Cultural contexts of individualism vs. collectivism: Exploring the relationships between family bonding, supervision and deviance
| Author | Marijana M. Kotlaja |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818792482 |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818792482
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(3) 288 –305
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818792482
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Cultural contexts of
individualism vs. collectivism:
Exploring the relationships
between family bonding,
supervision and deviance
Marijana M. Kotlaja
University of Nebraska, USA
Abstract
The primary focus of this paper is to test the cross-national generalizability of the relationship
between parental attachment and delinquency. Countries were divided on individualistic and
collectivistic dimensions. Individualistic countries emphasize the degree to which individuals are
supposed to look after themselves whereas collectivist counties emphasize group integration,
usually around the family, and the achievement of group over individual goals. Average individual-
level associations between parental attachment and crime were examined across 26 nations in
an international dataset of delinquency and victimization of 12–15-year-old students in grades
7–9. Low levels of parental attachment and parental supervision were found to be more strongly
related to deviance in countries with individualistic as opposed to collectivist cultural orientations.
Alternative explanations for this relationship are explored.
Keywords
Attachment, bonding, comparative, deviance, individualism vs. collectivism, international data
Introduction
Family bonding prevents delinquency by providing a supportive environment where
adolescents spend time with family members more than with peers (Hoeve et al., 2009;
Kierkus and Baer, 2002). The family serves as an important moderator of delinquency,
reducing criminogenic factors such as unstructured socializing and susceptibility to devi-
ant peers (Crosnoe et al., 2002; Dong and Krohn, 2016; Griffin et al., 2000). Conversely,
Corresponding author:
Marijana M. Kotlaja, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska, 6001 Dodge
Street, 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE 68182-0149, USA.
Email: mkotlaja@unomaha.edu
792482EUC0010.1177/1477370818792482European Journal of CriminologyKotlaja
research-article2018
Article
Kotlaja 289
whereas a strong familial environment and positive parental rearing can inhibit delin-
quency, a disruptive family environment and negative parental rearing practices can fos-
ter criminogenic behavior in adolescents (Sampson and Laub, 1993).
Bonds between parents and children are important to socialize children to group
norms and values, but also to reduce victimization (Özbay and Özcan, 2006). First,
strong family bonds and positive environments promote family activities that increase
monitoring of children and provide incentives to steer clear of potentially dangerous situ-
ations such as spending time with delinquent peers and engaging in risky lifestyles
(Higgins and Albrecht, 1977). Second, strong family bonds reduce the motivation for
offending (Unnever et al., 2006). For example, families that are more cohesive provide
the individual with an increased ability to resist the temptation of crime (Hirschi, 2002;
Tilley and Sidebottom, 2017).
But the extent to which the family can function as an effective agent of socialization
depends on many factors both inside and outside of the immediate family. Such factors
include the absence of one parent (Harper and McLanahan, 2004), the socioeconomic status
of the family, and the impact of neighborhood disadvantage (Zimmerman and Messner,
2010, 2013). Even community characteristics such as poverty, residents with heterogeneous
backgrounds, and a high degree of residential mobility (Sampson and Laub, 1993; Shaw and
McKay, 1942) and a low degree of collective efficacy (Sampson and Bean, 2006; Sampson
et al., 1997) can operate to counteract even well-meaning and otherwise effective child rear-
ing (Ghazarian and Roche, 2010; Sullivan, 2006; Wasserman et al., 2003)
Despite consistent findings about the role of family as a major source of social control
in Western cultures, little attention has been paid to how the effects of family bonding
play out in different cultural contexts. There is reason to believe family structure and
impact on child rearing may differ among cultures with different values (Junger-Tas,
2012; Minkov and Hofstede, 2012). Some culturally diverse practices in child rearing
may appear neglectful by American standards, but in other countries they might be con-
sidered normal. For example, Asian parents place a strong emphasis on obedience,
proper behavior, meeting social obligations and group achievement, whereas in Caucasian
American culture parents are concerned with a child’s ability to gain self-expression and
individual identity (Marshall and Enzmann, 2012).
Although it is almost impossible to identify a country that does not view the family as
an important mechanism of emotional and interpersonal support, the extent to which
societies view it as essential to the social fabric of society appears to vary across political
and cultural contexts (Kohli et al., 2005; Minkov and Hofstede, 2012). For example,
Italian families have been described as close and personal, whereas families in Spain are
described as large and affectionate (Gannon and Pillai, 2010). Families in Latin America
emphasize problem solving in addition to support, whereas Mediterranean countries
have the most traditional two-parent nuclear family structure (Qiu et al., 2013). In this
way, family structure and function are shaped by the cultural context in which they occur;
the role of family in delinquency prevention must be viewed in the political and cultural
context in which it occurs. Based on these characteristics, most cultures in the world can
be placed within two basic frameworks – individualism and collectivism – of how cul-
ture drives family dynamics and informs essential differences in child rearing (Johnson
et al., 2013).
To continue reading
Request your trial