Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note

Low self-control and coworker delinquency

A research note

Chris Gibsona,*, John Wrightb

aDepartment of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Durham Science Center 208, 60th and Dodge Street,

Omaha, NE 68182-0149, USAbDivision of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 600 Dyer Hall ML 0389, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389, USA

Abstract

Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi [A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

Univ. Press, 1990], a large amount of research has shown a link between low self-control and delinquency.

Some research has revealed that low self-control has not been able to account for the strong effects of peer

delinquency on delinquency. Criminological literature has, until recently, neglected the interactional

relationship between low self-control and delinquent peers in predicting delinquency. This study used a

sample of employed high school seniors to assess the interaction between low self-control and coworker

delinquency on occupational delinquency. Regression analyses indicated that the interaction term was a strong

predictor of occupational delinquency, even after controlling for several established predictors of delinquency.

D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Since the publication of Gottfredson and Hir-

schi’s (1990) General Theory, a large body of

research has examined the effects of low self-

control on offending behaviors and deviant acts

(Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursik, 1993; Bur-

ton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999;

Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997;

Gibbs & Giever, 1995; Keane, Maxim, & Teevan,

1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996; Polakowski, 1994;

Wright & Cullen, 2000). These studies, overall,

have generated moderate support for the hypothesis

that low self-control is significantly related to

offending and analogous behaviors.

Tests of self-control theory reveal that low self-

control has indirect and direct effects on drunk driving

and intentions to drink and drive (Keane et al., 1993;

Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996), on self-reported juvenile

delinquency (Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993),

on adult criminal and analogous behaviors (Arneklev

et al., 1993; Burton et al., 1999; Grasmick, Tittle,

Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993), on negative social con-

sequences (i.e., quality of friendships, quality of family

relationships, attachment to church, delinquent peers)

(Evans et al., 1997), on excessive alcohol consumption

and class cutting (Gibbs & Giever, 1995), and on

courtship aggression (Sellers, 1999). Other studies

have also shown that the interaction between low

self-control and opportunity to offend has significant

effects on crime and delinquency (Burton, Cullen,

Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Grasmick et al.,

1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999).

While these studies are important and implicate

the role of self-control in a wide range of problem

0047-2352/01/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0047 -2352 (01 )00111 -8

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-554-3104; fax:

+1-402-554-2610.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Gibson).

Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492

behaviors and social outcomes, research is only now

beginning to understand the complexity of this

relationship. Individuals low in self-control likely

face a range of interpersonal relationships and sit-

uations where their personality differences interact

with the expectations and social boundaries estab-

lished by context of the interaction. The effects of

low self-control may ‘‘interact’’ with the social

setting in important ways, either by reducing the

potentially deleterious effects associated with low

self-control, or by exacerbating them. In a recent test

of low self-control theory, Evans et al. (1997) found

that delinquent peer influences remained a substan-

tial and significant predictor of criminal behavior

even after the effects of low self-control were

removed. Their findings led them to conclude that

self-control and social learning theory may be

related in complex, mutually reinforcing ways.

‘‘The tendency of persons with low self-control to

engage in criminal and analogous behaviors,’’ state

Evans et al. (1997, p. 494), ‘‘can be exacerbated, or

strengthened, by exposure to criminal associates and

criminal values.’’

Recognizing the potential interactive effects

between measures of individual differences and the

social setting, Wright and his colleagues (1998) have

recently investigated a ‘‘variable effects’’ model of

criminal behavior. They suggest that the impact of

explanatory variables, specifically social learning and

social bonding variables, are strongest for persons that

have a predisposition towards crime such as those with

low self-control. They argue that sociological corre-

lates of crime have smaller effects on individuals that

do not have individual criminal propensities. In a test

of their proposed model, Wright et al. (1998) found

that the learning variables (i.e., delinquent associates)

that exerted positive effects on crime did so most

strongly for individuals with criminal propensities.

Although few studies have investigated inter-

action effects of low self-control and social variables

predicting offending behaviors, there is reason to

believe that these effects will manifest across social

contexts such as the work environment. In a recent

study of occupational delinquency among high

school students, Wright and Cullen (2000) found that

occupational delinquency was affected both by

underlying criminal propensities and by exposure to

delinquent coworkers on the job. They found empir-

ical support for an interaction effect between prior

delinquency and delinquency of coworkers that, in

turn, amplified involvement in occupational delin-

quency. It is likely that delinquent youths select

themselves into poor work environments where they

come into contact with fellow delinquents, which

increases delinquent behavior within the workplace

(Wright & Cullen, 2000).

Occupational delinquency

Modern youths are sophisticated economic actors,

often with fairly extensive employment histories

established prior to graduating from high school

(Wright, Cullen, & Williams, 1997). Even though

working appears to be a common experience among

in-school youths, numerous studies have found that

certain individual differences differentiate youths who

work from those who work extensively (Bachman &

Schulenberg, 1993; Cullen, Williams, & Wright,

1997; Elliott & Wofford, 1991; Ruggiero, Green-

berger, & Steinberg, 1982; Ruhm, 1995; Steinberg

& Dornbusch, 1991; Wright et al., 1997). Individual

differences such as early school performance difficult-

ies, early drug-use, and early delinquent behavior

account for part of the correlation between the average

number of hours worked per week and a youth’s

misbehavior (Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993). Since

delinquent youth most likely self-select themselves

into premature work roles at a higher rate than con-

forming youth points to the possibility that the ado-

lescent workplace is an important domain of behavior

that mixes youths with varying levels of criminal

propensity. This possibility was examined by Rug-

giero et al. (1982), who suggested that ‘‘occupational

deviance’’ can be attributed to environmental aspects

of the job, specifically coworker occupational delin-

quency and personal characteristics of the individual

worker. Using a sample of high school students from

Orange County, California, Ruggiero and colleagues

found personal characteristics of workers and work

environment factors may often reinforce each other,

which may produce deviant occupational behavior.

The adolescent workplace, while understudied,

appears to be a potentially important context for

youth (mis)behavior. While all youths do not par-

ticipate in work-related deviance, some are more

likely than others, some jobs are more likely to

provide opportunities for delinquency; and some

characteristics of persons and jobs, coupled together,

generate more occupational deviance than either

alone (Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980). Youth

employment thus draws attention to the possible

interactive effects between low self-control and var-

iables from other criminological theories.

Current study

This study attempted to build on Wright and

Cullen’s (2000) investigation. The present study

extended their research by assessing the interaction

effect of low self-control and coworker delinquency in

predicting occupational delinquency. This study

addressed shortcomings in the research that has been

conducted on the ‘‘general theory’’ in two different

C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492484

ways. First, given Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)

claim that their theory predicts crime across social

contexts, low self-control should exert a significant,

independent effect on occupational delinquency

(Wright & Cullen, 2000). Second, this study also

assesses the interaction between low self-control and

delinquent coworkers on levels of occupational delin-

quency. Several scholars suggest that individuals with

low self-control and who work in an environment with

delinquent coworkers should be significantly more

likely to be involved in occupational delinquency,

even after controlling for competing theoretical vari-

ables such as family cohesiveness or school commit-

ment (Greenberger & Steinberger, 1980; Wright &

Cullen, 2000).

Methods

Sample

Data for the current study came from the Tri-

Cities Adolescent Employment Survey (TCAEP).

The TCAEP is a cross-sectional self-report survey

that was conducted in eight high schools located in

northeast Tennessee. The inclusion of high schools

was dependent upon whether school officials

allowed permission for their students to participate

in the survey during the school day. Due to restric-

tions placed on the investigators by the high

schools, only individuals who had reached their

senior year in high school were allowed to be

surveyed (N= 436); therefore, surveys were admin-

istered in homerooms or in classes required of all

seniors. All seniors in attendance on the day the

survey was administered were allotted a one-hour

time span to complete the survey. The survey was

completely voluntary and confidential.

High schools included in the sample encom-

passed a wide range of students of varying social

and economic backgrounds. Youths in the sample

reported an average household size of four, 65

percent reported living with both parents, 89 percent

of the sample was White, and 47 percent were male.

Given that the current study specifically investigated

occupational delinquency, a subsample of respond-

ents was extracted of only those who had been

employed during high school (n = 296). Univariate

statistics indicated that respondents in the current

study worked at jobs in a similar proportion as to

seniors nationally (see Steinberg & Caufman, 1994).

Given that the sample was of convenience (or

nonrandom) and was restricted to a specific geo-

graphical region, appropriate caution should be used

in generalizing the results to the population of

adolescents at-large.

Dependent variable

Occupational delinquency

Involvement in occupational delinquency was

measured by a nine-item scale, developed and used

by Ruggiero et al. (1982), that assessed the degree of

participation in a range of misbehaviors while at

work, such as taking things from an employer or

employee, giving away goods or services without

permission, or lying to the employer to get or keep a

job (see Appendix A). Responses for each item

ranged on a three-point scale from zero (never)

through two (often). To compute a general occu-

pational delinquency scale, responses were summed

across items where higher scores indicated increased

occupational delinquent involvement. An estimated

reliability coefficient (a = .79) gave support to the

internal consistency of the occupational delinquency

scale (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).1

Independent variables

Low self-control

Self-control was measured using a twelve-item

scale that was a modified version of that developed

by Grasmick et al. (1993) (see Appendix B). Several

studies have revealed that this scale is a psychometri-

cally appropriate measure of self-control (Burton et

al., 1999; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996). Responses to

items ranged on a four-point Likert-type scale from

one (disagree strongly) to four (agree strongly).

Higher scores on this scale indicated lower self-

control. An estimated reliability coefficient (a = .75)

revealed that the measure of self-control was intern-

ally consistent. Furthermore, similar to findings gen-

erated from other studies (Burton et al., 1999; Piquero

& Tibbetts, 1996), principle components factor ana-

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for all variables (n= 296)

Variable Mean S.D.

Occupational delinquency 1.52 2.23

Low self-control 26.59 5.00

Coworker delinquency 3.10 3.23

Low self-control�Coworker delinquency

3.05 26.72

Time spent studying 4.81 4.82

Grade point average 2.86 0.76

Goals/aspirations 10.22 1.58

Family cohesiveness 78.57 15.42

Gender 0.55 0.50

Race 0.01 0.27

Family structure 0.32 0.47

Household size 3.81 1.15

C. Gibson, J. Wright / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 483–492 485

lysis indicated that the self-control measure formed a

unidimensional construct.

Coworker delinquency

Similar to the occupational delinquency scale,

occupational delinquency of coworkers was meas-

ured by a nine-item scale that asked respondents the

extent to which their coworkers were involved in

misbehavior at work. It should be noted that while the

coworker delinquency scale has been used in pre-

vious research, ‘‘second hand’’ accounts of others

misbehavior in the workplace suffer from many of the

same validity problems found in traditional measures

of delinquent peers. The scale, which was composed

of item responses on a three-point scale ranging from

zero (never) through two (often), had an acceptable

level of reliability (a=.81) and statistical validity.

Future research should, undoubtedly, use better, more

sophisticated measures of coworker misbehavior.

School commitment

School commitment was assessed by two separate

measures: (a) time spent studying and (b) grade point

average. Time spent studying was measured by a

two-item scale that asked respondents the number of

hours, on average, they spent studying over the

weekdays and weekends, which had a reliability

coefficient of .66. Grade point average was measured

using a single-item that asked respondents about the

average grade they received in their classes. Item

responses ranged from one (Mostly F’s) to five

(Mostly A’s).

Goals and aspirations

A three-item scale was used to measure the

perceived importance of current and speculative

events in the youths’ lives. Respondents were asked

how important it was to them to be able to rely on

their parents, go to college, and do well in school.

Item responses ranged on a four-point Likert scale

from one (disagree strongly) to four (agree strongly).

Responses were summed across items to create a

scale, which had a reliability coefficient of .66.

Higher scores indicated increased importance of

goals and aspirations.

Family cohesiveness

The twenty-four-item family cohesiveness scale,

derived from the National Youth Survey, was

employed to measure the perceived relationships

youth had with their mothers and fathers. The scale

was composed of four dimensions that included

parental reliability, parental supervision, parental con-

flict, and parental communication (see Appendix C).

Responses to items ranged on a five-point Likert type

scale from one (never) to five (always). To compute

the family cohesiveness scale, responses were

summed across items where higher scores indicated

stronger family cohesiveness. An estimated reliability

coefficient (a =.87) generated support for the internal

consistency of the scale.

Demographics

Four demographic characteristics were included as

controls in our study: (a) gender, (b) race, (c) family

structure, and (d) household size. Gender was coded

as zero (male) or one (female). Due to limited

frequencies in other categories, race was dichotom-

ized and coded as zero (White) or one (other),

whereas, minorities accounted for 7 percent of the

sample. Family structure was a dichotomized meas-

ure that indicated whether or not respondents resided

with both parents; therefore, family structure was

coded as zero (intact) or one (nonintact). Finally,

household size captured the number of people living

in the residence of the youth. Due to the large number

of missing cases, which would have decreased the

sample size, family income was excluded from the

analysis. Subsequent regression analyses that were

not reported indicated that family income, once

entered into the model, did not have a significant

effect on occupational delinquency.

Interaction term: Low self-control � Coworker

delinquency

The product term between low self-control and

occupational delinquency of coworkers was of specific

importance to this study; therefore, it was important to

explain how the interaction was created. The compon-

ent factors of the interaction were mean centered prior

to multiplication in order to minimize the nonessential

ill-conditioning that would most likely cause multi-

collinearity in a product term (Aiken & West, 1991).

When mean centering a variable, it is necessary to

subtract the mean score of the variable from the actual

variable before multiplying the two component terms.

This procedure typically reduces collinearity concerns

and reveals low correlations between the interaction

term and the independent component parts of the

interaction term (Cronbach, 1987).

Research strategy

The analysis presented in this article investigated

whether individuals with low self-control and who

work in environments with delinquent coworkers

were more likely to be involved in occupational

delinquency. First, bivariate correlations were exam-

ined to investigate multicollinearity among the prod-

uct term and its independent components, and to also


investigate whether there was multicollinearity

among other independent variables. Second, ordinary

least squares (OLS) regression was used to examine

the effect of the interaction term on occupational

delinquency in three models: (1) controlling for the

independent components of the interaction term, (2)

controlling for demographic factors, and (3) control-

ling for other competing theoretical variables.

Results

Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations. A two-

tailed test of significance at the .05 level was the

criteria for all analyses. The bivariate assessment of

variables, variance inflation factors, and condition

number tests revealed that there were no signs of

multicollinearity among the interaction term and the

independent components of the interaction term.

Additionally, it seems that there were no signs of

collinearity among other independent variables. In

general, the bivariate relationships were significant

and in the predicted direction.

Table 3 shows three separate OLS models predict-

ing occupational delinquency. Model one shows that

coworker delinquency exerted a positive and signific-

ant effect on occupational delinquency (b=.47), indic-ating that youth in an environment with more

delinquent coworkers were significantly more likely

to be involved in occupational delinquency. Similarly,

low self-control generated a positive and significant

effect on occupational delinquency (b=.18), indic-

ating that individuals with low self-control were

significantly more likely to be involved in occu-

pational delinquency. The interaction effect between

low self-control and coworker delinquency, as sug-

gested by Evans et al. (1997), and hypothesized by

Wright, Moffitt, and Caspi (1998), had a positive and

significant effect on occupational delinquency. The

model accounted for 39 percent of the variance in

occupational delinquency.

To illustrate the effect of the interaction, a bar graph

was created showing different mean levels of occu-

pational delinquency (see Fig. 1). Following Piquero

and Tibbetts (1999) and Raine, Brennan, and Mednick

(1994), a four-category variable was created that

indexed the presence of low self-control and coworker

delinquency. The measures of low self-control and

coworker delinquency were dichotomized based on

their mean scores. Respectively, scores below the

mean indicate higher self-control and minimal cow-

orker involvement in delinquency, while scores

above the mean indicate lower self-control and more

coworker involvement in delinquency. Next, a four-

category variable was created and was coded

according to the following classifications: zero if

youth had high self-control and low number of co-

workers who were delinquent (n = 103), one if youths

had low self-control and a low number of coworkers

who were delinquent (n = 73), two if youths had

higher self-control and a high number of coworkers

who were delinquent (n = 60), and three if youths

had low self-control and worked in an environment

with high coworker delinquency (n = 110). The final

category, indicating low self-control and higher

coworker involvement in delinquency, is where the

highest risk for occupational delinquency should be

found (Evans et al., 1997; Wright et al., 1998;

Wright & Cullen, 2000).

The results are depicted in Fig. 1. The y-axis

represents the mean level of occupational delin-

quency, while the x-axis indicates the categories of

the interaction. As can be seen, those youth in the last

category had the highest mean level of occupational

Table 2

Intercorrelations between all variables (n= 296)

Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11

X1. Low self-control

X2. Coworker delinquency .32*

X3. Low self-control�Coworker delinquency

.35* .05

X4. Time spent studying � .25* � .05 � .02

X5. Grade point average � .18* � .07 � .07 .22 *

X6. Goals/aspirations � .34* � .08 � .07 .30 * .23*

X7. Family cohesiveness � .32* � .16 * � .16* .01 .08 .32*

X8. Gender � .13* .00 � .04 .28 * .11 .26* � .04

X9. Race .04 .03 � .08 .05 � .12* � .04 .03 .02

X10. Family structure .03 .11 .05 .01 � .06 � .09 � .37* .08 .11

X11. Household size � .07 � .01 .05 � .05 .04 .07 .17* .01 � .04 � .27*

* P< .05.


delinquency (mean = 2.82), indicating that youth with

low self-control and who worked in an environment

where coworkers were more delinquent had a sub-

stantially higher mean score on occupational delin-

quent involvement.

Turning now to Model 2 of Table 3, demographic

controls were included to investigate whether or not

the interaction would retain its significance. The

interaction between low self-control and coworker

delinquency remains the second strongest predictor

of occupational delinquency (b=.23). Although the

independent effect of coworker delinquency had the

strongest effect on occupational delinquency

(b=.49), the independent effect of low self-control

exerted a positive and significant effect on occu-

pational delinquency (b=.13), indicating that youth

with low self-control were significantly more likely

to be involved in occupational delinquency. Gender

(b=� .19) and race (b=.09) both had significant

effects on occupational delinquency. Model 2

accounted for 44 percent of the variance in occu-

pational delinquency.

Finally, in Model 3 of Table 3, controls for

competing theoretical variables that have been estab-

lished as known correlates of delinquency were

introduced, such as school commitment and family

cohesiveness. Coworker delinquency still remained

as having the strongest overall effect on occupational

delinquency (b=.54). The interaction between low

self-control and coworker delinquency, after control-

Table 3

Estimated standardized regression coefficients predicting occupational delinquency

Model 1 (n= 346) Model 2 (n= 333) Model 3 (n= 296)

Variable b t b t b t

Low

self-control

.18 3.96* .13 2.71* .09 1.79

Coworker

delinquency

.47 10.87* .49 11.45* .54 12.09*

Low

self-control

�Coworker

delinquency

.21 4.63* .23 5.18* .21 4.45*

Time spent

studying

� .06 � 1.29

Grade point

average

� .15 � 3.18*

Goals/

aspirations

.02 0.39

Family

cohesiveness

� .03 � 0.69

Gender � .19 � 4.40* � .16 � 3.45*

Race .09 2.25* .10 2.23*

Family

structure

� .04 � 0.82 � .03 �0.69

Household

size

� .01 � 0.27 .01 0.28

Constant � 3.139* � 0.85 0.18

R2 .39 .44 .48

F 71.35 36.33 23.16

df 345 332 295

Dashes indicate that parameters were not estimated.

* P< .05.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Fig. 1. Mean level of occupational delinquency for inter-

action groups.


ling for competing theoretical variables, was still a

strong predictor of occupational delinquency (b=.21).The effect of low self-control on occupational delin-

quency was reduced to statistical insignificance, sug-

gesting that low self-control is indirectly related to

occupational delinquency through delinquent co-

workers. In regard to other effects, grades (b =� .15),

gender (b =� .16), and race (b =.10) predicted vari-

ation in occupational delinquency. The final model

accounted for 48 percent of the variance in occu-

pational delinquency.

Discussion

Research testing the general theory of crime has

yet to investigate the effects of low self-control on

occupational delinquency engaged in among youth.

This study has attempted to take Gottfredson and

Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime one step

further by assessing the interaction between low self-

control and delinquent coworkers in predicting delin-

quency in the work environment. This study provided

one of the first tests to assess the interaction between

low self-control and delinquent peers (i.e., co-

workers) in predicting occupational delinquency.

Results show that the interaction between low

self-control and coworker delinquency generated a

substantial effect on occupational delinquency. A

subsequent analysis showed that youths with low

self-control in work environments with more delin-

quent coworkers were substantially more likely to

participate in delinquent behaviors in the work

environment, such as theft, short-changing custom-

ers, and vandalizing employer’s belongings. The

effect of the interaction remained a substantial

predictor of occupational delinquency even after

controlling for several demographic factors and

known correlates of delinquency. Coworker delin-

quency, however, remained as the strongest predictor

of occupational delinquency, and, importantly, the

independent effect of low self-control was dimin-

ished after entering theoretically driven variables

into the final model. Although the independent

effect of low self-control was accounted for, its

indirect effect on occupational delinquency through

coworker delinquency indicates its importance, thus,

studies should begin to investigate interactions of

low self-control and other social learning variables

across different contextual manifestations of delin-

quent behavior.

These findings, although still preliminary, were

supportive of hypotheses generated by Evans et al.

(1997) and Wright et al. (1998), who suggest that

delinquent behavior may be exacerbated for persons

with low self-control if they are in environments

where they are around delinquent associates. The

results seem to be consistent with some of the

literature on occupational delinquency, which implies

that characteristics of the individual coupled with

negative work environments may generate more

work-place deviance than either of the independent

components alone (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1981;

Ruggiero et al., 1982).

Although the findings in this article lend support

for self-control theory, the data in this study still

suffered from several limitations. First, due to the

fact that the sample was of convenience and limited

to a restricted geographical region, extrapolation of

these results to other populations should be taken

with caution. Second, given that this study was

preliminary, delinquency in the context of the work

environment was the only outcome measure. Future

studies should seek to replicate these findings

without limiting the outcome variable to a specific

type of delinquency.

Findings presented in this article, despite limita-

tions, have implications for Gottfredson and Hir-

schi’s (1990) general theory of crime. With the

exception of a few studies (Grasmick et al., 1993;

LaGrange & Silverman, 1999; Sellers, 1999), empir-

ical investigations of the general theory have con-

centrated almost exclusively on the independent

effects of low self-control on offending and deviant

behaviors. Since the majority of empirical investi-

gations only incorporate the element of low self-

control, the moderate amounts of explained variance

associated with specific outcome variables might not

be due to the minimal predictive validity of the

general theory, but to the failure of prior studies to

integrate competing theoretical variables with low

self-control in the form of multiplicative interaction

terms in predicting criminal behavior. In regard to

the current study, there was a 5 percent increase in

explained variance once the interaction between low

self-control and coworker delinquency was entered

into the equation.

Based on their findings that show low self-

control could not account for the substantial positive

effect that delinquent peers had on criminal behav-

ior, Evans et al. (1997) suggest that low self-control

and delinquent peers should not be viewed as

competing theoretical entities. Future investigations

of the general theory of crime should not only

investigate the interaction between low self-control

and delinquent peers in predicting different types of

delinquency and analogous behaviors, but should

also investigate interactions between low self-control

and various social bonding variables (e.g., school

attachment, family ties, etc.) and their effects on

broader forms of offending and deviance (see

Wright et al., 1998).


This study not only focused on theoretical issues

pertaining to the general theory of crime, but also

on empirical issues surrounding work-related delin-

quency. Findings from this study raise questions and

avenues for future research on occupational delin-

quency and suggest certain policies. Work pro-

grams, for instance, have targeted youth who are

at risk for delinquency. There is a widely held belief

that employment gives youth access to benefits such

as positive social skills, time management, and

responsibility. Peters (1987) suggests that employ-

ment provides youth with adult work habits and

ethics, responsible behavior, problem solving skills,

and increased academic skills. Although limited in

number, several studies have shown that adolescent

work programs do not function to help reduce

delinquent involvement, but instead have shown

that employment is negatively associated with a

range of outcomes, including reduced involvement

in school, less time spent engaging in family

activities, less concern for others, and an increased

use of cigarettes and marijuana (Greenberger &

Steinberg, 1981, 1986; Greenberger, Steinberg, &

Ruggiero, 1982; Wright et al., 1997). From the

results of the current study, youth employment

may also give adolescents another outlet to engage

in delinquent behavior, and provide a chance for

youth to meet delinquent coworkers who, in turn,

may contribute to ‘‘on the job’’ delinquency, espe-

cially for youths who already have criminal propen-

sities (i.e., low self-control and prior delinquent

involvement). This possibility should be explored

more thoroughly.

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, this

study was not capable of delineating the causal

ordering of the interaction between low self-control

and coworker delinquency on occupational delin-

quency. In other words, do individuals with low

self-control select themselves into work environ-

ments surrounded by delinquent peers or do such

settings aid in the development of low self-control?

Although theoretical positions (Gottfredson & Hir-

schi, 1990) would state that the process is largely

due to self-selection, this is an empirical question

that remains to be answered. One of the many

fruitful lines of inquiry would be for researchers to

disentangle the indirect and direct effects of the

interaction effect found in this study.

Acknowledgments

The study was made possible by a small grant

from East Tennessee State University. We thank Mike

Woodruff for his support and guidance.

Appendix A. Individual items measuring

occupational delinquency

Appendix B. Individual items measuring low

self-control

Appendix C. Individual items measuring

family cohesiveness

Put more hours on time card than actually worked

Purposely shortchanged a customer

Gave away goods or services for nothing

without permission

Took things from the employer or other coworkers

Called in sick when not

Drank alcohol or used drugs while on the job

Purposely damaged employer’s property

Helped a coworker steal employer’s property

Lied to the employer to get or to keep job

I often act on the spur of the moment without

stopping to think

I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and

now, even at the cost of some distant goal

I’m more concerned with what happens to me in

the short run than in the long run

I frequently try to avoid projects that I know will

be difficult

I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities

to the limit

Excitement and adventure are more important

than security

I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which

I might get into trouble

I try to look out for myself first, even if it means

making things harder for other people

I will try to get the things I want even when I

know it’s causing problems for other people

I lose my temper easily

When I’m really angry other people better stay

away from me

It doesn’t take much for me to get really angry or

to lose my temper

How often do you do things with your parents

that you enjoya

How often do you talk to your parents about

personal or private issues

How often do you talk over important decisions

with your parents

How often do your parents miss important events

How often do you feel like your parents are there

for you when you need them


Notes

1. Although the occupational delinquency measure

contains limited variation, it does have sufficient variation

for analysis. Several statistical transformations of the

measure such as standardization and logarithmic adjustment,

were conducted to correct for potential scale bias and

skewness. Ultimately, all analyses that were computed (i.e.,

logistic and OLS regressions) indicated that there were no

meaningful differences when correcting for the distribution

of the scale (see Wright & Cullen, 2000).

References

Aiken, L., &West, S. (1991).Multiple regression: testing and

interpreting interactions. London: Sage Publications.

Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursik, R.

J. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225–247.

Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. (1993). How part-time

work intensity relates to drug use, problem behavior,

time use, and satisfaction among high school seniors:

are these consequences or merely correlates? Develop-

mental Psychology, 29, 220–235.

Burton, V. S., Cullen, F., Evans, D., Alarid, L., & Dunaway,

G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123–147.

Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M.,

& Dunaway, R. G. (1999). Age, self-control, and

adults’ offending behavior: a research note assessing a

general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice,

27, 45–54.

Cronbach, L. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator varia-

bles: flaws in analysis recently proposed. Psychological

Bulletin, 102, 414–417.

Cullen, F. T., Williams, N., & Wright, J. P. (1997). Work

conditions and juvenile delinquency: is youth employ-

ment criminogenic? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8,

119–144.

Elliott, D., & Wofford, S. (1991). Adolescent employment.

Boulder, CO: Institute for Behavioral Science, Univer-

sity of Colorado (Brief prepared for press release

available from the authors).

Evans, D., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Dunaway, G., &Benson,M.

(1997). The social consequences of self-control: test-

ing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35,

475–504.

Gibbs, J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifes-

tations among university students: an empirical test of

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quar-

terly, 12, 231–255.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory

of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursik, R., & Arneklev, B. (1993).

Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson

and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Re-

search in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.

Greenberger, E., & Steinberger, L. D. (1980). Adolescents

who work: effects of part-time employment on family

and peer relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9,

189–202.

Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1981). The workplace

as a context for the socialization of youth. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 10, 185–210.

Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1986). When teenagers

work: the psychological and social costs of adolescent

employment. New York: Basic Books.

Greenberger, E., Steinberg, L. D., & Ruggiero, M. (1982). A

job is a job is a job. . . or is it? Work and Occupations, 9,

79–96.

Keane, C., Maxim, P., & Teevan, J. (1993). Drinking, driv-

ing, self-control, and gender: testing a general theory of

crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

30, 3–46.

LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-con-

trol and opportunity: testing the general theory of crime

as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency.

Criminology, 37, 41–72.

Peters, J. (1987). Youth, family, and employment. Adoles-

cence, 22, 465–473.

Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct

and indirect effects of low self-control and situational

factors in offenders’ decision making: toward a more

complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly,

13, 481–510.

Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1999). The impact of pre/peri-

natal disturbances and disadvantaged familial environ-

ment in predicting criminal offending. Studies on

Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 1–19.

Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with

deviance: illuminating the structure underlying a general

theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Jour-

nal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41–78.

Raine, A., Brennan, P., & Mednick, S. (1994). Birth com-

plications combined with early maternal rejection at age

1 year predispose to violent crime at age 18 years. Ar-

chives of General Psychiatry, 51, 984–988.

Ruggiero, M., Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1982).

How often do your parents listen to your side of

the argument

How often do your parents discuss important issues

with you

How often do you have a difficult time dealing with

your parents

How often do you argue or not get along with

your parents

How often do your parents know where you are at

when you are away from home

How often do your parents ask where you are going

when you leave home to go some place

How often do your parents know who you are with

when you’re away from home

a Individuals were asked to respond to each

question twice, once pertaining to their mother and

then father.


Occupational deviance among adolescent workers. Youth

and Society, 13, 423–448.

Ruhm, C. J. (1995). The extent and consequences of high

school employment. Journal of Labor Research, 16,

293–302.

Sellers, C. S. (1999). Self-control and intimate violence: an

examination of the scope and specification of the general

theory of crime. Criminology, 37, 375–404.

Steinberg, L. D., & Caufman, C. (1994). The impact of

employment on adolescent development. Annals of

Child Development, 11, 131–166.

Steinberg, L. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Negative

correlates of part-time employment during adolescence:

replication and elaboration. Developmental Psychology,

27, 304–313.

Wood, P., Pfefferbaum, B., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Risk

taking and self-control: social psychological correlates

of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16,

111–130.

Wright, B. R., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (1998). Predisposi-

tions, social environments, and crime: a model of vary-

ing effects. A paper presented at the Annual American

Society of Criminology in Washington, DC.

Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Juvenile involve-

ment in occupational delinquency. Criminology, 38,

863–896.

Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Williams, N. (1997). Working

while in school and delinquent involvement: implica-

tions for social policy. Crime and Delinquency, 43,

203–222.


Documents

Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note