Criminal Justice and Behavior OnlineFirst, published on October 28, 2008 as doi:10.

1177/0093854808325967

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL DEFICITS, LOW

SELF-CONTROL, AND DELINQUENT
INVOLVEMENT
Toward a Biosocial Explanation of Delinquency

MARIE RATCHFORD
KEVIN M. BEAVER
Florida State University

There is growing interest in identifying the factors that contribute to variation in self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
maintain that levels of self-control are determined solely through socialization processes, especially those that occur in the
family. Another body of research, however, suggests that biological factors are also important to the development of self-
control. The authors draw from these two lines of inquiry and examine the biosocial underpinnings to low self-control.
Analyses of data from the National Survey of Children reveal that levels of self-control are the result of a complex arrange-
ment of biological and social factors. Measures of neuropsychological deficits, birth complications, low birth weight, harsh
parental punishment, family rules, and neighborhood disadvantage all have significant direct or indirect effects on levels of
self-control. Additional analyses reveal significant associations between low self-control and delinquent involvement.

Keywords: biosocial; delinquency; low self-control; neuropsychological deficits

I n their highly influential book, A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) set forth a parsimonious theory of crime positing that low self-control is the cause
of crime, delinquency, and analogous behaviors. A wealth of empirical research has tested
this proposition, and the results have been strikingly consistent. The relationship between
low self-control and antisocial behaviors, for example, has been empirically supported for
both males and females (Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Gibbs, Giever,
& Martin, 1998; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999), for Whites and non-Whites (Grasmick,
Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Longshore, 1998; Longshore, Turner, & Stein, 1996) and
for adolescents and adults (Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999). These
findings, along with those of a recent meta-analysis (Pratt & Cullen, 2000), have provided
strong empirical support for the general theory. As a result, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
theory is currently one of the most widely supported perspectives in criminology.
The robust association between self-control and antisocial behaviors has piqued interest
in the factors that might be associated with the development of self-control. According to
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), parental socialization techniques, and to a lesser extent
other nonfamilial social institutions, are the main contributors to the development of self-
control. Empirical research has revealed some support linking social factors to the emer-
gence of self-control (Pratt, Turner, & Piquero, 2004; Turner, Piquero, & Pratt, 2005). Even
so, there is a growing body of research suggesting that biological factors are also implicated
in the etiology of self-control (Wright & Beaver, 2005). We build off the extant literature

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX XXX-XXX

DOI: 10.1177/0093854808325967
© International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1
2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

and examine two intertwined issues salient to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory. First, we
examine the biosocial correlates to self-control. Second, we add to the existing research and
estimate the effects that multiple measures of low self-control have on adolescent delin-
quent involvement. To address these questions, data from the National Survey of Children
(NSC) are analyzed.

THE ORIGINS OF SELF-CONTROL

Two general perspectives have been used to explain the development of self-control.
According to the first perspective, social factors, including parents, neighborhoods,
schools, and peers, are responsible for causing variation in individual levels of self-control.
The second perspective, which is rooted in the behavioral genetic and developmental psy-
chological research, contends that although social factors are important to the emergence
of self-control, other nonsocial factors are important as well. This line of inquiry under-
scores the contributions of biological and genetic factors to the development of self-
control. We discuss the research bearing on each of these perspectives.

The Social Origins to Low Self-Control

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) noted that self-control develops early in the life course,
by the ages of 8 to 10, and remains relatively stable thereafter (Beaver & Wright, 2007;
Turner & Piquero, 2002). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, the development of self-
control hinges on three parental management techniques. The first parental management
technique involves parental monitoring. Parents who closely monitor and watch their
children are in position to recognize their child’s antisocial behaviors. Thus, the second
parental management technique is recognizing the child’s misbehavior. Parents who are
unable to recognize their child’s antisocial behaviors are likely to allow such behavior to
persist without consequence. The third parental management technique is consistent pun-
ishment of the child’s antisocial behaviors. By exerting firm, consistent discipline in
response to deviant behaviors, parents should be able to prevent these behaviors from
occurring again. Collectively, these three parental management techniques are responsible
for inculcating high levels of self-control in children.
A growing body of empirical research has examined the merit of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s (1990) parental management thesis. Studies have provided some evidence indi-
cating that levels of self-control are partially shaped by parental socialization techniques
(Cullen, Unnever, Wright, & Beaver, 2008). For example, measures of parental supervision,
parental warmth and attachment, fair discipline, and child autonomy have been linked to
the development of self-control (Pratt et al., 2004; Unnever, Cullen, & Pratt, 2003). It
should be pointed out, however, that these studies have found that only a small percentage
of variation in low self-control is explained by parenting measures (Wright & Beaver,
2005), suggesting that other factors beyond parental socialization are also important.
Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that parents were the main incubators
of self-control, they also left open the possibility that other social factors could mold self-
control. They noted, for example, that the school environment might be a critical arena that
is able to instill self-control in children. Turner et al. (2005) examined this possibility using
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Analysis of these data indicated that
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 3

a measure of school socialization had a significant main effect on self-control. Moreover,

the school socialization variable interacted with a neighborhood socialization scale and
with a family socialization variable to predict a significant amount of variation in levels of
self-control. The effect of the school environment on the development of self-control was
also examined by Beaver, Wright, and Maume (2008). Analyzing data drawn from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class 1998-1999 (ECLS-K), Beaver
and his colleagues found that measures of school classroom characteristics were associated
with the development of self-control in a sample of young children.
In addition to schools, neighborhoods are an important contributor to the development
of self-control. Pratt et al. (2004) analyzed the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to
examine the relationship between self-control and adverse neighborhood conditions. Their
analysis revealed that children residing in neighborhoods with higher levels of informal
social control were rated as having higher self-control levels. Taken together, the findings
from these empirical studies indicate that parental, school, and neighborhood factors are
important to the development of self-control.

The Biosocial Origins of Low Self-Control

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that levels of self-control are scripted entirely by
social factors and, at the same time, they adamantly denied the possibility that self-control is
influenced by biological and genetic factors. Despite their rejection of biogenetic factors in
the etiology of self-control, there is a small but rapidly growing pool of empirical research
revealing that levels of self-control are partially attributable to genetic and biological factors
(Beaver & Wright, 2005; Beaver, Wright, & DeLisi, 2007; DeLisi, 2005). In general, there
are at least three main groups of biosocial variables that might affect levels of self-control.1
First, there is growing recognition that levels of self-control are determined, at least in
part, by neuropsychological functioning. According to this line of reasoning, self-control is
housed in the prefrontal cortex of the brain (Beaver et al., 2007; Knoch & Fehr, 2007;
Wikström & Treiber, 2007). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher order functions,
such as behavioral regulation, impulse control, and judgment (Beaver et al., 2007;
Goldberg, 2001; Wikström & Treiber, 2007)—all of which are highly interrelated with self-
control. Thus, it is likely that self-control is just one of the many functions performed by
the prefrontal cortex. If this line of reasoning is correct, then it is not surprising that neu-
ropsychological deficits—deficits that can adversely affect the prefrontal cortex—may con-
tribute to low levels of self-control (Beaver et al., 2007; Cauffman, Steinberg, & Piquero,
2005; DeLisi, Conis, & Beaver, 2008; Wikström & Treiber, 2007).
Initial evidence linking neuropsychological deficits to levels of self-control comes from
a recent study conducted by Beaver et al. (2007), who hypothesized that children with
increased levels of neuropsychological deficits should have lower levels of self-control. To
address this issue, Beaver et al. analyzed data from the ECLS-K. The analyses revealed that
neuropsychological deficits had statistically significant effects on levels of self-control,
even after controlling for a number of social factors, such as parental socialization.
Importantly, the link between neuropsychological deficits and self-control was observed for
both males and females.
The second biosocial risk factor that might be implicated in the development of self-
control is birth complications. An impressive amount of research has revealed that birth
4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

complications are associated with a wide range of antisocial outcomes, including behav-
ioral disorders, violent offending, and nonviolent offending (Arseneault, Tremblay,
Boulerice, & Saucier, 2002; Arseneault, Tremblay, Boulerice, Seguin, & Saucier, 2000;
Buka & Earls, 1993; Hodgins, Kratzer, & McNeil, 2001; Kandel & Mednick, 1991; Olds
et al., 1998; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1999; Raine, 2002; Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999; Turner,
Hartman, & Bishop, 2007). Moreover, researchers have also found that birth complications
interact with certain environments to predict criminal behavior (Arseneault et al., 2002;
Brennan, Mednick, & Raine, 1997; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1999; Raine, 2002).
The results of these studies hint at the possibility that birth complications could also
adversely affect self-control. Only one study, however, has examined this possibility. In this
study, Beaver and Wright (2005) analyzed data from the ECLS-K to test for an association
between seven different birth complications and levels of self-control in kindergarten and
first-grade children. They hypothesized that only serious birth complications, especially
ones that result in neuropsychological deficits, would reduce levels of self-control. Analysis
of the ECLS-K data revealed that anoxia—a birth complication that starves the brain of
oxygen—was related to lower levels of self-control. The other birth complications were
unrelated to self-control. The results of this study provide tentative evidence of an associa-
tion between serious birth complications and levels of self-control.
Low birth weight is the third biosocial risk factor that might contribute to low levels of
self-control. Unfortunately, no research has ever empirically examined the possible connec-
tion between birth weight and self-control. Even so, low birth weight has been linked to a
range of adverse outcomes, including reduced cognitive skills (Taylor, Minich, Klein, &
Hack, 2004), increased rates of psychopathology (Hack et al., 2004), and increased risk for
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Mick, Biederman, Prince, Fischer, & Faraone,
2002). Against this backdrop, there is good reason to believe that low birth weight might
also be linked to low levels of self-control.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study builds on and extends prior research examining issues related to self-
control theory in three important ways. First, and consistent with much of the extant liter-
ature, we examine whether different social factors, including those found in the family and
in the neighborhood, are associated with levels of self-control. Second, we examine
whether a series of biological risk factors, such as neuropsychological deficits, have an
effect on self-control. Third, we examine whether measures of the child’s self-control,
reported by both teachers and parents, are associated with their involvement in delinquency.

METHOD

The data used for this study come from the NSC. The NSC is a longitudinal survey of
children consisting of three waves of data that span over 10 years of adolescent and young
adulthood development. In 1976, the initial wave of interviews was conducted with children
who were between the ages of 6 and 12. Children were asked questions concerning their
school experiences, family dynamics, and peer relationships. In addition, each child was
subjected to a series of standardized tests to gauge intellectual and psychological development.
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 5

Parents and teachers were interviewed to provide additional information about each child’s
behavioral patterns, ability to follow rules, and ability to get along with others. At Wave 1,
a total of 2,301 children nested within 1,741 households were included in the sample, with
African Americans oversampled (for more information about the sample, see Furstenberg,
Peterson, Nord, & Zill, 1983; Zill, Peterson, Moore, & Furstenberg, 1992).
The second round of questionnaires was administered in 1981 with a subsample of about
82% of all children who were interviewed at Wave 1 (N = 1,423). The majority of respon-
dents at Wave 2 were between 12 and 17 years old. Information about each respondent was
collected through self-reports, teacher interviews, and parental interviews. Respondents
were asked questions about their social relationships, personality traits, and behavioral pat-
terns. Teachers and parents were also asked to report on the respondent’s temperament,
conduct, and success at school.
The third and final wave of data was collected in 1987. Given that the respondents were
no longer adolescents, the questionnaires were redesigned to include questions more perti-
nent to adulthood. For example, respondents were asked about their employment history,
marital status, and lifetime involvement in crime and delinquency. Given that most of the
respondents were not students, teachers were not interviewed at Wave 3. Similarly, parents
were not asked to participate in the third wave of the sample. Because we were focused on
the correlates to low self-control and delinquency during childhood and adolescence, we
did not use data collected at Wave 3.

MEASURES

Low Self-Control

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory on low self-control is one of the most empiri-
cally tested criminological theories (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Even so, there is much debate
over the most reliable and valid way to measure self-control (Higgins, 2007; Longshore
et al., 1996; Piquero & Rosay, 1998). The most frequently used measurement strategy is
Grasmick et al.’s (1993) Self-Control Scale. The Grasmick et al. scale was not used in the
current study for two primary reasons: First, it was developed to measure self-control in
adults and is therefore not appropriate for measuring self-control in children; second, the
measures were not available in the NSC. Still, it is important to point out that the meta-
analysis by Pratt and Cullen (2000) revealed that the effect of self-control on antisocial
behavior is not contingent on the use of the Grasmick et al. scale. Even so, we were able to
construct low self-control scales by using a number of different items available in the NSC.
At Wave 1 and Wave 2, parents were asked a series of questions pertaining to their
child’s level of self-control that were used to create a Wave 1 Parental Low Self-Control
Scale and a Wave 2 Parental Low Self-Control Scale. During Wave 1 interviews, parents
were asked about their child’s behaviors, including whether their child had a temper,
whether their child had difficulty concentrating, and whether their child was restless and
fidgety. Responses to these questions were coded with a Likert-type response scale, where
1 = not at all like my child and 6 = exactly like my child. Responses to each of these items
were then summed together to form the Wave 1 parental low self-control scale (alpha =
.71). Higher scores on this scale reflected lower levels of self-control.
The Wave 2 Parental Low Self-Control Scale consisted of 11 distinct items. For
example, during Wave 2 interviews, parents were asked if their child was impulsive, if
6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

their child had a strong temper, and if their child had sudden changes of mood. Responses
to these items were then summed together, and higher scores reflected lower levels of self-
control (alpha = .84).
The NSC data thus contained a number of items reported on by the parent that tapped
the child’s level of self-control. Although parental reports are used quite commonly,
teachers tend to be more reliable and accurate appraisers of child and adolescent personal-
ity traits (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Harris, 1998). At both Wave 1 and Wave 2 interviews,
teachers were asked questions pertaining to the child’s self-control. As a result, we were
able to construct a Wave 1 Teacher Low Self-Control Scale and a Wave 2 Teacher Low Self-
Control Scale. The Wave 1 Teacher Low Self-Control Scale was composed of seven differ-
ent items. Teachers were asked questions about whether the child had trouble
concentrating, whether the child acted young or cried, and whether the child acted restless
or was fidgety. This scale was coded such that higher scores indicated lower levels of self-
control (alpha = .79).
The Wave 2 teacher reports of the Low Self-Control Scale were created by summing
responses to 10 separate questions. Specifically, teachers were asked to report if the child
cheated or told lies, if the child fought often, and if the child had a strong temper.
Responses to each of these items were summed together to form the Wave 2 Teacher Low
Self-Control Scale (alpha = .84). This scale was coded, such that higher scores reflected
lower levels of self-control.
Last, we developed a Wave 1 composite Low Self-Control Scale and a Wave 2 compos-
ite Low Self-Control Scale. Composite measures of self-control have been used by
researchers analyzing other data sets and have been found to be more reliable and valid than
using scales created from only one reporting source (Wright & Beaver, 2005). The two
composite scales were created by adding together the teacher and parent low self-control
scales (Wave 1 alpha = .78; Wave 2 alpha = .85). The composite measures thus provided
multirater, global assessments of low self-control.

Biological Risk Measures

Neuropsychological deficits. Research has revealed that neuropsychological deficits are

associated with antisocial outcomes, such as delinquent behavior and low self-control
(Beaver et al., 2007; Cauffman et al., 2005; McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006; Moffitt,
1990). Moffitt (1990, 1996) recommends using measures of verbal skills to tap neuropsy-
chological deficits, and previous research has revealed that measures of verbal abilities are
consistent predictors of antisocial behaviors (Cauffman et al., 2005; McGloin et al., 2006;
Moffitt, 1990; Piquero & White, 2003; Raine et al., 2005). Consistent with this line of
research, we used scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised (PPVT-R) to
measure neuropsychological deficits. At Wave 1, each respondent was administered the
PPVT-R, and we reverse-coded the scores so that higher values indicated more neuropsy-
chological deficits.

Birth complications. Birth complications have been found to be associated with a wide
range of maladaptive outcomes (Beaver & Wright, 2005; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1999). To
examine whether birth complications are associated with levels of self-control, we included
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 7

a dichotomous birth complications variable. At Wave 1, parents were asked to indicate

whether their child was affected by any birth complications. If the parent responded affir-
matively, then the child was assigned a score of 1; otherwise, the child was coded with a 0.

