Why is “Bad” Parenting Criminogenic? Implications From Rival Theories

• Published date: 01 January 2006
• Author: Robert Agnew,James D. Unnever,Francis T. Cullen
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204005282310
• Date: 01 January 2006
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1541204005282310Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeUnnever et al. / Bad-Parenting Theories

WHY IS “BAD” PARENTING CRIMINOGENIC?

Implications From Rival Theories

James D. Unnever

Mississippi State University

Francis T. Cullen

University of Cincinnati

Robert Agnew

Emory University

This article tests two rival theories: low self-control and differential association and so-

cial learning and their competing accounts of why bad parenting matters. The analysis

revealed that several dimensions of parenting (including monitoring and caring and pa-

rental reinforcement of aggression) affected both low self-control and aggressive atti-

tudes. Both low self-control and aggressive attitudes predicted delinquent involvement

and were found to partially mediate the effect of parenting measures on delinquency.

The influence of self-control on delinquent involvement was found to vary across levels

of aggressive attitudes—adolescents who had aggressive attitudes and little self-control

were especially likely to engage in criminal behavior. The results indicate that ineffec-

tive parenting is likely to produce low self-control and aggressive attitudes through not

only direct control (e.g., monitoring and punishment) but also through modeling. Thus,

the findings question the claim by Gottfredson and Hirschi and Akers that they have set

forth truly general theories of crime.

Keywords: parenting; crime; aggression; low self-control; delinquency

Although dissenting views can be found (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington,

& Bornstein, 2000; Harris, 1995), social scientists, including criminologists, believe that

“bad” parenting is a cause of youthful misconduct.1In the criminological literature, “bad”

parenting is typically called ineffective,inept,ordysfunctional parenting, and it is regularly

portrayed as a risk factor for unhealthy social development and, in turn, for antisocial be-

havior (e.g., Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). However, if

criminologists are agreed that families are incubators of criminality (Farrington, Barnes, &

Lambert, 1996), they are not nearly as certain as to why ineffective or “bad” parenting is re-

3

This research was supported by a grant from the Bureau of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Ser-

vices (1999-SB-WX-0056). Points of view in the manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily repre-

sent the official position or policies of the Bureau of Justice. We would like to thank Alex Piquero for his assis-

tance. Address correspondence to James D. Unnever, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,

Mississippi State University, PO Box C, Mississippi State, MS, 39762, junnever@soc.msstate.edu

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 4 No. 1, January 2006 3-33

DOI: 10.1177/1541204005282310

© 2006 Sage Publications

lated to juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this article is to further elucidate the

intervening processes that occur between “bad” parenting and delinquent acts.

In this regard, the research on “bad” parenting as a cause of crime is experiencing a

subtle yet salient shift in its empirical emphasis. Initially, research focused on simply show-

ing that ineffective parenting and crime were interrelated. Now, however, the focus has

shifted to defining more precisely what constitutes “bad” parenting and explicating the neg-

ative social and psychological consequences engendered by ineffective parenting and how

they may be related to criminal behavior (Patterson, 1998). In fact, Agnew (1993) argues

that the major delinquency theories are more clearly distinguished by the intervening pro-

cesses they propose than by their independent variables. Agnew goes on to contend that fo-

cusing on these intervening processes is often the only way to assess empirically the relative

merits of competing theories. This is certainly the case when examining parenting variables

because the major theories often identify as criminogenic many of the same aspects of inept

parenting but differ from one another in terms of why such parenting fosters illegal conduct.

In this context, the current study examines two major intervening factors described in

the theoretical literature—low self-control and aggressive attitudes. These factors are core

theoretical variables in two perspectives long considered—by their authors and by fellow

criminologists—to be rival, if not incompatible, theories: general or low self-control theory

and social learning theory (see, e.g., Akers, 1998; Costello, 1997; Kornhauser, 1978;

Matsueda, 1988, 1997; Sampson, 1999). We test propositions central to these theories that

address why “bad” parenting is a potential cause of crime. More specifically, we assess

three issues: (a) Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) key proposition that “bad” parenting af-

fects delinquency through its impact on low self control, (b) the differential association and

social learning proposition that “bad” parenting affects delinquency through its impact on

aggressive attitudes, and (c) whether low self-control and aggressive attitudes each

uniquely predict delinquency.

A collateral benefit of this analysis is that we provide a partial test of two rival theo-

ries as they apply to the social domain of the family. Hirschi (1969, 1989) has long argued

against attempts at theoretical integration, preferring instead for theories to remain inde-

pendent and oppositional. In his view, oppositional theories foster the “tendency to internal

consistency and conceptual clarity” (1989, p. 38). The resistance to integrated theory also

allows for critical empirical tests that either strengthen or falsify theories, thus providing a

basis for theoretical advancement, rejection, or reconceptualization. As we will report, the

current project’s results suggest that these two rival perspectives are neither general in their

explanatory power nor, it appears, fully independent of one another. This latter, somewhat

surprising finding creates an interesting explanatory challenge to scholars in the control

theory and social learning theory camps.

Parenting and the General Theory of Crime

The central assumption of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory is that a stable

propensity to engage in crime—criminality or low self-control—is the prime cause of in-

volvement in crime and in deviant or analogous behaviors. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)

argue further that ineffective parenting is the reason why youngsters fail to develop self-

control. Gottfredson and Hirschi are clear in their definition as to what constitutes ineffec-

tive parenting. Ineffective parenting includes three components: (a) the failure to monitor or

track the child’s behavior, (b) the failure to recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and

4Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice