Advertisement

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 47, Issue 10, pp 2027–2040 | Cite as

Protecting High-Risk Youth in High-Risk Contexts: Neighborhoods, Parenting, and Victimization

  • Marie Skubak Tillyer
  • James V. Ray
  • Marissa E. Hinton
Empirical Research

Abstract

Victimization theories suggest parents can serve as guardians to protect adolescents from victimization, yet findings from studies examining the main effects of parenting variables on adolescent victimization are mixed. Prior research suggests that it is the combination of parental warmth and monitoring that produces the best results across a range of other outcomes. The current study used data collected from a sample of serious adolescent offenders as part of the Pathways to Desistance study (N = 888; 16.1% female; mean age = 15.92). Using the first two waves (baseline and 6-month time points) of data, we estimated a series of negative binomial regression models to observe the main and interactive effects of parental warmth and monitoring on adolescent victimization and the potential moderating influence of neighborhood disorder. The results indicate that the combination of warmth and monitoring reduces adolescent victimization, and that parental warmth may be particularly important for protecting adolescents in neighborhoods with moderate-high levels of disorder.

Keywords

Victimization Adolescents Parenting Neighborhoods 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

M. T. conceived of the study, participated in its design, and drafted the manuscript. J. R. conceived of the study, participated in its design, performed statistical analyses, and helped to draft the manuscript. M. H. helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Sharing Declaration

This study uses public-use data from the Pathways to Desistance study. The Pathways data are archived at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan and can be accessed at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/29961.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

The Pathways to Desistance data were collected using informed consent procedures and parent consent was obtained for all participants under the age of 18 at the time of enrollment.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk, R., & MacDonald, J. M. (2008). Overdispersion and Poisson regression. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjarnason, T., Sigurdardottir, T. J., & Thorlindsson, T. (1999). Human agency, capable guardians, and structural constraints: A lifestyle approach to the study of violent victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boel-Studt, S., & Renner, L. M. (2013). Individual and familial risk and protective correlates of physical and psychological peer victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1163–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrow, J. D., & Apel, R. (2008). Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimization. Justice Quarterly, 25, 349–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caspi, A. (1993). Why maladaptive behaviors persist: Sources of continuity and change across the life course. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 343–376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chung, H. L., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, Jr., G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esbensen, F.-A., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1999). Family context and criminal victimization in adolescence. Youth and Society, 31, 168–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2015). Children’s exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Laurel, MD: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  16. Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). The company they keep: Relation of adolescents’ adjustment and behavior to their friends’ perceptions of authoritative parenting in the social network. Developmental Psychology, 31, 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, C. L. (2012). An investigation of neighborhood disadvantage, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, C. L., Fagan, A. A., & Antle, K. (2014). Avoiding violent victimization among youths in urban neighborhoods: The importance of street efficacy. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon, D., Graves, K., & Arbuthnot, J. (1995). The effect of functional family therapy for delinquents on adults criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 30–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henson, B., Wilcox, P., Reyns, B. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent victimization: implications for routine activity theory. Victims and Offenders, 5, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.-A., & Weihar, A. W. (1991). Are there multiple paths to delinquency? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., & Turrisi, R. (1990). The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuous variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 37–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M. (2001). Parent-child attachment and monitoring in middle childhood. Family Psychology, 15, 68–81.Google Scholar
  27. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. J. (2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lauritsen, J. L. (2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lauritsen, J. L., & Carbone-Lopez, K. (2011). Gender differences in risk factors for violent victimization: An examination of individual-, family-, and community-level predictors. Journal of Research in Crimean and Delinquency, 48, 538–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crimean and Delinquency, 27, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulvey, E. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29961.v2
  34. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rankin, B., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Social Problems, 49, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation on public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Miller, J. M. (2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Burt, C. H., Brody, G. H., & Cutrona, C. (2005). Collective efficacy, authoritative parenting and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating community- and family-level processes. Criminology, 43, 989–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. StataCorp. (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.Google Scholar
  43. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.Google Scholar
  47. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992a). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement. Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992b). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2006). I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me. Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crimean and Delinquency, 43, 427–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F.-A., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crimean and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tillyer, M. S., Fisher, B. S., & Wilcox, P. (2011a). The effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tillyer, M. S., Tillyer, R., Miller, H. V., & Pangrac, R. (2011b). Reexamining the correlates of adolescent violent victimization: The importance of exposure, guardianship, and target characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2908–2928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Voisin, D., Berringer, K., Takahashi, L., Burr, S., & Kuhnen, J. (2016). No safe havens: Protective parenting practices for African American youth living in violent communities. Violence and Victims, 31, 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of Personality, 58, 381–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crimean and Delinquency, 46, 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilcox Rountree, P., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Skubak Tillyer
    • 1
  • James V. Ray
    • 2
  • Marissa E. Hinton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations