family deviance and delinquency in china

FAMILY DEVIANCE AND DELINQUENCY IN CHINA*

LENING ZHANG STEVEN F. MESSNER

University at Albany, S.U.N.Y.

This research explores the relationship between family deviance and delinquency using survey data from Tianjin, a large city in China. We hypothesize that, similar to findings in the West, family deviance will be positively related to delinquency in China. We also hypothesize that the nature of the causal process linking these two variables will differ in certain respects from the pattern observed in Western nations, reflecting the unusually strong emphasis placed on family relations in Chinese society. The results of the analysis are mixed. Consistent with expectations, family deviance is positively related to ojjicial delinquency status, exhibiting indirect effects via family controls, moral commitments, and deviant associations, and direct effects that are likely to reflect family group pressures. We also discovered appreciable effects of friends’ deviance, which runs counter to our hypothesis that the influence of family variables will significantly diminish the importance of peer associations. In general, our analysis indicates the key role of the family in explaining delinquent behavior in China, and it illustrates the utility of cross-cultural research for assessing the generality of research findings and identifying new directions for criminological inquiry.

Criminologists have long recognized the potential role of the family in the etiology of juvenile delinquency, although the causal importance assigned to this social institution has at times been de-emphasized in comparison with such other factors as peers, the school, and social class (Bartollas, 1993:266). A growing body of work published over the past decade or so suggests that the family is once again assuming a central position in explanations of delinquent behavior (e.g., Cernkovich and Gior- dano, 1987; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Hagan, 1989; Loury, 1987; McCord, 1990; Patterson and Dishion, 1985; Sampson and Laub, 1993).

Among the characteristics of families that have been considered in studies of delinquency is that of family deviance. Previous research clearly suggests that crime and deviance tend to “run in the family.” Children whose parents have records of criminal involvement are more likely to get into trouble with the law than are those whose parents have no such

*We would like to thank Marvin D. Krohn, Allen E. Liska, and the anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 33 NUMBER 3 1995 359

ZHANG AND MESSNER

records (Farrington et al., 1975; Nagin and Farrington, 1992; Sampson and Laub, 1993; West and Farrington, 1973, 1977). Similarly, youths with delinquent siblings are at a comparatively high risk of delinquent involvement themselves (Lauritsen, 1993). Hagan recently observed that such relationships between criminality in the family and problem behaviors by other family members are “some of the most robust but least understood findings in sociological criminology . . .” (1993:465).

This analysis explores the generality of this “robust” relationship between family deviance and problem behaviors by examining the determinants of delinquency for a sample of youths in a contemporary Chinese city. China offers a strategic context for extending previous research because of the profound social and cultural differences between this nation and Western societies. In particular, the family has traditionally assumed a position of extraordinary prominence in the institutional land- scape of Chinese society. Recent developments in China have altered the nature of the family, as explained more fully below, but compared with its counterparts in the West, this institution continues to play an unusually central role in the lives of Chinese citizens.

This enhanced role of the family is likely to have somewhat paradoxical consequences. On the one hand, the family is the principal institutional locus for a highly effective form of social control, which Braithwaite has labeled “reintegrative shaming.” Reintegrative shaming represents a soci- etal response to deviance that affirms wrongdoing while encouraging the reacceptance of deviants back into society (Braithwaite, 1989:84-87). According to Braithwaite, families are usually the most effective agents of social control precisely because they are oriented toward reintegrative forms of shaming (198956). Societies in which the family is the dominant social institution, therefore, can be expected to exhibit low overall rates of crime (Braithwaite, 198957).

At the same time, the very strength of the family as a social institution means that the family environment will have a powerful impact on family members. This suggests that family deviance is likely to be an especially significant predictor of delinquency in societies with strong family systems, perhaps with effects that overwhelm and render unimportant the most powerful predictor of delinquency in Western research: the influence of delinquent peers (Akers, 1994:lW). Our analysis, then, addresses the following questions: To what extent, and in what ways, is family deviance related to delinquency in contemporary China?

DEVIANCE AND DELINQUENCY IN CHINA 361

RESEARCH CONTEXT: THE FAMILY IN CHINESE SOCIETY

Before considering the specific issue of family deviance and delinquency, it is important to describe the sociocultural setting for the research and, in particular, the role of the family in Chinese society.

The family has historically been the dominant institution in China. As Yang (19595) observes, hardly any major aspect of social life in traditional China was not “touched by the ties and influence of the family.” This tremendous influence was manifested in multiple contexts. For instance, many of the nonfamilial social relations in China were patterned after the family system and were described using the rhetoric of family relations. A good example is the traditional linkage between the family and the polity. Mencius, the greatest philosopher of the Confucian school, wrote that “the root of the empire is in the State. The root of the State is in the family” (Lang, 1946:9). This philosophy led to deliberate efforts to ground the sociopolitical order in family relationships. As Lang (19465) explains, “the family, a primary social unit of any social organization, was con- sciously cultivated in China perhaps more than in any other country in the world and achieved greater importance.’’

The language of the family also permeated other social domains in traditional China. For example, the relationship between friends was commonly thought of in terms of the ties between an elder and a younger brother. Similarly, the association between teacher and student was given the family analogy of the relation between father and son (Yang, 195954).

Another way in which the dominant position of the institution of the family was manifested in traditional China was in the authority granted to family roles. Parents had virtually complete authority over their children, and older sisters or brothers, over younger siblings (Chao, 1983:42, 62; Lang, 194624-30). These authority relations were supported by two important traditional virtues-Xiao (filial piety) for parents and Ti (love and respect for one’s elder brother) for siblings. The Xiao was proclaimed “the root of all virtue” in traditional Chinese society (Chao, 1983:71-100; Lang, 1946:lO). The famous classic, The Twenty-Four Examples of Filial Piety, contained various stories providing models of the devotion of children to parents. As a result of these strong cultural traditions, “high respect for family and parental authority” evolved as a distinguishing fea- ture of Chinese civilization (Lang, 1946:9).

The family also played a critical role in the emotional and social life in traditional China. Liang Shuming, a well-known scholar of Chinese culture and history, writes:

For the Chinese, the family is the fountainhead of his life and the

362 ZHANG AND MESSNER

place which he regards as his final repose. It is extremely difficult to stabilize life except by the tie of the family. Life usually brings more grief than joy, but the family provides the sentiments of joy. To the Chinese people, the family provides consolation and encouragement, and practically performs the function of religion (quoted in Yang, 1959:167).

The centrality of family relations to emotional and social life was quite naturally accompanied by a heavy emphasis on loyalty. Historically, “the individual’s loyalty toward family transcended all his other social obligations . . .” (Yang, 1959:166). This was reflected in a famous conversation between Confucius and his followers. When Confucius was asked, “Should the son serve as witness against the father who has stolen a sheep?”, the Master’s reply was, “The son shields the father, and the father shields the son” (Yang, 1959:176). Consistent with this basic idea, the followers of Confucius further taught that “junior relatives were for- bidden to denounce senior relatives, and a wife to accuse her husband” (Lang, 1946:55).

The family thus played a critical role in traditional China, serving as the principal institutional foundation of the social order. Not surprisingly, modernization has ushered in changes in Chinese family life, beginning at the end of the nineteenth century and continuing through the course of the present century (see Chen, 1985; Goode, 1963; Tsui, 1989; Whyte, 1990; Whyte and Parish, 1984; Yang, 1959; and Zang, 1993). Certain policies pursued by the Chinese Communist government have further contributed to the emergence of new forms of family relations. These policies include the Marriage Law of 1950, the one-child policy of 1979, and the Marriage Law of 1980 (for detailed discussions of these policies, see Chen, 1985; Engel, 1984; Grant, 1989). Among the more important consequences associated with the general process of modernization and with the specific family policies of the Chinese government are the following: an increased emphasis on conjugal relationships; lower fertility and a reduction in family size; greater equality between husbands and wives; reduced power of the aged; greater freedom in the choice of spouses, especially in urban areas; and an increase in the usual age of marriage (Chen, 1985; Tsui, 1989; Wei, 1983; Whyte and Parish, 1984; Zang, 1993). Some of these changes, especially the increased autonomy of youths in selecting marriage partners and the reduced authority of the elderly, have probably weakened the social control functions of the family when compared with the situation in traditional China.

Despite the important changes in the family system that have occurred in China over the past century, however, the continuity between the past


and the present should not be underestimated.1 Contemporary Chinese culture continues to place a stfong emphasis on “family solidarity and loyalty” (Whyte and Parish, 1984227). When there is conflict within the family, the common refrain for mediating the conflict, is, “After all, we are all family members.” This popular exhortation embodies the idea that the solution for family conflict comes from the self-sacrifice of the individual for the larger good of the family.

In addition, there are structural conditions in contemporary China that sustain a dominant position of the family. Low levels of population mobility and limited opportunities for employment and housing inhibit young people from establishing independent households. Residential mobility from one city to another or from rural areas to urban areas is controlled to a considerable degree by local police departments with registration cards. Jobs are typically assigned and arranged by the local government and are not easily changed. Housing is arranged for by work units and local gov- ernments, and rental housing open to the general public is extremely rare. The one-child family policy mandated by the Chinese government means that youths are encouraged to marry and bear their one child at a relatively advanced age. These social conditions link very closely the well- being and prospects of youths with those of their original families, thereby ensuring the high salience of the family bond (see also Chen, 1985200).

In sum, although the Chinese family system has undergone significant changes in modern times, the family still retains a position of special prominence in contemporary China, and it continues to be at the center of social life (see Curran and Cook, 1993:304). China thus provides a particularly instructive context within which to re-examine the previously observed relationship between family deviance and delinquency.

THEORY AND RESEARCH ON FAMILY DEVIANCE AND DELINQUENCY IN WESTERN

SOCIETIES A fair amount of systematic research on the role of the family in the

origins of crime and delinquency has accumulated in the West.* Loeber

1. Studies of kinship and ethnic identity among overseas Chinese in such countries as Thailand, Australia, and the United States testify to the powerful influence of traditional Chinese values and practices even among those who have left the mainland. See Poole et al. (1986) and the special issue of the Journal of Comparative Family Stud- ies, vol. 16 (1983).

2. As Hartjen and Priyadarsini (1984:iv) observe, “Most of the research on crime and delinquency phenomena has centered on North America, particularly the United States, and Western European nations.” Their research examines delinquency in the non-Western context of India. For additional examples of research on crime and delinquency across a range of nations and cultures, see Asuni et al. (1988); Cavan and Cavan


and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) provide a thorough review of studies dealing with a wide range of family factors and delinquency extending from the pioneering works in the 1930s up through the early 1980s. They organ- ize the literature around four “heuristic paradigms”: the neglect paradigm, the conflict paradigm, the disruption paradigm, and the deviant behaviors and attitudes (i.e., family deviance) paradigm (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986:31). The last of these-the deviant behaviors and attitudes paradigm-is most relevant to this analysis.

Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber report on 13 studies, encompassing 29 analyses, that fall within the deviant behaviors and attitudes paradigm. Generally, these studies show a modest positive relationship between parental deviance and delinquency. Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber also cite evidence indicating that deviant siblings contribute to delinquency to the extent that they serve as role models for conduct problems, such as substance abuse and truancy (1986:104; see also Lauritsen, 1993). Consid- ering the research on family factors and delinquency as a whole, these reviewers (1986:120) conclude that each of the four heuristic paradigms receives some support, although the socialization variables associated with the neglect paradigm (e.g., parental supervision, parent-child rejection) are more strongly related to delinquency than are familial background variables, such as family deviance and disruption.

With respect to criminological theory, two important theoretical perspectives-social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) and differential association theory (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970)-have dominated the study of juvenile delinquency in general. Each of these perspectives offers a plausible theoretical rationale for anticipating a relationship between deviance in the family and juvenile delinquency. These two perspectives have tended to direct attention to different etiological factors. As Warr (1993:247) observes, “Proponents of differential association theory . . . conventionally point to peer influences while discounting or ignoring the family, while control theorists and others concerned with the family do precisely the opposite.”

A control explanation of the family deviance-delinquency relationship has recently been advanced by Sampson and Laub (1993). They focus on inadequate parenting and “disrupted styles of child socialization” (1993:69). Specifically, “parents who commit crimes and drink excessively are likely to use harsh discipline in an inconsistent manner or to be lax in disciplining their children” (1993:69). Further, excessive alcohol use and criminal involvement on the part of parents are likely to interfere with parental attachment (1993:71). Sampson and Laub find support for these

(1968); Chard and Abbott (1973); Hazani (1989); Shelley (1981); Sofola (1983); Tanoika and Glaser (1991); and Wagatsuma and De Vos (1984).


hypotheses in their reanalysis of the classic data set compiled by the Gluecks more than a half century ago. Their findings reveal that “parental deviance of both mother and father strongly disrupts family processes of social control, which in turn increases delinquency” (1993:96).

Differential association theory also provides a rationale for anticipating a relationship between family deviance and delinquent behavior. Accord- ing to this theory, the proximate cause of delinquency is an excess of definitions favorable to delinquency relative to unfavorable definitions (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970:75). Family deviance is likely to promote such an excess of favorable definitions in several ways. First, the child may assimilate the deviant attitudes, codes, and behavior patterns of the parents directly. “He [or she] then becomes delinquent because he [or she] has learned delinquency at home” (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970212).

Second, social characteristics of the family are related to geographical characteristics. Families with deviant parents are likely to be located in communities with other deviants, both adult and young. This increases the probability that the youth will be exposed to delinquent patterns in the course of contacts with neighbors and peers and will adopt delinquent definitions as a result of these contacts (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970212).3

Finally, family deviance might have an effect on delinquency via family controls. Sutherland anticipates that parental deviance is likely to be related to family relations, as suggested in control theory. In other words, deviant parents are likely to develop weak attachments with children and to employ child-rearing techniques that create an unpleasant environment in the home. However, in contrast to control theory, these parental control variables are not expected to affect delinquency directly but rather indirectly. Weak attachments, neglect, and unhappy experiences tend to drive the child away from the home and, in so doing, enhance exposure to delinquent peers (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970212-213).

A third perspective, the group pressure perspective, identifies an additional causal process that might link family deviance with delinquency. The basic argument is that simply being in the company of deviant others can foster deviance without necessarily altering a person’s attitudes or values (Johnson et al., 1987:326; see also Warr and Stafford, 1991). This can result from processes of social sanctioning, social manipulation, and social pressure from the deviant group.

3. For research on the relationship among friends’ deviance, neighbors’ deviance, and delinquency, see Elliott et al. (1985); Hepburn (1976); Jensen (1972); Johnson (1979); Johnson et al. (1987); Matsueda (1982); Orcutt (1987); and Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz (1986).


Johnson et al. (1987:327) draw upon these three theoretical perspectives-social control, differential association, and group pressure-to for- mulate an integrated model of delinquency (see also, Elliott et al., 1985). They find in their empirical analyses that parental drug use has a strong effect on parent-derived definitions favorable to drug use but that those definitions exhibit no direct effects on adolescent drug use. Parent- derived definitions do exert a very modest indirect effect on children’s drug use via its impact on friend-derived definitions (1987:334; see also Dembo et al., 1986; Jensen and Brownfield, 1983).

To summarize, previous research in the West indicates that family deviance is positively, albeit modestly, associated with delinquency. In addition, studies that employ formal causal modeling informed by the major theoretical perspectives suggest that this relationship is primarily indirect via weakened family controls and delinquent peer influences, with the latter being especially important.

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK AND GENERAL HYPOTHESES

To guide us in an examination of the effects of family deviance on delinquency in China, we employ an analytic framework adopted from Johnson et al. (1987). This framework entails an integrated model (see Figure 1) that draws upon control theory, differential association theory, and the group pressure perspective. The model is limited to relevant variables for which empirical measures are available in the Chinese data.“

We focus on three general hypotheses about the relationship between family deviance and delinquency. The most obvious and straightforward prediction is that family deviance is positively related to delinquency. In other words, the finding widely reported in Western research that deviance tends to “run in the family” is expected to be replicated in China.

Our other two hypotheses anticipate differences in the pattern of effects of the causal variables in China when compared with those observed in the West, reflecting the unique features of the research setting described earlier. We hypothesize that there are likely to be important direct effects of family deviance on delinquency in addition to indirect effects operating via family controls, moral commitments, and peer influences. The heavy dependence of youths on the family implies that deviant parents and other

4. Figure 1 includes the variable “moral commitments,” which is often conceptu- alized as a component of “belief” in Hirschi’s bonding theory. See, for example, John- son et al. (1987). In contrast to the approach taken by Johnson et at., we depict “deviant peer associations” as being antecedent to, rather than subsequent to, “moral commitments.” The causal ordering of these variables is admittedly problematic, and it is likely that the two variables are reciprocally related.


Figure 1. An Integrated Causal Model of the Relationship Between Family Deviance and Delinquency Derived from Social Control Theory, Differential Association Theory, and the Group Pressure Perspective

Family A\h Corn itments

Far:’.. Deviance\ \ 1-2 Nei ‘ * ’

~ rids' Deviance

+ Deviance

Illy - 1 I

gnbors. + Frie

deviant family members are able to exert strong pressures on youths for compliance without regard to their personal attitudes or to the emotional ties between them. Following Johnson et al. (1987), these group pressures for deviance are represented in the integrated theoretical model (Figure 1) by the direct path between family deviance and delinquency.5

Finally, we hypothesize that peer influences on delinquency should be somewhat mitigated in China. The enhanced role of the family is likely to impede the formation of an autonomous peer subculture. Such a subculture has been shown in the West to provide “a host of delinquent models to adolescents and a much more tolerant environment when it comes to delinquency” (Warr, 1993:248). Accordingly, we expect that the variable “friends’ deviance” is not likely to exhibit especially strong effects on “delinquency” once family variables have been taken into account.

5. Direct effects of family characteristics on delinquency net of family controls and peer influences could also reflect “constitutional factors” that are transmitted genetically, although it is unlikely that such genetic transmission would vary cross-cul- turally. See Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) for a general discussion of constitutional factors and their interrelationships with socialization practices.


DATA AND METHODS The researcher interested in studying juvenile delinquency in China con-

fronts logistical problems different from those commonly encountered by his or her counterpart in the United States. Perhaps the most significant of these is the need to rely heavily on governmental assistance. It is virtually impossible to carry out research of any appreciable scope in China without the cooperation and active participation of political officials. It is necessary to get formal permission to gain entry to settings such as correctional institutions and public schools, which is the case in the United States as well. It is also highly advantageous, if not indispensable, to get cooperation from political agencies for the successful execution of the research (i.e., for recruiting participants, scheduling appointments, and assisting in the administration of surveys). This dependence on the cooperation and collaboration of political and governmental agencies carries with it an unfortunate cost: The researcher loses a certain degree of control over the project. As explained below, we had to accommodate our theoretical ide- als for research design and administration to a host of practical constraints imposed by the larger sociopolitical environment.

DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

The data for the study come from a survey conducted in Tianjin, a large city approximately 120 kilometers south of Beijing. In early 1988, one of the coauthors approached the director of the research division of the Tianjin branch of the Communist Youth League (CYL) requesting cooperation in a survey dealing with the problem of delinquency. The Chinese government was considering the enactment of new juvenile laws at the time, and hence, there was widespread interest in gaining information about delinquency. The director of the CYL research division agreed to provide assistance with the recruitment of subjects and with the administration of the survey.

The basic structure of the research design involves the selection of two distinct subsamples of youths to represent “officially delinquent” and “officially nondelinquent” youths. The delinquent subsample was taken from the three principal types of correctional institutions dealing with youthful offenders in China: reformatories, re-education through labor camps, and prisons. We proposed a quota of respondents for each of the correctional institutions and developed a questionnaire. The research director of CYL contacted officials at the institutions to recruit subjects and schedule times for the survey. The CYL research director and his staff administered the questionnaires. Respondents were assured that the questionnaires were anonymous and that their identities would not be revealed to correctional officers.


The nondelinquent subsample was drawn primarily from schools and work units. We employed a stratified, purposive sampling procedure to identify target schools and work units for the recruitment of respondents. The key stratification criteria for the selection of schools were geographical location and quality of school. In Tianjin, different districts exhibit different social characteristics, and thus geographical dispersion is important for maximizing representativeness. In addition, schools in China are commonly differentiated into three general quality levels: excellent, average, and poor. We ensured that schools were selected from districts through- out the city and from each of the three quality levels.

The stratification criterion for the selection of work units was the nature of the productive activity. Work units in China are typically classified in terms of three functional categories: heavy industry, light industry, and service functions. We created a quota for each of these types of work units. Finally, a small number of cases were selected from educational and cultural institutes and from the self-employed population, which is not encompassed by work units. Using the contacts provided by branches of the CYL, the CYL research director was able to recruit respondents from the targeted schools, work units, educational and cultural institutes, and self-employed population.

