First Delinquent Behavior Among Pre-Pubescent Children

Abstract

The present study investigated what explains and accounts for first pre-pubescent delinquent behaviors among children. This was based on the notion that a developmental paradigm (e.g., self-control) alongside family socio-economic status (SES) can provide a passable explanation for the first and early delinquent behavior. A nationally representative sample of eighth graders (N = 3,449, 50% boys) from the Korea Youth Panel Survey (KYPS) was reviewed in terms of first delinquent behaviors. Results revealed that pre-pubescent boys started to drink at an earlier age than girls, whereas pre-pubescent girls engaged in relational bullying earlier than their male counterparts. Children’s onset of delinquency age was inversely associated with family SES, but was positively associated with their degree of self-control. Different types of first delinquency were distinguished by levels of parental education as well as child’s self-control. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

first delinquent behavior self-control family SES gender differences in delinquency

Introduction

A developmental paradigm in terms of low self-control, socialization, and socio-economic status (SES) factors can provide a passable explanation for the first and early delinquent behaviors among pre-pubescent boys and girls in terms of aetiology and their maintenance (Hanlon, Bateman, Simon, O’Grady, & Carswell, 2002). Very few studies have investigated pre-pubescent children from a developmental perspective to explain their first delinquent behavior and gender differences alongside fathers’ and mothers’ educational levels and income. Based on the premise that SES factors can provide background context to understanding increased occurrences and the maintenance of delinquent behaviors, this study investigated whether SES factors (e.g., parental education and income) with relevance to child characteristics (e.g., self-control) are related to pre-pubescent children’s delinquent behavior (Belek, 2000). This study reports on first delinquent behavior/s of Grade 8 students (boys and girls) in Korea.

Pre-pubescent (non-criminal age) delinquent behaviors are best understood as harmful (i.e., criminal, illegal, forbidden, and illegitimate) targeted actions and/or behaviors toward self, others, and object/property. And such behaviors should not be mistaken for thrill seeking, trial-and-error, and/or novelty-seeking behaviors, as such behaviors differ from delinquent behaviors in terms of severity causing significant distress and damage to self, others, and/or object/property (Barratt, Lijffijt, & Moeller, 2005; Brown, 2004; Ekpo & Ajake, 2013; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003; Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Homish, & Wei, 2001; Wigfield, Essoles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006).

Several studies have found young adolescents (i.e., pre-pubescent) to engage in various kinds of disruptive and delinquent behaviors (Bor, Najman, O’Callaghan, Williams, & Anstey, 2001; Campbell, 1995; Dobkin, Tremblay, Mâsse, & Vitaro, 1995; M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Longshore, Turner, & Stein,1996; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001; White, Moffitt, Earls, Robins, & Silva, 1990). Some of these behaviors included stealing, excessive drinking of alcohol, forceful behaviors, gambling, and drug use, severe bullying leading up to tormenting of peers for no particular reason, deceit, fraud, cheating, aggressive outburst, and targeted violent behaviors. These kinds of behaviors by pre-pubescent children in themselves are not only of a great concern but are equally claimed to often precede the development and maintenance of delinquent behaviors (Loeber & Dishion, 1983).

Loeber et al. (2003) argue that “ . . . child delinquents are two to three times more likely to become serious, violent, and chronic offenders . . . ” (p. 1); this is a serious concern especially as these delinquent behaviors are beginning in early childhood (Farrington, 1994; Loeber, 1982). To this end, Bor et al. (2001) found aggression at age 5 to be the strongest predictor of adolescent delinquency. Based on this premise, it is contented that delinquent behaviors at a very young age are possible signs for the development of psychopathology; and further that these behaviors may be an outcome of developmental trajectories beginning in childhood, increasing through adolescence and continuing even into early adulthood (Campbell, 1995). Hence, understanding early delinquent behaviors among boys and girls and learning what could account for such behaviors can give insights into pathways for early intervention (Bor et al., 2001).

According to M. R. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), people with low self-control tend to be impulsive, risk-oriented, and short-sighted. The lack of self-control or low-self-control is best understood as lack of internalized control over negative, anti-social, and delinquent behaviors (Forzano, Michels, Carapella, Conway, & Chelonis, 2011; Hay, 2001; Yu, 2010). Based on this proposition, it can be argued that individuals with low self-control are at a higher risk of delinquency (Dodge, 1980, 1993; M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Gottfredson and Hirschi further go on to argue that those lacking self-control are likely to pursue pleasure-seeking behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and drug use; engage in gambling; and have outbursts of aggressive behaviors and by extension, it is likely that the presence of low self-control and/or low impulse control could lead pre-pubescent children to adopt negative problem-solving strategies by responding to others hastily, and by possibly attributing other’s intentions incorrectly due to their own intemperance. Thus, it is very possible that children who lack self-control or have low self-control are likely to respond impulsively and react compulsively in an aggressive and/or in a delinquent manner to resolve simple social situations. This would also be fuelled by their perception of others as hostile from their own short-sightedness and lead to automated retaliative behaviors as a way to manage interpersonal interactions (Dodge, 1980, 1993).

In support of the above, Loeber et al. (2003) argue that “child’s level of impulsivity” is perhaps one of the most important risk factors that not only accounts for aggressive outbursts but also leads to the maintenance of delinquent behavior/s (p. 6). To this end, studies show that self-control plays a critical role in smoking cessation and that covert and sophisticated nature of relational aggression are due to low self-control (Muraven, 2010; Yu & Gamble, 2008). In a similar vein, Pratt and Cullen (2000) in their meta-analysis found a 0.27 effect size accounting for low self-control, where in low self-control was significantly correlated with both criminal and delinquent behaviors. Pratt and Cullen conclude that lack of self-control serves as a plausible explanation for pre-pubescent children to engage in delinquent behaviors but equally other factors (e.g., social learning) also need to be considered to predict delinquent behaviors.

Socialization and physical development levels between genders can account for some differences, where in boys are generally claimed to engage in rough and tumble games relatively earlier than girls, as boys are slightly more superior in muscle strength than girls; and boys are more likely to act out aggressively earlier than girls (Krombholz, 2006; Peterson, 2010). In contrast, girls engage more in fine motor coordination activities, take part in quiet behaviors, seek to develop positive bonds and social relationships with family and friends (Gamble, Yu, & Kuehn, 2011; Peterson, 2010; Yu, 2011). In this view, boys are more likely than girls to engage in aggressive and delinquent behavior/s. In a further extension, Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) found that girls from lower socio-economic backgrounds tended to act out (i.e., delinquent behaviors) due to low levels of maternal monitoring, whereas boys acted out due to overall low level of paternal mentoring. The issue of pre-pubescent delinquent behaviors is therefore a combination of child characteristics (i.e., self-control and socialization), background and environment (i.e., SES factors).

Exploring SES factors such as fathers’ and mothers’ educational levels and household income may help provide contexts to children’s environment. In support of this idea, a longitudinal study in Australia by Bor et al. (1997) on women (N = 8,556) found that low income and low education were highly correlated with children’s aggressive and delinquent behaviors (i.e., externalizing behaviors) and that low family income was a salient factor in the aetiology for several child behavior problems. Perhaps parents’ beliefs informed by their level of education (e.g., low) about their children’s abilities and expectations could not only come to influence their own child development but also can create environments where a child could be exposed to attitudes/behaviors that may not always be conducive toward their positive development (Hruba & Zaloudikova, 2010; Yu, 2010).

A longitudinal study in New Zealand by Shaw, Winslow, Owens, and Hood (1998) on 300 low-income families similarly found that parental income and education were negatively correlated with externalizing behaviors (i.e., aggressive and delinquent behaviors) even among children who were 2 and 3.5 years old, and their study further found that additional family stressors had an accumulative negative effect on children’s socio-emotional development. In another study, Hruba and Zaloudikova (2010) found that smoking behavior in Grade 3 (n = 1,153) and Grade 5 (n = 799) children was attributed to the influence of less educated and less successful social groups. It is likely that low income and low levels of parental education limit access to pro-social environments and positive cultural/social capital resulting in unfavorable environments for positive child development.

Supporting the above, a Dutch study by Kalff et al. (2001) on 5- to 6-year-old children (n = 1,317) found higher rates of behavior problems (i.e., externalizing behaviors) to be directly correlated with lower parental education and occupation. Kalff et al. conclude that parental education has a critical impact on mental health and the behavior of children. This finding is similar to a Kenyan study by Muola, Ndung’u, and Ngesa (2009) who also found an inverse relationship between juvenile delinquency and SES among children (n = 148). Similarly, a Nigerian study by Ekpo and Ajake (2013) also found family SES (i.e., measured in terms of rich families and poor families) to greatly influence children’s (n = 600) delinquency, whereby children from low SES were more likely to be involved in delinquent behaviors compared with those of higher SES. They further argue that parents with relatively good income are likely to provide for the needs of their children, suggesting that parents with relatively good income create a more favorable environment for child development.

Guryan, Hurst, and Kearney (2008) argue that educated parents spend more time with their children and care for them more positively, consequently creating a favorable environment for positive development. Parents spending quality time with their children are both protective and supportive of their development (Krueger, Kahneman, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2009). This is in line with the notion that parents with high level of education and income have greater and easy access to pro-social environments and positive cultural/social capital; make a more accurate assessment of their children’s abilities and expectations; explicitly teach pro-social behaviors and provide necessary guidance, and consequently create an environment that is more conducive toward positive child development (Hruba & Zaloudikova, 2010).

The above-mentioned cross-cultural studies do suggest that low levels of parental education and low income are closely associated with pre-pubescent children’s delinquent behaviors. However, Ekpo and Ajake (2013) found that the level of delinquency was less for children of parents with less education compared with parents with formal education; in other words, children from parents who had no formal education had a lower mean score on delinquency compared with less educated and highly educated parents. Contrary to Guryan et al. (2008), Ekpo and Ajake (2013) interpret their findings as parents with higher levels of education and income having little or no time for their children due to outside family demands.

However, studies on pre-pubescent children in terms of specific delinquent behaviors they engage in and whether they differ in terms of parental education or self-control have not be adequately explored. And equally, there is a lack of heterogeneity among the above-mentioned studies to clearly articulate how delinquency was conceptualized and measured; hence, there is a need to investigate independent delinquent behaviors with regard to age, gender, and self-control alongside SES factors (Hoeve, Dubas, Eichelscheim, Smeenk, & Gerris, 2009). Furthermore, it is unclear at what age pre-pubescent children first engage in delinquent behaviors and whether boys are more likely than girls to engage in these behaviors, and what behaviors boys and girls are likely to engage in also indeterminate, but given the severity of delinquent behaviors, it is very possible that these behaviors could be habituated earlier on in an individual’s life.

Korean youth tend to report lower delinquency rates than those in Western societies, particularly the United States (Kim & Kim, 2008). This may be because Korean youth are still expected to respect and obey their parents and teachers under the influence of traditional Confucian culture, although South Korea is one of the most westernized countries in Asia (Kim & Kim, 2008; Yu, 2011). Given cultural constraints, it seems important to inquire about the onset of delinquency among Korean youth. Using a nationally representative sample of students in eighth grade in South Korea, the present study sought to identify first delinquent behavior/s (i.e., with regard to externalizing behavior as per Bor et al., 1997; Kalff, 2001; and Shaw et al., 1998) for the onset of such behavior across gender. The present study was also intended to test whether (a) child gender and the age of first delinquent behavior/s are associated with family SES and self-control and (b) the types of first delinquent behaviors associated with family SES and self-control.

Method

Participants

Data for the present study came from the Korea Youth Panel Survey (KYPS) that includes a cohort of second-year middle schoolers (i.e., eighth graders) in South Korea in 2003. The KYPS data obtained from a stratified multistage cluster sample are characterized by representativeness of the cohort and were collected annually for six consecutive years. The National Youth Policy Institution (NYPI) designed and conducted this extensive study to provide the representative data set about South Korean youths. The NYPI principal investigators collaborated to design survey questionnaires. Because questions regarding the first delinquent behavior are available only in the initial wave of the data, the present study used the first wave of the survey data containing a total of 3,449 students (50% boys) whose mean age was 13.79 years (SD = 0.42).

Most of the participants (93%) lived with biological parents, 5.5% one parent, and 0.8% stepparents. Levels of parental education are as follows: less than high school (11.9% fathers and 17.2% mothers), high school diploma or equivalent (43.8% fathers and 57.8% mothers), some college or associate degree (7% fathers and 4.9% mothers), college graduate (30.3% fathers and 18.3% mothers), and post-bachelor’s education (7.0% fathers and 1.6% mothers). The average monthly family income was ₩2,997,100 (SD = 2,169,200) in 2003¹ (equivalent to approximately US$2,498 per month).

Measures at First delinquent behavior

Participants were asked to choose one of the following 14 first delinquent behaviors: smoking, drinking, truancy, running away from home, having sex, beating someone badly, gang fight, robbing, stealing, sugar-daddy association, severely teasing, threatening others, relational bullying, and sexual assault/harassment.

Age at first delinquent behavior

Participants indicated first age for the delinquent behavior.

Self-control

Based on the work of Dickman (1990), Eysenck, Pearson, Easting, and Allsopp (1985), and Patton, Stanford, and Barratt (1995), self-control was assessed via self-report through the following six items (α = .65) using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very untrue) to 5 (very true): “I jump into exciting things even if I have to take an examination tomorrow,” “I abandon a task soon once it becomes hard and laborious to do,” “I tend to enjoy risky activities,” “I enjoy teasing and harassing other people,” “I lose my temper whenever I get angry,” and “I don’t do my homework regularly.” All six items were reverse coded, so that higher scores indicate higher self-control.

Results

As a preliminary step, Table 1 lists means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables.

Table 1.

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age at first delinquency
2. Gender^a	.10***
3. Self-control	.84***	.03†
4. Paternal education	−.10***	−.01	.10***
5. Maternal education	−.07**	−.01	.08***	.70***
6. Income^b	−.08**	−.01	.05**	.35***	.36***
M	12.74	—	3.33	4.74	4.25	299.71
SD	1.75	—	0.67	1.31	1.11	216.92

Dummy coded, 0 = male, 1 = female.

Average monthly household income (Unit: ₩10,000); the number ranged from 1,668 to 3,449.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The most frequently reported first delinquent behavior by boys was severe teasing (11.5%), followed by drinking (9.5%), smoking (6.7%), relational bullying (5.1%), beating someone badly (4.9%), and stealing (3.1%). Their mean ages of first delinquent behavior ranged from 11.57 to 12.84 years. Other delinquent behaviors such as gang-related fighting were reported by less than 2.5% of boys. On the other hand, the most frequently reported form of first delinquent behavior by girls was drinking (23.8%), followed by relational bullying (9.7%), smoking (5.0%), severe teasing (3.5%), and stealing (2.7%). The average age at first delinquency ranged from 11.67 to 13.23 years. Other delinquent behaviors such as beating someone badly were reported by less than 1.3% of girls. Detailed results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Form and Age of First Delinquent Behavior.

Delinquent behavior	Frequency (%)	M	SD	Range
Boys
Severe teasing	198 (11.5%)	12.23	2.23	5-14 (9)
Drinking	164 (9.5%)	12.66	2.05	5-14 (9)
Smoking	115 (6.7%)	12.04	1.55	6-14 (8)
Relational bullying	88 (5.1%)	12.84	1.39	6-14 (8)
Beating someone badly	84 (4.9%)	12.43	1.89	5-14 (9)
Stealing	53 (3.1%)	11.57	2.39	5-14 (9)
Girls
Drinking	410 (23.8%)	13.23	1.21	5-14 (9)
Relational bullying	167 (9.7%)	12.41	1.54	6-14 (8)
Smoking	86 (5.0%)	13.17	1.11	8-14 (6)
Severe teasing	60 (3.5%)	12.38	2.19	5-14 (9)
Stealing	46 (2.7%)	11.67	2.25	6-13 (7)

A series of one-way ANOVAs were performed to examine the differences between child gender on the average age of first delinquent behavior. Results revealed that boys were likely to start drinking at an earlier age than girls, F(1, 571) = 17.17, p < .001, whereas girls were likely to exhibit relational bullying at an earlier age than boys, F(1, 252) = 4.80, p < .05. No other gender differences were found.

A 2 × 5 (gender by age of first delinquency) factorial MANOVA was conducted to investigate whether child gender and the age of first delinquency, regardless of the type of delinquency committed, were associated with family SES (i.e., fathers’ and mothers’ educational levels and average monthly household income). Only the main effect of age at first delinquency was significant, Pillai’s Trace = .02; F(12, 4518) = 2.65, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that fathers of adolescents whose age at first delinquency was 14 years (M = 4.29, SD = 0.13) had lower levels of education than the rest of the fathers (Ms = 4.66-4.95, SDs = 0.06-0.09); F(4, 1506) = 6.61, p < .001. Mothers of adolescents whose age at first delinquency was 14 (M = 3.97, SD = 0.11) also had lower educational levels than mothers of adolescents whose age at first delinquency was 11 (M = 4.43, SD = 0.07) and 10 years (M = 4.37, SD = 0.07); F(4, 1506) = 4.19, p < .01. Similarly, adolescents whose first age at delinquency was 14 years (M = 271.25, SD = 19.17) had lower household income than those who reported their first delinquency at 11 (M = 332.66, SD = 13.05) and 10 years (M = 329.12, SD = 12.99); F(4, 1506) = 3.39, p < .01.

To examine any significant association between the age of first delinquency and self-control, a one-way ANOVA was performed. Results revealed that adolescents whose first delinquency was at 10 years or younger (M = 3.04, SD = 0.69), regardless of the type of delinquency committed, showed lower self-control than those who reported their first delinquency was at 13- (M = 3.18, SD = 0.65) and 14-years-old (M = 3.20, SD = 0.70); F(4, 1663) = 2.68, p < .05.

A one-way MANOVA was run to determine whether the six major delinquent behaviors found among boys differ according to family SES (i.e., fathers’ and mothers’ educational levels and average monthly household income). MANOVA revealed significant differences among the groups, Pillai’s Trace = .06; F(15, 1914) = 2.49, p < .01; $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. The univariate ANOVA indicated that fathers of boys whose first delinquency was smoking (M = 4.51, SD = 1.21) had lower educational levels than fathers of boys whose first delinquency was relational bullying (M = 5.20, SD = 1.30); F(5, 638) = 3.01, p < .05. In addition, mothers of boys whose first delinquency was smoking (M = 4.00, SD = 1.20) or severe teasing (M = 4.07, SD = 1.03) had lower educational levels than mothers of boys whose first delinquency was stealing (M = 4.56, SD = 1.05); F(5, 638) = 4.07, p < .01. No significant differences were found among the six groups on monthly household income. Similar analysis was conducted to examine whether the five major delinquent behaviors reported by girls were significantly associated with family SES, but no group differences were found.

A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate possible relations between boys’ six major delinquency and self-control and significant difference across the groups were found, F(5, 696) = 7.56, p < .001. Adolescents whose first delinquency was severe teasing (M = 3.15, SD = 0.60) or drinking (M = 3.19, SD = 0.61) exhibited higher self-control than those whose first delinquency was smoking (M = 2.87, SD = 0.67), but lower self-control than those whose first delinquency was relational bullying (M = 3.38, SD = 0.58). Similar analysis also showed that significant association between girls’ five major delinquency and self-control, F(4, 764) = 7.56, p < .001. Results indicated that girls whose first delinquency was smoking (M = 2.97, SD = 0.74) or severe teasing (M = 3.00, SD = 0.68) had lower self-control than those whose first delinquency was relational bullying (M = 3.28, SD = 0.77).

Discussion

The present study provides an adequate developmental explanation for first delinquent behavior in terms of aetiology and maintenance, as it found low self-control along with family SES in terms of low levels of parental educational attainment and income to account for children’s first delinquent behavior. Importantly, this study found specific delinquent behaviors with regard to age and gender in line with low self-control and family SES. In line with previous findings, pre-pubescent children in this study were involved in several delinquent behaviors, and these were smoking, severe teasing, drinking of alcohol, relational bullying, and severely beating others (Bor et al., 2001; Campbell, 1995; Dobkin et al., 1995; M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hawkins et al., 1992; Patterson et al., 1991; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2001; White et al., 1990).

Consistent with previous theoretical predictions and findings, this study confirmed that pre-pubescent children with an early onset of delinquency tended to report lower levels of self-control (Forzano et al., 2011; M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hay, 2001; Loeber et al., 2003; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In other words, this study showed that pre-pubescent children’s lack of self-control accounted for and was a contributing factor toward early delinquency. In addition, an innovative finding of this study was that it was able to clearly identify gender differences with regard to self-control. First delinquency behavior for boys who had higher scores on self-control was relational bullying, followed by severe teasing or drinking, and then by smoking. Somewhat similarly, girls who had higher scores on self-control reported that their first delinquency was relational bullying, followed by smoking or severe teasing. Furthermore, both boys and girls whose first delinquency was smoking reported lowest levels of self-control. Thus, our findings are also in line with studies that show self-control plays a critical role in smoking cessation and that covert and sophisticated nature of relational aggression are due to low self-control (Muraven, 2010; Yu & Gamble, 2008). From a practical standpoint, different prevention strategies are necessary for different kinds of delinquent behaviors. It appears that self-control as a developmental factor not only seems to account for the variance in delinquent behaviors but also is able to distinguish delinquent behaviors with regard to gender.

A novel finding of this study was that it was able to clearly indicate how levels of parental education were related to the kinds of delinquent behaviors in pre-pubescent children. This study clearly demonstrated a relationship between parental education and the kind of delinquent behavior.Similar to the findings of Hruba and Zaloudikova (2010), this study found that fathers of boys whose first delinquency was smoking had lower levels of educational attainment than those whose first delinquency was relational bullying; furthermore, low maternal educational attainment was associated with their son’s smoking and severe teasing. There could be several reasons for boys of both fathers and mothers with a low level of education to have taken up smoking. This simply could be due to lack of parental knowledge around smoking or deficits in information around smoking behavior (e.g., that smoking can lead to deadly illnesses, and/or that it is connected to health risks) and children exposed to such views and growing up in such families with parental deficits in knowledge could coninue smoking (Campbell, 1995). Unlike boys, parents’ educational attainment levels were not significantly associated with the types of delinquent behaviors among girls.

Similarly, household income had nothing to do with the types of delinquent behaviors across gender. Although difficult to interpret, these null findings could suggest that parents with high income were perhaps absent and/or spend less time with their children given their time-consuming and demanding work, consequently unable to provide the necessary guidance and support (Krueger et al., 2009). Likewise, parents with low income are perhaps financial strained, consequently unable to properly care for their children, which could further remove them from being active in the lives of their children (Ekpo & Ajake, 2013; Muola et al., 2009). It is likely that children from low SES groups have a cultural deficiency as they are likely to be deprived of several necessary resources through low income and lack of parental education, which consequently could limit access to and create deficits in much-needed knowledge around how to reduce negative outcomes. It is possible that lack of parental education would have deprived of social and cultural capital/resources necessary to model and/or to teach pro-social behaviors and hence exposing children to attitudes and behaviors that may not always be conducive toward their positive development (Carhill, Suárez-Orozco, & Páez, 2008; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Hruba & Zaloudikova, 2010; King & Bearman, 2011; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008).

Interestingly and somewhat unique and unexpected, this study found that parents with lower levels of education had children whose age of onset of delinquent behavior was later. In a similar vein, children living in lower income households also reported later onset of delinquency. These findings are in line with Ekpo and Ajake (2013) who have argued that parents with high levels of education and income have little or no time for their children and thus provide little support and guidance. By the same token, parents with less formal education may be more likely to spend time at home, which in turn could translate to some level of support/monitoring of their children delaying the onset of delinquent behaviors.

The present study raises interesting concepts and questions about first delinquent behavior and suggests new avenues for future studies to specifically study a wider range of pre-pubescent delinquency behaviors, over and above what have been investigated here. Importantly, even though the current study reported novel findings, there are a few conceptual and methodological limitations. First and foremost, given that this study was a self-reported retrospective survey, caution must be exercised in terms of extrapolating and/or inferring actual behaviors without exploring subjective significances (i.e., values and attitudes) around behaviors. As subjective significances around actual behaviors are difficult to assess through a retrospective survey, especially with regard to delinquency as varied motivations, attitudes, and subjective self-images are likely to influence such behaviors. Subjective significances around actual delinquent behaviors need to be accounted for in future studies, but this was beyond the scope of the current investigation due to the nature of the data set. Second, it is not clear whether delinquent behaviors mentioned in this study were just one off, episodic, and temporal and/or whether participants continued to be involved in these behaviors. Third, the question of, to what extent certain pre-pubescent delinquent behaviors in terms of gender difference are just due to socialization, culture, and environment also need to be studied longitudinally in line with self-control and SES factors, so that necessary pathways and early interventions can be put in place (Bor et al., 2001). Although the current analysis showed relationships between variables (i.e., self-control and SES), caution must be exercised in how these results are interpreted, as this study was unable to control for other related variables (e.g., delinquent peers). It is likely that the association we observed could also be explained by other unmeasured variables such as parental criminality, parental intelligence, and so on. Thus, future research should examine the matter in a more rigorously controlled manner.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Barratt

E. S.

Lijffijt

Moeller

E. G.

(2005). When does impulsivity become pathologic? Psychiatric Times, 22, 23-26.

Belek

(2000). Social class, income, education, area of residence and psychological distress: Does social class have an independent effect on psychological distress in Antalya, Turkey? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 94-101.

Bor

Najman

M. J.

Andersen

J. M.

O’Callaghan

Williams

M. G.

Behrens

C. B.

(1997). The relationship between low family income and psychological disturbance in young children: An Australian longitudinal study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 664-675.

Bor

Najman

M. J.

O’Callaghan

Williams

M. G.

Anstey

(2001). Aggression and the development of delinquent behaviour in children. Australian Institute of Criminology, 207, 1-5.

Brown

P. A.

(2004). Anti-social behavior, crime control and social control. The Howard Journal, 43, 203-2011.

Campbell

S. B.

(1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 115-119.

Carhill

Suárez-Orozco

Páez

(2008). Explaining English language proficiency among adolescent immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1155-1179.

Coughlin

Vuchinich

(1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 491-501.

Dickman

(1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102.

10.

Dobkin

P. L.

Tremblay

R. E.

Mâsse

L. C.

Vitaro

(1995). Individual and peer characteristics in predicting boys’ early onset of substance abuse: A 7-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1198-1214.

11.

Dodge

K. A.

(1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162-170.

12.

Dodge

K. A.

(1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 559-584.

13.

Ekpo

E. T.

Ajake

E. U.

(2013). Family socio-economic status and delinquency among senior secondary school students in Calabar South, Cross River State, Nigeria. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 3, 83-88.

14.

Eysenck

S. B. G.

Pearson

P. R.

Easting

Allsopp

J. F.

(1985). Age norms for impulsiveness venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 613-619.

15.

Farrington

D. P.

(1994). Early developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 4, 209-227.

16.

Forzano

B. L.

Michels

L. J.

Carapella

R. K.

Conway

Chelonis

J. J.

(2011). Self-control and impulsivity in children: Multiple behavioral measures. The Psychological Record, 61, 425-448.

17.

Gamble

W. C.

J. J.

Kuehn

E. D.

(2011). Adolescent sibling relationship quality and adjustment: Sibling trustworthiness and modeling as factors directly and indirectly influencing these associations. Social Development, 20, 605-623.

