Does the Effect of Self-Regulation on Adolescent Recidivism Vary by Youths’ Attitudes?

• Author: Alex R. Piquero,Adam Fine,Elizabeth Cauffman,Michael T. Baglivio,Kevin T. Wolff
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854817739046
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817739046

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 2, February 2018, 214 –233.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854817739046

© 2017 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

214

DOES THE EFFECT OF SELF-REGULATION ON

ADOLESCENT RECIDIVISM VARY BY YOUTHS’

ATTITUDES?

ADAM FINE

University of California, Irvine

MICHAEL T. BAGLIVIO

TrueCore Behavioral Solutions

ELIZABETH CAUFFMAN

University of California, Irvine

KEVIN T. WOLFF

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

ALEX R. PIQUERO

University of Texas at Dallas

Youth with poor self-regulation or criminal attitudes are at risk for recidivism. Researchers have yet to examine how self-

regulation and criminal attitudes intermix to influence recidivism. The present study employed a large sample of 26,947 youth

in the Florida Juvenile Justice System to examine the effect of criminal attitudes on the association between self-regulation

and recidivism over a 1-year period. The results indicated that the influence of self-regulation on recidivism varied based on

youths’ attitudes. Although self-regulation affected recidivism among youth with average (dy/dx = –.03, SE = .01, p < .001)

and less criminal (dy/dx = –.05, SE = .01, p < .001) attitudes, self-regulation was not associated with recidivism among youth

with more criminal attitudes (dy/dx = –.01, SE = .01, p = .150). These findings demonstrate mechanisms that may promote

sustained justice system involvement and identify key levers for reducing youth recidivism.

Keywords: self-regulation; criminal attitudes; juvenile justice; recidivism

Both criminal attitudes (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin,

1996; Glueck & Glueck, 1934) and self-regulation (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977;

Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996; White et al., 1994) are crucial

factors for understanding adolescent delinquency. Youth with criminal attitudes (Simourd

& Olver, 2002), or the constellation of attitudes, values, or beliefs that support antisocial

behavior, are more likely to engage in crime. At the same time, youth who have difficulty

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their

insightful feedback. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily reflect those

of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Adam Fine, Department of Psychology & Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, 4308 Social &

Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA 92697; e-mail: finea@uci.edu.

739046CJBXXX10.1177/0093854817739046Criminal Justice and BehaviorFine et al. / Self-Regulation, Attitudes, Recidivism

research-article2017

Fine et al. / SELF-REGULATION, ATTITUDES, RECIDIVISM 215

regulating their behavior are also more likely to engage in crime (Meldrum, Barnes, & Hay,

2015; Moffitt et al., 2011; Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2009; Pratt & Cullen,

2000). Research at the intersection of attitudes and behavioral control (e.g., Ajzen, 1991;

Kiriakidis, 2006) has largely found that youth with negative attitudes and poor self-regula-

tion are at great risk for reoffending. With a few exceptions (cf. Antonaccio & Tittle, 2008;

Schoepfer & Piquero, 2006), researchers have yet to examine, however, how self-regulation

and criminal attitudes interrelate to affect offending. The present study is the first to exam-

ine the moderating impact of criminal attitudes on the association between self-regulation

and recidivism in a 1-year follow-up of youth involved in the juvenile justice system. It is

expected that regardless of their level of self-regulation, youth with strong criminal atti-

tudes may be at risk of engaging in crime. For these youth, criminal attitudes may be the

important lever for reducing crime involvement. It may be the case that self-regulation

affects recidivism only among youth with moderate or low criminal attitudes. For these

youth, both attitudes and self-regulation may be important levers for reducing recidivism.

ANTISOCIAL ATTITUDES

The importance of attitudes in affecting recidivism has long been asserted (see Glueck &

Glueck, 1934). Although various terms have been applied to the construct, such as antiso-

cial cognition (see Andrews et al., 2006; Walters & DeLisi, 2013), we refer to the construct

as criminal attitudes. Criminal attitudes have been broadly described as a constellation of

attitudes, values, or beliefs that support criminal behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Andrews et al.,

2006; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; Simourd & Olver, 2002). Criminal atti-

tudes reflect criminal values with regard to one’s own criminal behavior (Simourd & Olver,

2002) that may include beliefs about legal authority (Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Gendreau, Grant,

Leipciger, & Collins, 1979) along with pride in delinquent acts (Shields & Whitehall, 1994).

Because of their prominence, criminal attitudes are considered one of the “Big Four” risk/

needs factors that are central to understanding recidivism (Andrews et al., 2006).

An expansive literature has consistently documented the association between criminal

attitudes and offending (e.g., Andrews et al., 2006; Mills, Kroner, & Hemmati, 2004). For

instance, attitudes toward legal authority (Andrews & Wormith, 1984; Andrews, Wormith,

& Kiessling, 1985; Gendreau et al., 1979) along with pride in delinquent acts (Shields &

Whitehall, 1994) are associated with antisocial behavior. Criminal attitudes, broadly, have

been linked to gang involvement (Chu, Daffern, Thomas, Ang, & Long, 2013; Ireland &

Power, 2012), prior convictions and incarcerations (Mills, Kroner, & Forth, 2002), sex

crime recidivism (Hanson & Harris, 2000), and general recidivism (Bäckström & Björklund,

2008; Gendreau, Goggin, Chanteloupe, & Andrews, 1992; Gendreau, Goggin, & Law,

1997; Walters, 2006). Furthermore, they partially mediate the relation between past and

future criminal involvement (Walters, 2013; Walters & DeLisi, 2013). Indeed, meta-analy-

ses support the notion that criminal attitudes are among the strongest predictors of criminal

offending (Gendreau et al., 1992; Gendreau et al., 1996; Simourd, Hoge, Andrews, &

Leschied, 1994). In one meta-analysis of 37 studies, Gendreau et al. (1992) found that

among various key risk factors, including psychopathology, educational achievement,

parental/family factors, and personality, attitudes provided the strongest correlation with

criminal conduct. In short, criminal attitudes are among the strongest predictors of criminal

behavior and recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).1