Gender differences in predicting delinquent behavior: Do individual differences matter?
Main Article Content
The purpose of this study was to determine the role of individual differences (i.e., belief in a just world and authoritarianism), and attitude (i.e., attitudes toward the criminal legal system), in predicting delinquent behavior. High school students (412 males, 423 females) completed questionnaires that measured demographics, belief in a just world (BJW), authoritarianism (RWA), attitudes toward the criminal legal system (ATCLS), and delinquent behavior. Two models were assessed in this study. The first was a direct model, which assessed whether individual differences or attitude best predicted rule-violating behavior. The second was an integrating model, which assessed the role of both factors, individual differences and attitude, as predictors of rule-violating behavior. For male adolescents, the direct model best predicted delinquency, suggesting negative ATCLS was the sole significant predictor of rule-violating behavior. In contrast, for females, the integrating model best predicted delinquency, as negative ATCLS mediated the negative relation between BJW and delinquency, and partially mediated the negative relation between RWA and delinquency. The implications of gender differences in predicting delinquent behavior are discussed.
Research investigating adolescent rule-violating behavior has come from two distinct subareas of psychology: personality psychology with its emphasis on individual differences (e.g., Caspi et al., 1994) and social psychology with its emphasis on attitudes (e.g., Landsheer & Hart, 1999; Menard & Huizinga, 1994). Several researchers have taken a singular approach to delinquency research, including either attitudes or individual differences in delinquency models. However, few researchers have taken an inclusive approach (e.g., Heaven, 1993; Hubbard & Pratt, 2002), including both individual differences and attitudes in their research.
In the current study, two inclusive models of delinquency prediction were tested. First, we conducted a direct comparison of individual difference and attitude variables to determine which was a better predictor of rule-violating behavior. Second, we tested an integrating model to determine the role of both variable types, individual differences and attitude, as predictors of rule-violating behavior. In addition, we included gender as a moderator variable in both models to better ascertain gender differences in models of delinquency prediction (Heimer & De Coster, 1999).
Individual Differences, Attitudes, and Delinquency
To date, few empirical studies have investigated both individual differences and attitudes as predictors of delinquency (e.g., Ang & Woo, 2003). However, past research has investigated the variable types separately, and it has been suggested that attitudinal variables are more consistent predictors of delinquency (Engels, Luijpers, Landsheer, & Meeus, 2004; Landsheer & Hart, 1999) than individual difference variables (Hafer, Bogaert, & McMullen, 2001). Thus, in a direct model of delinquency prediction, attitude would likely emerge as the stronger contributor to delinquency.
However, in an integrating model of delinquency prediction, attitude may mediate the relation between individual difference variables and delinquency. This model of delinquency prediction is grounded on two theoretical assumptions. First, this idea is based on research suggesting that individual difference variables, belief in a just world and authoritarianism, are relatively stable expressions (Dalbert, 2002; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Therefore, individual difference variables are likely to shape more specific attitudes. Second, if one views individual difference variables as global outlook variables, such macroconstructs still would affect more specific attitudes, for example, attitudes toward the criminal legal system. Thus, both assumptions support the notion that attitude would mediate the relation between individual differences and delinquency.
Individual Differences and Delinquency
While standard delinquency research has not focused on individual differences, there has been a growing pattern of exceptions (see Miller & Lynam, 2001 for a review). For example, research shows that antisocial personality and impulsiveness (e.g., Farrington, 2005) predict rule-violating behavior in adolescents. However, as opposed to utilizing more recurrent individual difference factors, the current study centers on individual variables with a hypothesized relation to attitudes toward the criminal legal system. Therefore, this study focuses on belief in a just world and authoritarianism as related to attitudes toward the criminal legal system.
Belief in a just world (BJW) Lerner’s just world hypothesis (1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978; see review by Furnham, 2003) theorizes that those with a high belief in a just world need to believe that events are not merely random, and that consequences result from their own behavior. For those with a high belief in a just world, the world is viewed as both fair and even-handed. Conversely, for those with a low belief in a just world, outcomes are often seen as prejudiced and illogical. While belief in a just world could also be conceptualized as a global attitude, researchers have posited that the variable acts as an “implicit personality theory” (Ritter, Benson, & Snyder, 1990, p. 248). Thus, in this study belief in a just world is treated as an individual difference variable.
Past research suggests that low belief in a just world may be associated with rule-violating behavior. For instance, Hafer (2000) found that high belief in a just world was linked to a decreased use of unjust means to achieve long-term goals. However, some researchers suggest that delinquent youth may be more likely to believe in a just world than their nondelinquent peers. This research shows that aspects of belief in a just world correspond to perceptions often held by delinquent youth, such as their being less susceptible to negative events (e.g., contracting AIDS, Hafer et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the hypothesis in this study was that belief in a just world is negatively associated with delinquency.
Researchers have also explored gender differences in belief in a just world (Martin & Cohn, 2004b; O’Connor, Morrison, & McLeod, 1996) and have found mixed results. Martin and Cohn found that male and female college students did not differ significantly in their belief in a just world. In contrast, O’Connor et al., in their meta-analysis of 33 studies, found a gender difference with men believing more in a just world than women. Thus, it is unclear whether gender differences in belief in a just world exist for adolescents.
Authoritarianism (RWA) Adolescents’ view of authority can be understood by the personality trait authoritarianism or one’s positive view of authority figures (Peterson & Lane, 2001). Again, authoritarianism could also be conceptualized as a global attitude (as discussed in Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002), but has traditionally been considered an individual difference variable (Altemeyer, 1981).
Researchers suggest that individuals higher in authoritarianism tend to be tougher on offenders than individuals lower in authoritarianism (Boehm, 1968), with defendants receiving harsher punishments from high authoritarians (McGowen & King, 1982). Similarly, in a meta-analysis, Narby, Cutler, and Moran (1993) found that individuals high in authoritarianism convicted adolescents more often than did those lower in authoritarianism. Based on such research, and because delinquency is often associated with diminished respect for authority, the hypothesis in this study was that highly delinquent adolescents will be lower in authoritarianism than less delinquent adolescents.
In terms of gender differences in authoritarianism, research presents conflicting results. For example, some researchers have found men to be higher in authoritarianism than women (Browning, 1985; Irvine, 1957), whereas others have found no gender differences in authoritarianism (Larsen, 1968). In a longitudinal study of college students, Peterson and Lane (2001) did not find gender differences in authoritarianism either at the beginning or at the end of four years of college. These findings again underscore unclear gender differences associated with individual differences.
Attitudes and Delinquency
A number of criminologists and psychologists have found a connection between attitudes and delinquency (Cohn & White, 1990; Landsheer & Hart, 1999). In particular, absence of strong conventional beliefs has been associated with rule-violating behavior (Levy, 2001; Matsueda, 1989). Consistent with this line of inquiry, the current study measures attitudes toward the criminal legal system in relation to delinquency (Martin & Cohn, 2004a).
Attitudes toward the criminal legal system (ATCLS) Researchers have posited that delinquent behavior is maintained partially by negative attitudes toward authority and the law. For instance, when adolescents view legal officials in a negative light, they may be unlikely to accept help due to lack of trust and respect (Minor, Karr, & Davis, 1984; Tyler, 1994). Furthermore, delinquent adolescents may hold more negative views of the legal system and the police than their non- delinquent peers. For example, institutionalized delinquents have been shown to hold significantly more negative judgments toward the justice system and its personnel than do high-school students (Peterson, Urban, & Vondracek, 1975). Also, delinquent adolescents tend to believe less in the moral validity of the law than nondelinquent adolescents (Mak, 1991). Thus, attitude toward the criminal legal system is likely to have a negative association with delinquency.
Little research to date has examined gender differences in attitudes and delinquency (Heimer, 1996). Among the studies that do exist, findings are contradictory. For instance, Lockhart (1930) found more positive attitudes toward the legal system among female adolescents than male adolescents. On the other hand Martin and Cohn (2004b) found no difference in legal attitudes between men and women. Alternatively, Middleton and Wright (1941) found that delinquent girls had a more favorable attitude toward the law than did delinquent boys, and that nondelinquent boys had a more favorable attitude toward the law than did nondelinquent girls. In all, this work highlights a need for research investigating gender differences in attitudes associated with delinquency.
In the current study the role of individual differences (belief in a just world and authoritarianism) and attitudinal (attitudes toward the criminal legal system) factors in predicting delinquency were investigated. First, a direct model was tested based on the hypothesis that attitude is more likely to predict delinquency than are individual differences. Next, an integrating model was tested based on the hypothesis that attitude mediates the predictive relation between individual differences and delinquency. In contrast to the direct model, the integrating model posits that each individual difference variable affects attitude, which in turn affects delinquency.
Because of a specific interest in the separate relations between each individual difference variable, ATCLS, and delinquency, the integrating models were tested separately for BJW and RWA. Based on past findings of gender differences in both individual difference (Browning, 1985; O’Connor et al., 1996) and attitudinal variables (Lockhart, 1930; Middleton & Wright, 1941), the direct and integrating models were examined separately for male and female adolescents.
Method
Participants
Participants were 412 male and 423 female adolescents selected randomly from 13 New England high schools. The high schools were also randomly selected and represented city, suburban, and rural school districts. The participants ranged in age from 14-19 years (Mage = 16.87, SD = 1.26). The majority of participants identified themselves as Caucasian (89.2 %), and as Catholic (48.9%) or Protestant (16.3%). The participants were freshmen (5.3%), sophomores (22.2%), juniors (24.6%), and seniors (47.5%), with a mean average grade of all Bs on their last report card. Their parents’ education was high school or less (37.2% mothers, 36.2% fathers), college degree or some college (52.4% mothers, 47.6% fathers), and graduate school (10.5% mothers, 16.2% fathers).
Measures
The survey consisted of demographic questions and four different scales: Belief in a Just World (BJW), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System (ATCLS), and self-report delinquency. Demographic questions included inquiring about participants’ average grade on last report card and the education level of parents. Parents’ mean education level was used as a socioeconomic status (SES) proxy in the current study. The BJW is a 20-item scale that measures the belief that the world is a just and fair place, including the statement “By and large, people deserve what they get” (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for the present sample. The RWA is a 24-item scale that measures right-wing authoritarianism, including “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn” (Altemeyer, 1981). A high score indicates high authoritarianism. The present sample’s Cronbach’s alpha was .85. The items on the BJW and RWA are rated on a 6-point Likert scale Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly. The ATCLS is a 24-item scale that indicates attitudes about the criminal legal system, including the statement “Juries make accurate decisions most of the time” (Martin & Cohn, 2004a). A high score is a positive attitude toward the legal system. Each item on the ATCLS is rated on a 5-point Likert scale Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the current sample. The delinquency scale was a measure of 24 delinquent behaviors from the National Longitudinal Youth Survey, including stealing, assault, vandalism, and substance use (Wolpin, 1983). Delinquency items asked “In the last year (12 months) have you ever…”. Responses were scored on a dichotomous yes/no scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .87 for the present sample.
Procedure
We obtained permission from high school principals and sent parents informed consent forms describing the study. On the day of the survey, research assistants gave participants whose parents had agreed to the study informed assent forms. Care was taken to make sure students understood that participation was voluntary and that answers would be confidential. Participants took approximately 30 to 45 minutes to complete the survey.
Results
Gender Differences in Delinquency Behavior
A univariate analysis of covariance was conducted to determine the effect of gender on delinquency, controlling for average grade and SES (F(1, 802) = 22.57, p < .001, η2 = .03). Results showed that male adolescents engaged in more delinquent behavior than did female adolescents (Mmales = 20.22, Mfemales = 13.26).
Testing Direct Models for Predicting Delinquency Separately for Male and Female Adolescents
We conducted correlation analyses separately for male and female adolescents. Table 1 shows the r2 for individual differences, attitude, and delinquency. For both males and females, the individual difference (BJW, RWA) and attitude (ATCLS) variables were moderately intercorrelated.
Table 1. Correlations Among Total Delinquency, Assault Factor, Stealing/Vandalism Factor, and Substance Use Factors, ATCLS, BJW, RWA
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
The correlations for males are above the diagonal; the correlations for females are below the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
We conducted separate regression analyses for male and female adolescents based on previous research indicating gender differences in individual differences and attitudes, as well as small but significant gender differences found in the correlations. The two individual difference variables (BJW, RWA) and the attitude variable (ATCLS) were utilized as predictors of delinquency. Average grade and SES were control variables and were entered on Step 1 of the regression equations, with the predictor variables entered on Step 2. We were interested in whether individual differences or attitude would be a stronger predictor of delinquency. We hypothesized that ATCLS would be the stronger predictor for both genders based on previous findings that attitudes are more consistent predictors of delinquency than are individual differences. Results of the regression are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from BJW, RWA, and ATCLS for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For males R2 = .12 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .06 for Step 2 (ps < .01). For females R2 = .07 for Step 1;
∆R2 = .10 for Step 2 (ps < .001). * p < .01. ** p < .001.
For males, the results showed that the attitude factor ATCLS was the only significant predictor of delinquency (R2adjusted = .16, F(5, 191) = 8.50, p < .001) – whereas for females, the results showed that the individual difference variable RWA was the only significant predictor of delinquency (R2adjusted = .16, F(5, 201) = 8.55, p < .001). Thus, gender moderated the predictive relation between BJW, RWA, ATCLS and delinquency.
Testing Integrating Models for Predicting Delinquency Separately for Male and Female Adolescents
From our integrating model we posited that the attitudinal variable ATCLS would mediate the relation between each of the two individual difference factors and the delinquency factors. Furthermore, we hypothesized that gender would act as a moderator in the mediating analyses. To test this theory, analyses were run separately for male and female adolescents.
In order to test the relations between each of the two individual difference factors (BJW, RWA), the attitude factor (ATCLS), and delinquency, we used Baron and Kenney’s (1986) statistical method for testing mediating models. This method was chosen because it is the most frequently cited test of mediation within the psychological literature (e.g., Nemeth & Goncalo, 2005). Baron and Kenney described regressional techniques that test the relationship between two variables, X and Z. The mediating model occurs when the two variables X and Z are related directly, but have a weakened relation when a third variable Y is included in the regression. We conducted the analyses separately for each of the two individual difference factors. Further, we controlled for average grade and SES in all analyses by entering them on Step 1 of the regression equation and entering the predictor variables on Step 2.
Belief in a just world (BJW) First, we regressed ATCLS on BJW. Next we regressed delinquency on BJW. Then we conducted regressions with BJW and ATCLS as the independent variables and delinquency as the dependent variable.
For the first stage of the mediating model, we regressed ATCLS on BJW. Results were statistically significant for males (R2adjusted = .32, F(3, 312) = 50.88, p < .001) and females (R2 adjusted = .28, F(3, 326) = 44.01, p < .001). BJW was a predictor of ATCLS for male and female adolescents. The regression findings are in Table 3. Next, we regressed delinquency on BJW. Results are shown in Table 4. For males, although the overall equation was significant (R2adjusted = .06, F(3, 358) = 8.66, p < .001), BJW did not significantly predict delinquency, whereas for females, BJW did significantly predict delinquency (R2adjusted = .12, F(3, 359) = 16.66, p < .001). Finally, we conducted regression analyses with BJW and ATCLS as the independent variables and delinquency as the dependent variable. Results are shown in Table 5. The mediating model was not feasible for males, because BJW did not predict delinquency. For females, the mediating model was significant. The overall regression analyses with BJW and ATCLS predicting delinquency (R2adjusted = .12, F(4,320) = 11.78, p < .001) had ATCLS as the only significant predictor variable.
Table 3. Summary Table for Results of Four Standard Multiple Regressions Predicting ATCLS from BJW and from RWA Separately for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For BJW for males R2 = .03 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .30 for Step 2 (ps < .001); for females R2 = .05 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .24 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
For RWA for males R2 = .04 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .16 for Step 2 (ps < .001); for females R2 = .04 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .08 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from BJW and from RWA for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For BJW for males R2 = .26 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .00 for Step 2 (ps = ns); for females R2 = .09 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .03 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
For RWA for males R2 = .31 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .01 for Step 2 (ps = ns); for females R2 = .16 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .07 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Table 5. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from ATCLS and BJW and from ATCLS and RWA for Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale. For BJW R2 = .13 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .06 for Step 2 = .06 for Step 2 (ps < .001). For RWA * = .07 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .10 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Authoritarianism (RWA) First, we regressed ATCLS on RWA. Next we regressed delinquency on RWA. Then we conducted regressions with RWA and ATCLS as the independent variables and delinquency as the dependent variable.
For the first stage of the mediating model, we regressed ATCLS on RWA. The regression findings are in Table 4. The results indicated that the overall model was statistically significantly for males (R2adjusted = .19, F(3, 213) = 17.85, p < .001), and females (R2adjusted = .11, F(3, 228) = 10.65, p < .001) with RWA as a predictor of ATCLS for male and female adolescents. Next, we regressed delinquency on RWA. Results are shown in Table 5. For males, although the overall equation was significant (R2adjusted = .09, F(3, 239) = 8.69, p < .001), RWA was not a significant predictor of delinquency. For females, RWA did significantly predict delinquency (R2adjusted = .08, F(3, 252) = 8.41, p < .001). Lastly, we conducted a regression with RWA and ATCLS as the independent variables and delinquency as the dependent variable. The results are in Table 5. For males, the mediating model was not possible, because delinquency was not significant in the above analysis (step two of the mediating model). For females, the mediating model was partially supported for delinquency (R2 adjusted = .16, F(4, 224) = 11.49, p < .001), with ATCLS a significant predictor. Although RWA remained significant when both RWA and ATCLS were regressed on delinquency, the beta for RWA (β = -.22) was slightly lower than when ATCLS was not in the equation, (β -.26). Thus, for females, the relation between RWA and delinquency was partially mediated by ATCLS.
The findings for male adolescents indicated that the mediating model did not describe the relation between either BJW and delinquency or RWA and delinquency. In contrast, the findings for female adolescents indicated that the mediating model described the relation between BJW and delinquency. Further, ATCLS partially mediated the relation between RWA and delinquency. These results suggest that gender moderated the mediation model for both BJW and RWA.
Discussion
This study is a starting point toward improved understanding of the association between individual differences, attitude, and self-reported delinquency. Past research has found associations between delinquency and belief in a just world, authoritarianism, and attitudes toward the criminal legal system. However, the current study is the first research to date to take an inclusive approach, combining these individual difference and attitudinal variables into theoretically based models of delinquency prediction for adolescents. The study also highlights the relevance of gender as a moderator in individual difference, attitude, and delinquency models.
In this research the relations among individual difference and attitude factors and delinquency were tested in two ways. First, a direct model was used to investigate whether individual differences or attitude better predicted delinquency. Second, an integrating model was used to test direct and indirect relations among the variables. Gender moderated the relations in both models, as the two models led to different explanations for delinquency for male and female adolescents. The direct model best predicted delinquency for male adolescents, with attitude the sole significant predictor of rule-violating behavior. In contrast, for female adolescents, the integrating model was the best explanation for delinquency. Attitude mediated the relation between BJW and delinquency and partially mediated the relation between RWA and delinquency.
Our direct model analysis tested whether the attitudinal variable (ATCLS) or the individual difference variables (BJW and RWA) better predicted delinquency. Based on the consistency of attitudinal predictions of delinquency, we posited that ATCLS would be the stronger predictor variable. For male adolescents, the results showed that this was the case; the attitude factor ATCLS was negatively associated with delinquency and was the only significant predictor. This suggests that, for male adolescents, attitude may play a more central role in delinquent behavior than the individual difference variables investigated in the current study. This finding is consistent with those of past research (Zhang, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1997), which has found a strong relation between delinquent attitudes and behavior in boys over time.
For female adolescents, the individual difference variable RWA was negatively associated with delinquency and was the sole significant predictor. This suggests that among female adolescents, antiauthority views may play a role in delinquency. Thus, low authoritarianism may be an expression of a nonconventional outlook that contributes to rule-violating behavior.
Our integrating model tested whether ATCLS mediated the relation between BJW and delinquency and RWA and delinquency for male and female adolescents. We found that for male adolescents, ATCLS did not mediate the relation between BJW or RWA and delinquency. Thus, for males, negative ATCLS was the sole significant predictor of rule-violating behavior. However, due to the cross-sectional nature of this research, it is unclear whether negative legal attitudes are a precursor to, or an outcome of, delinquency.
In contrast, we found that for female adolescents, negative ATCLS mediated the negative relation between BJW and delinquency, and partially mediated the negative relation between RWA and delinquency. This suggests that for female adolescents, negative attitudes toward the legal system are germane to the understanding of delinquent behavior. Because numerous theorists have argued for the importance of gender-specific delinquency theories (Heimer & De Coster, 1999; Miller & Burack, 1993), future researchers should attempt to replicate these findings and, should this pattern prove robust, attempt to identify causes and correlates of negative legal attitudes.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
In this study we have extended previous findings by utilizing an inclusive approach to delinquency prediction, including both attitudinal and individual difference variables. Further, we have contributed to research by examining gender differences in predictors of rule-violating behavior. However, there are a number of limitations to this study to be addressed in future research.
First, we were unable to determine the causal direction of attitude, individual differences, and delinquency behaviors because the study was based on cross- sectional research. We are currently designing a longitudinal study to address this issue. Such research should allow us to determine the causal direction of the relation between attitude, individual differences, and delinquency.
Second, we utilized a self-report measure of delinquency developed by the National Longitudinal Youth Survey (NLYS) (Wolpin, 1983). This allowed us to investigate self-reported, presumably unsanctioned delinquent behavior, which may be seen as a strength of the study. However, some youth may have exaggerated and others may have underestimated their reports of delinquency. The NLYS measure is also dichotomous, which did not allow for an understanding of frequency of delinquent acts. In the future, it will be useful to utilize a more comprehensive delinquency measure.
In this study we investigated the role of individual difference and attitudinal factors in predicting delinquency. Our findings suggest that a direct model best predicted delinquent behavior for male adolescents. For female adolescents, the integrating model was the best explanation for delinquent behavior. The results of this research suggest that gender differences should be incorporated into theories of delinquency, and that future research should continue to test direct versus indirect models of delinquency prediction.
References
Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Ang, R. P., & Woo, A. (2003). Influence of sensation seeking on boys’ psychosocial adjustment. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 121-136.
Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734-750.
Browning, D. L. (1985). Developmental aspects of authoritarian attitudes and gender role conceptions in men and women. The High School Journal, 68, 177-182.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Schmutte, P., & Krueger, R. (1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relation across nation, gender, race, and method. Criminology, 32, 301-333.
Cohn, E. S., & White, S. O. (1990). Legal socialization: A study of norms and rules. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dalbert, C. (2002). Beliefs in a just world as a buffer against anger. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 123-145.
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75-93.
Engels, R. C. M. E., Luijpers, E., Landsheer, E., & Meeus, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of relations between attitudes and delinquent behavior in adolescents. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31, 244-260.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12(3), 177-190.
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795-817.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1059-1073.
Hafer, C. L., Bogaert, A. F., & McMullen, S. (2001). Belief in a just world and condom use in a sample of gay and bisexual men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1892-1910.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1993). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 67-76.
Heimer, K. (1996). Gender, interaction, and delinquency: Testing a theory of differential social control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 39-61.
Heimer, K., & De Coster, S. (1999). The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology, 37(2), 277-317.
Hubbard, D., & Pratt, T. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1-13.
Irvine, L. F. (1957). Gender differences and the relationships between certain personality variables. Psychological Reports, 3, 595-597.
Landsheer, J. A., & Hart, H. T. (1999). Age and adolescent delinquency: The changing relationship among age, delinquent attitude, and delinquent activity. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26, 373- 388.
Larsen, K. S. (1968). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward police. Psychological Reports, 23, 349- 250.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and looking ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030-1051.
Levy, K. C. (2001). The relationship between adolescent attitudes towards authority, self-concept, and delinquency. Adolescence, 36, 333-346.
Lockhart, E. G. (1930). The attitudes of children toward law. University of Iowa Studies in Character, 3, 7-61.
Mak, A. S. (1991). Psychosocial control characteristics of delinquents and nondelinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 287-303.
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004a). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system. In L. S. Wrightsman, A. L. Batson, & V. A. Edkins (Eds.), Measures of legal attitudes (pp. 13-18). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004b). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development and predictors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 367-391.
Matsueda, R. L. (1989). The dynamics of moral beliefs and minor deviance. Social Forces, 68, 428-457.
McCourt, K., Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Keyes, M. (1999). Authoritarianism revisited: Genetic and environmental influences examined in twins reared apart and together. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 985-1014.
McGowen, R., & King, G. D. (1982). Effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on mock juror and jury decisions. Psychological Reports, 51, 1067-1074.
Menard, S., & Huizinga, D. (1994). Changes in conventional attitudes and delinquent behavior in adolescence. Youth & Society, 26, 23-53.
Middleton, W. C., & Wright, R. R. (1941). A comparison of a group of ninth and tenth grade delinquent and non-delinquent boys and girls on certain attitude scales. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 58, 139-150.
Miller, S. L., & Burack, C. (1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirshi’s general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power positions. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765-798.
Minor, K. I., Karr, S. K., & Davis, S. F. (1984). Social- and self-perceptions of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized juveniles. Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 22, 557-559.
Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Creative collaborations from afar: The benefits of independent authors. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 1-8.
O’Connor, W. E., Morrison, T. G., & McLeod, L. D. (1996). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between gender and belief in a just world. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 141-148.
Peterson, B. E., & Lane, M. D. (2001). Implications of authoritarianism for young adulthood: Longitudinal analysis of college experiences and future goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 678-690.
Peterson, L. M., Urban, H. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (1975). Self-report measurement of ‘delinquent orientation’ in institutionalized delinquent and high school boys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2, 383-396.
Ritter, C., Benson, D. E., & Snyder, C. (1990). Belief in a just world and depression. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 235-252.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975.) Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65- 90.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
Wolpin, K. (1983). The national longitudinal handbook 1983-1984. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University.
Zhang, Q., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1997). Boys’ experimentation and persistence in developmental pathways toward serious delinquency. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 6, 321-357.
Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Ang, R. P., & Woo, A. (2003). Influence of sensation seeking on boys’ psychosocial adjustment. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 121-136.
Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734-750.
Browning, D. L. (1985). Developmental aspects of authoritarian attitudes and gender role conceptions in men and women. The High School Journal, 68, 177-182.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Schmutte, P., & Krueger, R. (1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relation across nation, gender, race, and method. Criminology, 32, 301-333.
Cohn, E. S., & White, S. O. (1990). Legal socialization: A study of norms and rules. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dalbert, C. (2002). Beliefs in a just world as a buffer against anger. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 123-145.
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75-93.
Engels, R. C. M. E., Luijpers, E., Landsheer, E., & Meeus, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of relations between attitudes and delinquent behavior in adolescents. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31, 244-260.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12(3), 177-190.
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795-817.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1059-1073.
Hafer, C. L., Bogaert, A. F., & McMullen, S. (2001). Belief in a just world and condom use in a sample of gay and bisexual men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1892-1910.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1993). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 67-76.
Heimer, K. (1996). Gender, interaction, and delinquency: Testing a theory of differential social control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 39-61.
Heimer, K., & De Coster, S. (1999). The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology, 37(2), 277-317.
Hubbard, D., & Pratt, T. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1-13.
Irvine, L. F. (1957). Gender differences and the relationships between certain personality variables. Psychological Reports, 3, 595-597.
Landsheer, J. A., & Hart, H. T. (1999). Age and adolescent delinquency: The changing relationship among age, delinquent attitude, and delinquent activity. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26, 373- 388.
Larsen, K. S. (1968). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward police. Psychological Reports, 23, 349- 250.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and looking ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030-1051.
Levy, K. C. (2001). The relationship between adolescent attitudes towards authority, self-concept, and delinquency. Adolescence, 36, 333-346.
Lockhart, E. G. (1930). The attitudes of children toward law. University of Iowa Studies in Character, 3, 7-61.
Mak, A. S. (1991). Psychosocial control characteristics of delinquents and nondelinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 287-303.
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004a). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system. In L. S. Wrightsman, A. L. Batson, & V. A. Edkins (Eds.), Measures of legal attitudes (pp. 13-18). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004b). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development and predictors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 367-391.
Matsueda, R. L. (1989). The dynamics of moral beliefs and minor deviance. Social Forces, 68, 428-457.
McCourt, K., Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Keyes, M. (1999). Authoritarianism revisited: Genetic and environmental influences examined in twins reared apart and together. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 985-1014.
McGowen, R., & King, G. D. (1982). Effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on mock juror and jury decisions. Psychological Reports, 51, 1067-1074.
Menard, S., & Huizinga, D. (1994). Changes in conventional attitudes and delinquent behavior in adolescence. Youth & Society, 26, 23-53.
Middleton, W. C., & Wright, R. R. (1941). A comparison of a group of ninth and tenth grade delinquent and non-delinquent boys and girls on certain attitude scales. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 58, 139-150.
Miller, S. L., & Burack, C. (1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirshi’s general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power positions. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765-798.
Minor, K. I., Karr, S. K., & Davis, S. F. (1984). Social- and self-perceptions of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized juveniles. Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 22, 557-559.
Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2005). Creative collaborations from afar: The benefits of independent authors. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 1-8.
O’Connor, W. E., Morrison, T. G., & McLeod, L. D. (1996). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between gender and belief in a just world. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 141-148.
Peterson, B. E., & Lane, M. D. (2001). Implications of authoritarianism for young adulthood: Longitudinal analysis of college experiences and future goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 678-690.
Peterson, L. M., Urban, H. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (1975). Self-report measurement of ‘delinquent orientation’ in institutionalized delinquent and high school boys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2, 383-396.
Ritter, C., Benson, D. E., & Snyder, C. (1990). Belief in a just world and depression. Sociological Perspectives, 33(2), 235-252.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975.) Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65- 90.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
Wolpin, K. (1983). The national longitudinal handbook 1983-1984. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University.
Zhang, Q., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1997). Boys’ experimentation and persistence in developmental pathways toward serious delinquency. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 6, 321-357.
Table 1. Correlations Among Total Delinquency, Assault Factor, Stealing/Vandalism Factor, and Substance Use Factors, ATCLS, BJW, RWA
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
The correlations for males are above the diagonal; the correlations for females are below the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 2. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from BJW, RWA, and ATCLS for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For males R2 = .12 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .06 for Step 2 (ps < .01). For females R2 = .07 for Step 1;
∆R2 = .10 for Step 2 (ps < .001). * p < .01. ** p < .001.
Table 3. Summary Table for Results of Four Standard Multiple Regressions Predicting ATCLS from BJW and from RWA Separately for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For BJW for males R2 = .03 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .30 for Step 2 (ps < .001); for females R2 = .05 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .24 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
For RWA for males R2 = .04 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .16 for Step 2 (ps < .001); for females R2 = .04 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .08 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from BJW and from RWA for Male and Female Adolescents
Note: BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale.
For BJW for males R2 = .26 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .00 for Step 2 (ps = ns); for females R2 = .09 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .03 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
For RWA for males R2 = .31 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .01 for Step 2 (ps = ns); for females R2 = .16 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .07 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Table 5. Summary Table for Results of Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Delinquency from ATCLS and BJW and from ATCLS and RWA for Female Adolescents
Note: ATCLS = Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System Scale. BJW = Belief in a Just World Scale. RWA= Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale. For BJW R2 = .13 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .06 for Step 2 = .06 for Step 2 (ps < .001). For RWA * = .07 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .10 for Step 2 (ps < .001).
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Authorship for this paper is listed in alphabetical order. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association
Chicago
May 28
2004. The authors would like to thank Alicia Gomes for her help in data collection. Appreciation is due to reviewers including
Hun Soo Kim
PhD
Department of Psychiatry
Asan Medical Center
University of Ulsan College of Medicine
388-1 Pungnap-2 Songpa-Gu
Seoul
138- 763
South Korea