Investigating the Functional Form of the Self-control–Delinquency Relationship in a Sample of Serious Young Offenders
- 433 Downloads
This work further examines the functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship as an extension of recent work by Mears et al. (J Quant Criminol, 2013). Given the importance of the authors’ conclusions regarding the nonlinear relationship between these two variables and the recognition that there are some potential limitations in the sample and assumptions required for the analytic methods used, we apply both similar and alternative techniques with a data set comprised of serious youthful offenders to determine whether key findings can be replicated.
Data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which comprise extensive individual and social history interviews with 1,354 offenders over multiple waves spread out over 84 months, is utilized in this analysis. These data are well-suited to investigating the questions of interest as the target population comprises youth with offending histories that are more extensive than those likely to be found in general surveys of adolescents. The analyses consider the self-control–delinquency relationship in an alternative sample with the previously used Generalized Propensity Score (GPS) procedure, which requires strong assumptions, as well as nonparametric regression which requires far weaker assumptions to consider the functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship.
The results generally show that the identified functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship seems to be at least partly dependent on aspects of the modeling of dose–response associated with GPS procedures. When nonparametric general additive models are used with the same data, the relationship between self-control and delinquency seems to be approximately linear.
Identifying functional form relationships has importance for many criminological theories, but it is a task that requires that the balance of model assumptions to exploratory data analysis falls toward the latter. Nonparametric approaches to such questions may be a necessary first step in learning about the nature of mechanisms presumed to be at work in important explanations for crime and criminality.
KeywordsFunctional form General theory of crime Generalized Propensity Score Nonparametric models
This study employs data from Mulvey, Edward P. Research on Pathways to Desistance (Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA): Subject Measures, 2000–2010. ICPSR29961-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2013-01-07. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR29961.v2. We wish to thank Carol Schubert for her assistance in compiling and transferring the data and members of the Pathways to Desistance research group for helpful comments on an early concept paper and Ray Paternoster and the anonymous reviewers for useful feedback on later versions of this work. All interpretations and conclusions reached in this work are those of the authors. Additionally, a portion of this article uses data from ADD Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a Grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from ADD Health should contact ADD Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (email@example.com). No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.
- Agnew R (2005) Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency. Roxbury, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Berk R (2004) Regression analysis: a constructive critique. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Bia M, Mattei A (2008) A Stata package for the estimation of the dose–response function through adjustment for the generalized propensity score. Stata J 8:354–373Google Scholar
- Bia M, Flores-Lagunes A, Mattei A (2013) A Stata package for the application of semiparametric estimators of dose–response functions. CEPS/INSTEAD working paper. http://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/cepswp/2013-07.html
- Fox J (2000a) Nonparametric simple regression: smoothing scatterplots. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Fox J (2000b) Multiple and generalized nonparametric regression. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Fox J (2008) Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Goode E (2008) Out of control: an introduction to the general theory of crime. In: Goode E (ed) Out of control: assessing the general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 1–25Google Scholar
- Gottfredson MR (2006) The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory—advances in criminological theory, vol 15. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 77–100Google Scholar
- Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
- Guo S, Fraser MW (2010) Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Hirano K, Imbens GW (2004) The propensity score with continuous treatments. In: Gelman A, Meng XL (eds) Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incomplete data perspectives. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 77–84Google Scholar
- Hirschi T, Gottfredson MR (2008) Critiquing the critics: the authors respond. In: Goode E (ed) Out of control: assessing the general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 217–231Google Scholar
- Imai K, van Dyke D (2004) Causal inference with generaltreatment regimes: generalizing the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 99:854–866Google Scholar
- Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Lieberson S (1985) Making it count: the improvement of social research and theory. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Manski CF (2007) Identification for prediction and decision. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Mears D, Cochran J, Beaver K (2013) Self-control theory and nonlinear effects on offending. J Quant Criminol 29:447–476Google Scholar
- Mulvey EP (2012) Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: subject measures, 2000–2010. ICPSR29961-v1. Inter-university consortium for political and social research [distributor], Ann Arbor, MI, 20 Aug 2012. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR29961.v1
- Piquero A (2008) Measuring self-control. In: Goode E (ed) Out of control: assessing the general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 26–37Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum PR (1984) The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. J R Stat Soc 147:656–666Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum PR (1995) Observational studies. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Wikström POH (2008) In search of causes and explanations of crime. In: King R, Wincump E (eds) Doing research on crime and justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 117–139Google Scholar
- Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar