Norms, Values, and Education: How Different Are Immigrant Youth from Native Youth? Insights from the Third International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD3)

  • Ineke Haen MarshallEmail author
  • Chris E. Marshall


This chapter uses the preliminary results of the third International-Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD3). ISRD3 is an ongoing international collaborative survey that currently includes about 62,500 seventh, eighth, and ninth graders between 12 and 16 years of age from 27 countries. The youth were asked to answer questions related to their evaluations of the wrongness of eight items (prosocial values), levels of sense of shame associated with selected antisocial behaviors, school experiences, and migration status (native, first, and second generations). The data suggest that the differences between countries with respect to youth’s morality are significantly larger than the differences between migrant and native youth within individual countries. The same is true for youth’s educational experiences. The chapter concludes with a policy suggestion regarding the role of the school in forming civil and social norms.


Morality Migrant youth Education Values Cross-national survey 


  1. Blum, L. (2014). Three educational values for a multicultural society: Difference recognition, national cohesion and equality. Journal of Moral Education, 43(3), 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Covaleskie, J. F. (2013). Membership and moral formation: Shame as an educational and social emotion. Charlotte, US: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. ED-2009/WS/31. Policy Guidelines for Inclusive Education, UNESCO 2009.Google Scholar
  4. Enzmann, D., Kivivuori, J., Marshall, I., Steketee, M., Hough, M., & Killias, M. (2017). A global perspective on young people as offenders and victims. First results from the ISRD3 study. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Global Education Monitoring Report. (2016). UNESCO 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Heinrichs, K., Oser, F., & Lovat, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of moral motivation. Theories, models, applications. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lovat, T., Toomey, R., & Clement, N. (Eds.). (2010). International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Lynch, I., Swartz, S., & Isaacs, D. (2017). Anti-racist moral education: A review of approaches, impact and theoretical underpinnings from 2000 to 2015. Journal of Moral Education, 46(2), 129–144. Scholar
  10. Pring, R. (2010). Preface. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. v–vi). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Redo, S. (2017). New instruments and approaches for countering social exclusion: A criminological contribution to the United Nations post-2015 educational agenda. In E. W. Plywaczweski & E. M. Guzik-Makaruk (Eds.), Current problems of the penal law and criminology (pp. 723–738). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  12. Wikström, P.-O. H., & Butterworth, D. A. (2006). Adolescent crime: Individual differences and lifestyles. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern University, Sociology, Criminology & Criminal JusticeBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of Nebraska-Omaha, School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations