), but it did so in both Model 1 (beta= 0 .356 p<.05) and Model 2 (beta= 0 .336 p<.05) after the self control measures were added. Neither of the self control measures predicted crime in t his sub sample, so there w as no mediation. For the UF White sub sample (Table 5 25), paternal attachments were unrelated to crime in both Model 1 (beta= 0 .062) and Model 2

PAGE 108

108 (beta= 0 .097) after self control measures were introduced. Again, neither of the self control measures predict ed crime in this sub sample either. Across the three sub samples, there is no evidence of mediation of paternal attachments by self control. Hypothesis 9 receives no support. The final hypothesis examines whether the effects of acculturation and assimi lation will be mediated by self control. For analogous behaviors, t he relevant information is provided in Table 5 2 6 for the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample and in Table 5 27 f or the UF Hispanic sub sample T he correspon ding information for crime is presented in Tables 5 28 and 5 29. There is no evidence that self control mediates the effects of either acculturation or assimilation on analogous behaviors. Among the TAMIU Hispanics (Table 5 26), acculturation is signifi cantly related to analogous behaviors both before (Model 1) and after (Model 2) the addition of the self control measures. The betas for acculturation are 0.358 (p<.001) for Model 1 and 0.368 (p<.001 ) for Model 2 when sel f control measures are included T he same is true for assimilation, it was significantly related (at the p<.001 level ) to analogous behavior in Model 1 (beta=0 .211) and in Model 2 ( beta=0 .228), consequently there was no mediation when self control measures were introduced. Among UF Hispani cs (Table 5 27), neither acculturation (beta= 0 .101) nor assimilation (beta= 0 .130) are significantly related to analogous behaviors in Model 1, so there is nothing for self control to mediate when the measures are added to Model 2. Hypothesis 10 is not sup ported in regard to analogous behaviors. Hypothesis 10 receives no support in regard to crime either. As for the TAMIU Hispanics (Table 5 28), acculturation is significantly related to crime in Model 1

PAGE 109

109 (beta= 0 .259 p<.001) and that relationship remains ju st as strong in Model 2 after self control variables are included (beta=.273 p<.001). The same is true for assimilation. The betas are 0.160 (p<.05) for Model 1 and 0.174 (p<.001) for Model 2 after the introduction of self control measures. For the UF Hispanics (Table 5 29), acculturation is significantly related to crime both in Model 1 (beta=.294 p<.05) and in Model 2 (beta=.327 p<.05). Assimilation is only related to crime in Model 1 (beta=.233 p<.05). Importantly, neither the Grasmick et al. s cale of lo w self control (beta=.172) nor the revised measure (beta=.037) are significantly related to crime in this sub sample. Consequently, self control does not mediate the effects of acculturation or assimilation on crime. Hypothesis 10 receives no s upport in the analysis dealing with crime.

PAGE 110

110 Table 5 1. Descriptive Statistics and Chi Square Results by Sub samples Variables TAMIU Hispanics (n=240) UF Hispanics (n=68) UF Whites (n=146) 2 Male 40.8% 35.3% 32.9% 2.61 Natural Two Parent Household 74.2% 41.2% 58.9% 27.88*** Only Child 10.0% 8.8% 16.4% 4.31 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 32.5% 32.4% 20.5% 6.88* Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 6.7% 8.8% 6.8% 0.39 + p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 2. Descriptive Statistics and T test Results by Sub samples Variables TAMIU Hispanics (n=240) M UF Hispanics (n=68) M UF Whites (n=146) M t test Acculturation 2.74 3.00 -2.92** Assimilation 3.05 2.52 -3.25** Familism (Involvement) -16.33 15.71 1.27 Familism (Attachment) 4.86 5.25 1.63 + p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 111

111 Table 5 3. Descriptive Statistics and F test Results by Sub samples Variables TAMIU Hispanics (n=240) M UF Hispanics (n=68) M UF Whites (n=146) M f test M Tests Age 23.95 19.87 19.79 42.59*** TAMIU >UF Hispanics, UF Whites Maternal Attachment 2.35 2.20 2.36 2.81 + TAMIU, UF Whites > UF Hispanics Paternal Attachment 2.08 2.25 2.17 3.32* UF Whites, UF Hispanics > TAMIU Low Self Control 2.07 2.02 2.02 0.90 No significant differences Low Self Control 1.65 1.73 1.77 0.82 No significant differences Social Learning (definitions) 1.23 1.57 1.52 35.5 4*** UF Whites, UF Hispanics > TAMIU Analogous Behavior in College 5.96 10.01 4.91 52.15*** All significantly different Crime in College 7.67 8.74 6.97 12.22*** All significantly different + p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 4. O LS Regressions: Maternal Attachment Predicting Low Self Control TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.137 (0.055)* 0.159 0.356 (0.085)*** 0.460 0.155 (0.074)* 0.172 Adjusted R 2 0.02 0.19 0.02 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 112

112 Table 5 Self Control TAMIU Hispanics UF Hisp anics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.369 (0.055)*** 0.402 0.334 (0.111)** 0.347 0.09 (0.073)*** 0.426 Adjusted R 2 0.16 0.11 0.18 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 6. OLS Regressions: Paternal Attachment Predicting Low Self Control TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Paterna l Attachment 0.054 (0.048) 0.072 0.202 (0.101)* 0.239 0.024 (0.062) 0.032 Adjusted R 2 0.001 0.04 0.001 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 7 Control TAMI U Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Paternal Attachment 0.089 (0.051) + 0.111 0.091 (0.129) 0.086 0.336 (0.060)*** 0.425 Adjusted R 2 0.008 0 .000 0.18 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 8 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment Predicting Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se ) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.929 (0.417)* 0.143 3.040 (1.208)* 0.296 1.098 (0.355)** 0.250 Adjusted R 2 0.02 0.07 0.06 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 113

113 Table 5 9 OLS Regressions: Paternal Attachment P redict ing Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Paternal Attachment 0.017 (0.366) 0.003 2.381 (1.348) + 0.213 0.886 (0 .292)** 0.245 Adjusted R 2 0.001 0.03 0.05 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 10 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.598 (0.307)* 0.125 2.257 (0.763)** 0.342 0.853 (0.305)** 0.227 Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.10 0.05 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 11 OLS Regressions: Pa ternal Attachment Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Paternal Attachment 0.203 (0.269) 0.049 2.096 (0.847)* 0.291 0.044 (0.258) 0.014 Adjusted R 2 0.001 0.07 0.001 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 12 OLS Regressions: Low Self Control Predicting Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Low Self Control 1.288 (0.482)** 0.171 7.014 (1.386)*** 0.529 0.921 (0.399)* 0.189 Adjusted R 2 0.03 0.27 0.03 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 114

114 Table 5 1 3. OLS Regressions: Control Predicting Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Low Self Control 0.955 (0.454)* 0.135 2.489 (1.276) + 0.233 1.343 (0.364)*** 0.294 Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.04 0.08 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 14 OLS Regressions: Low Self Control Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Low Self Control 0.745 (0.356)* 0.134 2.738 (0.993)** 0.321 0.714 (0.343)* 0.171 Adjusted R 2 0.02 0.09 0.02 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 15 OLS Regressions: Control Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics UF Whites Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Self Control 1.142 (0.329)*** 0.220 1.525 (0.822)+ 0.233 0.960 (0.316)** 0.246 Adjusted R 2 0.04 0.04 0.05 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 16 OLS Regressions: Acculturation Predicting Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Acculturation 1.924 (0.292)*** 0.393 2.974 (1.093)** 0.318 Adjusted R 2 0.15 0.09 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 115

115 Table 5 17 OLS Regressions: Assimilation Predicting Analogous Behavior in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Assimilation 1.234 (0.234)*** 0.324 1.644 (0.566)** 0.342 Adjusted R 2 0.10 0.10 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 18 OLS Regressions: Acculturation Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Acculturation 1.134 (0.221)*** 0.315 2.171 (0.690)** 0.361 Adjusted R 2 0.10 0.12 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Table 5 19 OLS Regressions: Assimilation Predicting Crime in College TAMIU Hispanics UF Hispanics Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Assimilation 0.645 (0.177)*** 0.230 0.906 (0.364)* 0.293 Adjusted R 2 0.05 0.07 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 116

116 Table 5 20. OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A ttachment and Low Self Control along with Control Vari ables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.869 (0.434)* 0.134 0.688 (0.468) 0.106 Paternal Attachment 0 .398 (0.387) 0.071 0.362 (0.387) 0.064 Low Self Control 0.699 (0.487) 0.093 Self Control 0.287 (0.481) 0.041 Male 2.236 (0.414)*** 0.343 2.115 (0.421)*** 0.324 Natural Two Parent Household 0 .817 (0.478)+ 0.112 0.828 (0.478)+ 0.113 Only Child 0 .842 (0.681) 0.079 0.731 (0.685) 0.068 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0 .044 (0.468) 0.006 0.224 (0.481) 0.033 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0. 728 (0.803) 0.057 0.757 (0.802) 0.059 Age 0 .036 (0.031) 0.072 0.030 (0.032) 0.059 Social Learning (definitions) 0 .046 (0.483) 0.006 0.116 (0.488) 0.015 Adjusted R 2 0.12 0.12 +p<.10 *p<.0 5 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 117

117 Table 5 21 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A ttachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within UF Hispanic Sub sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 1.248 (1.642) 0.121 0.645 (1.546) 0.063 Paternal Attachment 3.335 (1.893)+ 0.298 2.655 (1.670) 0.237 Low Self Control 5.201 (1.617)** 0.392 Self Control 1.312 (1.233) 0.123 Male 1.894 (1.604) 0.152 1.814 (1.470) 0.145 Natural Two Parent Household 2.065 (1.511) 0.170 1.743 (1.365) 0.144 Only Child 0.340 (3.208) 0.016 0.955 (2.879) 0.045 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 1.736 (1.431) 0.136 1.456 (1.350) 0.114 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 2.281 (2.442) 0.109 3.300 (2.276) 0.157 Age 0.805 (0.303)** 0.296 0.814 (0.273)** 0.299 Social Learning (definitions) 5.571 (2.058)** 0.340 4.167 (1.945)* 0.254 Adjusted R 2 0.25 0.39 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 118

118 Table 5 22 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A ttachment and Low Self Control al ong with Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the UF White Sub sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 1.392 (0.321)*** 0.317 1.308 (0.351)*** 0.298 Pa ternal Attachment 0.708 (0.261)** 0.196 0.604 (0.288)* 0.167 Low Self Control 0.130 (0.372) 0.027 Self Control 0.347 (0.399) 0.076 Male 0.394 (0.271) 0.099 0.345 (0.280) 0.087 Natural Two Parent Household 0.316 (0.270) 0.083 0.258 (0.287) 0.068 Only Child 1.624 (0.353)*** 0.323 1.588 (0.357)*** 0.316 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0.528 (0.332) 0.114 0.509 (0.366) 0.110 Dad is Primary Di sciplinarian 1.191 (0.531)* 0.161 1.230 (0.542)* 0.167 Age 0.522 (0.095)*** 0.296 0.529 (0.101)*** 0.386 Social Learning (definitions) 0.556 (0.360)** 0.105 0.526 (0.365) 0.100 Adjusted R 2 0.37 0.36 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 119

119 Table 5 23 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A ttachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within t he TAMIU Hispanic Sub sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Varia ble b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.324 (0.324) 0.068 0.001 (0.346) 0.001 Paternal Attachment 0.059 (0.288) 0.014 0.009 (0.286) 0.002 Low Self Control 0.352 (0.360) 0.063 Hir Self Control 0.807 (0.356)* 0.155 Male 1.359 (0.309)*** 0.284 1.258 (0.311)*** 0.263 Natural Two Parent Household 0.919 (0.356)** 0.171 0.902 (0.353)* 0.168 Only Child 0.382 (0.508)*** 0. 049 0.241 (0.506) 0.031 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0.528 (0.332) 0.114 0.035 (0.356) 0.007 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0.009 (0.598) 0.001 0.054 (0.593) 0.006 Age 0.028 (0.023) 0.075 0.033 (0.023) 0.089 Social Learning (definitions) 0.449 (0.360) 0.079 0.306 (0.361) 0.054 Adjusted R 2 0.10 0.11 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 120

120 Table 5 24 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A tta chment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within t he UF Hispanic Sub sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.919 (1.031) 0.139 0.436 (1.08 2) 0.066 Paternal Attachment 2.559 (1.154)* 0.356 2.418 (1.168)* 0.336 Low Self Control 1.170 (1.131) 0.137 Self Control 0.502 (0.863) 0.073 Male 1.439 (1.007)*** 0.180 1.375 (1.029) 0 .145 Natural Two Parent Household 1.453 (0.949)** 0.187 1.393 (0.955) 0.179 Only Child 1.221 (2.014)*** 0.090 1.374 (2.014) 0.102 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 2.312 (0.898) 0.282 2.322 (0.944)* 0.284 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0.230 (1.534) 0.017 0.056 (1.592) 0.004 Age 0.375 (0.190)+ 0.215 0.382 (0.191)* 0.299 Social Learning (definitions) 2.895 (1.292)* 0.275 2.614 (1.361)* 0. 249 Adjusted R 2 0.28 0.29 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 121

121 Table 5 2 5 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal A ttachment and Low Self Control along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within t he UF White Sub s ample MODE L 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0. 962 ( 0 .31 9 ) ** 0. 256 0.785 (0.348)* 0.209 Paternal Attachment 0 192 ( 0 260 ) 0. 062 0.299 (0.285) 0.097 Low Self Control 0.282 (0.3 69) 0.068 Self Control 0.379 (0.396) 0.097 Male 0 .4 77 ( 0 2 7 0 ) + 0.1 4 0 0.397 (0.278) 0.117 Natural Two Parent Household 0 267 (0. 268 ) 0. 0 8 2 0.145 (0.285) 0.045 Only Child 0 712 ( 0 351 )* 0. 165 0.713 (0.354)* 0.316 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0 045 (0. 330 ) 0. 103 0.351 (0.333) 0.089 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0.293 (0.528 ) 0.0 46 0.225 (0.538) 0.036 Age 0.083 (0.094 )+ 0.071 0.053 (0.100) 0.045 Social Learning (definitions) 1.147 (0.358 )* 0.2 5 4 1.075 (0.362)** 0.238 Adjusted R 2 0. 14 0.14 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 122

122 Table 5 2 6 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Pate rnal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilation along wi th Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub Sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.543 (0.385) 0.083 0.229 (0.411) 0.035 Paternal Attachment 0.042 (0.344) 0.007 0.034 (0.340) 0.006 Low Self Control 1.078 (0.427)* 0.143 Self Control 0.511 (0.420) 0.072 Male 2.195 (0.366)*** 0.337 1.999 (0.367)*** 0.307 Natural Two Parent Household 0.185 (0.429) 0.025 0.177 (0.424) 0.024 Only Child 0.035 (0.609) 0.003 0.183 (0.606) 0.017 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0.104 (0.417) 0.015 0.165 (0.422) 0.024 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0.886 (0.710) 0.069 0.948 (0.700) 0.074 Age 0.075 (0.028) ** 0.148 0.065 (0.028)* 0.129 Social Learning (definitions) 0.604 (0.433) 0.077 0.513 (0.431) 0.066 Acculturation 1.755 (0.293)*** 0.358 1.802 (0.289)*** 0.368 Assimilation 0.805 (0.223)*** 0.211 0.868 (0.221)*** 0.228 Adjusted R 2 0.32 0.34 +p <.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 123

123 Table 5 2 7 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilation along wi th Control Variables Predicting Analogous Behavior in College within the UF Hispanic Sub Sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 1 1 5 5 ( 1 660 ) 0. 112 0.735 (1.581) 0.072 Paternal Attachment 2.743 (1.931 ) 0. 245 2.359 (1.791) 0.211 Low Self Control 4.862 (1.870)* 0.367 Self Control 1.613 (1.777) 0.151 Male 1.316 (1.742 ) 0. 105 1.483 (1.570) 0.119 Natural Two Parent Household 1.888 ( 1.553 ) 0.1 5 6 1.765 (1.473) 0.146 Only Child 2.133 (3. 9 42 ) 0. 1 0 1 0.664 (3.576) 0.032 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 1.377 (1 .47 9 ) 0. 108 1.303 (1.441) 0.102 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 2. 6 78 (2.490 ) 0. 127 3.451 (2.3 57) 0.164 Age 0.603 (0.356 ) + 0. 221 0.690 (0.328)* 0.253 Social Learning (definitions) 3.593 (2.767 ) 0. 219 3.114 (2.736) 0.190 Acculturation 0.948 (1.353) 0. 101 0.262 (1.582) 0.028 As similation 0.805 (0.223) 0. 1 30 0.560 (0.693) 0.116 Adjusted R 2 0.24 0.38 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 124

124 Table 5 2 8 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimi lation along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within the TAMIU Hispanic Sub Sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0 .1 49 ( 0 3 0 7 ) 0. 03 1 0.254 (0.325) 0.053 Paternal Attachment 0 1 3 4 ( 0 274 ) 0. 032 0.210 (0.269) 0.051 Low Self Control 0.562 (0.338)+ 0.143 Self Control 0.930 (0. 332)** 0.179 Male 1.3 35 ( 0 .2 91 ) *** 0. 279 1.193 (0.291)*** 0.249 Natural Two Parent Household 0 5 8 1 ( 0 .3 42 ) + 0.1 08 0.545 (0.336)+ 0.101 Only Child 0 055 ( 0 485 ) 0.0 07 0.264 (0.479) 0.034 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 0 252 ( 0.332 ) 0.0 50 0.070 (0.334) 0.014 Dad is P rimary Disciplinarian 0 09 8 ( 0 565 ) 0. 0 1 0 0.162 (0.554) 0.017 Age 0. 0 0 7 (0. 022 ) 0. 019 0.0613(0.022) 0.036 Social Learning (definitions) 0 801 ( 0 345) 0. 140 0.654 (0.341)* 0.114 Acculturation 0. 933 ( 0 2 3 3) *** 0. 259 0.984 (0.229)*** 0.273 Assimilation 0.448 (0.177 ) 0.1 6 0 0.488 (0.175)*** 0.174 Adjusted R 2 0.20 0.23 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 125

125 Table 5 29 OLS Regressions: Maternal Attachment, Paternal Attachment, Low Self Control, Acculturation, and Assimilation along with Control Variables Predicting Crime in College within the UF Hispanic Sub Sample MODEL 1 MODEL 2 Variable b (se) Beta b (se) Beta Maternal Attachment 0.8 38 (0.992) 0.127 0.511 (1.053) 0.078 Paternal Attachment 1.683 (1.154) 0.234 1.462 (1.192) 0.203 Low Self Control 1.467 (1.245) 0.172 Self Control 0.252 (1.183) 0.037 Male 0.466 (1. 041) 0.058 0.523 (1.045) 0.065 Natural Two Parent Household 1.094 (0.928) 0.141 0.912 (0.981) 0.117 Only Child 2.327 (2.356 ) 0.1 7 2 2.106 (2. 381) 0.156 Mom is Primary Disciplinarian 2.786 (0.884 ) ** 0.34 0 2.987 (0.959)** 0.365 Dad is Primary Disciplinarian 0.266 (1.488) 0.02 0 0.662 (1.569) 0.049 Age 0.087 (0. 2 13 ) 0.0 50 0. 690 (0.328) 0.253 Social Learning (definitions) 0.027 (1.6 5 4) 0. 0 03 0.505 (1.821) 0.048 Acculturation 1.770 (0.809)* 0.294 1.965 (1.053)* 0.327 Assimilation 0.721 (0.40 7)* 0. 233 0.599 (0.461) 0.194 Adjusted R 2 0.34 0.34 +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 126

126 CHAPTER 6 CONCL USION Because of the complexity of the analyses (examining maternal and paternal attachments, two self control measures, acculturation and assimilation as well as mediation effects across three sub samples), this chapter begins with a recapitulation of the findings. The first hypothesis checked to see whether attachments were related to self control as Hirschi suggests they should be. The Grasmick et al. scale operationalizing the original Gottfredson and Hirschi formulation and the revised measure were re lated to maternal attachment across all three sub samples. The Grasmick et al. scale was related to paternal attachment for only the UF Hispanic sub sample; the revised measure to paternal attachment in both the TAMIU Hispanic and the UF White sub samples The first hypothesis was supported for the most part. Hypotheses 2 through 7 examine different aspects of the relationships between attachments (maternal and paternal) self control, and acculturation and assimilation to analogous behaviors and crime. The hypotheses were supported for the most part at the bivariate level across the sub samples. The exception was for attachments; bivariate results for attachments were somewhat mixed. Both self control measures as well as acculturation and assimilation were consistently related to analogous behaviors and crime in all sub samples. At the multivariate level those attachment relationships found in the bivariate analyses were often diminished to insignificance. Maternal attachments and paternal attachment s each respectively predicted analogous behaviors in only three of six multivariate comparisons (and they emerged in different sub samples). Similarly, maternal attachments and paternal attachments respectively predicted crime in only two

PAGE 127

127 of six multivari ate comparisons. The role of attachments among these sub samples is decidedly mixed; Hypotheses 2 and 3 were weakly supported at best. The self control hypotheses (4 and 5) were not supported well in the multivariate analyses. Across the respective multi variate analyses of each sub sample for both analogous behaviors and crime (a total of 12 analyses), the Grasmick et al. scale predicted only analogous behaviors in the UF Hispanic sub sample. The revised formulation of self control did not do any better. It predicted only crime in the TAMIU Hispanic sub sample, and even then the magnitude of the relationship was diminished in the multivariate analysis from what it had been at the zero order level. The multivariate results provide little support for Gott self control theory. The fact that the general construct operated differently across the sub samples and was unable to consistently predict analogous behaviors and crime is inconsistent with the theory lity to predict deviance and crime independent of race The variables that were most consistently related to analogous behavior and crime were acculturation and assimilation (measured for only the Hispanic sub samples). Both were significantly related t o analogous behavior and crime in all the bivariate analyses. They were also related to crime in all the multivariate analyses, but related to analogous behavior only among those in the TAMIU sub sample. In fact, acculturation and assimilation were more likely to play a role than either attachments or self control. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported for the most part. Given the weak multivariate role of both self control measures, it is not surprising that they were rarely able to mediate the effects of attachments or acculturation and

PAGE 128

128 assimilation. In the six multivariate comparisons involving mediation of effects on analogous behaviors, only one clearly showed mediation. The effect of paternal attachment on analogous behaviors for UF Hispanics was di minished to insignificance by the Grasmick et al. scale. The pattern was even bleaker for the crime analyses. In none of the six multivariate comparisons was there evidence of mediation by a self control measure. Overall, Hypotheses 8 and 9 were unsuppo rted. The self control measures were also unable to absorb the effects of acculturation and assimilation on either analogous behaviors or crime. This was true for both the TAMIU and UF Hispanic sub samples. The significant effects of acculturation and as similation remained in the multivariate analyses of crime that incorporated the self control measures. The impacts of acculturation and assimilation also survived for the TAMIU sub sample. Neither were related to analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanic s prior to introducing the self control measures, so there was nothing to mediate. Hypothesis 10 received no support. Despite self control being purported to be the main cause of crime and analogous behavior, it could not absorb the effects of acculturat ion and assimilation in the Hispanic sub samples. Two basic conclusions can be drawn from the pattern of results. First, neither attachments (maternal or parental) nor self control (the Grasmick et al. scale or a revised measure) accounted for analogous behaviors or crime in the way that the theory predicts. As general theoretical constructs, they should apply across cultural groupings. Second, when examining Hispanic groups, researchers should be attentive to acculturation and assimilation. Both cons istently predicted crime; and they predicted

PAGE 129

129 analogous behavior for the TAMIU sub sample. Acculturation and assimilation were more important in these analyses than were attachments or self control. The unexpectedly weak performance of attachments and self control measures raises the question of why. Why did none of these measures, which have been predictive in other research, operate differently in these sub samples? The focus turns to issues of methods and the sub samples to try to understand the patter n of results. The ensuing discussion reviews some of the limitations of this research. For starters, t here might be a causality problem given the cross sectional data control cannot be proven to have been established prior to their involvement in analogous behaviors and/or crime. level of attachments and self control and vice versa. The ordering problem was addressed by having college students report their parental attachments while in high school and using that to explain their involvement in analogous behavior and crime during college. Also, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) self the age o f 8, theoretically establishing its temporal priority and protecting the trait from the effect of future behaviors. One of the limitations of this study is its lack of generalizability. It is a small sample consisting of predominantly Hispanics. The sampl e size of this study is somewhat disproportionate; there are a lot more Hispanic students in the TAMIU sample than there are Hispanic students in the UF sample. It would be better to have a more eve n distribution among the two to assess any systematic diff erences between Mexican American students and Hispanics belonging to a group originating from a

PAGE 130

130 different Hispanic country. As a result while it can be argued that the sub samples are different on a number of factors, the differences cannot be attributed t o their country of origin when it comes to the two Hispanic sub samples. Moreover, having different sample groups of ethnically homogenous Hispanics would allow for a more accurate comparison within the respective Hispanic groups. The data were collected via an on line survey from a relatively narrow range of students. The sub samples were not drawn in a systematic or random way. Caution needs to be taken before generalizing from this study to others. Still, as general theoretical constructs, both atta chments and self control should be able to account for crime and deviance so long as there is variability (and there was). Thus the theoretical significance of the research is not affected by its sampling. One of the sub samples was relatively small. T he UF Hispan ic sub sample had only 68 respondents in it. The size of this sub sample may undercut the stability of the findings regarding it. The other two, however, were larger large enough to support analyses looking for the effects of attachments and self control on crime and deviance. The weak performance of both attachments and self control was not isolated to the UF Hispanics; it occurred across the sub samples. Furthermore, p erhaps the operationalization of key variables led to the unexpectedly weak performance of attachments and self control. This, too, i s an unlikely explanation. Maternal and paternal attachments were measured as they often are. Both had high reliabilities. The typical Grasmick et al. scale operationalization of the origina l self control formulation was also used. The items also scaled. The revised self control version is less customary, but it scaled well. The self reported crime and

PAGE 131

131 analogous behavior items were customary and scaled well according to the reliability an alyses (with a possible exception for analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanics ). The control variables were typical as well. There is one possible area where the basic operationalization relevant to the attachment and self control analyses may cause p ause. The items that were retained to create a reliable analogous behavior measure were a bit unusual for a college age sample (cheating, sex before marriage, skipping school). This may be especially true when the average age for one of the sub samples ( TAMIU Hispanics) was higher than that of most college students. It may have been more appropriate to look at these behaviors during high school (but that would have raised a temporal ordering question). The general weakness of attachments and self contr ol occurred in the crime analyses, too. Crime could have been measured more broadly; the measures were somewhat minor in terms of seriousness. This may have limited the ability of the independent variables to predict crime. Moreover, the crime measure m ight be hindered by whether or not respondents really consider the behaviors to be criminal. Nevertheless the items used to create this scale did reflect crime and it produced variability across respondents. The general theoretical constructs of attachme nts and self control should be able to predict involvement in these criminal behaviors. One of the uncommon features of this research was that two measures of self control were employed in the multivariate analyses. Perhaps the inclusion of both created some collinearity issues that weakened the ability of either to account for analogous behavior or crime. The evidence indicates otherwise. The two self control measures were not highly correlated either within sub samples or in the aggregate

PAGE 132

132 across them SPSS collinearity diagnostics in the multivariate analyses did not indicate a problem (the VHFs were all under 2.0). An important focus of this study was to explore the extent to which acculturation (the adoption of the culture of a host society), and assimilation (the replacement of and crime. With the increase of immigrants in the U.S. (most of whom are Hispanics), it is important to consider the impact of accultu ration and assimilation on their behavior (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Paradoxically, the operationalization that may have had the least face validity was assimilation, but it was more consistently predictive of analogous behaviors and crime than were atta chments or self control. The assimilation index, although not atypical, was constructed from four items (employment, socioeconomic status, spatial concentration, and generational status), some of which may operate differently in the college context. For example, college may alter employment patterns and socioeconomic status. Acculturation and assimilation were included in the models to estimate their level of impact on analogous behavior and crime among Hispanics. There has been great debate on the way b oth concepts have been defined and measured. As a result they have sometimes been used interchangeably. While the measures used in this study were modeled after measures previously used, there is still a chance that these measures were not operationalized in the best possible manner affecting their ability to explain analogous behavior and crime. Because this study found both to be independently predictive, fu ture research may want to incorporate measures of acculturation as well as assimilation.

PAGE 133

133 One pote ntially import prospect is that assimilation and acculturation may be segmented and operate differently in different contexts. The information about the respective campus contexts and community contexts presented in the Methodology chapter shows some diff erences. UF and Gainesville are different from TAMIU and Laredo, and the UF Hispanics did not always respond in the same way as the TAMIU Hispanics. Recall that neither acculturation nor assimilation predicted analogous behaviors among the UF Hispanics t he only instance where these variables were impotent. Do the UF and Gainesville environments contextualized the effects differently from the TAMIU and Laredo ones? It is a prospect that future research could examine. Part of future efforts should attend to improving the measurement of assimilation. These findings contribute to criminological research in their ability to showcase the impact that acculturation and assimilation can have on behavior, even when attachments and self control are taken into acco unt. The results from the TAMIU sub sample are especially intriguing because of its university and community contexts. Both acculturation and assimilation measures remained significant at predicting analogous behavior and crime among the TAMIU Hispanic s ub sample, suggesting that acquiring indicative of greater involvement in problem behavior. It could be that since acculturation marks essentially a middle point between no assimilation and assimilation, immigrants might experience a sort of ambivalence or cult ure conflict that negatively impacts their involvement in analogous behavior and crime. In addition perhaps, being acculturated opens the door for immigrants to engage in behaviors not viewed as deviant within their culture and by not bei ng assimilated they allow themselves to delve

PAGE 134

134 in behaviors permissible by their culture. Still assimilation may be unable to predict crime dependent of neighborhood. Perhaps for immigrants assimilating to middle and upper class neighborhoods will not be a strong predictor of crime whereas for immigrants in inner cities or lower income neighborhoods, assimilation will be associated with deviance and crime. If that is the case, then it should be reconsidered whether it is desirable to have immigrants fully assimilate to the American way of life or whether it would be better to find a way to have immigrant s function productively in the United States without losing their cultural ties. Those ties may function as a protective factor where acculturation and assimilation may be operating as risk factors. It is possible that acculturation is associated with involvement in analogous behavior(s) because Hispanics may find some of the be haviors acceptable than is true of those in the dominant culture. (Note, however, that definitions were included as a control variable in this research so some of that variation should have been accounted for.) Future research should further examine the effect of culture on the involvement in deviance and crime across ethnic and within ethnic groups. Despite the limitations of this research, nothing undercuts the basic conclusions. The general theoretical constructs of attachments and self control did no t consistently predict analogous behavior or crime in these sub samples, sub samples that included a white college group as well as two Hispanic groups. For the Hispanic groups, acculturation was most predictive. The results also raise the prospect that assimilation may be an important factor. These findings are potentially important for theory and policy and need to be replicated. If future research does replicate their importance, then theories of crime need to incorporate explanations for why accultu ration and

PAGE 135

135 assimilation matter. Acculturation and assimilation processes may be central to understanding the involvement of ethnic groups in crime and deviance.

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX A STUDENT CONSENT Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law University of Flo rida 3219 Turlington Hall P.O. Box 117330 University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 7330 Dear Student, I am a graduate student in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fl. I am interested in researching the effects of parents and bonds to them on the development of self control and behavior, both conforming and deviant. Dr. Lonn Lanza Kaduce a professor of criminology at the University of Florida is supervising me. The results of the study will be used for my doctoral dissertation and may help in the use of criminological theories cross culturally. You will be asked to complete a survey on line. The questions will ask about their relationships to your parents, siblings, friends, school, an d church. The survey also contains questions about the level of involvement in different types of behaviors. There will be no way of connecting you with your questionnaire, it will be fully anonymous and the results will only be presented in general terms that do not identify anyone. You are free to refuse being a part of the study just do not access the link below. If you are over 18 years of age, I am asking for you to participate by accessing the following link: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB2 2AL5G24DTS Thank you. Lorna Alvarez Rivera

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX B SURVEY Your participation is completely voluntary and your answers will remain anonymous. This is NOT a test therefore; there are no right or wrong answers. Please do your best to answer these que stions as honestly as possible. Refrain from suppressing or exaggerating information. If you feel that you do not want to answer a question or that it may not apply to you feel free to leave the question in blank. Section 1: What is your ethnic background ? a. White non Hispanic b. White Hispanic c. Black non Hispanic d. Black Hispanic e. Asian f. Other Which language do you prefer to speak or write in with the following individuals or under the following circumstances? Only Spanish More Spanish tha n English Both Spanish and English equally More English than Spanish Only English Other Mom Dad Friends Coworkers In general In writing In what language do you engage in the following activities? Only Span ish Mostly Spanish In Spanish and English equally Mostly English Only English Other Listen to Music Watch Television Read (books, magazines, etc.)

PAGE 138

138 Only the Latino culture Mostly the Latino culture Both Am erican (U.S.) and Latino culture equally Mostly the American (U.S.) culture Only the American (U.S.) culture Other Know best Feel most proud of Feel most comfortable with Has had the most impact on your life Which culture and way of life do you know best? Do you think that a person of your race would get paid as much as a person of other racial groups for doing the same kind of work? a. He/she would probably get paid more b. He/she would probably get paid less c. He/she would probab ly get paid the same d. If you could choose, in what kind of neighborhood would you prefer to live? a. One that is racially integrated b. One with only Hispanic families c. One with only Black families d. One with only Asian families e. One with only White famil ies f. g. Undecided Have you personally ever been treated badly because of your race? a. Often b. Sometimes c. Seldom d. Never Would you say that your skin is? a. Dark b. Tan c. Light If you could change would you like to be? a. Lighter b. Darker c. T he same

PAGE 139

139 How many of your friends are: Asian 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Black 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Hispanic 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% White 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Other 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Section 2: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle the number that best describes your level of agreement 1=strongly agree 2=agree 4=disagree 5=strongly disagree I devote time and effort preparing for the future 1 2 3 4 I act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think 1 2 3 4 I bas e my decisions on what will benefit now in the short run, rather than in the long run 1 2 3 4 If I have a choice, I will do something physical rather than something mental 1 2 3 4 I feel better when I am on the move than when I am sitting and thinking 1 2 3 4 I would rather get out and do things than sit and contemplate things 1 2 3 4 Compared to other people my age, I have a greater need for physical activity 1 2 3 4 I test myself by doing things that are a little risky 1 2 3 4 I take risks just for the fun of it 1 2 3 4 I find it exciting to do things for which I might get in trouble 1 2 3 4 Excitement and adventure are more important to me than security 1 2 3 4 I look out for myself first, even if it means making things more difficult for oth er people 1 2 3 4 I am not very concerned about other people when they are having problems. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I try to get things I want, even when I know it is causing problem s for other people. 1 2 3 4 I try to avoid projects that I know will be difficult. 1 2 3 4 When things get complicated, I quit or withdraw 1 2 3 4 I do the things in life that are the easiest and bring me the most pleasure 1 2 3 4 I avoid difficult tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit 1 2 3 4 I lose my temper easily 1 2 3 4 When I am angry at people, I feel more like hurting them than talking to them 1 2 3 4 When I am really angry, other people better stay away from me 1 2 3 4 When I have for me to talk calmly about it without getting upset. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 140

140 a. M arried b. Divorced c. Separated d. Widowed e. Never married Who do you live with? a. Mom b. Dad c. Both parents d. Other relative e. By yourself Section 3: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the person who served the role of mother to you when you were in high school. Use the response code below for your answer. If you indicated that no one acted as a mother to you in the previous question, please skip to the next section. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree I loved my mo m (the person who served that role to me) 1 2 3 4 I felt bad when I hurt my mom 1 2 3 4 I respect my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom is my friend 1 2 3 4 I do not lie to my mom 1 2 3 4 I enjoy spending time with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom is a good role model 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom wants the best for me 1 2 3 4 I spoke to my mom often 1 2 3 4 I enjoyed living with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom understands me 1 2 3 4 My mom makes rules that are unfair to me 1 2 3 4 thday 1 2 3 4 I hate to fight with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom listens to my problems 1 2 3 4 My mom knows where I am when I am not at home 1 2 3 4 I am not afraid of my mom 1 2 3 4 Who acted as a father/mother to you during high school? My biological father/mother who was living at home My biologic al father/mother who was not living at home My step father /mother My adoptive father/ mother My foster father/ mother My grandfather/ grandmother Other relative Other adult No one Father Mother

PAGE 141

141 mom for help 1 2 3 4 My mom asks how I am doing in school 1 2 3 4 I watch television with my mom 1 2 3 4 I share my thoughts and feelings with my mom 1 2 3 4 I feel unwanted by my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom slaps/hits me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom nags/scolds me 1 2 3 4 My mom tells me I hurts her feelings 1 2 3 4 My mom calls me bad names 1 2 3 4 My mom thinks I work hard in school 1 2 3 4 My mom praises me when I get good grades 1 2 3 4 My mom gives me money when I get good grade s 1 2 3 4 My mom wants me to go to college 1 2 3 4 I would like to be like my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom would stick by me if I got in big trouble 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom has met my friends 1 2 3 4 My mom approves of my friends 1 2 3 4 My mom read to me when I was little 1 2 3 4 How would (or did) your mom react to you during high school if he knew you were engaging in the following behaviors? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval he would have. 1=strong ly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 Sch ool violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 How would (or did) your mom react to you now if she knew you wer e engaging in the following behaviors? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval he would have 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you

PAGE 142

142 Running away from home, underage dri nking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 ffice 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 Section 4: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the person who served the role of father to you during high school. Use the response code below for your answer. If you indicated that no one acted as a father to you please skip to the next section. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree I love my dad (the person who serves that role to me) 1 2 3 4 I feel bad when I hurt my dad 1 2 3 4 I respect my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad is my friend 1 2 3 4 I do not lie to my dad 1 2 3 4 I enjoy spending time with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad is a good role model 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My dad wants the best for me 1 2 3 4 I speak to my dad often 1 2 3 4 I enjoy living with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad understands me 1 2 3 4 My dad makes rules that are unfair to me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I hate to fight with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad listens to my problems 1 2 3 4 My dad knows where I am when I am not at home 1 2 3 4 I am not afraid of my dad 1 2 3 4 for help 1 2 3 4 My dad asks how I am doing in school 1 2 3 4 I w atch television with my dad 1 2 3 4 I share my thoughts and feelings with my dad 1 2 3 4 I feel unwanted by my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad slaps/hits me 1 2 3 4

PAGE 143

143 1 2 3 4 My dad nags/scolds me 1 2 3 4 My dad tells me I hurts her feelings 1 2 3 4 My dad calls me bad names 1 2 3 4 My dad praises me when I get good grades 1 2 3 4 My dad gives me money when I get good grades 1 2 3 4 My dad wants me to go to college 1 2 3 4 I would like to be like my dad 1 2 3 4 My d ad would stick by me if I got in big trouble 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My dad has met my friends 1 2 3 4 My dad approves of my friends 1 2 3 4 My dad read to me when I was little 1 2 3 4 How would (or did) your dad react to you d uring high school if he knew you were engaging in the following behaviors? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval he would have. 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before mar riage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 How would your dad react to you now if he knew you were engaging in the following behaviors? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval he would have. 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offense s 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4

PAGE 144

144 Using a gun in t he process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correction al institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 Section 5: Indicate the following of your mother and/or father (or of the person who serves that role to you Age Highest Level of Education Attained Mother Father Indicate where the following p eople were born; if they were born outside of the U.S. please indicate if they now live in the continental U.S. and if so how long have they been living in the continental U.S. Place of Birth Time in the continental U.S. You Mother Father Mater nal Grandmother Maternal Grandfather Paternal Grandmother Paternal Grandfather During high school, how many times has your family moved from one house to another? a. Not at all b. Once c. Twice d. Three times e. Four times f. Five times g. Six times or more When you were in high school, did your parents own their own home, or did they rent? a. They owned it b. They rented c. When you were in high school, were your parents in good health? a. Both were b. My father was c. My mother was d. Neither parent was

PAGE 145

145 When in high school who was responsible of disciplining you? a. Mom b. Dad c. Both parents d. Other When you were in high school, what was your parents income level? a. Less than $20,000 b. $20,000 $39,999 c. $40,000 $59,999 d. $60,000 $79,999 e. $80,000 $99,999 f. More than $100,000 When you Full time Part time Looking for work Keeping house Not working due to illness/disability Retired Not living Mother Father When you were in high school we re your mother and father satisfied with the job they had? Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Parent not living Mother Father When you were in high school, did your mother spend much time with the family? a. Very much ti me b. Some c. Not much d. None When you were in high school, did your father spend much time with the family? a. Very much time b. Some c. Not much d. None Have your parent received welfare payments when you were in high school? a. No, never b. Not now but they used to c. Yes, now S ection 6:

PAGE 146

146 How would (did) your siblings (brothers and/or sisters) react if they knew you were engaging in the following behaviors during high school? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval they would have. Skip to the next section i f you do not have any siblings 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes ( burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a c rime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison probation) 1 2 3 4 How would your siblings (brothers and/or sisters) react if they knew you were engaging in the following behaviors now? Circle the number that corresponds to the level of approval they would have. 1 = encourage you 2 = approve wit hout encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crime s (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyri ghted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 147

1 47 Section 7: How would (did) your hi gh school friends react if they knew or would have known you were engaging in the following behaviors during high school. 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, unde rage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offending 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprote cted sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 Being sent to the pri 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 How do your current friends react if they know or would know you were engaging in the following behaviors now? Use the codes listed below to provide you answers. 1 = encourage you 2 = approve without encouraging 3 = disapprove without encouraging 4 = discourage you Running away from home, underage drinking, smoking, skipping school or other status offenses 1 2 3 4 Property Crimes (burglary theft, motor vehicle theft) 1 2 3 4 Violent Crimes (rape, assault, murder) 1 2 3 4 Drug use 1 2 3 4 Having sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Having unprotected sex 1 2 3 4 Drinking and driving 1 2 3 4 Using a gun in the process of committing a crime 1 2 3 4 Cheating in school 1 2 3 4 Reproducing copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 School violence (getting into a fight, bullying) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Being formally sentenced to a correctional institution (jail, prison, probat ion) 1 2 3 4 Never Once in a while Often All the time You Anyone else

PAGE 148

148 Never O nce in a while Often All the time You Anyone else Section 8: Please indicate how often (if ever) you engaged in any of the following behaviors before or during high school? If you did, how old were you when you engaged in the respective behavi or for the first time? 1= never 2= 1 or 2 times 3= 3 9 times 4= 10 or more times Shoplifted 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Drank underage 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Drank alcohol without parental supervision 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Smoked cigarettes 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Smoked m arihuana 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Had sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Skipped school 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Sneaked out of home 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Drove after drinking 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Fired a gun 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Cheated in school 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Reproduced copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 Age_____ 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Was suspended from school 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Was picked up by the cops 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Was formally sentenced to a correctional facility (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 Age_____ Please indicate how often (if ever) you engaged in any of the following behaviors in the past 30 days? If you did, how old were you when you engaged in the behaviors? 1= never 2= 1 or 2 times 3= 3 9 times 4= 10 or more times Shop lifted 1 2 3 4 Drank underage 1 2 3 4 Smoked cigarettes 1 2 3 4 Smoked marihuana 1 2 3 4 Had sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Skipped school 1 2 3 4 Sneaked out of home 1 2 3 4 Drove after drinking 1 2 3 4 Fired a gun 1 2 3 4 Cheated in school 1 2 3 4 Was reproduced copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 Was suspended from school 1 2 3 4 Was picked up by the cops 1 2 3 4

PAGE 149

149 Was formally sentenced to a correctional facility (jail, prison, probation) 1 2 3 4 Section 9: How much do you agree or disagree with t he following statements about your involvement in religion during high school. Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree My religion was important to me 1 2 3 4 I went to church every Sunday 1 2 3 4 I went to church on special occasions 1 2 3 4 I was involved in church activities 1 2 3 4 I followed the principles of my church 1 2 3 4 The minister/priest/rabbi or other at my church was my friend 1 2 3 4 If I had a problem I could turn to t he church for support 1 2 3 4 I went to church when I had problems 1 2 3 4 I went to church for guidance 1 2 3 4 I did not feel judged at church 1 2 3 4 I did not feel out of place at church 1 2 3 4 After I went to church I felt better about myself 1 2 3 4 Section 10: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about high school and the teachers you had there. Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree School was import ant to me 1 2 3 4 My teachers were my friends 1 2 3 4 I was involved in school activities 1 2 3 4 I followed the rules at my school 1 2 3 4 My school was my second home 1 2 3 4 I did not feel judged at school 1 2 3 4 I did not feel out of place at s chool 1 2 3 4 After I went to school I felt better about myself 1 2 3 4 I hated missing school 1 2 3 4 I had fun at school 1 2 3 4 School was important in order to obtain job skills 1 2 3 4 Getting good grades was important to me 1 2 3 4 Getting good grades was important to get the job I want to get after graduation 1 2 3 4 I always finished my homework 1 2 3 4 My teachers checked my homework 1 2 3 4 My teachers cared whether I do well in school 1 2 3 4 My teachers expected excellent work from me 1 2 3 4 I cared what my teachers thought of me 1 2 3 4 I felt nervous and tense in school 1 2 3 4 Teachers understood students 1 2 3 4 I was active in school connected activities 1 2 3 4

PAGE 150

150 My friends belonged to the popular crowd in school 1 2 3 4 Othe r students liked my friends 1 2 3 4 My teachers liked my friends 1 2 3 4 I was the leader among my group of friends 1 2 3 4 Teachers cared most about students who were going to college 1 2 3 4 Section 11: How much do you agree or disagree with the f ollowing statements about your high school friends Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree My friends are important to me 1 2 3 4 I spend as much time as possible with my friends 1 2 3 4 My friends are my family 1 2 3 4 I am involved in extracurricular activities with my friends 1 2 3 4 I have rules of friendship 1 2 3 4 If I have problems I can always count on my friends 1 2 3 4 My friends are the first ones I turn to for advice 1 2 3 4 My friends do not judge me 1 2 3 4 My friends do not make me feel bad about myself 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My friends know everything about me 1 2 3 4 My friends are the only ones that understand me 1 2 3 4 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your friends now. Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree My friends were important to me 1 2 3 4 I spent as much time as possible with my friends 1 2 3 4 My friends were my family 1 2 3 4 I was involved in extracurricular activities with my friends 1 2 3 4 I had rules of friendship 1 2 3 4 If I had problems I can always count on my friends 1 2 3 4 My friends wer e the first ones I turn to for advice 1 2 3 4 My friends did not judge me 1 2 3 4 My friends did not make me feel bad about myself 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My friends knew everything about me 1 2 3 4 My fr iends were the only ones that understood me 1 2 3 4 I would like to be the kind of person my best friends were 1 2 3 4 I respected my best friends opinions 1 2 3 4 My best friends would stick by me even if I got in really bad trouble 1 2 3 4 The people I thought of as my best friends also considered me their best friend 1 2 3 4 I had a lot of best friends 1 2 3 4 I considered my brothers and sisters my best friends 1 2 3 4

PAGE 151

151 Which of the following people were likely to engage in the following behavior s during your high school years? Abuse alcohol Use illicit drugs Do things against the law Get into fights Spend time incarcerated Mother Father Siblings Friends How much do you approve or disapprove with the following behaviors Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly approve 2=approve 3=disapprove 4=strongly disapprove Property crimes 1 2 3 4 Violent crimes 1 2 3 4 Drug offenses 1 2 3 4 Alcohol offenses 1 2 3 4 Cheating 1 2 3 4 Running away or other sta tus offenses 1 2 3 4 What is your school classification? a. High school b. Freshman c. Junior d. Sophomore e. Senior f. Graduate What is your employment status? a. Not employed b. Employed part time c. Employed full time Did you attend a public/private high school? a. Private b. Publ ic c. Both d. Boarding school e. I was home schooled What is your gender? ___male ___female What is your age?______ How much would it have affected your future if you would have been caught violating the law when you were in high school? a. A lot b. Somewhat c. Not at a ll How much will it affect your future if you are caught violating the law?

PAGE 152

152 a. A lot b. Somewhat c. Not at all Which religious group are you affiliated with?________________________________________ What is your income level? g. Less than $20,000 h. $20,000 $39,999 i. $4 0,000 $59,999 j. $60,000 $79,999 k. $80,000 $99,999 l. More than $100,000 How often do you engage in the following activities? Never Sometimes Everyday How often do you eat dinner with your family? 0 1 2 How often do you play sports with your family? 0 1 2 How often do you do fun things with your family (things like movies, parties, festivals, sports, hobbies, or picnics)? 0 1 2 How often do you spend quiet time with your family (things like listening to music, taking a walk, reading together, or watching TV)? 0 1 2 How often do you talk with your family? 0 1 2 How often does your family say things that make you feel good? 0 1 2 How often does your family say things that help you try harder? 0 1 2 How often do you ask your family for help? 0 1 2 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? I DISAGREE I Don't Know I AGREE I respect what my family says. 0 1 2 My family is special to me. 0 1 2 I am close to my family 0 1 2

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX C SCALES ANALOGOUS BEHAVIORS SCALE Please indicate h ow often (if ever) you engaged in any of the following behaviors in the past 30 days? If you did, how old were you when you engaged in the behaviors? 1= never 2= 1 or 2 times 3= 3 9 times 4= 10 or more times Had sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 Skipped s chool 1 2 3 4 Cheated in school 1 2 3 4 CRIME S CALE Please indicate how often (if ever) you engaged in any of the following behaviors in the past 30 days? If you did, how old were you when you engaged in the behaviors? 1= never 2= 1 or 2 times 3= 3 9 times 4= 10 or more times Shoplifted 1 2 3 4 Smoked marijuana 1 2 3 4 Drove after drinking 1 2 3 4 Reproduced copyrighted material 1 2 3 4 Was picked up by the cops 1 2 3 4 Was formally sentenced 1 2 3 4 FAMILSM Involvement SCALE How often do you engage in the following activities? Never Sometimes Everyday How often do you play sports with your family 0 1 2 How often do you do fun things with your family(things like movies, parties, festivals, sports, hobbies, or picnics) 0 1 2 How often do you spend quiet time with your family (things like listening to music, taking a walk, reading together, or watching TV) 0 1 2 How often do you talk with your family 0 1 2 How often does your family say things that make you feel good 0 1 2 How often doe s your family say things that help you try harder? 0 1 2 How often do you ask your family for help? 0 1 2

PAGE 154

154 FAMILISM Attachment Scale How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? I DISAGREE I Don't Know I AGREE I respect what my f amily says 0 1 2 My family is special to me 0 1 2 I am close to my family 0 1 2 GRASMICK ET AL. 1993 SELF CONTROL SCALE How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle the number that best describes your level of agreement 1 =strongly agree 2=agree 4=disagree 5=strongly disagree I devote time and effort preparing for the future 1 2 3 4 I act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think 1 2 3 4 I base my decisions on what will benefit now in the short run, rather th an in the long run 1 2 3 4 If I have a choice, I will do something physical rather than something mental 1 2 3 4 I feel better when I am on the move than when I am sitting and thinking 1 2 3 4 Compared to other people my age, I have a greater need for p hysical activity 1 2 3 4 I test myself by doing things that are a little risky 1 2 3 4 I take risks just for the fun of it 1 2 3 4 I find it exciting to do things for which I might get in trouble 1 2 3 4 Excitement and adventure are more important to m e than security 1 2 3 4 I look out for myself first, even if it means making things more difficult for other people 1 2 3 4 I am not very concerned about other people when they are having problems. 1 2 3 4 ple 1 2 3 4 I try to get things I want, even when I know it is causing problems for other people. 1 2 3 4 I try to avoid projects that I know will be difficult. 1 2 3 4 When things get complicated, I quit or withdraw 1 2 3 4 I do the things in life tha t are the easiest and bring me the most pleasure 1 2 3 4 I avoid difficult tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit 1 2 3 4 I lose my temper easily 1 2 3 4 When I am angry at people, I feel more like hurting them than talking to them 1 2 3 4 When I am really angry, other people better stay away from me 1 2 3 4 calmly about it without getting upset. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 155

155 HIRSCHI 2004 SELF CONTROL REFORMULATION SCALE How m uch do you agree or disagree with the following statements 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree I spoke to my mom often 1 2 3 4 My mom listened to my problems 1 2 3 4 My mom knew where I was when I was not at home 1 2 3 4 I shared my thoughts and feelings with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom met my HS friends 1 2 3 4 I wanted to be like my mom 1 2 3 4 School was important to me 1 2 3 4 My teachers were my friends 1 2 3 4 School was important in order to obtain job skills 1 2 3 4 Getting good grades was important to me 1 2 3 4 Getting good grades was important to get the job I want to get after graduation 1 2 3 4 I cared what my teachers thought of me 1 2 3 4

PAGE 156

156 MATERNAL ATTACHMENT SCALE How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the person who served the role of mother to you when you were in high school. Use the response code below for your answer. If you indicated that no one acted as a mother to you in the previous question, please skip to t he next section. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=strongly disagree I loved my mom (the person who served that role to me) 1 2 3 4 I felt bad when I hurt my mom 1 2 3 4 I respected my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom was my friend 1 2 3 4 I did not lie to m y mom 1 2 3 4 I enjoyed spending time with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom was a good role model 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom wanted the best for me 1 2 3 4 I spoke to my mom often 1 2 3 4 I enjoyed living with my mom 1 2 3 4 My m om understood me 1 2 3 4 My mom made rules that are unfair to me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I hated fighting with my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom listened to my problems 1 2 3 4 My mom knew where I was when I was not at home 1 2 3 4 I was n ot afraid of my mom 1 2 3 4 mom for help 1 2 3 4 My mom asked how I was doing in school 1 2 3 4 I watched television with my mom 1 2 3 4 I shared my thoughts and feelings with my mom 1 2 3 4 I felt unwanted by my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom slapped/hit me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom nagged/scolded me 1 2 3 4 My mom told me I hurt her feelings 1 2 3 4 My mom called me bad names 1 2 3 4 My mom thought I worked hard in school 1 2 3 4 My mom praised me when I got good grades 1 2 3 4 My mom gave me money when I got good grades 1 2 3 4 My mom wanted me to go to college 1 2 3 4 I wanted to be like my mom 1 2 3 4 My mom would stick by me if I got in big trouble 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My mom met my friends 1 2 3 4 My mom approved of my friends 1 2 3 4 My mom read to me when I was little 1 2 3 4

PAGE 157

157 PATERNAL ATTACHMENT SCALE How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements a bout the person who served the role of father to you during high school. Use the response code below for your answer. If you indicated that no one acted as a father to you please skip to the next section. 1=strongly agree 2=agree 3=disagree 4=stro ngly disagree I loved my dad (the person who served that role to me) 1 2 3 4 I felt bad when I hurt my dad 1 2 3 4 I respected my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad was my friend 1 2 3 4 I did not lie to my dad 1 2 3 4 I enjoyed spending time with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad was a good role model 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My dad wanted the best for me 1 2 3 4 I spoke to my dad often 1 2 3 4 I enjoyed living with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad understood me 1 2 3 4 My dad made rules that are unfair to me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I hated fighting with my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad listened to my problems 1 2 3 4 My dad knew where I was when I was not at home 1 2 3 4 I was not afraid of my dad 1 2 3 4 t understand, I asked my dad for help 1 2 3 4 My dad asked how I was doing in school 1 2 3 4 I watched television with my dad 1 2 3 4 I shared my thoughts and feelings with my dad 1 2 3 4 I felt unwanted by my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad slapped/hit me 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My dad nagged/scolded me 1 2 3 4 My dad told me I hurt her feelings 1 2 3 4 My dad called me bad names 1 2 3 4 My dad thought I worked hard in school 1 2 3 4 My dad praised me when I got good gra des 1 2 3 4 My dad gave me money when I got good grades 1 2 3 4 My dad wanted me to go to college 1 2 3 4 I wanted to be like my dad 1 2 3 4 My dad would stick by me if I got in big trouble 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 My dad met m y friends 1 2 3 4 My dad approved of my friends 1 2 3 4 My dad read to me when I was little 1 2 3 4

PAGE 158

158 ASSIMILATION SCALE What is your employment status? a. Not employed b. Employed part time c. Employed full time If you could choose, in what kind of neighborhood would you prefer to live? a. One that is racially integrated b. One with only Hispanic families c. One with only Black families d. One with only Asian families e. One with only White families f. g. Undecided Indicate where the following people were born; if they were born outside of the U.S. please indicate if they now live in the continental U.S. and if so how long have they been living in the continental U.S. Place of Birth Time in the continental U.S. Y ou How many of your friends are: Asian 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Black 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Hispanic 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% White 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Other 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% When you were in high school, what was your parents income level? a. Less than $20,0 00 b. $20,000 $39,999 c. $40,000 $59,999 d. $60,000 $79,999 e. $80,000 $99,999 f. More than $100,000

PAGE 159

159 ACCULTURATION SCALE Which language do you prefer to speak or write in with the following individuals or under the following circumstances? Only Spanish More Spanish than English Both Spanish and English equally More English than Spanish Only English Other Mom Dad In general In writing Only the Latino culture Mostly the Latino culture Bot h American (U.S.) and Latino culture equally Mostly the American (U.S.) culture Only the American (U.S.) culture Other Know best Feel most proud of Feel most comfortable with Has had the most impact on your life In what languag e do you engage in the following activities? Only Spanish Mostly Spanish In Spanish and English equally Mostly English Only English Other Listen to Music

PAGE 160

160 SOCIAL LEARNING ( DEFINITIONS ) SCALE How much do you approve or disapprove with th e following behaviors. Use the response code below for your answer. 1=strongly approve 2=approve 3=disapprove 4=strongly disapprove Property crimes 1 2 3 4 Violent crimes 1 2 3 4 Drug offenses 1 2 3 4 Alcohol offenses 1 2 3 4 Cheating 1 2 3 4 Runn ing away or other status offenses 1 2 3 4

PAGE 161

161 APPENDIX D CORRELATIONS MATRIX Table 1 Correlation Matrix for Continuous Measures: TAMIU Hispanics 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 1. Maternal Attachment 1.0 2. Paternal Attachment .36 1.0 3. Low Self Control .16 .07 1.0 Self Control .40 .11 .17 1.0 5. Acculturation .10 .01 .06 .03 1.0 6. Assimilation .01 .11 .13 .04 .31 1.0 7. Social Learning (Definitions) .13 .01 .07 .21 .13 .11 1.0 8. Age .12 .03 .09 .02 .19 .03 .05 1.0 p < .05 (italicized) Table 2 Correlation Matrix for Continuous Measures: UF Hispanics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Maternal Attachment 1.0 2. Paternal Attachment .47 1.0 3. Low Se lf Control .46 .24 1.0 Self Control .34 .09 .37 1.0 5. Acculturation .02 .04 .04 .31 1.0 6. Assimilation .09 .22 .23 .30 .31 1.0 7. Familism (Involvement) .44 .07 .01 .21 .07 .12 1.0 8. Familism (Attachment) .29 .08 .58 .56 .27 .02 .31 1.0 9. Social Learning (Definitions) .25 .14 .31 .06 .34 .24 .06 .40 1.0 10. Age .05 .04 .06 .10 .19 .27 .01 .04 .05 1.0 p < .05 (italicized)

PAGE 162

162 Table 3 Correlat ion Matrix for Continuous Measures: UF Whites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Maternal Attachment 1.0 2. Paternal Attachment .27 1.0 3. Low Self Control .17 .03 1.0 Self Control .42 .42 .22 1.0 5. Fam ilism (Involvement) .06 .31 .18 .01 1.0 6. Familism (Attachment) .28 .16 .05 .29 .18 1.0 7. Social Learning (Definitions) .15 .12 .13 .23 .04 .19 1.0 8. Age .11 .08 .29 .07 .03 .18 .05 1.0 p < .05 (italicized)

PAGE 163

163 LIST OF REFERENCES Agnew, R. (1985). Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal test. Criminology 23, 47 61. Akers, R. L. (1991). Self Control as a General Theory of Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 7(2), 201 211. Akers, R.L. & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Alba, R. & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Immigration Review, 31, 826 87 4. Arneklev, B.J., Grasmick, H.G. & Bursick, R.J. (1999). Evaluating the Dimensionality and Invariance of Low Self Control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15 (3). 307 331. pp. 49 79 in Michael Armer and Allen Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research New York: John Wiley and Sons. Aseltine, R.H. (1995). A Reconsideration of Parental and Peer Influences on Adolescent Deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavi or, 36(2), 103 121. Asvat, Y. & Malcarne, V.L. (2008). Acculturation and depressive symptoms in Muslim university students: Personal family acculturation. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 114 124. Atzaba Poria, N., & Pike, A. (2007). Are ethnic minori ty adolescents at risk for problem behavior? Acculturation and intergenerational acculturation discrepancies in early adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25 527 541. Barlow, H.D. (1991). Explaining Crime and Analogous Acts, or the Un restrained Will Grab at Pleasure Whenever They Can. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(1), 229 242. Barmes, G.M., Reifman, A.S., Farrell, M.P., & Dintcheff, B.A. (2000). The Effects of Parenting on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Misuse: A S ix Wave Latent Growth Model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 :175 186. Baron, S. W. (2003). Self control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40 403 425. Barron, D. (1998). The analysis of count data: Overdispersion and autocorrelation. Sociological Methodology, 22, 179 219.

PAGE 164

164 Benda, B.B. (2005). The Robustness of Self control in Relation to form of Delinquency. Youth & Society, 36 (4), 418 444. Benson, M.L & Moore, E. (1992). Are White collar and Common Offenders the Same? An Empirical and Theoretical Critique of a Recently Proposed General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29 (3), 251 273. Bhanot, S. & Senn, C.Y. (2007). Attit udes Towards Violence Against Women In Men of South Asian Ancestry: Are Acculturation and Gender Role Attitudes Important Factors? Journal of Family Violence, 22, 25 31. Brannigan, A. Gemmell, W. Pevalin, D.J. & Wade, T.J. (2002). Self control and social control in childhood misconduct and aggression: the role of family structure, hyperactivity, and hostile parenting. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 44 119 142. Brems, C. & Sohl, M.A. (1995). The role of empathy in parenting strategy choices. Family Relations, 44 189 194. Buelher,C. & Gerard, J.M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children's and adolescents' maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 : 78 92. Burton, V.S., Evans, T.D, Cullen, F.T., Olivare s, K.M., & Dunaway, R.G. (1999) Age, Self General Theory of Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27 (1), 45 54. Burts,C.H., Simons, R.L., & Simons, L.G.(2006). A longitudinal test of the e ffects of parenting and the stability of self control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44, 497 517 Butcher, K.F. & Piehl, A.M. (1998). Recent Immigrants: Unexpected Implications for Crime and Incarceration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51, 654 679. Caetano, R. (1987). Acculturation and drinking patterns among U.S. Hispanics. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 789 799. Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Clark, C.L., Cunradi, C.B., & Raspberry, K. (2000). Intimate Partner V iolence, Acculturation, and Alcohol Consumption Among Hispanic Couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15 30 45. Chapman, M. V. & Perreira, K.M. (2005). The well being of immigrant Latino youths: A framework to inform practice. F amilies in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 86, 104 111. Chin, H. C., & Quddus, M.A. (2003). Modeling count data with excess zeros: An empirical application to traffic accidents. Sociological Methods and Research, 32, 90 116.

PAGE 165

165 Chipman S., Olsen, S.F., Klein, S., Hart, C.H., Robinson, C.C. (2002). Differences in retrospective perceptions of parenting of male and female inmates and non inmates. Family Relations, 49, 5 11. Colon, R. Causal relationships of familial influence and adolesce attitude toward substance use in the theory of planned behavior: a social impact model. Diss Abstr. 1998;59:2482. Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K.G., & Dornbusch, S.M. (2002). Protective Functions of Family Relationships and School Factors on the Deviant Beh avior of Adolescent Boys and Girls: Reducing the Impact of Risky Friendships. Youth & Society, 33 (4), 515 544. Cullen, T.F. & Agnew, R. (2003). Criminological Theory: Past to Present. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Delisi, M. (20 Control with an Offender Sample. Crimi nal Justice Review, 26(1), 1 16. Delisi, M., Hochstetler, A., & Murphy, D.S. (2003). Self Control Behind Bars: A Validation Study of the Grasmick et al. Scale. Justice Quarte rly 20(2), 241 263. Desmond, M, & Turley, R.N.L. (2009). The Role of Familism in Explaining the Hispanic White College Application Gap. Social Problems, 56, 311 334. Doherty, E. E. (2006). Self control, social bonds, and desistance: A test of the life cour se interdependence. Criminology, 44, 807 833 income, Mexican immigrant, and Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and the Fam ily, 59 309 323. Acculturation among Filipino Registered Nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40, 46 51. Ellison, C.G., Echevarria, S. & Smith, B ( 2005). Reli gion and abortion attitudes among U.S. Hispanics: Findings from the 1990 Latino national political survey. Social Science Quarterly 86, 192 208. Escovar, P., & Lazarus, P. (1982). Cross Cultural Child rearing Practices: Implications for School Psychology. School Psychology international, 3, 143 148. Farver, J.M., Bhadha, B.R., & Narang, S.K. (2002). Acculturation and Psychological Functioning in Asian Indian Adolescents. Social Development, 11 11 29.

PAGE 166

166 Fisher, J., & Mason, R. (1981). The analysis of multi collinear data in criminology. In J.A. Fox (Ed.), Methods in quantitative criminology (pp. 99 125). New York, NY: Academic Press. Ghaffarian, S. (1998). The acculturation of Iranian immigrants in the U.S. and implications for mental health. The Journal o f Social Psychology, 138, 645 654. Gibbs, J.J., Giever, D., & Martin, J.S. (1998). Parental Management and Self Control: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 40 71. Gil, A. G., Wagner, E. F. & Vega, W. A. (2000) Acculturation, familism and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology 28 443 458. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press Golash Boza, T. (2006). Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a) American through Racialized Assimilation. Social Forces, 85, 27 55. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion, and national origi ns. New York, Oxford University Press. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik R.J., & Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the Core Empirical Implications Journal of Research in crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5 30. Hahm, H.C., Lahiff, M. & Guterman, N. (2003). Acculturation and Parental Attachment in Asian Journal of Ado lescent Health, 33, 119 129. Hardwick, K.H. & Brannigan, A. (2008). Self control, child effects, and informal social control: A direct test of the primacy of sociogenic factors. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50, 1 25. Hay, C. (2001) Parenting, Self Control and Delinquency: A Test of Self Control Theory. Criminology, 39(3), 707 737. Heilbron, D. (1994). Zero altered and other regression models for count data with added zeros. Biometrical Journal, 36 531 547. Hinduja, S., & Ingram, J R. (2008). Self control and ethical beliefs on the social learning of intellectual property theft. Western Criminology Review, 9, 52 72.

PAGE 167

167 Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of Delinquency New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. patibility of Rational Choice and Social Control Theories In the Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. Ed. Derek V. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke. New York, NY: Springer Verlag, 1986. 105 118. f 552 in Handbook of Self Regulation: Research,Theory, and Applications edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Karen D. Vohs. New York: Guilford Press. Hirschi, T & Gottfredson, M.R. (1993). Commentary: Testing the General Theory of C rime. Journal in Research of Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47 54. Hunter, S.B., Wong, E., Beighley, C.M., & Morral, A.R. (2006). Acculturation and Driving Under the Influence: A Study of Repeat Offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67 458 464. Jain, A., & Belsky, J. (1997) Fathering and acculturation: Immigrant Indian Families with young children. Journal of Marriage and Family Therap y, 59 (4): 873 883. James, W. H., Kim, G. & Morse, D.D. (1997). Examining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Asian Adolesc ent Drug Use: The Contributions of Culture, Background, and Lifestyle. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy 4:39 51. drug use: Do they vary with age? Justice Quarter ly, 19, 97 126. Jang, S. J. & Smith, C. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among parental supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34, 307 336. Jensen, G.F & Brownfield, D. (1983). Parents and Drugs: Specifying the Consequences of Attachment. Criminology, 21(4), 544 554. Johnson, B.B. (2004). Arguments for Testing Ethnic Identity and Acculturation as Factors in Risk Judgments. Risk Analysis, 24, 1279 1289. Adolescence 22 (86), 305 315. Julian, T.W., P.C. McKenry, and M.W. McKelvey. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Asian American parents. Family Relatio ns 43, 30 37. Keane, C., Maxim, P. & Teevan, J.T. (1993). Drinking and Driving, Self Control, and Gender: Testing a General Theory of Crime: Two Empirical Tests of a General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 30 47.

PAGE 168

168 Kim Gho, M. & Baello, J. (2008). Attitudes toward domestic violence in Korean and Vietnamese immigrant communities: Implications for human services. Journal of Family Violence 23, 647 654. Kitano, H. H. L., J. E. Lubben, & I. Chi. ( 1988 ) Predicting Japanese American Drinking Behavior. International Journal of the Addictions 23:417 428. Kotkin, J. ( 2000 ) Movers and shakers. In: Siegal, F., Rosemberg, J. (Eds.), Urban Society, 11th ed. McGrawHill/Dushkin, Guilford. Krohn, M.D., Massey, J.L. (1980). Social Con trol and Delinquent Behavior: An Examination of the Elements of the Social Bond. The Sociological Quarterly, 21, 529 54. Lauritsen, J.L. ( 2001 ) The social ecology of violent victimization: individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantita tive Criminology 17, 3 32. Lee, C.S., Lopez, S.R., Cobly, S.M., Tejada, M., Garcia Coll, C. & Smith, M. (2006). Social processes underlying acculturation: A study of drinking behavior among immigrant Latinos in the Northeast United States. Contemporary Dru g Problems 33, 585 609 Lee, M.T., M artinez Jr., R., Rosenfeld, R. ( 2001 ) Does immigration increase homicide? Negative evidence from three border cities. The Sociological Quarterly 42, 559 580. Li, S. D. (2005). Race, self control, and drug problems among jail inmates. The Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 645 664. Lin, W. & Dembo, R. (2008). An integrated model of juvenile drug use: A cross demographic groups study. Western Criminology Review, 9, 33 51 Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Longshore, D., Ch ang, E., & Messina, N. (2005). Self control and social bonds: A combined control perspective on juvenile offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21 419 437 Longshore, D., Tur ner, S., & Stein, J.S. (1996). Self Control in a Criminal Sample: An Examination of Construct Validity. Criminology, 34(2), 209 228. Lopez, D.A. & Brummett, P.O. (2003). Gang Membership and Acculturation: ARSMA II and Choloization. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 627 642.

PAGE 169

169 Lynam DR, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Wikstrom POH, Loeber R, and Novak S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 109:563 574. in Nigeria: An Exploration of Methodological Assumptions. Journal of Criminal Justice 23 (6), 501 518. Martinez, Jr., R. & Lee, M.T. (2000). On immigration and crime: In The nature of crime: Continuity and change, vol. 2 of Criminal Justice 2000, edited by G. Lafree. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Ma rtinez, Jr., R., Stowell, J.I., Lee, M.T. (2010). Immigration and crime in an era of transform ation : A longitudinal analysis of homicides in san diego neighborhoods, 1980 2000. Criminology, 48, 797 829. Matos, P.M., Barbosa, S., Milheiro de Almeida, H., & Costa, M.E. (1999). Parental Attachment and Identity in Portuguese Late Adolescents. Journal o f Adolescence, 22, 805 813. Meyler, D., Stimpson, J. P., & Peek, M. K. (2006). Acculturation and self esteem among older Mexican Americans. Aging & Mental Health, 10, 182 186. Michelson, M.R. (2003). The Corrosive Effect of Acculturation: How Mexican Amer icans Lose Political Trust. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 918 933. Miller, H. V, Jennings, W. G., Alvarez Rivera, L. L., & Lanza Kaduce, L. (2009). Self control, attachment, and deviance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 77 84. M iller, M.H. Esbensen, F. & Freng, A. (1999). Parental attachment parental supervision and adolescent deviance in intact and non intact families. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22, 1 29 Morenoff J. & Astor A. 2006. Immigrant assimilation and crime: Generat ional differences in youth violence in Chicago. Pp. 36 63 in Immigration and Crime: Race, Ethnicity, and Violence eds., R. Martinez, Jr. and A. Valenzuela, Jr. New York: NYU Press. Muraven, M. Pogarsky, G. & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22 263 277. Nagasawa, R., Qian, Z., & Wong, P. (2001). Theory of segmented assimilation and the adoption of marijuana use and delinquent behavior by Asian Pacific youth. The Sociological Qua rterly, 42, 351 372.

PAGE 170

170 Nakhaie, M.R., Silverman, R.A. & LaGrange, T.C. (2000). Self Control and Social Control: AN Examination of Gender, Ethnicity, Class & Delinquency. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 35 59. Nofziger, S. (2001). Bullies, Fights and G uns: testing Self Control with Juveniles. LFB ScholarlPublishing: New York. Oh, Y., Koeske, G.F., Sales, E. (2002). Acculturation, Stress, and Depressive Symptoms among Korean Immigrants in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 511 526. Opp edal, B., Raysamb, E., & Heyerdahl, S. (2005). Ethnic group, acculturation, and psychiatric problems in young immigrants. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46, 646 660. Pantoja, S. (2005). Religion and education among Latinos in New York City Lei den, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers Park, R. E. and Burgess, E.W. 1924. Introduction to the Science of Sociology, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Pasch, L. A., Deardorff, J., Tschann, J. M., Flores, E., Penilla, C., & Pantoja, P. (2006). Acculturation, parent adolescent conflict, and adolescent adjustment in Mexican American families. Family Process, 45(1), 75 86. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazzerole, P., & Piquero, A.R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equalit y of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36 859 866. Paulson, A. & Rhine, S. (2008). The financial assimilation of an immigrant group in the U.S.: Evidence on the use of checking and savings accounts, credit cards and currency exchanges. Journal of Fam ily and Economic Issues 29 264 278. Perrone, D., Sullivan, C.J., Pratt, T.C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental Efficacy, Self Control and Delinquency: A Test of a General Theory of Crime on a National Representative Sample of Youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(3), 298 312. Piquero, A.R. & Bouffard, B. (2007). Something old, something new: A preliminary investigation of Hirschi's redefined self control. Justice Quarterly, 24, 1 27. Piquero, A. R., Gibson, C.L. & Tibbetts, S. G. (2003). Does self control account for the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol related Behaviours? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 135 154. Piquero, A.R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does Self Control Affect Survey Response? Applying Exploratory, Confirmatory and Item Response Theory Analysis to Grasmick et al. Control Scale. Criminology, 38(3), 897 929.

PAGE 171

171 Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). On the relation ship between violent recidivism and violent death. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21, 55 71. Piquero, A.R. & Rosay, A.B. (1998). The Reliability and Validity of Grasmick et al. Self Control Scale; A Comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36(1), 157 173. Pogarsky, G., Lizotte, A.J., & Thornberry, T.P. (2003). The delinquency of children born to young mothers: Results from the Rochester youth development study. Criminology, 41 : 1249 1286. Polk, K. (1991). A General Theory of Crime. Crime and Delinq uency, 37(4), 74 579. Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A. & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530 74 96. General Theory of Crime: A Meta Analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931 964. Pratt, T.C., Turne r, M.G. & Piquero A.R. (2004). Parental Socialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Structural Sources of Low Self Control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 219 243. Ramirez, I.L. (2007). The Relationship of Acc ulturation and Social Integration to Assaults on Intimate Partners among Mexican American and Non Mexican White Students. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 534 542. Ramirez, J. R., Crano, W. D., Quist, R., Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E. M., & Grandpre, J. (2004). Acculturation, familism, parental monitori ng, and knowledge as predictors of marijuana and inhalant use in adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 3 11. Rastogi, M. & Wampler, K.S. (1999). Adult Daughters' Perceptions of the Mother Daughter Re lationship: A Cross Cultural Comparison. Family Relati ons, 48, 327 336. Rebellon, Cesar J., and Karen Van Gundy Journal of Research in C rime and Delinquency 42(3):247 274. Reid, L.W., Weiss, H.E., Adelman, R.M., & Jaret, C. (2005). The immigration crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas. Social Science Research, 34, 757 780.

PAGE 172

172 Rosenfeld, M., Tienda, M., 1999. Mexican Immigra tion, occupational niches, and labor market competition: Evidence from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta, 1970 1990. In: Bean, F., Bell Rose, S. (Eds.), Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States. Russell Sage, New Yo rk, pp. 64 105. Rumbaut, R. (1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review 28(4): 748 794. Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez Stable, E. (1987). Hispanic Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397 412. Santisteban, D. A., Muir Malcolm, J. A., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Integrating the study of ethnic c ulture and family psychology intervention science. In H. A. Liddle, R. F. Levant, D. A. Santisteban, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Family psychology: Science based interventions (pp. 331 352). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sellin, T. (1938). C ulture conflict and crime New York: Social Science Research Council. Shakib, S., Mouttapa, M., Johnson, C. A., Ritt Olson, A., Trinidad, D.R., Gallaher, P.E. & Unger, J.B. (2003). Ethnic Variation in Parenting Characteristics and Adolescent Smoking. Jour nal of Adolescent Health, 33, 88 97. Shaw, C.R., McKay, H.D., 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Shihadeh, E.S. and Barranco, R.E. (2010).Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequences of U.S Immigration Policy. Social Forces, 88 1393 1420. Silverstein, M., & Chen, X. (1999). The impact of acculturation in Mexican American families on the quality of adult grandchild grandparent relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 188 198. Simons, R.L., Johnson, C., Conger, R.D., & Elder, G. (1998). A test of latent trait versus life course perspectives on the stability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 36, 217 242. Simons, R.L., Simons, L.G., Burt, C.H., Brody, G.H., & Cutrona C. (2005). Collective efficacy, authoritative parenting, and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating community and family level processes. Criminology, 43 989 1029. Simpson, S., & Piquero, N.L. (2002). Low Self Control, Organizational T heory, and Corporate Crime. Law and Society Review, 36 (3), 509 548.

PAGE 173

173 Sokol Katz, J., Dunham, R. & Zimmerman, R. (1997). Family Structure versus Parental Attachment in Controlling Adolescent Deviant Behavior: A Social Control Model. Adolescence, 32(125), 19 9 215. Steffensmeier, D. (1989). On the Causes of White Collar Crime: An Assessment of Criminology, 27(2), 345 357. Steidel, Angel and Josefina Contreras. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. His panic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 ,312 30. Stewart, E. A ., Elifson, K.W. & Sterk, C.E. (2004). Integrating the general theory of Justice Quarterly, 21 159 181. Stewart, E. A., Simons, R.L., Conger, R.D., Scaramella, L.V. (2002). Beyond the Interactional Relationship between delinquency and parenting practices: The contribution of legal practices. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 36 59. Stowell, J.I., Messner, S.F., McGeever, K.F., Raffalovich, L.E. (2009). Immigration and the Recent Crime Drop in the United States: A Pooled, Cross Sectional Time Series Analysis of Metropolitan Areas. Criminology,47, 889 928. Tacon, A.M., & Caldera, Y.M. (2001). Attachment and Parental Correlates in Late Adolescent Mexican American Women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23(1), 71 87. Tittle, C.R. & Botchkovar, E. (2005). Self control, criminal motivation, and deterrence: An investigation using Russian respondents. Crim inology, 43, 307 353. Tittle, C.R. & Grasmick, H.G. (1997). Criminal Behavior and Age: A Test of Three Provocative Hypotheses Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(1), 309 342. Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H.G. (2003). Age, Gender, and Crime /Deviance: A Challenge to Self Control Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40 (4), 426 453. Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H.G. (2003). Self Control and Crime/Deviance: Cognitive vs. Behavioral Measures. Journal of Quantitative Cri minology, 19(4), 333 365. Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H.G. (2004). Capacity for Self Control and Control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(2), 143 172. Turner, M.G., & Piquero A.R. (2002). The Stab ility of Self Control. Journal of Criminal Justice 30, 457 471.

PAGE 174

174 Unger, J. B., & Molina, G. B. (2000). Acculturation and Attitudes about contraceptive use among Latina women. H ealth Care Women International 21(3), 235 249. Unnever, J. D., Colvin, M. & C ullen, F.T. (2004). Crime and coercion: A test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4:244 268. A Test of Rival Theories. Youth V iolence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 3 33. Unnever, J.D., Cullen, F.T., & Pratt, T.C. (2003). Parental Management, ADHD, and Theory. Justice Quarterly 20(3), 471 500. Upchurch, D.M., C.S Aneshensel, J. Mudgal and C.A. McNeely (2001) Sociocultural Contexts of Time to First Sex Among Hispanic Adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(4):1158 1169. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Projected population of the United States, by race and H ispanic origin: 2000 2050. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ipc/ Theory of Crime in African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41 (4 ), 407 432 Welch, M., Tittle, C., Yonkoski, J., Meidinger, N., & Grasmick, H. (2008). Social integration, self control, and conformity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 24, 73 92. Valencia E.Y., & Johnson V. (2008). Acculturation among Latino Youth and the Risk f or Substance Use: Issues of Definition and Measurement. Journal of Drug Issues 38, 37 68. Vazsonyi, A.T., Pickering, L.E., Junger, & M., Hessing, D. (2001). An Empirical Test of a General Theory of Crime: A Four Nation Comparative Study of Self Control an d the Prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(2), 91 131. Vazsonyi, A.T., Wittekind, J.E.C., Belliston, L.M., & Van Loh, T.D. (2004). Extending the Control in Japanese Late Ad olescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 20(3), 189 216. Valenzuela, A. & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly 75 18 36.

PAGE 175

175 Vega, W., Alderete, E., Kolody, B. & Aguilar Gaxiola, S. (1998). Illicit Drug Use among Mexicans and Mexican Americans in California: The Effects of Gender and Acculturation. Addictions 93(12): 1839 1850. Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J., & Snipes, J. B. (1998). Theoretical Criminol ogy. (4 th ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Warr, M. (1993). Parents, Peers, and Delinquency. Social Forces, 72(1), 247 265. Criminology, 43, 77 105. Wiech American Journal of Prevention Medicine 12:29 37. Wildsmith, E. (2004). Race/ethnic differences in fem ale headship: Exploring the assumptions of assimilation theory. Social Science Quarterly,85, 89 106. Wolfe, S.E. & Higgins, G.E. (2009). Explaining deviant peer associations: An examination of low self control, ethical predispositions, definitions, and dig ital Piracy. Western Criminology Review 10(1):43 55. In Defense of the Alien. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Wright, John Control in their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Criminology 43(4):1169 1202. Wright, J.P., & Cullen, F.T. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquent behavior: Do control and support matter? Criminology, 39(3), 677 705. Zarankin, S., & Sabelli, H. (1996). Bi culturality among Hispanic Working Women. The Union of Opposites in Psychosocial Testing and Education Proc. Internationa l Systems Society. 40th meeting, Louisville,Kentucky, July 14 19. Edited by M.L.W. Hall. Sustainable Peace in the World System, and the Next Evolution of Human Consciousness. pp 691 702 Zhang, L. & Messner, S.F. (1999). School Attachment and Official Delin quency Status in the People's Republic of China. Sociological Forum, 11, 285 303.

PAGE 176

176 BIOGRA PHICAL SKETCH Lorna L. Alvarez Rivera was born in Manhattan, N ew Y ork, but was raised in Bayamon, Puerto R ico In 1998 Lorna began her college career at the Univers ity of Puerto Rico in Rio Piedras, PR. In 2000 she moved to Gainesville, Florida to pursue her passion, criminology. In 2003 she obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree in criminology law and society, and in 2006 she received her Masters of Arts in criminology and began pursuing her Doctorate of Philosophy in Criminology Lorna is a member of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) and the American Society of Cri minal Justice (ACJS). Currently, Lorna is working at Ohio University as Visiting Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice; her interests include criminological theory, juvenile justice, immigration, ethnicity and delinquency.