Running head: Intergenerational Delinquency

Intergenerational Transmission of Delinquent Behaviors

REAL MAN 3.0

Intergenerational Delinquency

The purpose of this research paper is to investigate the relationship between the antisocial behavior of parents and the role it plays in influencing the behavior of their children. I
wanted to see whether aggressive and delinquent behaviors seen in children and their parents
were determined by genetic predisposition to those behaviors, or if these behaviors were the
result of environmental factors.
This particular topic is important to psychology due to the influence parents have in
shaping their childs behavior. If delinquent behaviors are passed genetically, children of deviant
parents may be at a higher risk of attaining those behavioral qualities. If the behaviors are
transmitted through social learning, we need to identify the children at risk and give them proper
interventions to reduce the likelihood of them developing externalizing behaviors. Another
important topic to investigate is the effect on a child that witnesses their parents delinquent
behavior and to what extent it predicts the childs own delinquent behavior compared to children
who have minimal contact with their deviant parent or parents.
Not only will I be discussing the role parents play in influencing their childrens behavior,
but also the impact that befriending delinquent peers has on the childs behavior. Perhaps if the
child mimics the behavior of their friends this will show support for the social learning theory. I
will also be investigating the relationships among siblings in order to find evidence for genetic
predisposition to negative externalized behavior.
An obvious result of parents who engage in anti-social behaviors is that they are more
likely to be arrested and put in jail. Children are often separated by their parents due to
hospitalizing, or death of the parent. However a study conducted in 2005 wanted to see whether
Intergenerational Delinquency

it was the separation between parent and child that resulted in the childs antisocial behavior or
more specifically the separation due to parental incarceration. As discussed in the article,
previous studies have shown that parental incarceration often leads to reduced financial support
and a breakdown of relationships within the family due to the strict regulations of jail visits
resulting in minimized contact (Farrington & Murray, 2005). Incarcerated mothers may have the
biggest impact on the development of children because the childs new caregivers might not have
the ability to properly support and supervise them.
This study also controlled for whether the parent was jailed before or after the birth of
their child. If the child was able to grow an attachment to their parent, only to have the parent be
taken into custody, may have an influence on that childs externalized behavior (Farrington &
Murray, 2005).
The sample of this study was comprised of only male participants and the research data
was collected from the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development (CSDD). The experimental
group consisted of 23 boys who had experienced parental incarceration within their first 10 years
of life. The control group consisted of 227 boys who experienced no child-parent separation
within the first 10 years of life, and whose parents were never jailed up until the childs 18th
birthday (Farrington & Murray, 2005).
The second control group consisted of 77 boys whose parents were separated during their
first 10 years of life due to hospitalization or death and were never imprisoned. The third control
group consisted of 61 boys whose parents were separated for the first 10 years of life for reasons
Intergenerational Delinquency

other than incarceration, hospitalization, or death. The final control group was comprised of 17
boys who had parents incarcerated before they were born, but were also never jailed again
between the childs birth and 18th birthday (Farrington & Murray, 2005).
The parents needed to have a serious offense on their criminal record in order to be
included in this study; therefore common assault, traffic infractions, and drunkenness were
excluded from the CSDD records (Farrington & Murray, 2005). However I believe that this fact
of excluding common assault and drunkenness limits the accuracy of this particular study.
Common assault and disorderly drunkenness could be viewed as a form of antisocial behavior.
Anti-personality scales were evaluated through interviews of the boys in the sample, as
well as their teachers, parents, and official school records. The results of this study show support
for the social learning theory in explaining adolescent delinquency. 71% of boys who had
experienced parental imprisonment within their first 10 years of life were more likely to be rated
as having anti-personalities by age 32 compared to 19% of boys whose parents never went to
prison and were never separated (Farrington & Murray, 2005).
Boys who had been separated within the first 10 years of life due to parental incarceration
showcased more antisocial and delinquent behavior compared to boys whose parents were
separated due to hospitalization or death. Parental imprisonment within the boys first 10 years of
life also predicted more antisocial and delinquent behavior compared to boys who had parents
imprisoned before they were born (Farrington & Murray, 2005).

Intergenerational Delinquency

These results show that parental incarceration is a strong predictor for later onset of
childhood delinquency, not just separation itself. Perhaps the imprisonment of the parent caused
the child to not develop a healthy attachment to a parental figure, or perhaps they developed that
behavior through observance and mimicking their parents which supports the social learning
theory.
More evidence to support the cause of social learning theory on adolescent delinquency
and antisocial behavior was a longitudinal research design that began in 1988 which investigated
the development of child and adolescent antisocial behavior. The sample consisted of over 1000
7th and 8th grade children from Rochester New York. Data was from the Rochester Youth
Development Study (RYDS) was used in the research (Thornberry et al., 2009)
The fathers in this study were separated into two groups of either high-contact fathers
or low-contact fathers. High-contact father was comprised of 197 fathers who lived with the
child or averaged more than weekly physical contact with their child. 79 fathers were put into the
low-contact category and that category was defined as fathers who had less frequent contact with
their child than the high-contact group. This categorization was possible due to a 4 item
questionnaire that assessed the fathers varying degree of contact with their child (Thornberry et
al., 2009).
Participants in this study answered a self-reported questionnaire containing 32 items to
measure their levels of frequency of delinquency as well as a 6 item self-reported questionnaire

Intergenerational Delinquency

measuring the frequency of drug abuse ranging from marijuana to cocaine since the previous
interview (Thornberry et al., 2009).
The results show that children between the ages of 8-9 demonstrated higher rates of
externalizing problems if their mothers engaged in frequent delinquency and drug use during
adolescence compared to children whose mothers did not report frequent delinquency and drug
use. Children were also more likely to display higher externalizing problems if their father was
reported to be high-contact and engage in delinquency and drug use. Low-contact fathers
delinquency and drug usage had a low correlation with their childs behavior and the results were
not statistically significant (Thornberry et al., 2009).
A possible reason to explain the previous results is that parents (especially mothers), who
engaged in frequent delinquent behaviors and drug use are more likely to demonstrate poor and
less effective parenting styles. Mothers who report high levels of parental stress are also more
likely to exhibit these negative parenting traits (Thornberry et al., 2009).
To connect these results to the results of the previous study, perhaps single mothers of
incarcerated husbands are more likely to develop higher levels of stress due to economic
uncertainty due to decreased financial support and the breakdown of their spousal relationship
(Farrington & Murray, 2005). This may cause the single mothers to engage less effective
parenting styles and negatively affect the behavioral development of their children (Thornberry
et al., 2009). The mothers adolescent delinquency acts as a mediator for their childs
externalizing behavior. However if the mother engages in effective parenting it could act as a

Intergenerational Delinquency

protective factor in preventing the child from also developing these antisocial behaviors
(Thornberry et al., 2009).
Another study wanted to see whether a childs likelihood of committing crimes was
influenced not only on the number of times their father was convicted, but also the amount of
years that have passed since the last conviction (Van de Rakt et al., 2010).
Researchers used data from the 1977 Criminal Career and Life Course Study (CCLS) in
order to obtain the criminal records of over 7000 cases and evaluated the criminal rap sheets of
father and son. Since this research was conducted in the Netherlands, the children have to be at
least 12 years of age before they are included on the CCLS (Van de Rakt et al., 2010).
Along with the testing the frequency of criminal activity of fathers the length of time
separating the fathers criminal act with that of their sons, the researcher also measured the effect
of divorce and parental death on the childs antisocial behavior. As in the previous study
(Farrington & Murray, 2005), the years following a death of a father did not lead to the child
engaging in criminal behavior. However years following parental divorce did show an increase in
criminal activity and the child was more likely to be convicted of that crime (Van de Rakt et al.,
2010).
From the year of the father being convicted of a crime as well as several years later, the
child is more likely to be convicted of the crime. As the amount of years increase from the
fathers last criminal activity, the likelihood of their sons committing a crime will decrease. The
number of times the father is convicted does not predict the criminal conviction of their sons.

Intergenerational Delinquency

Therefore it is the length of time following the fathers arrest and not the cumulative criminality
that demonstrates causation for their sons later criminal behavior (Van de Rakt et al., 2010).
However it is noted that mothers who divorce from their criminal husbands may be
beneficial to the development of their child. The chances of the childs later conviction are
reduced due to not being exposed to the criminal activities of their fathers (Van de Rakt et al.,
2010). This finding is similar to that of the previous study which stated children whose fathers
were jailed before they were born did not result in that child engaging in antisocial behavior
(Farrington & Murray, 2005). The finding also shares links with the other study that showed
fathers who engaged in low-contact with their children were less likely to negatively influence
their childs behavior (Thornberry et al., 2009). I feel if the child obtains undesirable behaviors
from the contact and influence of their parents it show support for the environmental factors in
determining behavior.
Another longitudinal Dutch study measured intergenerational continuity of conviction
date of 4476 people spanning across five generations spanning from years 1882 to 2007. They
also investigated controlled for parental crimes which occurred after pregnancy and the crimes of
parents that occurred before the child was born (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009).
The results show that after the third generation the levels of delinquency were stable over
the subsequent generations. However the sample was limited due to the first and second
generations either having insufficient or incorrect data. Also because of changes in society which
occur over a century, acts or behaviors which were considered crimes 100 years ago may not be

Intergenerational Delinquency

labeled as crimes in the present day (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009). The results also showed that
having a mother who engaged in delinquent activities was a higher risk to the onset of the childs
own delinquency compared to having delinquent fathers (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009). This
finding also supports the previous study which stated mothers who were involved in delinquent
behaviors are more likely to demonstrate inadequate parental styles, which may cause their child
to show more antisocial behavior (Thornberry et al., 2009).
Also it was shown that children who had parents that committed crimes before they were
born did not show an increased disposition to become delinquent compared to children whose
parents who were convicted after the child was born (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009). The same
results were found in a previous study (Farrington & Murray, 2005).
Another study measured the intergenerational transmission of both internal and external
behaviors across 3 generations of families and controlled for gender (Capaldi et al., 2009). The
participants in this study were divided into three categories which included the first generation
(G1) which was the grandparents, the second generation (G2), and the third generation (G3).
Generation 1 and generation 2 were assessed annually in order to assess their internal and
external behaviors. The assessment tools included structured interviews, questionnaires,
telephone interviews, home observations, videotaped problem-solving interaction task, school
data taken from teacher-reported questionnaires and achievement test scores, and court records
(Capaldi et al., 2009). The results showed that the external and internal behavior of generation 2
men between the ages of 13-14 to 17-18 years old was positively associated with

Intergenerational Delinquency

10

the external and internal behaviors of their generation 1 mothers. While there was a correlation
between the external behaviors of the father and the external behaviors of his son, there was no
association between the fathers internalizing behaviors and affect it had on his sons
externalizing behaviors (Capaldi et al., 2009).
For generations 2 and 3, there was only a strong correlation between the generation 2
mothers internalizing behavior with her generation 3 sons internalizing behavior. For generation
3 girls there was a positive association between their internalized behaviors with the internalized
behaviors of their parents, however the association with the mothers internalized behaviors was
stronger compared to the internalized behaviors of the father. The fathers externalized behaviors
was also directed related to his daughters externalized behavior. The internalized behaviors of
generation 2 mothers were significantly related to the internalized behaviors of generation 3 boys
and girls (Capaldi et al., 2009).
These findings suggest that fathers may provide a buffering role or a protective factor
against the mothers internalized behaviors. If the mother and father are show signs of depression
to their children, the child will be at a higher risk of also developing the behavior. The
transmission of the internalized behavior is even more evident in a single-parent household
containing a depressed mother. However if the mother is depressed and the father is not, while
also positively supporting the family, the children are less likely to be depressed (Capaldi et al.,
2009). The results of this study can relate to the previous studies involving single mothers
having to take care of her children due to their fathers incarceration (Thornberry et al., 2009).

Intergenerational Delinquency

11

Perhaps the economic hardships and stress will cause the mother to develop depressive
symptoms, which could adversely affect the internalized behavior of their children.
A Dutch study conducted in 2009 wanted to investigate the relationship between parents
and siblings criminal history and the likelihood of that child or sibling committing a delinquent
act (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009). This is also the first study that Im discussing that controlled for
the behavior of siblings.
For this research, data was taken by the CCLS which was provided by the Netherlands
Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. This data contained the criminal records
of 4271 men and 344 women. The criminal acts of this sample ranged from simple theft such as
shoplifting and manslaughter, and all offenses had to have occurred after the age of 12
(Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009).
The results show that as the number of convictions of a sibling increases, the focal
children of the experiment had a higher chance of also being convicted of a crime. The
relationship among siblings was stronger for boys compared to girls. If a sibling committed on
average more than 5 delinquent acts, the focal boys were 72.1% more likely to be convicted at
least. Focal girls however were only 34.7% more likely to be convicted at least once if their
sibling committed 5 or more delinquent acts (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009).
If fathers were convicted only one time, the likelihood of either sibling also being
convicted was 20%. For fathers that were convicted more than one time, the chances of either
sibling being convicted increased depending on how many times the father was convicted.

Intergenerational Delinquency

12

The children were at increased risk for being convicted with each additional conviction of their
father. As with siblings, the risk is greater among boys than it is with girls, however both genders
are significantly influenced by their fathers cumulating convictions (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009).
The association between sibling conviction and the focal childs conviction was greater
than the association between both parents conviction rate and the focal childs probability of
being convicted. This strong relationship between siblings and convictions could be due to
several factors. The first is that siblings closer in age are more likely to share the same friends
and have interactions with the same peers. Another factor could be that siblings living in the
same house are also exposed to the same parents (Van de Rakt et al., 2010). I believe this
correlation is best explained by the siblings shared environment rather than genetic
predisposition.
One of the limitations of this study was that they failed to account for siblings separated
by a large age gap which would result in both being brought up in different environments. Twin
adoption studies could also be used to test whether antisocial behavior is a product of the
environment or genetics.
These findings also directly contradict the results of the previously discussed study which
stated the number of times a father is convicted does not predict the criminal convictions of their
sons. The likelihood of the child being convicted was dependent on the number of years
separating their conviction with their fathers conviction. The more time that passed since the

Intergenerational Delinquency

13

fathers initial arrest, the less likely it was for their son to also commit a crime (Van de Rakt et
al., 2010).
This next study measured the association between aggressive tendencies in adolescents
with their parents and their closest same gendered friend. This premise allowed researchers to
assess both intergenerational and intra-generational transmission of aggression. In this study,
aggression was defined as a behavior intended to hurt another person (Winstok & Perkis, 2008).
The sample consisted of 292 participants, 46.7% of which were males and 53.3% were
female. The students in this sample were selected from 12 different classes in 2 junior high and 2
high schools. The ages of the students ranged from 13 to 18 years old. Data was collected using a
self-reported questionnaire scale developed by Winstok and Enosh. The scale contained 16 items
that were comprised of hypothetical situations to assess the respondents level of aggressive
behavior. The questions included the gender of the attacker as well as scenarios involving
yelling, threatening, pushing, and punching. The responders were asked to document their
reactions to the aggressive behavior in each scenario. Along with their own interpretation of the
aggressive acts, the subjects were also asked to report the tendencies of their mother, father, and
closest same gender friend in dealing with aggression (Winstok & Perkis, 2008).
The results for boys and girls were similar. Aggressive tendencies were more predictable
between subjects and the same gendered parent and closest same gendered friend. Age did not
have a significant effect on the participants aggression score (Winstok & Perkis, 2008).

Intergenerational Delinquency

14

A limitation to this study was that participants were told to only select their closest same
gendered friend. Subjects did not have the option of choosing a close friend of the opposite
gender, nor did the study incorporate the variable of multiple adolescent friends. Junior high and
high school students can have several close friends all with varying levels of aggressive
tendencies. Banduras social cognitive theory can be used to explain correlation between close
friends and aggressive behavior. In his theory he stated that people learn from each other by
means of observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1988).
A study conducted in 2012 investigated the possible correlation between parental
supervision of their childs friends with the befriending of delinquent peers. Data from this study
was taken from the Research on Adolescent Development and Relationships (RADAR), which is
a longitudinal project conducted in the Netherlands. The sample was comprised of 283 boys and
214 girls who were in partaking in the first year of junior high. Within the 3 years that this study
was conducted, 73.2% of the adolescents had engaged in at least one delinquent behavior
(Keijers et al., 2012).
The results of this study show that contact with deviant peers was strongly correlated
with the adolescent displays of delinquency. When mothers and father prohibited their child from
certain friendships, that child was found to be more likely to befriend deviant peers. Due to the
parents strict regulation of their childs life, the adolescent may feel the need to spend more time
socializing with deviant peers because they lack the necessary level of autonomy because their
parents continue to treat them like children (Keijers et al., 2012).

Intergenerational Delinquency

15

The social cognition theory can also be used to describe this study. If adolescents are
spending the majority of their time socializing with deviant peers, those same peers may act as
models for engaging in delinquent behaviors. Due to the parents strict rules which can limit the
adolescents mental and social development (Keijers et al., 2012), the adolescent may associate
their parents ideals with negatively. Parental guidelines can be interpreted as a negative reinforce
while engaging in delinquent behaviors and being accepted by their deviant peers can be seen as
positive reinforcement to continue those behaviors (Bandura, 1988).
The final article I researched is a meta-analysis and systematic review on the association
between parenteral incarceration and the childs later antisocial behavior, drug use, mental health
problems, and school performance. In this report the childrens externalizing behavior was
measured by self-reports, arrests, convictions, or incarceration. These externalizing behaviors
could range from lying and deceit to criminal behavior. Internalizing behaviors included
disorders such as depression and anxiety (Murray et al., 2012).
The process of arresting either parent may have negative effects on children who watch
their parent get reprimanded by police. According to the article arrests are more likely to occur at
their residence in the early morning or late at night when the residents are more likely to be
home. Children who witness the arrest may feel bewildered, scared, and shocked due to the
situation (Murray et al., 2012).
Another negative affect of parental incarceration is the social stigma that is associated
with having criminal parents. Being made fun of at school because of their parents arrest may

Intergenerational Delinquency

16

cause the children to socially withdraw, hostility among peers, and rejection (Murray et al.,
2012). Attachment disruption from the parent is more likely to occur if the child already formed
a secure attachment before the arrest. This disruption of attachment may not be an issue if the
incarcerated parent was minimally involved in the childs life (Murray et al., 2012). This finding
is similar to that of the previous studies in which parental incarceration before the birth of the
child was related to less negative developmental effects such as delinquency compared to child
who were alive during the arrest (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009), & (Farrington & Murray, 2005).
The results showed that the correlation between mental health problems and parental
incarceration was very low. Drug usage of the adolescents had no association with their parents
incarceration. However there was a significant association between parental incarceration and
poor academic performance and with the childs antisocial behavior (Murray et al., 2012). These
results coincide with other previously discussed studies which found a significant correlation
between parental incarceration and adolescents externalized behavior (Farrington & Murray,
2005; Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009; Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009; Thornberry et al., 2009; Van de
Rakt et al., 2010).
After evaluating all previous studies which supported the strong association between
adolescent externalizing behaviors with that of their parents and peer friends, I believe the theory
that best describes this relationship is Banduras social cognition theory. Parents and friends of
the children may be seen as models for that childs behavior which results in mimicking of those

Intergenerational Delinquency

17

behaviors (Bandura, 1988). If the intergenerational linkage between parent and child antisocial
behavior was genetic then the previous studies should have found a strong correlation between
parental incarceration and the adolescents subsequent delinquency even when the arrest
occurred prior to their birth. It is only when the arrest occurs after the child is born when we see
the negative effects on their externalized behavior (Farrington & Murray, 2005). A similar
relationship can be found in intra-generational peer relationships. Parental figures can strongly
encourage that their child does not partake in delinquent behaviors. But if the child befriends a
deviant peer they are more likely to become deviant themselves, especially if the parents are
strict about who they want their child socializing with (Keijers et al., 2012).

Intergenerational Delinquency

18

References

Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of

Management,13(2), 275-302. doi: 10.1177/031289628801300210
Bijleveld, C. J., & Wijkman, M. (2009). Intergenerational continuity in convictions: A five
generation study.Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 19(2), 142-155. doi:
10.1002/cbm.714
Farrington , D. P., & Murray, J. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys antisocial
behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 46(12), 1269-1278. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01433.x
Keijers, L., Branje, S., Hawk, S. T., Schwartz, S. J., Frijins, T., Koot, H. M., van Lier, P., &
Meeus, W. (2012). Forbidden friends as forbidden fruit: Parental supervision of
friendships, contact with deviant peers, and adolescent delinquency. Child
Development, 83(2), 651-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01701.x
Kim, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Owen, L. D., & Kerr, D. C. (2009). Intergenerational
transmission of internalising and externalising behaviours across three generations:
Gender-specific pathways.Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 19(2), 125-141.
Murray, J. (2012). Children's antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational
performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin , 138(2), p.175-210. doi: 10.1037/a0026407
Nieuwbeerta, P., Van de Rakt, M., & Apel, R. (2009). Association of criminal convictions
between family members: Effects of siblings, fathers and mothers .Criminal Behaviour &
Mental Health, 19(2), 94-108. doi: 10.1002/cbm.715
Thornberry, T. P., Adrienne, F. G., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2009). Intergenerational linkages in
antisocial behaviour. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health,19(2), 80-93. doi:
10.1002/cbm.709
Van de Rakt, M., Ruiter, S., De Graaf, N., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). When does the apple fall
from the tree? static versus dynamic theories predicting intergenerational transmission of
convictions.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(3), 371-389. doi: 10.1007/s10940009-9089-3
Winstok, Z., & Perkis, E. (2008). Inter- and intragenerational transmission of aggressive
tendencies among adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1(2), 153-162.
doi: 10.1080/19361520802084111