Self-control during adolescence: Examining the stability of low self-control and the effects of parental social controls
| Author | Jost Reinecke,Julia Meinert |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370817749180 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370817749180
European Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 15(5) 523 –543
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370817749180
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Self-control during
adolescence: Examining the
stability of low self-control
and the effects of parental
social controls
Julia Meinert and Jost Reinecke
Bielefeld University, Germany
Abstract
This study examines the stability of and change in self-control during adolescence and investigates
the reciprocal relationship of self-control and parental social control. German three-wave panel
data with two age cohorts (11–13 and 15–17 years, total N = 1423) are analyzed. Latent growth
curve and path models are applied to investigate developmental trajectories. Findings suggest
(a) no evidence for the relative stability of self-control, (b) parental controls do matter after the
formative years, and (c) low self-control influences the perception of parental controls in early
adolescence. In sum, results support a dynamic perspective with reciprocal influences of self-
control and social control.
Keywords
General Theory of Crime, parental control, second-order latent growth curve models, self-
control, theory of informal social control
Introduction
Self-control is known as one of the most important factors in the explanation of crime
and deviance (Pratt and Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al., 2017). Its importance was already
shown in the General Theory of Crime (GTOC) by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). In
the original version of the GTOC, people with a low level of self-control were described
as ‘impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted,
and nonverbal’ (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 90). In this theoretical context
Corresponding author:
Julia Meinert, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Postfach 100131, Bielefeld, 33501, Germany.
Email: julia.meinert@uni-bielefeld.de
749180EUC0010.1177/1477370817749180European Journal of CriminologyMeinert and Reinecke
research-article2017
Article
524 European Journal of Criminology 15(5)
self-control is viewed as a stable personality trait established early in life by effective
socialization. It is assumed to be malleable before the formative years in childhood (8 to
10 years of age) and to be relatively (but not absolutely) stable afterward (Gottfredson
and Hirschi, 1990). However, research is still missing investigating the assumed stability
and the malleability by parental social controls. The aim of this study is therefore to test
the stability hypothesis of the GTOC and the malleability of self-control over time after
the formative years for the first time in a German youth sample.
Based on the work of Hirschi (1969), effective parental socialization (characterized
by monitoring and discipline) is assumed to establish social bonds that in turn establish
self-control as assumed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) and the theory of informal
social control of Sampson and Laub (1993). However, there is one difference between
the GTOC and the theory of informal social control. The former assumes a unidirectional
self-selection influence of self-control on social bonds and controls up to the end of
childhood. The latter assumes an enduring reciprocal influence over the entire life-
course. These diverging assumptions are part of the self-selection vs. social causation1
debate (Nagin and Paternoster, 2000). Sampson and Laub (1993) combine the self-selec-
tion assumptions with the social causation mechanisms, which is in line with recent
developments of a more general unified control perspective (see Hay and Meldrum,
2015; Pratt, 2016).
Contrary to many previous studies, the within-individual as well as the between-indi-
vidual trajectories of self-control are considered by applying second-order latent growth
curve models (2LGC) (Duncan et al., 2006; Preacher et al., 2008) to verify the stability
hypothesis. Since some results have demonstrated changeability in addition to the stabil-
ity of self-control (Burt et al., 2006; Mitchell and MacKenzie, 2006; Na and Paternoster,
2012; Winfree et al., 2006), the question arises of how this affects the interplay of self-
control and social controls. Therefore, the second aim of this study is to contribute to the
recent theoretical debate by disentangling the causal relationship between self-control
and social control development over a three-year period during adolescence. We exam-
ine whether parental controls explain potential instability in self-control. Furthermore,
based on the different theoretical assumptions, contrasting path models are tested against
each other in the context of structural equation modeling (Reinecke, 2014). Autoregressive
models are used to test cross-lagged paths between self-control and social control.
Database for the analyses is a three-wave panel study with a German general youth sam-
ple of two age cohorts (11–13 and 15–17 years) using self-reports. The following section
provides a brief overview of the research on the stability and malleability of self-control
and provides further details about the methods used.
Stability in GTOC
A key to understanding the central hypothesis of GTOC is the difference between rela-
tive and absolute stability. Relative stability of self-control means that individuals start-
ing low in self-control in childhood tend to have lower self-control later in life than
individuals starting at a higher level. Therefore, the between-individual level of self-
control is assumed to be equal over time. Absolute levels of self-control, however,
describe the within-individual development of self-control over time. Gottfredson and
To continue reading
Request your trial