MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W119895517

Family Structure and Parental Behavior: Identifying the Sources of Adolescent Self-Control

2008· article· en· W119895517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelli Phythian, Carl Keane, Catherine Krull

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemptationPsychologySelf-controlDevelopmental psychologyTraitSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi and their general theory of (1990), self-control - defined as degree to which individuals are vulnerable to temptation - is a relatively stable, universal trait that accounts for individual differences in criminal, deviant, and reckless behavior. Self-control is said to develop in early childhood, while family is still most important socializing agent. Thus, absence of self-control and subsequent deviant activity are a result of familial factors. Using a large, nation-wide sample of Canadian children, this study examines effect of parenting on children's self-control while considering role of such factors as parental composition and household size. Analyses reveal that self-control varies by family structure, whereby children living with two biological parents report higher levels of self-control than children in reconstituted and single parent families. However, this relationship is offset, in part, by parental monitoring. Overall, regardless of family structure, it is evident that a nurturing, accepting family environment is positively associated with self-control. Keywords: self-control; adolescence; family structure; parental behavior Introduction Gottfredson and Hirschi's assertion that their general theory of explains crime, at all times and, for that matter, many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by state (1990:117) has proven to be one of most controversial claims made by criminologists in recent years. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, self-control, defined as degree to which individuals are vulnerable to temptation, is a relatively stable, universal trait that accounts for individual-level differences in criminal, deviant, and reckless behavior. Indeed, they use term synonymously with criminality, or propensity to commit crime, giving an indication of how large role of self-control is thought to play in commission of criminal acts. Later, they soften their assertions about primacy of self-control; age, gender, and race are also said to be important determinants of criminal activity (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1995). Nevertheless, self-control is thought to be primary social characteristic that leads to and delinquency. To be sure, Gottfredson and Hirschi express in no uncertain terms, low self-control is the individual-level cause of crime (1990:232). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that their theory of is general in that it accounts for a multitude of criminal and noncriminal behaviors that transcend cultural boundaries. They define as any act of force or fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest (1990:15). Crime, then, is not restricted by definition to those activities that violate laws of a particular society at a particular point in time. The authors contend that, because their definition of does not follow cultural, behavioral, or legalistic guidelines, general theory is valid across time and space. That is, low self-control is primary cause of all types of and deviance, at all times and in all cultures. Furthermore, self-control is said to develop in early childhood, while family is still most important socializing agent. The absence of self-control, authors contend, is therefore a result of familial factors. It is this aspect of general theory that is focus of present investigation. While contention that low self-control leads to criminal and analogous acts has received much empirical attention, claim that family is source of low self-control has to date been of less interest to criminology researchers. As will be discussed in further detail, research that has sought to test this latter proposition is contradictory and offers only a modest degree of support for general theory. Self-Control Central to general theory of is assumption that humans have an innate tendency to seek immediate gratification of desires. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207