Predictors of delinquency among adolescents and young adults: A new psychosocial control perspective
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865816628594 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2017, Vol. 50(2) 155–175
Predictors of delinquency
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
among adolescents and young
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865816628594
adults: A new psychosocial
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
control perspective
Angela L Curcio, Anita S Mak and
Amanda M George
Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Canberra, Australia
Abstract
The present study examined whether a new psychosocial control model of youth problem
behaviours, including additional variables of sensation seeking and peer risk-taking behaviour,
could be expanded to explain delinquency in early and mid-late adolescence, and emerging
early- and mid-young adulthood. We also explored the possible mediating role of peer risk-
taking behaviours on conventional social control risk factors of parent attachment, school
connectedness, and perceived seriousness of risk-taking behaviours with delinquency. Using a
recently updated Australian self-report delinquency measure that can capture undetected
antisocial behaviour among both adolescents and adults, a sample of 329 secondary school
students (age groups 13–14 and 15–17, 50.6% female) and 334 university students (age groups
18–20 and 21–24, 68.4% female) in Canberra, Australia participated. The new psychosocial
control model explained variance in delinquency with medium to large effect sizes, and
beyond the original psychosocial control variables in all four age cohorts. Peer risk-taking
behaviour explained the largest proportion of variance across all four age groups; its mediat-
ing role was partially supported. Impulsivity predicted delinquency among 13–20 years olds as
did sensation seeking among 15–24 years olds, suggesting different, yet overlapping influences
on developmental trajectories of delinquency.
Keywords
Adolescence, delinquency, personal control, social control, young adulthood
Introduction
Globally high rates of youth crime demonstrate the scope and costs of delinquent offend-
ing (World Health Organisation, 2014). According to official Australian statistics, the
offending rate among youth between 15 and 24 years of age was more than double the
rate of any other age cohort in Australia from 2011 to 2012 (Australian Institute of
Corresponding author:
Angela L Curcio, Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia.
Email: Ange.Curcio@canberra.edu.au
156
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(2)
Criminology, 2014). Given that parts of the brain responsible for executive functioning,
impulse control, and decision-making do not fully mature until the mid-twenties
(Newman & Newman, 2012), adolescents (i.e. 13–17 years), and emerging young
adults (i.e. 18–24 years) are prone to risk-taking behaviours such as delinquent activity.
Owing to high rates of prevalence among this population, a comprehensive theoretical
model is useful for elucidating risk factors underpinning Australian delinquency span-
ning a trajectory from early adolescence to emerging young adulthood.
Before we consider the benefits of expanding existing theoretical models to better
explain delinquency among this cohort, there are nuances inherent within delinquent
research that we aim to address. First, the act of delinquent offending is often secretive in
nature and many lawbreakers are never apprehended for their crimes. As official statis-
tics likely underestimate the incidence of youth delinquency, it is important to assess self-
reported delinquency. Therefore, we use a contemporary instrument of self-reported
delinquency that can expose delinquent activities among both adolescents and adults.
Second, youth delinquency research is predominantly studied among official delinquent
or clinical samples (White & Miller, 2015). While this assures the occurrence of delin-
quent offending, it does not expose the behaviour of non-clinical samples, such as high
school and university students, who may also commit illegal activities at a lesser extent.
Finally, experimental delinquency is regarded as normative and peaks during mid-late
adolescence (Vassallo et al., 2002). Identifying similar etiological causes among a young
adult sample may indicate risk factors consistent with a more persistent trajectory of
criminal behaviour. Consequently, understanding the causes and course of self-reported
delinquency among early- and mid-late adolescent groups and among emerging early-
and mid-young adults within the general population may better inform early detection
efforts.
Theoretical models of delinquency
Delinquency has received vast attention in the literature, with numerous theoretical
models proposed to explain its occurrence. Many criminological models focus on
social components, such as social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) and social learning
theory (Akers, 1977). While Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) updated their general
theory of crime to incorporate the importance of self-control, other psychological or
personality variables that are dispositional in nature have generally been overlooked in
criminological theories. Although some generic deviance models, such as problem
behaviour theory (Jessor & Jessor, 1977) and the deviance proneness model (Sher,
1991), link personality traits with a range of general problem behaviours, few address
risk factors for delinquency specifically, particularly among Australian adolescents and
young adults in the general population.
Addressing both social and psychological risk factors, Mak (1990) proposed a psy-
chosocial control model of adolescent delinquency. Mak (1990) argued that adolescents
with weakened attachments to social control agents, such as parents, school, and values
(i.e. low perceived seriousness of risk-taking behaviours), and personal control factors of
high impulsivity and low empathy, were more likely to engage in delinquent activities.
Psychosocial control theory has been validated with official delinquent and non-
delinquent adolescent samples (Mak, 1991). However, there is a lack of research
Curcio et al.
157
examining the utility of the psychosocial control model to explain delinquency among
youth at various developmental stages. Therefore, we aim to examine whether it can be
modified and expanded to explain delinquency in early and mid-late adolescent and
emerging early- and mid-young adult age groups in an Australian context.
Expanding psychosocial control theory
A recent systematic review of the literature (Curcio, Mak, & George, 2013), paired with
subsequent qualitative enquiries (Curcio, Knott, & Mak, 2015), found that risk factors
for adolescent delinquency were predominantly encompassed by Mak’s (1990) psycho-
social control theory, with the addition of sensation seeking and peer risk-taking behav-
iour. These findings are consistent with an extensive body of literature demonstrating the
importance of peer and personality variables in predicting risk-taking activities. The
absence of sensation seeking and peer influence in the current psychosocial control
model may limit its explanatory power, and their inclusion in a revised model should
be considered and subsequently tested.
Sensation seeking
A limitation of Mak’s (1990) original psychosocial control theory is that it does not
consider sensation seeking as an additional personal control risk factor to unplanned or
rash impulsivity. Broader conceptualisations of impulsivity encapsulate facets such as
low self-control and sensation seeking (Whiteside & Lynam, 2009). However, low self-
control is often considered an equivalent construct to ‘rash impulsivity’ (Dawe, Gullo, &
Loxton, 2004), with both traits referring to an inability to inhibit impulses, resist temp-
tation, and consider the consequences of one’s actions (Dawe et al., 2004; Duckworth &
Kern, 2011). Sensation seeking is characterised by a tendency to seek out novel and
thrilling forms of stimulation, yet an individual may plan ahead to do so (Whiteside &
Lynam, 2009). Recent research also suggests that sensation seeking has different neuro-
logical underpinnings and trajectories of behaviour than impulsivity (Casey, Galvan, &
Hare, 2005; Galvan, Hare, Voss, Glover, & Casey, 2007). Two separate conceptually
focused measures of rash impulsivity (referred to as impulsivity from this point onwards)
and sensation seeking may better explain delinquency along a trajectory from early
adolescence to emerging young adulthood.
Peer risk-taking behavior
Another limitation of the original psychosocial control model is that it does not consider
peer influence. Association with risk-taking peers (also referred to as peer risk-taking
behaviour) represents elements of social control and social learning perspectives, in that
risk-prone individuals likely associate with peers who exhibit similar tendencies (control
theory), and associating with peers who engage in risk-taking behaviours may increase
the likelihood of adopting similar actions (social learning theory). In a meta-analysis of
the criminal literature, Pratt and Cullen (2000) found that studies incorporating social
learning variables with low self-control (i.e. impulsivity) explained substantially more
variation in crime than studies that did not. Therefore, integrating peer risk-taking
behaviour, a social learning and social control variable, into the psychosocial control
model may strengthen its explanatory power.
158
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50(2)
Mediating relationships
In addition to expanding the psychosocial control...
To continue reading
Request your trial