The original design called for 500 respondents in the delinquent subsample and 500 in the nondelinquent subsample. Responses were eventually obtained from 443 youths in the general population and 369 in the officially delinquent group. Missing data on selected variables further reduced the sample size for analysis, as reported along with the presenta- tion of the results.

The respondents ranged in age from 15 to 25 years. To Western researchers, the inclusion of respondents as old as 25 years of age will undoubtedly appear odd in a study of delinquency. However, persons up to age 25 in China are generally considered to be juveniles and are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system (Curran and Cook, 1993:309; see also Guo and Ma, 1986; Li, 1981). We accordingly follow the common practice in previous Chinese research on delinquency of employing an age bracket extending to older ages (the mid-twenties) to reflect common understandings and the nature of the juvenile justice system (e.g., J. Xu, 1986:19). In the statistical analyses, we consider the possibility of interaction effects for family deviance by age of respondent.

MEASUREMENT The principal dependent variable for our analysis is official delinquency

status. This variable is operationalized by a dummy variable coded 1 for those in the delinquent subsample and 0 for respondents in the general population. Once again, this approach diverges from research strategies in


the United States. Contemporary research on delinquency in the United States typically relies on self-reports of delinquency either in conjunction with or in place of official records of delinquency. At present, however, self-report methodology has not been developed or applied in China, and the validity and even the feasibility of such procedures are uncertain.

We thus use official delinquency status as an indirect indicator of level of involvement in delinquent activity. Although there is ample precedent for this approach in the Chinese research literature (Chi, 1985; Gao, 1986; Zhang et al., 1983), the obvious problem here is that the dependent variable will reflect to some unknown degree processes of social control in addition to actual delinquent involvement. We return to this issue in the concluding section of this article.

Family deviance, neighbors’ deviance, and friends’ deviance are measured by composite indexes reflecting the severity of deviant involvement by the designated kinds of significant others (family members, neighbors, and friends). The index scores range from a low of 0 (no involvement) to a high of 3 (involvement in both serious and minor forms of deviance). The procedures for constructing the deviance indexes (and other measures) are described in the appendix.

Three “family control” measures are available in the data set. The nature of parental disciplinary practices is operationalized by an ordinal measure of the “harshness” of parental discipline. The measure of “family attachment” reflects the strength of the emotional bond to the family. These two measures are roughly similar to those commonly used in delinquency research in the West.

In contrast, the final family control variable is one that has not been widely studied in Western research: the respondent’s judgment that he or she has been “spoiled” by the parents. This aspect of family life is highly relevant to contemporary concerns in China that the one-child family policy contributes to delinquency by encouraging parents to be too lenient and indulgent in their dealings with their children. A common lament in China is that, in some families, “the child is a little emperor; the parents are servants.” Since 1979, when criminology was first established in China, studies have begun to examine the relationship between “spoiling the child” and delinquency. The research is rather primitive methodologically, but the available evidence is consistent with the claim that such a relationship exists (Fei, 1984:602-603; Gu et al., 1986:91-92; Luo, 1980503-504; Xue, 1983505-509; H. Xiu, 1987:41; J. X u , 1986:96-97).

The remaining variable represented in the analytic model (Figure 1) is “moral commitments.” Our measure of this variable reflects the respondent’s belief that it is unacceptable to break the law even if a person could do so without getting caught. Finally, the following variables, which are commonly employed in delinquency research (see Sampson and Laub,


1993:69-71), are included as “general” control variables: household crowding, family disruption, family socioeconomic status (SES), age, and sex (see the appendix for details).

We use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess the determinants of measures with at least three ordinal categories and logistic regressions for dichotomous dependent variables (see Sampson and Laub, 1993). Our criterion for assessing statistical significance is that a regression coefficient be at least twice its standard error, which corresponds approximately to the conventional .05 significance level for two-tailed tests. Although our sample is nonrandom, this is a useful (and common) rule of thumb for identifying relationships that are unlikely to have been generated by chance.

The logistic regression coefficients must be interpreted cautiously because the base rate of official delinquency status is artificially high in a research design that selects roughly comparable numbers of delinquents and nondelinquents. Estimates of proportional change from logistic models are consequently somewhat misleading (Sampson and Laub, 1993:272). We focus in the logistic regression analysis on the signs of the coefficients and their magnitudes relative to standard errors ( t ratios). In OLS analyses, we also consider the relative importance of the respective predictors as reflected in standardized (Beta) coefficients. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the logistic regressions (Norusis, 199052) and R squares for the OLS regressions are reported along with the parameter estimates.

Before turning to the results, we must acknowledge important methodological limitations of the analysis. As noted, the sampling is nonrandom. We did not have access to enumerations of the relevant populations to serve as sampling frames for random selection. Our use of stratified, purposive sampling is an accommodation to this limitation. In addition, the authority to recruit specific respondents was beyond our control. Officials at the respective sites (correctional institutions, schools, work units) deter- mined who would be asked to participate. These officials did not always accede to our requests for a specified number of respondents, which resulted in fewer cases than the targeted 500 in each subsample.

There are also special difficulties associated with the construction of measures for research on delinquency in China. In the United States, survey techniques are well established, and common ways of measuring the key concepts of dominant theoretical perspectives have emerged (e.g., parental attachment, deviant associations, moral commitments). There is, in contrast, no such long-standing research tradition in China. Moreover, the profound differences between English and Chinese languages often preclude the simple, direct translation of items that have become standard ones in surveys in the United States. We have accordingly had to impro- vise in developing measures that are at least roughly analogous to those


used in delinquency studies in the United States. Finally, as explained above, only an indirect measure of delinquency-official delinquency status-is available for analysis.

We recognize that the quality of our data is suspect when assessed with reference to Western standards. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that this initial effort will demonstrate the feasibility, and the utility, of further research on delinquency in contemporary China.6

RESULTS Our most basic hypothesis is that family deviance is positively associated

with delinquency. To assess this hypothesis, we have estimated a logistic regression equation with official delinquency status as the dependent variable and the family deviance index as the independent variable. Consis- tent with expectations, the logistic regression coefficient is significantly positive (coefficient = .999; t ratio = 6.02), indicating that higher values on the family deviance index are associated with an increased likelihood of being an official delinquent.

We turn next to an examination of the nature of the causal process, beginning with an analysis of family controls and then working through the causal model in Figure 1. The results for family controls are reported in Table 1. Two equations are given for each dependent variable; the first includes family deviance and the “general” controls, while the second adds the measure of neighbors’ deviance.

The results indicate that family deviance is associated with the two measures of family controls that are similar to those employed in research in the West. Family deviance is positively related to the harshness of parental discipline and negatively related to the degree of family attachment. Both relationships are statistically significant. These findings are substantively similar to the results reported by Sampson and Laub in their analyses of “erraticharsh” discipline (1993:79) and parental attachment (1993:80). Comparisons across models with and without the indicator of neighbors’ deviance (Equations 1 and 2) reveal comparable effects for family deviance on harsh discipline and family attachment.

6. In an effort to make a rough assessment of the quality of selected measures, we have identified associations that are not relevant to the hypotheses but that seem plausible on theoretical grounds. We anticipate, for example, that SES is inversely related to crowding and to family deviance. As expected, the bivariate correlations for these variables are significantly negative. In addition, two measures of family controls in our data set are comparable to those employed in previous research by Sampson and h u b (1993): parental attachment and harsh discipline. The associations between these measures in our study are inverse and moderately strong, similar to results reported by Sampson and Laub. These findings are reassuring, and they lend credibility to the con- struct validity of our measures.


Table 1. Regressions of Family Controls on Family Deviance, General Controls, and Neighbors’ Deviance

Dependent Variables Harsh Discipline Family Attachment Spoil

Independent Variables (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) ---- Family Deviance .19 .18 -.19 -.17 .15 .09

(4.88*) (4.53*) (-4.96*) (4.26*) (1.24) (.70) Crowding -.02 -.04 -.05 -.03 -.11 -.11

(-.61) (-1.10) (-.98) (-.80) (-.74) (-.74)

(4.39*) (4.35*) (-4.16*) (-3.82*) (.07) (-.68)

(-3.44*) (-3.16*) (.85) (.03) (1.56) (1.85) Age -.09 -.09 .12 .13 .01 .01

(-2.25*) (-2.23*) (2.99*) (3.28*) (.38) (.32) Sex .15 .12 -.08 -.06 -.59 -.64

-.17 - .17 Neighbors’ Deviance - .10 -

Family Disruption .17 .17 -.16 -.15 .02 -.18

Family SES -.14 -.13 .04 .01 .06 .07

(3.76*) (3.10*) (-2.14*) (-1.38) (-3.48*) (-3.64*)

(2.38*) (4.06*) (2.34*) R2 = .135 R2 = .155 R2 = .093 R2 = .127 GFS = 621 GFS = 598 N = 610 N = 589 N = 614 N = 593 N = 621 N = 598

NOTES Standardized OLS regression coefficients are reported for Harsh Discipline and Family Attachment. Logistic regression coefficients are reported for Spoil. T ratios are given in parentheses. GFS = goodness-of-fit statistic. * p < .05.

With respect to the general control variables, several significant relationships emerge. Family disruption is positively related to the use of harsh discipline and negatively related to family attachment. Family SES is negatively related to harsh discipline, indicating that this type of disciplinary practice is more prevalent among lower SES families. Older respondents report less harsh discipline and stronger family attachment, although these effects are rather weak. Sex has significant effects on the harshness of discipline-Chinese males report greater exposure to harsh discipline than do females. Finally, contrary to expectations (see Figure l), neighbors’ deviance exhibits significant direct effects on both harsh discipline and family attachment, net of the effects of family deviance.

The last two columns in Table 1 report the logistic regression estimates for the measure of parents spoiling the child. Family deviance is not significantly associated with this dimension of family controls. Sex has a significant effect-females in China are more likely to report that their parents spoil them than are males. This is somewhat surprising given the widespread preference for male children in China. A speculative interpretation for this finding is that the gender preference for males is accompanied


by greater expectations and obligations for boys, which leads to a reduced probability of “spoiling” the child. Neighbors’ deviance also yields a significantly positive direct effect on the measure of spoiling. This is a rather strange finding for which we have no theoretical interpretation.

Table 2 reports the results for regressions with friends’ deviance serving as the dependent variable. Once again, two equations are reported. The first equation includes family deviance, neighbors’ deviance, and the general control variables. In the second equation, the family control variables are entered to permit an assessment of the mediating effects of these variables.

Table 2. Regressions of Friends’ Deviance on Hypothesized Determinants

~

Equation Independent Variable

Family Deviance

Neighbors’ Deviance

Crowding

Family Disruption

Family SES

Age

Sex

Harsh Discipline

Family Attachment

spoil

R2 N

.13

.36 (9.30*)

(3.59*)

-.09 (-2.38*)

.08 (2.28*) -.05

(-1.35) -.06

(-1.65) .17

(4.60*)

.260 594

.09 (2.36*)

.30 (7.83*) -.09

(-2.47*) .02

(.64) . . -.05

(-1.26) -.02

(-.42) .15

(4.26 * ) .12

(2.85*) -.22

(-5.25*) .ll

(2.99*) .328 575

NOTES: Standardized regression coefficients (Betas) are reported. T ratios are given in parentheses. * p < .05.

The results in Table 2 are generally consistent with expectations. Con- sidering the fully specified model first (Equation 2), family deviance exerts a modest but significantly positive effect (Beta = .09) on the level of exposure to deviant friends. Neighbors’ deviance exhibits an even stronger


influence on friend’s deviance (Beta = .30). The powerful effect of neighbors’ deviance may reflect the restricted geographical mobility in China and the resulting ties with those residing in the neighborhood. In addition, the three measures of family controls are significantly related to friends’ deviance in the theoretically expected manner. Respondents whose parents use harsh discipline (Beta = .12) and those whose parents spoil them (Beta = .11) exhibit high levels of exposure to deviant peers. Respondents who have strong family attachments, in contrast, are comparatively unlikely to associate with deviant friends (Beta = -.22). A comparison of Equations 1 and 2 reveals that an appreciable amount of the effect of family deviance on friends’ deviance is statistically interpreted by family controls. Finally, two control variables in Table 2 yield significant effects. Males have higher levels of exposure to delinquent peers, and crowding decreases delinquent peer associations.

The effects of the independent variables on moral commitments are shown in Table 3. The results in Equation 1 reveal that both family deviance and neighbors’ deviance reduce the likelihood of strong moral commitments, net of the general control variables. The effect of family deviance is rendered nonsignificant when family controls are added to the model (Equation 2). The coefficient for neighbors’ deviance is lessened but remains significant after the introduction of the family controls (Equa- tion 2), but, as shown in Equation 3, the effect of neighbors’ deviance is fully mediated when friends’ deviance is added to the model.

One of the family control variables-family attachment-retains a significant effect in the fully specified model. Respondents with strong family attachment are significantly more likely to express strong moral commitments (logistic regression coefficient = .35; t ratio = 2.05). The only other predictor with significant direct effects on moral commitments is friends’ deviance, which yields a negative coefficient (-.32; r ratio = -3.15). This finding is contrary to our initial speculation that peer effects would be relatively unimportant in China once family variables had been taken into account.

The final set of results, reported in Table 4, deals with the determinants of official delinquency status. Consistent with findings from Western research, family deviance is positively associated with the indicator of delinquency. The pattern of coefficients across Equations 1 4 reveals that some of the effect of family deviance is mediated by the intervening variables in the causal model, but as expected, family deviance retains a significant direct effect on delinquency in the fully specified model (Equation 4). This finding is consistent with our suggestion that family “group pressures” for deviance in deviant families are especially strong in Chinese society .

There are several additional, theoretically important relationships in


Table 3. Regressions of Moral Commitments on Hypothesized Determinants

Equation Independent Variable (1) (2) (3)

Family Deviance


Crowding

Family Disruption

Family SES

Age

Sex

Harsh Discipline

Family Attachment

spoil

Friends’ Deviance

GFS N

-.49 (-2.35*)

-.26 (-3.31*)

.03

-.37 (-1.26)

-.01 (-.19)

.03 (1.07)

(.21)

-.40 (-2.16*) -

596 595

-.43 (-1.87)

-.19 (-2.38*)

.03

-.20 (-.62) -.01

(-.29) .02

(.21)

(.72) -.41

(-2.08*) -.24

(- 1.85) .44

(2.68*) -.43

(-2.14*) -

573 575

-.38

-.11 (-1.24)

-.01 (-.03) -.15

(-.48) -.02

.02

-.28

(-1.64)

(-.34)

(.67)

(-1.39)

(-1.43) -.19

.35

-.36 (-1.76)

-.32 (-3.15*)

(2.05 * )

570 572

NOTES: Logistic regression coefficients are reported. T ratios are given in parentheses. GFS = goodness-of-fit statistic. * p < .05.

Table 4. Two indicators of child-rearing techniques-harsh discipline and spoiling the child-exhibit positive, direct effects on official delinquency status, affirming the importance of family controls. Similarly, the indicator of moral commitments yields significant direct effects. Respondents with strong moral commitments are less likely to be members of the delinquent subsample. In addition, friends’ deviance yields an appreciable direct effect on delinquency. This peer effect is compatible with differential association theory and with Western research but, once again, it is contrary to our prediction that peer variables will be relatively unimportant in China given the preeminent role of the family.

Three of the general control variables are also significantly related to delinquency in the fully specified model. A negative association is


Table 4. Regressions of Official Delinquency Status on Hypothesized Determinants

Independent Variable

Family Deviance


Crowding

Family Disruption

Family SES

Age

Sex

Harsh Discipline

Family Attachment

spoil

Friends’ Deviance

Moral Commitments

GFS N

(4)

.86 (3.85*)

.47

-SO (-2.94*)

.90 (2.95*) -.26

(-5.65*) -.18

(-5.48*)

(5.92*)

.48 (2.44*) -

-

-

-

-

596 602

.73 (3.06*)

.39 (4.57*) -.49

(-2.82*) .56

( 1.69) -.26

(-5.41*) -.16

(-4.56*) .47

.53 (3.87*) -.55

(-3.26*) .94

(4.18*)

(2.21*)

-

-

536 581

.66 (2.57*)

.13 (1.32) -.43

(-2.15*) .61

(1.66) -.31

(-5.63*) -.19

-.02 (-.07)

.51 (3.32*)

(-4.79*)

-.29 (-1.48)

.85

1.02 (8.62*)

(3.37*)

-

521 575

.63 (2.43*)

.14 (1.42) -.46

(-2.31*) .59

(1.56) -.33

(-5.82*) -.19

-.07 (-.27)

(-4.77*)

.48 (3.16*) -.24

(-1.18) .83

(3.20*) .99

(8.29*) -.85

(-3.20*) 523 572

NOTES: Logistic regression coefficients are reported. T ratios are given. in parentheses. GFS = goodness-of-fit statistic. * p < .05.

observed for crowding, which is amenable to the “guardianship” interpretation proposed by Sampson and Laub (1993:82) to interpret similar findings in the United States. Family SES exhibits a significantly negative association with delinquency. This inverse relationship with official delinquency status, net of a range of etiological variables, could perhaps be produced by differential processes of social control (i.e., a greater likelihood of formal punishment for lower class youths). A significant inverse relationship is also observed for age, which is consistent with the widely observed tendency for criminal activity to decline with age.

Finally, we explored the possibility that the effects of family deviance vary systematically by age of the respondent. An analysis of product


terms revealed no significant interaction between age and family deviance. We also estimated regression equations predicting official delinquency status for subsamples differentiated by age-respondents aged 18 and younger versus those over 18. The coefficient for family deviance for the younger age group was larger than that for the older group, although neither coefficient attained a level of statistical significance in these smaller subsamples.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses support several general conclusions. First, as expected, family deviance is related to official delinquency status in contemporary China. We observe a significant bivariate association between these two variables, which indicates that, in China as in the West, deviance tends to run in the family.

Second, consistent with our hypothesis, the measure of family deviance exerts a significant direct effect on delinquency in a model that includes indicators of family controls, friends’ deviance, and moral commitments. This finding, we suggest, reflects strong family group pressures in China. To the extent that this interpretation is valid, it implies that the dominance of the family as an institution in a society has paradoxical consequences for illegal behavior. On the one hand, the family contributes to low overall rates of crime due to its capacity to promote reintegrative shaming. On the other hand, deviance within the family is likely to be an especially significant predictor of delinquent involvement in a society with a dominant family system, implying that the family serves as a key vehicle for the intergenerational transmission of deviant status.

Third, our analyses reveal that the relationship between family deviance and delinquency is interpretable with reference to the dominant theoretical perspectives in Western criminology. Consistent with social control theory and research in the United States, we find that family deviance is related to styles of child-rearing and family relationships that are conducive to delinquent behavior, either directly or through associations with other predictors. We also uncover evidence of processes implied by differential association theory. Friends’ deviance is related to causally prior variables, such as family deviance, neighbors’ deviance, and family controls, in accord with the logic of differential association theory. Moreover, friends’ deviance is a significant predictor of official delinquency status.

These findings concerning the important role of friends’ deviance, while supportive of differential association theory, are contrary to our initial hypothesis that family variables would absorb much of the predictive power associated with peer variables. We reasoned that the strong role of


the family in China would inhibit the formation of autonomous peer subcultures conducive to delinquency and thus lessen the importance of peer associations. Perhaps family dominance reduces the likelihood that such subcultures will emerge in the first place, but in those comparatively infre- quent situations in which they do, the effects of contact with them are similar to those observed in the West. In any event, association with deviant peers is evidently a key predictor of delinquency status in China just as in the West (Gibbons and Krohn, 1991:147).

In addition to finding support for Western criminological theories, we also observe interesting results for a dimension of family life that has been relatively neglected in past research on delinquency in the West-the spoiling of children by parents. This aspect of parental control does not help interpret the primary relationship under consideration-the relationship between family deviance and delinquency-because it is unrelated to family deviance. However, the measure of spoiling is directly related to official delinquency status in the fully specified model, and it is related indirectly to delinquency via an association with friends’ deviance.

A possible interpretation for the direct effect of spoiling on delinquency might be formulated with reference to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory. Gottfredson and Hirschi attribute all forms of criminal behavior to low self-control, and they propose that the development of self-control depends largely on the success of parents in child-rearing. Moreover, successful child-rearing, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:98-loo), presupposes four conditions: attachment of parents to children, parental supervision, recognition of deviant behavior, and punishment of deviant acts. The first two conditions are likely to be satisfied by parents who spoil their children-they will be strongly attached to them and will be in a position to monitor their behavior. However, parents who spoil their children are unlikely to recognize improper behavior by their children and are thus unlikely to administer sanctions (see Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:99). This could lead to low self-control, thereby produc- ing a relationship between parental spoiling and delinquent behavior. In any event, our findings affirm popular concern in China over the linkage between indulgent child-rearing and delinquency, and they raise interesting possibilities for similar analyses in the United States.

