Low Self-Control, Parental Intervention, and Delinquency Among Native American Youth

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Author: Hyunin Baek,Jason A. Nicholson,George E. Higgins
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368718759402
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Race and Justice
2020, Vol. 10(4) 379-399
Low Self-Control, Parental
ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Intervention, and Delinquency
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2153368718759402
Among Native American
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Youth
Hyunin Baek1, Jason A. Nicholson2,
and George E. Higgins1
Abstract
Researchers in criminal justice literature have relatively underexamined the delin-
quency among Native American (NA) youth. Using data from the Drug Use Among
Young Indians: Epidemiology and Prediction study, the present study tested assumptions in
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory. This study found evidence supporting
the theory. Low self-control was a significant predictor to NA adolescents’ delin-
quency. However, parental intervention as an opportunity measure and it was not a
mediation between low self-control and delinquency. Moreover, while parental
intervention significantly decreased delinquency by female adolescents, parental
intervention significantly increased delinquency by male adolescents. In addition, the
mediation effect in structural equation modeling for males occurred; in contrast, the
effect in the female model did not happen. On the other hand, low self-control was
still the crucial predictor to adolescents’ delinquency across gender. Thus, future
studies will need to account for the etiology of NA adolescents’ delinquency across
gender using different approaches.
Keywords
delinquency, low self-control, parental intervention, Native American, gender
1 Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
2 Criminology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Hyunin Baek, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, 2311 Brigman Hall, RM 100i,
Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: h0baek01@louisville.edu

---

380
Race and Justice 10(4)
According to a report from the Department of Justice, Native American (NA) ado-
lescents were disproportionately high in the U.S juvenile justice system; approxi-
mately 28% of incarcerated young offenders under federal jurisdiction identified as
NA, based on residential placement rate1 in 2010 (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).
Furthermore, they were grossly overrepresented in juvenile justice systems and youth
arrests, with 2.0–3.3% of youth arrests regarding alcohol and marijuana (Sickmund &
Puzzanchera, 2014), relative to almost 1% of the national youth population (Norris,
Vines, & Hoeffel, 2012). NA under the age of 18 were more likely to be arrested for
alcohol-related problems than the national average (Perry, 2004). Several studies
found that NA youths engaged in violent and delinquent behaviors at a higher rate than
other races (Greenfield & Smith, 1999; Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2013;
McNulty & Bellair, 2003).
For instance, NA youth within the 20–24 age range, commit violent crime at a rate
of 40.6 per 1,000, which is a 12.4% higher rate than the general population of 20–24-
year olds in the United States (28.2 per 1,000). This higher rate of violent crime among
NA youths is even greater among the 18–19-year-old age-group at 41.5 per 1,000, a
15.4% increase from the general population of 18–19-year-old Americans at 26.1 per
1,000. This trend continues with NAs aged 15–17 (37.2 per 1,000) who hold an 11.7%
higher rate of violent crime compared to the general population (25.5 per 1,000; Idaho
Statistical Analysis Center, 2013). These statistics along with other previous research
(McNulty & Bellair, 2003) show the disproportionate amount of delinquency com-
mitted by NA youth and thus the vitality of studying the causes of violent crime
among this population.
However, despite NA youth’s delinquency becoming a major problem, criminal
justice researchers and practitioners have rarely examined their violence and delin-
quency, in particular, the etiology of delinquency by NA adolescents (Eitle & Eitle,
2013; Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2013; Mmari, Blum, & Teufel-Shone, 2010;
Morris & Wood, 2010; Morris, Wood, & Dunaway, 2007; Young, 1988) compared to
studies of their substance use (e.g., Eitle, Johnson-Jennings, & Eitle, 2013; Morris,
Wood, & Dunaway, 2006; Nalls, Mullis, & Mullis, 2009; Yu & Stiffman, 2007).
Regarding their delinquency, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory has
provided a useful theoretical framework. Using this theory, copious studies have
accounted for various types of deviant and criminal behaviors (e.g., Baek, Losavio, &
Higgins, 2016; Cochran, Wood, Sellers, Wilkerson, & Chamlin, 1998; Donner &
Jennings, 2014; Desmond, Bruce, & Stacer, 2012; Higgins, 2005, 2006; Moon,
Hwang, & McCluskey, 2011). On the other hand, there were a lack of studies applying
self-control theory to NA youth (Morris et al., 2006). Moreover, a relatively limited
number of studies have examined the role of opportunity in the theory (Desmond
et al., 2012; Hay & Forrest, 2008; Morris et al., 2007; Seipel & Eifler, 2010; Smith,
2004).
Inquiry into NA delinquency as studied through this theoretical perspective is
further warranted due to previous research showing differences in association
between this population and our critical variables. Morris, Wood, and Dunaway
(2007) found that the effects of low self-control were significantly greater among

---

Baek et al.
381
NA youth in explaining substance use compared to Whites. Morris et al. (2007)
further showed that the influence of parenting on delinquency is somewhat different
for NA samples in that the effect of parenting significantly influenced self-control
for Whites only.
In response to these issues, this study intends to examine whether low self-control
influences NA adolescents’ delinquency, and whether opportunity (parental inter-
vention) has a mediation effect between low self-control and NA adolescents’
delinquency. Specifically, we will use Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control
theory and test its applicability to NA adolescents.
Theoretical Background
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) proposed in their general theory of crime, that
deviance and crime are caused by low self-control. Low self-control is the inability
to foresee the consequences of one’s actions. The characteristics of low self-control
influence this inability. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) laid out six key character-
istics of individuals with low self-control. These include “impulsive, insensitive,
physical (as opposed to verbal), risking, short-sighted, and nonverbal” (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990, p. 90). Furthermore, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended that
the levels of self-control are instilled into youth through effective parenting prac-
tices. These practices include parental monitoring of youths, parental recognition of
deviance committed by youth, and effective punishment of such deviance. If pro-
duced consistently before the age of 8, the individual is likely to have higher levels
of self-control.
Additionally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) showed that those with low self-
control would have a greater likelihood of engaging in delinquency over those with
high self-control, particularly when faced with the opportunity for delinquency. In
other words, the characteristics of impulsivity, insensitivity, shortsightedness, and
risk-taking are associated with a reduced ability to resist deviant opportunities when
presented. Many previous studies have found low self-control to be associated with
various types of criminal and deviant activities including academic dishonesty, bul-
lying, online harassment, and substance use (Baek et al., 2016; Cochran et al., 1998;
Desmond et al., 2012; Moon et al., 2011). Meta-analytic studies have also been
supportive of the self-control premise (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). However, previous
research has focused more on low self-control compared to opportunity (Desmond
et al., 2012; Hay & Forrest, 2008; Longshore, Turner, & Stein, 1996; Perrone,
Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004), with opportunity’s part in the theory remaining
controversial (Lagrange & Silverman, 1999; Longshore & Turner, 1998; Pratt &
Cullen, 2000; Seipel & Eifler, 2010). As demonstrated by Seipel and Eifer (2010), a
specific definition of opportunity was not provided by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).
In other words, precise measurement of opportunity as related to self-control and
criminal acts is difficult to achieve. A meta-analysis from Pratt and Cullen (2000)
revealed that opportunity failed to moderate predictors of crime. Furthermore, Higgins
and Ricketts (2004) contended that opportunity’s role is ambiguous in Gottfredson

---

382
Race and Justice 10(4)
and Hirschi’s theory. Findings indicated that opportunity failed to mediate the rela-
tionship between low self-control and academic dishonesty.
Still much previous research has found opportunity to successfully moderate low
self-control and deviant behaviors (Baek et al., 2016; Hay & Forrest, 2008; LaGrange
& Silverman, 1999; Longshore, 1998; Longshore & Turner, 1998; Moon & Alarid,
2015). For example, LaGrange and Silverman (1999) contended that interactions
between low self-control and opportunity to be the most robust predictor of delin-
quency. Baek, Losavio, and Higgins (2016) claimed a moderating effect of oppor-
tunity and low self-control with online harassment, specifically, parental intervention
by controlling computer usage time.
In particular, LaGrange and Silverman (1999) used parenting (e.g., parental
supervision) as a measure to reduce opportunity to engage in delinquency. Hay (2001)
found that parenting significantly and...