Low birth weight. Low birth weight is a risk factor for a range of maladaptive outcomes,
including diminished cognitive capabilities, delinquent involvement, and criminal behav-
iors (Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999). To estimate the effect of birth weight on self-control, a low
birth weight variable was included in the analyses. At Wave 1 interviews, parents were
asked to report the birth weight of their child. In line with prior research (McGloin et al.,
2006; Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999), the birth weight variable was dichotomized, where 0 =
greater than 5.5 pounds and 1 = less than or equal to 5.5 pounds.

Socialization Measures

Family rules. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that parents who fail to supervise
their children will, on average, raise offspring with diminished levels of self-control.
The NSC data do not contain direct measures of parental supervision, but the data do
include questions that tap family rules. Presumably, parents who use more family rules
monitor their children more closely. To examine the effect that family rules have on the
development of self-control, a seven-item family rules index was created. At Wave 1,
children were asked whether their mother allowed them to watch television whenever they
wanted, whether their mother allowed them to eat whatever they wanted, and whether their
mother had any rules governing their bedtime. The responses to these questions were coded
dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes). The items were then summed together to form the Wave
1 Family Rules Index, where higher scores indicated more family rules. This Family Rules
Index is similar to ones used by previous researchers analyzing NSC data (Agnew, Brezina,
Wright, & Cullen, 2002; Hay, Fortson, Hollist, Altheimer, & Schaible, 2006).2

Parental punishment. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), children with low
self-control tend to have parents who are inconsistent disciplinarians and who are physi-
cally abusive. As a result, and similar to prior research (Hay et al., 2006), a four-item
Parental Punishment Index was constructed. At Wave 1, each respondent was asked ques-
tions concerning parental punishment. For example, the children were asked whether their
mothers spanked them and whether their mothers told them that she did not love them. The
responses given by the children were coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes). All of the
items were then added together to form the Parental Punishment Index.

Neighborhood disadvantage. Low-income, high-crime neighborhoods are associated

with increased levels of adolescent delinquent involvement and lower levels of self-control
(Pratt et al., 2004; Sampson, 1986; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). In line with pre-
vious research examining the development of self-control (Pratt et al., 2004; Wright &
Beaver, 2005), we included an eight-item measure of neighborhood disadvantage. At Wave
1, parents were asked a series of questions concerning noise, odors, trash or litter, and crime
in their neighborhood. Items were coded so that higher scores indicated greater levels of
neighborhood disadvantage (alpha = .69).
8 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Delinquent Involvement

Wave 2 Delinquency Scale. During Wave 2 interviews, each respondent was asked 10
questions about his or her involvement in delinquency and other forms of misconduct.
Specifically, the youth was asked the number of times in the past year he or she had stayed
out past curfew, had physically hurt someone, and had stolen something from a store. For
each question, responses were coded from 0 = never to 4 = four or more times. The
responses to these items were summed together to form the Wave 2 Delinquency Scale
(alpha = .71).

CONTROL VARIABLES

To help control for model misspecification, we included three control variables in all of
the analyses. Specifically, race (0 = White, 1 = non-White) and gender (0 = female, 1 =
male) were included as dichotomous dummy variables, and age was included as a contin-
uous variable measured in years.

ANALYSIS

The analysis for this study proceeded in three interrelated steps. First, we estimated a
series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models using the Wave 1 low self-control
scales and the Wave 2 low self-control scales as dependent variables and the biological and
socialization measures as predictor variables. These models added to the extant research
that investigates the underpinnings to the development of self-control. Second, we calcu-
lated OLS models where the neuropsychological deficits measure was the dependent vari-
able. As noted above, neuropsychological deficits have been found to be related to an array
of antisocial behaviors, including self-control, but relatively little criminological research
has examined the contributors to neuropsychological deficits. Third, the last set of OLS
models used the wave 2 delinquency scale as the outcome measure using the biological
variables, socialization variables, and low self-control scales as predictor measures.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the results of the OLS regression models using the parent, teacher, and
composite measures of low self-control as dependent variables. As can be seen in the first
column of the table, one of the three biological risk factors, neuropsychological deficits,
emerged as a statistically significant predictor of low self-control. The effect of neuropsy-
chological deficits was positive, meaning that children with more neuropsychological
deficits also tended to have lower levels of self-control. Of the three socialization variables
that were included in the model, parental punishment and neighborhood disadvantage had
statistically significant and positive effects on self-control. In other words, as scores on the
Parental Punishment Index increased and as scores on the Neighborhood Disadvantage
Scale increased, so too did scores on the Low Self-Control Scale. Gender and race also
maintained significant associations with the Low Self-Control Scale.
The middle column in Table 1 displays the results of the models using the Wave 1
Teacher Low Self-Control Scale as the dependent variable. As can be seen, the pattern of
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 9

TABLE 1: OLS Regression Models Predicting Low Self-Control at Wave 1

Parental Reports of Teacher Reports of Composite Measure

Low Self-Control Low Self-Control of Low Self-Control

b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta

Biological risk factors

Neuropsychological deficits .11 .02 .20* .08 .02 .13* .17 .03 .18*
Birth complications .58 .37 .04 –.11 .45 –.01 .42 .66 .02
Low birth weight .44 .48 .02 –.09 .63 –.00 1.31 .94 .04
Socialization risk factors
Parental punishment .72 .20 .10* .70 .25 .09* 1.48 .37 .12*
Family rules .03 .10 .01 .07 .12 .02 .14 .19 .02
Neighborhood disadvantage .28 .08 .09* .05 .11 .01 .33 .16 .06*
Control variables
Gender 1.57 .29 .15* 2.75 .35 .23* 4.19 .53 .24*
Race –1.17 .36 –.10* 1.07 .49 .08* .44 .70 .02
Age –.14 .09 –.04 .14 .11 .04 .02 .17 .00

Note. Huber/White standard errors are presented.

*Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed.

results is very similar to the previous model. Once again, neuropsychological deficits and
parental punishment surfaced as statistically significant predictors of teacher reports of low
self-control. The effect of neighborhood disadvantage, however, dissipated from statistical
significance in this model. It was interesting that although gender and race remained statis-
tically significant, the effect of race reversed directions and, in this model, non-Whites
scored higher than Whites on the Low Self-Control Scale.
The last column in Table 1 shows the results of the OLS models predicting scores on the
composite measure of low self-control. The results are remarkably consistent with those
garnered using the Parental Low Self-Control Scale; neuropsychological deficits, parental
punishment, and neighborhood disadvantage all maintained statistically significant associ-
ations with the dependent variable. It was not surprising that males had lower levels of self-
control than females did.
The results thus far suggest that the origins of self-control are biosocial, where biological
and social factors both mold and influence levels of self-control. However, all of these
effects were estimated using cross-sectional data, thus raising concern over whether the vari-
ables were temporally ordered correctly. To take this criticism into account, the next set of
OLS regression models use the Wave 2 Low Self-Control Scales as dependent variables, but
the independent variables continue to be measured at Wave 1. Table 2 contains the results of
these models. Even when using this more conservative research design, the effects of neu-
ropsychological deficits, parental punishment, and neighborhood disadvantage all remain
statistically significant predictors of the Wave 2 Parental Low Self-Control Scale.
The middle column in Table 2 displays the results where the Teacher Low Self-Control
Scale is used as the dependent variable. In line with all of the previous models, neuropsy-
chological deficits had a positive and statistically significant effect on the dependent vari-
able. The Family Rules Index, but not the Parental Punishment Index or the Neighborhood
Disadvantage Scale, also emerged as a significant predictor. In this case, the effect of fam-
ily rules was positive, meaning that children who had more family rules actually had lower
levels of self-control.
10 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

TABLE 2: OLS Regression Models Predicting Low Self-Control at Wave 2

Parental Reports of Teacher Reports of Composite Measure

Low Self-Control Low Self-Control of Low Self-Control

b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta

Biological risk factors

Neuropsychological deficits .03 .01 .08* .11 .02 .15* .14 .03 .14*
Birth complications –.07 .30 –.01 –.12 .65 –.01 –.31 .83 –.01
Low birth weight –.13 .42 –.01 –.35 .88 –.01 –.56 1.15 –.02
Socialization risk factors
Parental punishment .98 .17 .17* .36 .35 .03 1.21 .46 .09*
Family rules .12 .08 .04 .46 .18 .08* .62 .23 .09*
Neighborhood disadvantage .32 .07 .14* .14 .13 .03 .43 .17 .08*
Control variables
Gender .80 .23 .09* 2.72 .48 .17* 3.34 .62 .17*
Race –.30 .30 –.03 .38 .61 .02 .23 .81 .01
Age –.12 .07 –.05 –.02 .15 –.00 –.18 .19 –.03

Note. Huber/White standard errors are presented.

*Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed.

The last OLS equation in Table 2 uses the composite measure of low self-control as the
dependent variable. The results of this model reveal that neuropsychological deficits and all
three socialization variables—parental punishment, family rules, and neighborhood disad-
vantage—had positive and statistically significant effects on the composite measure of low
self-control.
Given that the neuropsychological deficits measure had the most consistent effects on
low self-control, and given that neuropsychological deficits have been tied to an array of
antisocial outcomes, the next set of models examined the correlates to this measure. In
Model 1, birth complications, the three socialization risk factors, and the three control vari-
ables were introduced into the equation. Of these measures, birth complications, gender,
and race maintained a significant relationship with neuropsychological deficits. Of partic-
ular interest was that children who had suffered from birth complications had more neu-
ropsychological deficits than children born without birth complications. The second model
is identical to the first model, except that the low birth weight measure is entered into the
equation in place of the birth complications variable. As can be seen, low birth weight had
a significant positive effect on neuropsychological deficits, meaning that children who were
born with a low birth weight had more neuropsychological deficits when compared to
children born without a low birth weight. The last model in Table 3 includes both of the
biological risk factors simultaneously. Even in this model, birth complications and low
birth weight both had a significant effect on neuropsychological deficits. It should be noted,
moreover, that none of the three socialization variables was associated with low self-
control in any of the three models estimated.
The last set of multivariate models use the six different low self-control variables as well
as the biological and socialization variables, as predictors of the Wave 2 Delinquency Scale
(see Table 4). Across all of the models, none of the biological measures had an effect on
delinquency, and only one socialization variable—parental punishment—was statistically
significant in more than one equation. In line with most prior research, however, all six of
the low self-control scales had consistent effects on delinquency involvement. These effects
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 11

TABLE 3: OLS Regression Models Predicting Neuropsychological Deficits

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta

Biological risk factors

Birth complications 1.78 .61 .07* 1.66 .62 .06*
Low birth weight 2.17 .92 .06* 1.88 .94 .05*
Socialization risk factors
Parental punishment .38 .37 .03 .41 .36 .03 .39 .37 .03
Family rules .18 .18 .03 .25 .18 .04 .16 .18 .02
Neighborhood disadvantage –.18 .16 –.03 –.12 .16 –.02 –.18 .16 –.03
Control variables
Gender –2.15 .51 –.11* –2.03 .50 –.10* –2.10* .51 –.10
Race 7.44 .63 .33* 7.24 .63 .32* 7.35 .63 .33*
Age –.06 .16 –.01 –.03 .16 –.01 –.05 .16 –.01

Note. Huber/White standard errors are presented.

*Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed.

were observed using a liberal cross-sectional research design as well as a more conserva-
tive longitudinal research design.

DISCUSSION

An impressive amount of research that spans multiple disciplines has revealed that all
behaviors and personality traits are the result of a complex arrangement of environmental
and biological factors (Moffitt, 2005; Raine, 1993, 2002; Rutter, 1997; Walsh, 2002).
Unfortunately, criminological theory and research has, for the most part, focused almost
exclusively on the environment and ignored the possibility that biology plays a role in the
etiology of antisocial outcomes (Walsh & Ellis, 2004). Part of the reason that the crimino-
logical community opposes biological explanations is because they are viewed as mutually
exclusive and logically incompatible with various perspectives favored by sociologists who
have dominated the discipline. The current study showed, however, that this simply is not
the case; biological factors can supplement and add clarity to existing criminological theo-
ries. This is precisely what is meant by a biosocial approach to the study of criminal, delin-
quent, and antisocial behaviors.
We used a biosocial approach to examine the contributors to the development of self-
control. The results of the multivariate analyses revealed that a combination of biological
and socialization risk factors produced variation in levels of self-control. For example, three
socialization measures—parental punishment, family rules, and neighborhood disadvan-
tage—had statistically significant effects on some of the low self-control measures. These
findings are in line with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) parental management thesis, and
they add to existing research indicating that levels of self-control are influenced by environ-
mental factors (Cullen et al., 2008; Pratt et al., 2004; Turner et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2005).
Variations in the Low Self-Control Scale also appeared to be influenced by biological
factors. Of the three biological variables included in the analyses, only neuropsychological
deficits surfaced as a significant predictor of levels of self-control. The importance of this
effect should not be glossed over. The neuropsychological deficits measure was the only
12
TABLE 4: OLS Regression Models Predicting Delinquency at Wave 2

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta b SE Beta

Biological risk factors

Neuropsychological deficits –.01 .01 –.01 –.00 .01 –.01 –.01 .01 –.03 –.00 .01 –.00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00
Birth complications –.37 .29 –.04 –.38 .27 –.04 –.44 .27 –.04 –.24 .24 –.02 –.34 .29 –.03 –.32 .28 –.03
Low birth weight –.15 .37 –.01 –.11 .40 –.01 –.26 .40 –.02 .00 .36 .00 –.28 .37 –.02 –.25 .37 –.02
Socialization risk factors
Parental punishment .37 .15 .07* .33 .15 .06* .26 .15 .05 .23 .14 .04 .41 .15 .08* .31 .15 .06*
Family rules .05 .08 .02 .07 .09 .03 .07 .09 .02 .03 .08 .01 .04 .08 .02 .02 .08 .01
Neighborhood disadvantage .15 .06 .07* .12 .07 .05 .08 .07 .04 .11 .06 .05 .08 .06 .04 .05 .06 .02
Low self-control
Parent Wave 1 .14 .02 .18*
Teacher Wave 1 .13 .02 .20*
Composite Wave 1 .10 .01 .23*
Parent Wave 2 .26 .03 .27*
Teacher Wave 2 .12 .02 .24*
Composite Wave 2 .12 .01 .31*
Control variables
Gender 1.48 .21 .18* 1.39 .23 .18* 1.33 .23 .17* 1.48 .21 .18* 1.13 .23 .15* 1.07 .22 .14*
Race –.50 .26 –.05 –.39 .29 –.04 –.26 .29 –.03 –.59* .25 –.06 –1.03 .28 –.11* –.99* .28 –.11
Age .50 .07 .20* .51 .07 .21* .52 .07 .21* .52 .07 .20* .46 .07 .19* .48 .07 .20

Note. Huber/White standard errors are presented.

*Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed.
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 13

variable to be predictive of all six low self-control measures, and it had, in most of the
equations, the strongest effect on low self-control. This finding is in line with emerging
perspectives showing that self-control is a brain-based function and that levels of self-
control can be adversely affected by any factor that interrupts or interferes with normal
brain development (Beaver et al., 2007; Wikström & Treiber, 2007).
It could be argued that the PPVT-R is not a reliable measure of neuropsychological
deficits but is instead a component of self-control. After all, one of the dimensions of self-
control outlined by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) is the preference for physical tasks over
mental ones. If the PPVT-R is measuring this component to self-control, then we may be
committing a tautology, where our measure of neuropsychological deficits is simply an
indicator of self-control. We disagree with this criticism for two main reasons. First, the
PPVT-R is a standardized test designed to measure vocabulary; it is not a test of whether
the respondent prefers physical activities over mental ones. Some scholars, such as Moffitt
(1990, 1996), even advocate the use of tests measuring verbal skills as reliable and valid
measures of neuropsychological deficits. Second, neuroimaging research has revealed that
particular areas of the brain are highly active during tasks that demand vocabulary skills
(Restak, 2001). Given these hard, neuroscientific data linking brain functioning to vocabu-
lary skills, it is unlikely that the PPVT-R is a measure of self-control.
Also of importance were the multivariate models using the neuropsychological deficits
measure as the dependent variable. The results of these models revealed that none of the
socialization measures was associated with neuropsychological deficits. The two biologi-
cal risk factors, in contrast, did exert significant effects on neuropsychological deficits.
More specifically, respondents who were born with a low birth weight and respondents who
had had a birth complication scored significantly higher on the Neuropsychological
Deficits Scale. Recall, too, that low birth weight and birth complications failed to have sig-
nificant direct effects on low self-control. Without examining the indirect effects of these
variables, it would have appeared as though they were unrelated to levels of self-control.
Our findings thus point to the need for future researchers to examine other potential
biological and socialization variables that may have indirect effects on self-control.
Taken together, analysis of the NSC data revealed that low self-control is a biosocial
concept that is the result of both biological and social risk factors (Beaver et al., 2007;
Wright & Beaver, 2005). Criminologists who assume that levels of self-control are shaped
solely by environmental conditions are misinformed. Mounds of empirical research have
shown that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, impulsivity, risk taking, and other
behaviors that are closely akin to the concept of self-control are largely guided by biologi-
cal and genetic factors (Anderson, 2007; Barkley, 1997; Wikström & Treiber, 2007). These
factors can easily be incorporated into extant criminological theory and research. Failure to
do so leaves criminological research open to attacks of model misspecification (Harris,
1998; Wright & Beaver, 2005).
Our research also examined the relationship between low self-control and delinquent
involvement. Consistent with a wealth of research (Pratt & Cullen, 2000), all six low self-
control scales were associated with variation in the delinquency scale. The parental punish-
ment scale was a significant predictor of delinquency in five of the six models, but the
Family Rules Index and the Neighborhood Disadvantage Scale were not consistently
related to delinquency. Importantly, none of the biological variables had significant, direct
effects on delinquency. This latter finding is congruent with research suggesting that
14 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

biological risk factors do not necessarily have direct effects on behaviors but rather work
indirectly through personality characteristics, such as self-control (Unnever et al., 2003;
Wikström & Treiber, 2007). In addition, when biological factors do have direct effects on
behaviors, it is usually on serious, violent forms of delinquency, not the more common
types of minor delinquency that are captured in the Delinquency Scale we used.
The findings reported here should be viewed in light of two key limitations. First, although
the sample is large, it is not nationally representative, raising the possibility that the findings
reported here may not be generalizable to the entire population. We should note, however, that
the relationships among the variables are similar to the ones reported in other studies. For
example, the effect sizes of the Low Self-Control Scales on the Delinquency Scale are simi-
lar to those reported in Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis. Second, the measure of low
self-control was not based on Grasmick et al.’s (1993) scale or any other scale that specifi-
cally developed to measure low self-control. Even so, research has revealed that the Grasmick
et al. scale may not be as reliable and valid as once thought (DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy,
2003; Higgins, 2007; Marcus, 2004) and all types of Low Self-Control Scales—not just the
Grasmick et al. scale—appear to have similar effects on delinquent involvement (Pratt &
Cullen, 2000). Moreover, the Low Self-Control Scales were based on two different reporting
sources—parents and teachers—which ultimately provides much more reliable and valid esti-
mates of child self-control than using just parental reports (Wright & Beaver, 2005).
We close by drawing attention to the need for criminologists to include biological vari-
ables in studies seeking to unpack the etiology of antisocial outcomes. As our research has
suggested, biological explanations complement and enrich sociologically oriented crimino-
logical theories. Research that unites biology and sociology into a unified biosocial frame-
work provides new and refreshing insights into the causes of crime and delinquency
(Walsh, 2002). We hope that the results from our study stimulate future researchers to seek
out ways in which a biosocial approach can guide and inform other avenues of inquiry that
are of interest to the criminological community.

NOTES
1. It should be noted that there are other biosocial factors that may be implicated in the development of self-control, such
as maternal smoking, lead exposure, and genetic factors. For the purposes of this article, we focused only on three because
the NSC data include measures of these three constructs. Future researchers should, however, examine the ways in which
other biosocial risk factors are associated with levels of self-control.
2. The measures of family rules and parental punishment are indexes, not scales, and thus, alpha values are not presented.
Indexes are simply count measures that sum the number of times that the participant responded affirmatively. In the case of
family rules, for example, the child was asked seven different questions about his or her mother, with each measure coded
dichotomously. Just because a child responded affirmatively to a question about rules governing bedtime does not necessar-
ily mean that that response would be correlated with a response about rules governing curse or swear words. In other words,
there is no reason to suspect that the items should be intercorrelated, and there is no reason to believe that all of the items are
measuring some underlying construct. Given that alpha values are a function of interitem reliability assessed via interitem
correlations, alpha values would not be appropriate for indexes. As a result, alpha values were not calculated for the Family
Rules Index or for the Parental Punishment Index.

REFERENCES

Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general
strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43-71.
Anderson, G. S. (2007). Biological influences on criminal behavior. New York: CRC Press.
 Ratchford, Beaver / A BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATION OF DELINQUENCY 15

Arseneault, L., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Saucier, J. F. (2002). Obstetrical complications and violent delinquency:
Testing two developmental pathways. Child Development, 73, 496-508.
Arseneault, L., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Seguin, J. R., & Saucier, J. F. (2000). Minor physical anomalies and family
adversity as risk factors for violent delinquency in adolescence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 917-923.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford.
Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2005). Evaluating the effects of birth complications on low self-control in a sample of twins.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 450-471.
Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2007). The stability of low self-control from kindergarten through first grade. Journal of
Crime and Justice, 30, 63-86.
Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2007). Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1345-1361.
Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & Maume, M. O. (2008). The effect of school classroom characteristics on low self-control: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 174-181.
Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Raine, A. (1997). Biosocial interactions and violence: A focus on perinatal factors. In A.
Raine, P. A. Brennan, D. P. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 163-174). New York:
Plenum.
Buka, S., & Earls, F. (1993). Early determinants of delinquency and violence. Health Affairs, 12, 46-64.
Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123-147.
Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Olivares, K. M., & Dunaway, R. G. (1999). Age, self-control, and adults’ offending
behaviors: A research note assessing a general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 45-54.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological, and physiological correlates of seri-
ous antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology, 43, 133-175.
Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Wright, J. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2008). Parenting and self-control. In E. Goode (Ed.), Out of con-
trol: Assessing the general theory of crime (pp. 61-74). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeLisi, M., Conis, P. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2008). The importance of violent offenders to criminology. In M. DeLisi & P. J.
Conis (Eds.), Violent offenders: Theory, research, public policy, and practice (pp. 1-14). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
DeLisi, M., Hochstetler, A., & Murphy, D. S. (2003). Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale.
Justice Quarterly, 20, 241-262.
Furstenberg, F. F., Peterson, J. L., Nord, W. C., & Zill, N. (1983). The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption
and parental contact. American Sociological Review, 48, 656-668.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 40-70.
Goldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
Hack, M., Youngstrom, E. A., Carter, L., Schluchter, M., Taylor, H. G., Flannery, D., et al. (2004). Behavioral outcomes and
evidence of psychopathology among very low birth weight infants at age 20 years. Pediatrics, 114, 932-940.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.
Hay, C., Fortson, E. N., Hollist, D. R., Altheimer, I., & Schaible, L. (2006). The impact of community disadvantage on the
relationship between the family and juvenile crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 326-356.
Higgins, G. E. (2007). Examining the original Grasmick scale. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 157-178.
Hodgins, S., Kratzer, L., & McNeil, T. (2001). Obstetric complications, parenting, and risk of criminal behavior. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 58, 746-752.
Kandel, E., & Mednick, S. A. (1991). Perinatal complications predict violent offending. Criminology, 29, 519-529.
Knoch, D., & Fehr, E. (2007). Resisting the power of temptations: The right prefrontal cortex and self-control. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1104, 123-134.
LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an
explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.
Longshore, D. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general theory of crime. Social
Problems, 45, 102-113.
Longshore, D., Turner, S., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self-control in a sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology,
34, 209-228.
Marcus, B. (2004). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 63, 674-706.
McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). A life-course analysis of the criminogenic effects of maternal cigarette
smoking during pregnancy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 412-426.
16 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Mick, E., Biederman, J., Prince, J., Fischer, M., & Faraone, S. (2002). Impact of low birth weight on attention-deficit hyper-
activity disorder. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 23, 16-22.
Moffitt, T. E. (1990). The neuropsychology of juvenile delinquency: A critical review. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime
and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 99-169). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (1996). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. In P. Cordella & L. Siegel (Eds.), Readings in contemporary
criminological theory (pp. 85-106). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay
in antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533-554.
Olds, D., Pettitt, L. M., Robinson, J., Henderson, C., Eckenrade, J., Kitzman, H., et al. (1998). Reducing risks for antisocial
behavior with a program of prenatal and early childhood home visitation. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 65-83.
Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. B. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale: A comment on
Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173.
Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. (1999). The impact of pre/perinatal disturbances and disadvantaged familial environment in
predicting criminal offending. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 52-71.
Piquero, A. R., & White, N. (2003). On the relationship between cognitive abilities and life-course-persistent offending among
a sample of African Americans: A longitudinal test of Moffitt’s hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 399-409.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analy-
sis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
Pratt, T. C., Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis
of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219-243.
Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 30, 311-326.
Raine, A., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2005). Neurocognitive impairments in
boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 38-49.
Restak, R. (2001). The secret life of the brain. New York: Dana Press and Joseph Henry Press.
Rutter, M. L. (1997). Nature-nurture integration: The example of antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 52, 390-398.
Sampson, R. J. (1986). Neighborhood family structure and the risk of criminal victimization. In J. Byrne & R. J. Sampson
(Eds.), The social ecology of crime (pp. 25-46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective effi-
cacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Taylor, H. G., Minich, N. M., Klein, N., & Hack, M. (2004). Longitudinal outcomes of very low birth weight:
Neuropsychological findings. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 149-163.
Tibbetts, S. G., & Piquero, A. R. (1999). The influence of gender, low birth weight, and disadvantaged environment in pre-
dicting early onset of offending: A test of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37, 843-878.
Turner, M. G., Hartman, J. L., & Bishop, D. M. (2007). The effects of prenatal problems, family functioning, and neighbor-
hood disadvantage in predicting life-course-persistent offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1241-1261.
Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457-472.
Turner, M. G., Piquero, A. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2005). The school context as a source of self-control. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 33, 327-339.
Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 20, 471-500.
Walsh, A. (2002). Biosocial criminology: Introduction and integration. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2004). Ideology: Criminology’s Achilles’ heel? Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 27, 1-25.
Wikström, P. H., & Treiber, K. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general
theory of crime. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 237-264.
Wright, J. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test
of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169-1202.
Zill, N., Peterson, J. L., Moore, K. A., & Furstenberg. (1992). 1976-1987 National Survey of Children: Waves 1, 2, and 3
(Child Trends, Inc.). Los Altos, CA: Sociometrics Corporation, American Family Data Archive.

Marie Ratchford is a graduate student in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her
current research interests include biosocial criminology, with an emphasis on identifying the genetic correlates to criminal
behavior.

Kevin M. Beaver is an assistant professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
His research has examined the biosocial and genetic underpinnings to antisocial behavior. He is author of Biosocial
Criminology: A Primer (Kendall/Hunt, 2009).