Our results must, however, be interpreted cautiously given an important methodological limitation of the analysis identified earlier. We do not have self-reports of delinquency and must infer delinquent involvement on the basis of official delinquency status. While it seems reasonable to assume that, in general, official delinquents are more likely to be involved in delinquency and to be involved in more serious delinquency, placement in correctional facilities obviously can reflect factors other than actual behavior, such as labeling effects. Moreover, labeling effects are likely to


be particularly relevant to the primary independent variable under examination-family deviance.

The role of labelling in the creation of a relationship between family deviance and delinquency has been documented recently with Western data by Hagan and Palloni (1990). In their research, Hagan and Palloni identify two family-linked processes that may lead to the social reproduction of a criminal class: a “culturaYcharacterologica1” process involving child-raising conditions and practices and a “structural/imputational” process reflecting official reactions. The former process has been the focus of traditional etiological theories, while the latter has been at the heart of labelling theory. Using data from a well-known London panel study, Hagan and Palloni report evidence consistent with the predictions of labelling theory concerning the “structuralhmputational” process.

In a similar vein, a possible explanation of results from our study is that at least part of the observed relationship between family deviance and official delinquency status involves the transmission of official labelling. Such an explanation is particularly plausible within the context of Chinese society due to the central position of the family in social life, as discussed previously. Characteristics of the family are often critical considerations for assessing and evaluating a person and his or her behavior in China. Accordingly, children from “bad families” may be placed under more intensive scrutiny and thus be at high risk of official sanctioning for any given level of delinquent involvement.

Policing policies recently adopted by the Chinese government in response to perceived increases in crime and delinquency may have enhanced such labelling processes. As Dutton and Lee (1993) observe, Chinese police forces have begun to target the so-called “special population,” that is, suspects who are known to have committed crimes or to have engaged in deviant activities. The control of such “special populations” has become an important consideration in the evaluation of the per- formance of local police forces. Under this type of policing policy, the police force is likely to pay disproportionate attention to families with deviant and criminal members and to be more vigilant in policing youths who come from these families.7

In sum, the observed relationship between family deviance and official delinquency status probably reflects labelling processes as well as effects of family deviance on the youth’s actual delinquent behavior. It seems unlikely, however, that this relationship is due entirely to differential

An anonymous referee notes another distinctive kind of labelling process that might be relevant to the observed family deviance-delinquency relationship in our study. Officially sanctioned youths might be encouraged to attribute their misbehavior to dysfunctional families. In future research, it would be useful to have additional indicators of family deviance to supplement the responses from youths.

7.


social control, given that the overall pattern of results is highly consistent with etiological theories of delinquency. Future research is required to clarify the relative importance of etiological and labelling processes under- lying the relationship between family deviance and delinquency in China. In our view, research on this issue and on the determinants of delinquency in China more generally is an important topic for criminological inquiry in the years ahead.

REFERENCES Akers, Ronald L.

1994 Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury.

Family. In Mark Findlay and Uglijesa Zvekic (eds.), Informal Mecha- nisms of Crime Control: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Rome: United Nations Social Defence Research Institute.

Bartollas, Clemens Juvenile Delinquency. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.

Braithwaite, John Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Delinquency and Crime: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Philadelphia: Lip- pincott.

Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology 25:295-321.

Chinese Kinship. Boston, Mass.: Kegan Paul.

The one-child population policy, modernization, and the extended Chinese family. Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:192-202.

The investigation of juvenile delinquency in six provinces and cities of China. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

Crime in Developing Countries. New York: Wiley.

Growing fears, rising crime: Juveniles and China's justice system. Crime and Delinquency 39296315.

Dembo, Richard, Gary Grandon, Lawrence La Voie, James Schmeider, and William

Asuni, Tolani, Mohammed Al-Hamid, Ettibari Bouasla, and Abn El-Fotouh Salama 1988

1993

1989

Cavan, Ruth S. and Jordan T. Cavan 1968

Cernkovich, Stephen A. and Peggy C. Giordano

Chao, Paul

Chen, Xiangming

1987

1983

1985

Chi, Guang 1985

Clinard, Marshall B. and Daniel J. Abbott

Curran, Daniel J. and Sandra Cook 1973

1993

Burgos 1986 Parents and drugs revisited: Some further evidence in support of social

learning theory. Criminology 2485-104.

ZHANG AND MESSNER

Dutton, Michael and Lee Tianfu 1993 Missing the target? Policing strategies in the period of economic reform.

Crime and Delinquency 39:316-336. Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton

Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Engel, John W.

Marriage in the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of a new law. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:955-961.

The familial transmission of criminality. Medicine, Science and the Law

1985

1984

Farrington, David P., G. Gundy, and Donald J. West 1975

Fei, Lulu 1984

15:177-186.

The education from family is an important component of crime prevention. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

Social causes of juvenile delinquency. Chinese Education 19:&26.

Delinquent Behavior. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Free Press.

A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

The family and social control: Traditional and modern. In Ronald J. Troyer, John P. Clark, and Dean G. Rojek (eds.), Social Control in the People’s Republic of China. New York: Praeger.

Gu, Yingchuen, Mingyang Yu, Wenbang Zhang, Weiyin Zhou, Yibin Zhen, Pingyu

Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency Prevention. Beijing: Quenzhong Publication House.

Guo, Xiang and Jingmiao Ma Introduction to Chinese juvenile law and regulations. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publica- tion House.

Gao, Shuqiao

Gibbons, Don C. and Marvin D. Krohn

Goode, William Josiah

Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi

Grant, Geoffrey

1986

1991

1963

1990

1989

Tong, and Zhiqi Mo 1986

1986

Hagan, John 1989 Structural Criminology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. 1993 The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology

31 A65-491. Hagan, John and Albert0 Palloni

The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-class London, circa 1950-1 980. American Journal of Sociology %:265-299.

Delinquency in India. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

1990

Hartjen, Clayton A. and S. Priyadarsini 1984


Hazani, Moshe 1989 The Charka complex: Maturation out of delinquency in an Israeli slum.

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18:243-270.

Testing alternative models of delinquency causation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67:450-460.

Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Parents, peers and delinquent actions: A test of the differential association perspective. American Journal of Sociology 7863-72.

Parents and drugs: Specifying the consequences of attachment. Criminol-

Hepburn, John R. 1976

Hirschi, Travis

Jensen, Gary F. 1969

1972

Jensen, Gary F. and David Brownfield 1983

O ~ Y 211543-554. Johnson, Richard E.

1979 Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins. New York: Cambridge University Press.

The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology 25:323-340.

Chinese Family and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sibling resemblance in juvenile delinquency: Findings from the National Youth Survey. Criminology 31:387409.

The objective and principle of juvenile protection law in China. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice. Vol. 7. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The family as context for delinquency prevention: Demographic trends and political realities. In James Q. Wilson and Glenn C. Loury (eds.), From Children to Citizens. Vol. 111: Families, Schools, and Delinquency Prevention. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Family and juvenile delinquency. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

Testing control theory and differential association: A causal modeling approach. American Sociological Review 47:48%504.

Johnson, Richard E., Anastasios C. Marcos, and Stephen J. Bahr 1987

Lang, Olga

Lauritsen, Janet L. 1946

1993

Li, Kangtai 1981

Loeber, Rolf and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber 1986

Loury, Glenn C. 1987

Luo, Fen 1980

Matsueda, Ross L. 1982


McCord, Joan

Nagin, Daniel S. and David P. Farrington

Norusis, Marija J.

Orcutt, James D.

1990

1992

1990

1987

Crime in moral and social contexts. Criminology 28:l-26.

The onset and persistence of offending. Criminology 30501-523.

SPSS Advanced Statistics User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Differential association and marijuana use: A closer look at Sutherland (with a little help from Becker). Criminology 25:341-358.

Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology Patterson, Gerald R. and Thomas J. Dishion

1985 23:63-79.

Poole, Millicent E., George H. money, and Agens Chang Shook Cheong 1986 Adolescent perceptions of family cohesiveness, autonomy and indepen-

dence in Australia and Singapore. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 17:311-332.

Sampson, Robert J. and John H. h u b 1993 Crime in the Making: Pathways and 'hrning Points Through Life.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Crime and Modernization: The Impact of Industrialization and Urbaniza- tion on Crime. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Neighborhood and delinquency: An assessment of contextual effects. Criminology 24:667-704.

The Oneyenualagu (Godparent) in traditional and modern African communities: Implications for juvenile delinquency. Journal of Black Studies 14:21-30.

Criminology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

School uniforms, routine activities, and the social control of delinquency in Japan. Youth and Society 23:5&75.

Changes in Chinese urban family structure. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:737-747.

Heritage of Endurance: Family Patterns and Delinquency Formation in Urban Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces 72:247-264.

The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology 29:851-866.

Shelley, Louise I. 1981

Simcha-Fagan, Ora and Joseph E. Schwartz 1986

Sofola, J.A. 1983

Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey

Tanoika, Ichiro and Daniel Glaser 1970

1991

Tsui, Ming 1989

Wagatsuma, Hiroshi and George A. De Vos 1984

Warr, Mark

Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford 1993

1991


Wei, Zhangling 1983 Chinese family problems: Research and trends. Journal of Marriage and

the Family 45943-948.

Who Becomes Delinquent? London: Heinemann. The Delinquent Way of Life. London: Heinemann.

Changes in mate choice in Chengdu. In Deborah Davis and Ezra F. Vogel (eds.), Chinese Society on the Eve of Tiananmen. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Urban Life in Contemporary China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

West, Donald J. and David P. Farrington 1973 1977

1990 Whyte, Martin K.

Whyte, Martin K. and William L. Parish 1984

Wilson, James Q. and Richard J. Herrnstein 1985 Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Xiu, Hanmin 1987

Xiu, Jian 1986

Xue, Duenfang 1983

Delinquency and Its Prevention. Beijing: Quenzhong Publication House.

Juvenile Delinquency. Shanghai: Social Science Press of Shanghai.

Delinquency and a child family. In The Association of Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delinquency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

The Chinese Family in the Communist Revolution. Foreword by Talcott Parsons. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Household structure and marriage in urban China: 190-1982. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 245-44.

Yang, Ch’ing K’uin 1959

Zang, Xiaowei 1993

Zhang, Jing, Daoseng Shao, Shufeng Yang, Ruehe Yang, Hanying Zhang, and Lu Zhou 1983 Drop out and delinquency in Tianjin city. In The Association of Chinese

Juvenile Delinquency Study (eds.), Yearbook on Chinese Juvenile Delin- quency Studies, 1988. Vol. 1. Beijing: Chuenqiu Publication House.

Lening Zhang is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology, University at Albany, S.U.N.Y. His research currently focuses on the etiology of juvenile delinquency, especially on the comparative study of the causes of delinquency in China and the United States.

Steven F. Messner is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Univer- sity at Albany, S.U.N.Y. In addition to research on crime and delinquency in China, he is currently engaged in theoretical and empirical studies of the cultural and institutional determinants of serious crimes in market societies. He recently co-authored (with Richard Rosenfeld) Crime and the American Dream (Wadsworth).


APPENDIX DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF VARIABLES

DELINQUENCY A dummy variable indicating official delinquency status (0 = nondelin-

quent subsample; 1 = delinquent subsample).

FAMILY DEVIANCE A composite index based on responses to the following items: “Do any

of your family members regularly engage in excessive drinking, gambling or deviant behavior?” (Within the context of the questionnaire, “deviant behavior” refers to minor delinquent or criminal acts.) “Have any members of your family ever been punished by criminal justice agencies?” (In China, a disposition by a criminal justice agency rather than by other com- munity agencies signifies serious violations.) The response categories are “no” and “yes” for each item. Responses are combined to create an index with the following scores: 0 = neither deviant nor criminal; 1 = only deviant family members; 2 = only criminal family members; 3 = both deviant and criminal family members.

NEIGHBORS’ DEVIANCE

ence to “neighbors” substituted for “family members.” A composite index analogous to that for family deviance, but with refer-

FRIENDS’ DEVIANCE

ence to “friends” substituted for “family members.” A composite index analogous to that for family deviance, but with refer-

HARSH DISCIPLINE An ordinal measure based on responses to the following question:

“How do your parents treat you when you do something wrong?” The response categories and corresponding scores are (0) “they help me and guide me with affection”; (1) “they do not care”; and (2) “they are harsh and physically abusive.”

FAMILY ATTACHMENT An ordinal measure based on the item: “How do you feel about your

family life?” The response categories and assigned numerical scores are (0) “I often feel more emotionally stressed, more tense, and more unhappy in the home than outside”; (1) “I have ambivalent feelings about my family life”; and (2) “I often feel happy and warm in my family life.”


SPOIL A dichotomous measure based on the item: “Do your parents spoil

you?” (0 = no; 1 = yes).

MORAL COMMITMENTS A dichotomous measure based on the item: “Do you think that it is

alright to break the law if you will not get caught?” (1 = no; 0 = yes and don’t know).

HOUSEHOLD CROWDING The number of persons in the household per square meter of living

space.

FAMILY DISRUPTION A dummy variable, with scores of 0 assigned to those youths living with

both parents and 1 to those not living with both parents.

FAMILY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (SES) A composite index based on father’s occupational status, father’s educa-

tion, and mother’s education. It is computed by summing the standardized values (2 scores) for these indicators (alpha coefficient of reliability = .73).

AGE Current age of respondent measured in years.

SEX A dummy variable coded in the direction of “male.”

family deviance and delinquency in china

Documents