18.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(1985). Victimization in school. New York, NY: Plenum.

19.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Guryan

Hurst

Kearney

(2008). Parental education and parental time with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 23-46.

21.

Hakuta

Butler

G. Y.

Witt

(2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Institute.

22.

Hanlon

E. T.

Bateman

W. R.

Simon

D. B.

O’Grady

E. K.

Carswell

B. S.

(2002). An early community-based intervention for the prevention of substance abuse and other delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 459-471.

23.

Hawkins

J. D.

Catalano

R. F.

Miller

J. Y.

(1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.

24.

Hay

(2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707-730.

25.

Hoeve

Dubas

S. J.

Eichelscheim

I. V.

Smeenk

Gerris

M. R. J.

(2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749-775.

26.

Hruba

Zaloudikova

(2010). Why to smoke? Why not to smoke? Major reasons for children’s decisions on whether or not to smoke. Central European Journal of Public Health, 18, 202-208.

27.

Kalff

A. C.

Kroes

Vles

J. S. H.

Bosma

Feron

F. J. M.

Hendriksen

J. G. M.

Steyaert

van Zaben

T.M.C. B.

Crolla

I.F.A.M. A.

Jolles

(2001). Factors affecting the relation between parental education as well as occupation and problem behavior in Dutch 5- to 6-year-old children. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36, 324-331.

28.

Kim

H.-S.

Kim

H.-S.

(2008). Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. New York, NY: Nova.

29.

King

D. M.

Bearman

S. P.

(2011). Socioeconomic status and the increased prevalence of autism in California. American Sociological Review, 76, 320-346.

30.

Krombholz

(2006). Physical performance in relation to age, sex, birth order, social class and sport activities of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 447-484.

31.

Krueger

Kahneman

Schkade

Schwarz

Stone

A. A.

(2009). National time accounting: The currency of life. In Krueger

(Ed.), Measuring the subjective well-being of nations: National accounts of time use and well-being (pp. 9-86). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Loeber

(1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1446.

33.

Loeber

Dishion

T. J.

(1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

34.

Loeber

Farrington

P. D.

Petechuk

(2003). Child delinquency (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Bulletin Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

35.

Longshore

Turner

Stein

J. A.

(1996). Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34, 209-228.

36.

Muola

M. J.

Ndung’u

N. M.

Ngesa

(2009). The relationship between family functions and juvenile delinquency: A case of Nakuru Municipality, Kenya. An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 395, 67-84.

37.

Muraven

(2010). Practicing self-control lowers the risk of smoking lapse. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 446-452.

38.

Patterson

G. R.

Capaldi

Bank

(1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In Pepler

D. J.

Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Patton

J. H.

Stanford

M. S.

Barratt

E. S.

(1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774.

40.

Peterson

(2010). Looking forward through the lifespan: Developmental psychology (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education.

41.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

T. F.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

42.

Shaw

S. D.

Winslow

D. E.

Owens

B. E.

Hood

(1998). Young children’s adjustment to chronic family adversity: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 545-553.

43.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Loeber

Homish

L. D.

Wei

(2001). Maltreatment of boys and the development of disruptive and delinquent behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 941-955.

44.

Suárez-Orozco

C. M.

Suárez-Orozco

Todorova

(2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

White

J. L.

Moffitt

T. E.

Earls

Robins

Silva

P. A.

(1990). How early can we tell? Predictors of childhood conduct disorder and adolescent delinquency. Criminology, 28, 507-533.

46.

Wigfield

Essoles

J. S.

Schiefele

Roeser

W. R.

Davis-Kean

(2006). Development of achievement motivation. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 933-1002). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

47.

J. J.

(2010). Reciprocal influences between parental knowledge and adolescent self-control: A cross-sequential nationwide study of Korean youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 458-467.

48.

J. J.

(2011). Reciprocal associations between connectedness and autonomy among Korean adolescents: Compatible or antithetical? Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 692-703.

49.

J. J.

Gamble

W. C.

(2008). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655-673.