Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10802-011-9608-1
772
Age Effects
To what extent the link between attachment and delinquency
changes over the life course is unclear. At least two rival
hypotheses concerning the attachment-delinquency link
over time can be drawn. Static theories postulate that the
variation in criminal behavior is explained by individual
differences in latent criminal propensity, and that these
individual differences remain constant over time (Ezell and
Cohen 2005). Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001, p. 229) even
state that identification of the causes of crime at one age
may suffice to identify them at other ages as well if so,
cohort or longitudinal studies of crime are unnecessary.
Thus, according to this hypothesis the link between attachment to parents and delinquency should be similar across
late childhood, adolescence and emerging adulthood.
Dynamic developmental theories assume that change is
possible. For example, Sampson and Laubs (2005) agegraded social control theory assumes that changes in life
circumstances may generate turning points in an individuals criminal career. Thus, in contrast to static theories,
dynamic theories postulate that life circumstances are related to criminal behavior and that crime can be modified over
the life course. According to Sampson and Laub (2005),
delinquent behavior is inhibited during childhood and adolescence by bonds to the family and school. During (young)
adulthood, social ties to labor or marriage and turning points
in life can modify trajectories of criminal offending. Based
on dynamic theories, such as that of Sampson and Laub, the
Sex-differences
It was not until feminist criminologists criticized mainstream
theories for exclusively focusing on criminal behavior of
males (Daly and Chesney-Lind 1999) that scholars began to
investigate potential explanations of sex differences in delinquency, referred to as the gender gap. Feminist scholars argued for gender sensitive theories of crime (Miller and
Mullins 2009). According to control theorists, processes that
enhance or prevent delinquency are gender neutral, and the
gap in delinquency between males and females can be
explained by differences in the quality of bonds to parents
(Agnew 2009). Social ties to parents are stronger in females
than in males, which explains why females levels of delinquency are lower than those of males.
Some scholars disagree on whether sex-differences exist in
attachment relationships. According to Del Giudice (2009),
sex-differences exist in the quality of the attachment relationship, yet secure attachments are similarly often found in males
and females. In a nutshell Del Giudice states that females are
more vulnerable to develop anxious-ambivalent patterns of
attachment, while males are expected to adopt the avoidant
attachment type. As a consequence, males are more likely to
adopt competitive and aggressive traits and externalizing
problems, such as delinquency, whereas females are more
likely to develop internalized problems, such as anxiety and
depression (Del Giudice 2009). However, BakermansKranenburg et al. (2005) criticized Del Giudices model for
lack of empirical evidence. Their meta-analyses did not support the hypothesis of sex-differences in attachment.
Studies of sex-differences in the link between attachment
and delinquency are scarce and their findings are contradictory. Some studies reported stronger effects of attachment in
girls (e.g. Nye 1958), whereas others concluded that the
family bond is more important to boys. For example, it was
found that family strain (Hay 2003) and the quality of parental caregiving (Rothbaum and Weisz 1994) had stronger
effects on males than on females. Insecure attachment was
more strongly linked to externalizing behavior in samples
with boys than in samples with girls (Fearon et al. 2010). A
third group of researchers found very few sex-differences in
family related factors of delinquency (Hubbard and Pratt
773
774
Method
Sample of Studies
For the selection of studies four criteria were formulated.
First, studies in which delinquency was defined as behavior
prohibited by the law were selected. Studies that focused
exclusively on problem behavior, which we consider as
behavior that is not prohibited by the law, were not included.
Second, studies had to focus on the quality of the attachment
relationship, the bond to parents, or affectional identification, which considers both the child and the parent but not
775
776
Results
Central Tendency and Variability
The overall mean effect size for the association between
attachment and delinquency was significant (r00.18, p<
0.001, k0151), indicating that youth with poor attachment
relationships have higher levels of delinquency (see
Table 1). A homogeneity test revealed that effect sizes were
heterogeneous (Z06.0, p<0.001). Thus, although there was
a significant association between most of the parenting
variables and delinquency, this was not a consistent phenomenon. This suggests that study outcomes are likely
influenced by study characteristics and justifies the investigation of potential moderators, which we report in the next
subsections. The fail-safe number based on aggregated independent effect sizes (p00.05, k063) was 28,381. Given
that the fail-safe number exceeded the critical value 5k+10,
as suggested by Rosenthal (1991), no possible file drawer
problems were indicated (28,381>765). We also examined
possible publication bias by testing funnel plot asymmetry.
The standard normal deviate was regressed against the estimates precision. As the intercept did not significantly deviate from zero (t00.666, p00.508), there was no indication
of funnel plot asymmetry and therefore no indication of
publication bias. These findings suggest that the mean effect
size can be considered robust.
Concept of Attachment
Theoretical background of studies proved to be nonsignificant, indicating that the study results with regard to the link
between attachment and delinquency were independent
from disciplinary background (Table 1). However, studies
resulted in different effect sizes depending on which method
was used to measure attachment. Effect sizes were significantly larger for studies using parent reports (r00.25 for
parent report versus r00.16 for self-report; Z03.6, p<0.001;
Table 1) and various methods to measure attachment (r0
0.39 for parent report versus r00.16 for self-report; Z08.7,
p<0.001; Table 1) than studies using self-report methods. In
addition, if studies used a measure that included parental
control items next to attachment relationship items, the
attachment-delinquency link was significantly stronger
compared to studies that focused exclusively on the attachment relationship (r00.17 for measures without parental
control items versus r00.28 with parental control items;
Z03.2, p<0.001; Table 1).
Age
We found a trend for the moderating effect of average age of
the child at which attachment data were collected (see
Table 2 for continuous moderators). A negative association
between average age and effect size was found, indicating
that studies with younger participants showed a stronger
link between attachment and delinquency (Z 0-2.0, p <
0.05). With regard to the age of the subject at which delinquency data were collected we found a significant moderating effect. Studies that measured delinquency in younger
participants resulted in larger effect sizes than studies in
older participants (Z0-9.5, p<0.001). Thus, in general the
link between attachment and delinquency becomes weaker
as children age.
777
Moderator variables
# Studies
# ES
Mean r
Overall
Concept of Attachment
61
149
0.18
45
11
107
18
0.18
0.20
0.4
Other/ unknown
14
26
0.17
-0.5
51
126
0.16
AAI
0.12
-0.7
Parent-report
Multi-method
6
5
10
8
0.25
0.39
3.6***
8.7***
55
7
131
17
0.17
0.29
3.2***
27
22
44
35
0.21
0.19
-2.6**
38
72
0.17
-2.0*
10
18
0.22
Cross-sex
13
Methodological Moderators
Publication status
24
0.18
-2.1*
Published (RC)
Unpublished
Design
52
13
129
22
0.19
0.13
-4.5***
50
17
119
30
0.18
0.17
-0.9
0.46
53
128
0.19
11
6
16
7
0.10
0.21
12.3***
Theoretical background
Measure of attachment
Self-report (RC)
Heterogeneity
fit
6.0***
4.0***
0.04
4.3***
83.3***
4.7***
4.7*
4.0***
8.5*
Sex
Sex of parent
Mother (RC)
Father
Both or not specified
Sex of child and parent
Same sex (RC)
RC 0 reference category, #
studies 0 number of independent
studies; # ES 0 number of effect
sizes, Z 0 difference in mean r
with reference category, mean
r 0 mean effect size (r), heterogeneity 0 within class heterogeneity (Z), fit 0 difference with
model without moderators (2)
*p<0.05; **p<0.01;
***p<0.001
Cross-sectional (RC)
Longitudinal
Retrospective
Delinquency Source
Self-reported (RC)
Official record
More than one source
2.1*
30.9***
6.0***
20.3***
5.5***
5.9*
4.3***
26.7***
2.2*
-4.9***
0.6
parent and child had the same sex (r00.22 for same sex versus
r00.18 for different sex; Z0-2.1, p<0.05).
Methodological Moderators
We found that sample size was a significant moderator (Z0
-3.3, p<0.001; Table 2). Studies with smaller sample sizes
showed a larger effect size than studies with larger numbers
of subjects. We found significant differences between published and unpublished studies (r00.19 for published studies versus r00.13 for unpublished studies; Z 0-4.5, p<
0.001; Table 1), which is in accordance with previous findings with regard to publication bias (Van IJzendoorn 1998).
Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies resulted in
778
# ES
0 (SD)
1 (SD)
-0.4
148
0.182 (0.015)
-0.00005 (0.00015)
Ethnicity
120
0.184 (0.018)
-0.00075 (0.00035)
Age Attachment
Age Delinquency
146
148
0.180 (0.015)
0.179 (0.018)
-0.00700 (0.00300)
-0.01900 (0.00200)
151
0.189 (.015)
-0.00000 (0.00000)a
Methodological moderator
Sample size
2.1*
etero-geneity
4.0***
fit
1.3
5.0***
15.6***
-2.0*
-9.5***
5.5***
4.8***
1.2
88.8***
-3.3***
6.0***
11.0***
Ethnicity 0 Percentage of non-Caucasian or nonindigenous participants. Age Attachment 0 Age at attachment measurement, Age Delinquency 0
Age at delinquency measurement, # ES 0 number of effect sizes, Z 0 significance of moderator, heterogeneity 0 within class heterogeneity (Z),
fit 0 difference with model without moderators (2 )
a
-0.0000064 (0.0000019)
*p<0.05; ***p<0.001
Discussion
The present meta-analytic study summarizes and integrates
previous findings on the link between attachment and delinquency, and examines factors that could have a moderating effect on this association, including age and sex. Results
of this meta-analysis confirm previous findings in that poor
attachment to parents is associated with more delinquent
behavior. According to the criteria of Cohen (1988) for
small, moderate and large effect sizes, the strength of the
association between attachment and delinquency should be
considered small to moderate (r 00.18). This finding is
relatively similar for studies examining the association between attachment and delinquency from the perspective of
control theory and attachment theory.
Testing the potential effects of conceptual differences in
attachment among studies revealed that not the theoretical
background but the type of attachment measure moderated
study outcomes. Studies that used parent reports and combined methods to measure attachment resulted in a relatively
strong link between attachment and delinquency. This is
consistent with findings of the meta-analysis by Fearon et
al. (2010) showing that the relation between attachment and
externalizing behavior problems was moderated by the type
of attachment measure. A first explanation for this effect
could be that type of attachment measurement is confounded with age. Particular attachment measures are typically
used with subjects of specific ages, for example, behavioral
observation for infants and attachment interviews (e.g.,
AAI) and self-report questionnaires for late adolescents
779
Model 1
Model 2
(SD)
Intercept
Control variables
AAI (vs. self-report)
0.218 (0.027)
-0.054 (0.098)
8.1***
-0.6
(SD)
0.186 (0.026)
-0.115 (0.094)
Z
7.2***
-1.2
0.129 (0.029)
4.4***
0.127 (0.029)
4.4***
0.224 (0.042)
5.3***
0.109 (0.048)
2.3*
0.203 (0.047)
4.3***
-2.6**
0.191 (0.046)
- 004 (007)a
-1.1***
-4.3***
0.0
-0.077 (0.046)
-0.031 (0.037)
000 (000)a
-1.7*
-0.8
0.0
-4.4***
-4.8***
-1.6+
-0.118 (0.025)
-0.140 (0.030)
- 637 (464)a
-4.7***
-4.7***
-1.4+
-1.3+
-0.4
-0.012 (0.005)
- 046 (231)a
-2.4**
-0.2
Sample size
Published (vs. unpublished)
Longitudinal (vs. cross-sec)
- 018 (007)
-0.550 (0.049)
-0.153 (0.036)
000 (000)a
-0.115 (0.026)
-0.144 (0.030)
Ethnicity
Main effects
Age
Percentage females
Interaction
Age * Females
Heterogeneity Z
fit - 2 (10)
# ES
- 772 (476)a
-0.008 (0.006)
- 089 (231)a
- 019 (107)a
4.8***
114.3***
116
-0.2
- 114 (103) a
4.3***
135.4***
116
4.2***
-0.6
1.1
Model 1: Age 0 childs age attachment measurement; Model 2: Age 0 childs age at delinquency, Z 0 significance of moderator. fit 0 difference
with model without moderators. k 0 number of analyses, # ES 0 number of effect sizes. a 0.000 removed in table
+ p<0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
and (young) adults. We found larger effect sizes with parentreport and mixed methods, which are commonly used with
younger children, than with the AAI and self-report measures, which are used with late adolescents and (young)
adults. However, given that both age and type of attachment
measurement remained significant in the multivariate models, age cannot (entirely) explain the effect of measurement
type.
Second, some scholars have argued that the type of
attachment measure can have an effect on the study outcomes, because different attachment instrument may measure different attachment concepts (Van IJzendoorn and
Bakermans-Kranenburg 2004). Parent reports of attachment
and mixed methods had a stronger focus on the quality of
the parent-child relationship and the bond between parent
and child, but less on attachment security or internal working models of attachment. It should be noted that in particular security and internal working models of attachment are
key concepts in the theory of attachment that was originally
developed by John Bowlby. The most valid way to assess
attachment in adolescents and (young) adults is considered
to be the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Schuengel et al.
780
781
Acknowledgements We thank Marion van der Zouwen for coding
the effect sizes and study characteristics, and Ruben Fukkink, who
gave advice on statistical matters.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and the source are credited.
References
References marked with an asterisk are included
in the meta-analysis.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18
and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department
of Psychiatry.
Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28
(2), 126156.
Agnew, R. (2009). The contribution of mainstream theories to the
explanation of female delinquency. In M. A. Zahn (Ed.), The
delinquent girl. Philadelpia: Temple University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American
Psychologist, 34(10), 932937.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
Psychologist, 44(4), 709716.
*Alarid, L. F., Burton, V. S., Jr., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Gender and
crime among felony offenders: Assessing the generality of social
control and differential association theories. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 37(2), 171199.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research and clinical applications (pp. 319335). New York: The
Guilford Press.
*Allen, J. P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J.,
Jodl, K. M., et al. (2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors
of the development of social skills and delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70
(1), 5666.
*Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney,
K. B. (2005). The two faces of adolescents success with peers:
adolescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior.
Child Development, 76(3), 747760.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent
and peer attachment: relationships to well-being in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427454.
*Aseltine, R. H. (1995). A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(2), 103121.
*Barberet, R., Rechea-Alberola, C., & Montanes- Rodriguez, J.
(1994). Self-reported juvenile delinquency in Spain. In J.
Junger-Tas, G. J. Terlouw & M. W. Klein (Eds.), Delinquent
behavior among young people in the Western world. Amsterdam:
Kugler.
Bakermans Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F.
(2005). Disorganized infant attachment and preventive interventions: a review and meta-analysis. Infant Mental Health Journal,
26(3), 191216.
Bernburg, J. G., & Thorlindsson, T. (1999). Adolescent violence,
social control, and the subculture of delinquency: factors related
to violent behavior and nonviolent delinquency. Youth & Society,
30(4), 445460.
782
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2004).
Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 15231537.
*Born, M., & Gavray, C. (1994). Self-reported delinquency in Liege,
Belgium. In J. Junger-Tas, G. J. Terlouw & M. W. Klein (Eds.),
Delinquent behavior among young people in the Western world
(pp. 130-155). Amsterdan: Kugler.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home
life. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 25, 107127.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy
human development. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1990). Communication patterns, internal working models, and the intergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(3), 237252.
*Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Dunaway, G. R., Kethineni,
S. R., & Payne, G. L. (1995). The impact of parental controls on
delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 111126.
*Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Patterson, G. R., & Owen, L. D. (2003).
Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk
sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(2), 127142.
*Carswell, S. B. (2005). Pathways to delinquency: the role of parental
attachment, family socioeconomic status, and deviant peer relationships in risk behaviors and delinquency among urban AfricanAmerican middle school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(2), 769-A770-A.
*Catalano, R. F., Oxford, M. L., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., &
Haggerty, K. P. (1999). A test of the social development model to
predict problem behaviour during the elementary school period.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9(1), 3956.
*Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships
and delinquency. Criminology, 25(2), 295321.
*Chapple, C. L. (2003). Examining intergenerational violence: violent
role modeling or weak parental controls? Violence and Victims, 18
(2), 143162.
*Chapple, C. L., McQuillan, J. A., & Berdahl, T. A. (2005). Gender,
social bonds, and delinquency: A comparison of boys and girls
models. Social Science Research, 34(2), 357383.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Academic.
*Conger, R. D. (1976). Social control and social learning models of
delinquent behavior. Criminology, 14(1), 1740.
*Cook, E. T. (1996). Risk and protective factors in adolescent problem
behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington,
1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4742.
*Cota Robles, S., & Gamble, W. (2006). Parent-adolescent processes
and reduced risk for delinquency: The effect of gender for Mexican American adolescents. Youth and Society, 37(4), 375392.
*Coughlin, C., & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male delinquency. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 491501.
*Criss, M. M. (2002). How parents find out about their teenagers
activities: Validating an observational measure of monitoring as
dyadic process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (2 B),
1086. (UMI No. 3043993).
Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2003). Childrens influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1999). Feminism and criminology. In F.
T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to
present (pp. 355363). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and
attachment: a meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant
attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 571591.
783
relationships in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology,
36(5), 614626.
*Kerpelman, J. L., & Smith Adcock, S. (2005). Female adolescents
delinquent activity: the intersection of bonds to parents and reputation enhancement. Youth and Society, 37(2), 176200.
*Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you:
parents trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal
of Adolescence, 22(6), 737752.
*Kim, Y. S. (2002). The effects of individual, neighborhood, and
school characteristics on delinquency: A multi-Level crossnested analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(7), 2578-A2579-A.
*Krohn, M., & Massey, J. L. (1980). Social control and delinquent
behavior: an examination of the elements of the social bonds.
Sociological Quarterly, 21, 529543.
*Krohn, M., Stern, S. B., Thornberry, T., & Jang, S. J. (1992). The
measurement of family process variables: An examination of
adolescent and parent perception of family life and delinquent
behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 287315.
Lamb, M. E. (1982). Paternal influences on early socio-emotional
development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23,
185190.
Laundra, K. H., Kiger, G., & Bahr, S. J. (2002). A social development
model of serious delinquency: examining gender differences.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 22(4), 389407.
LeBlanc, M. (1994). Family, school, delinquency and criminality, the
predictive power of an elaborated social control theory for males.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 4(2), 101117.
*LeBlanc, M., McDuff, P., & Kaspy, N. (1998). Family and early
adolescent delinquency: a comprehensive sequential family control model. Early Child Development and Care, 142, 6391.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. H. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An
annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 29149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lundahl, B. W., Tollefson, D., Risser, H., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2008). A
meta-analysis of father involvement in parent training. Research
on Social Work Practice, 18(2), 97106.
*Luo, Q. (2000). Parenting and friend affiliation in adolescent development: A cross-cultural comparison (Doctoral dissertation,
Wayne State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1673.
Mack, K. Y., Leiber, M. J., Featherstone, R. A., & Monserud, M. A.
(2007). Reassessing the family-delinquency association: do family type, family processes, and economic factors make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 5167.
*Marcus, R. F., & Betzer, P. D. (1996). Attachment and antisocial
behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16
(2), 229248.
*Mathur, M., & Dodder, R. A. (1985). Delinquency and the attachment
bond in Hirschis Control Theory. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 13(1), 99103.
*McElhaney, K. B., Immele, A., Smith, F. D., & Allen, J. P. (2006).
Attachment organization as a moderator of the link between
friendship quality and adolescent delinquency. Attachment &
Human Development, 8(1), 3346.
Miller, J., & Mullins, C. W. (2009). Feminist theories of girls delinquency. In M. A. Zahn (Ed.), The deliquent girl. Philadelpia:
Temple University Press.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and
violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
784
Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
*Nunn, L. L. (1998). The concept of attachment and its relationship to
the extent of juvenile delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(7-B),
3946.
Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New
York: Wiley.
*Owens-Sabir, M. C. (2005). The continuum of control and selfesteem: a study of delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(4),
1507-A.
*Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects
of parenting, father absence, and affiliation with delinquent peers
on delinquent behavior among African-American male adolescents. Adolescence, 38(149), 1534.
*Peterson, D. (2002). Dont forget the women: a multi-level analysis
of individual and contextual effects on girls and boys delinquency (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social
Sciences, 63(3), 1140-A.
*Probst, D. C. (2003). Parental attachment and adolescents: religiosity
and antisocial behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(6-B).
*Rankin, J. H., & Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology, 32(4), 495515.
*Rebellon, C. J., & Van Gundy, K. (2005). Can control theory explain
the link between parental physical abuse and delinquency? A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 247274.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638641.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research
(Vol. 86). Newbury Park: Sage.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child
externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 5574.
Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Publication bias as a threat to the validity of
meta-analytic results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4,
6181.
*Ruth, G. R. (2005). Are violent siblings just violent youth? A comparison of targeted relationship violence, violence against peers,
and delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The
Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(9), 3581-A.
*Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways
and turning points through life. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
*Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family
context of delinquency: a new look at structure and process in a
classic study. Child Development, 65(2), 523540.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of
crime: Lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology.
In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life
course theories of offending (Vol. 14). Piscataway: Transaction
Publishers.
Schuengel, C., Fearon, P. R. M., & Zegers, M. A. M. (2011). Dimensions of attachment in relationships between institutionalized
adolescents and their key group carer. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Schuengel, C., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2001). Attachment in mental
health institutions: a critical review of assumptions, clinical implications, and research strategies. Attachment & Human Development, 3(3), 304323.
*Seydlitz, R. (1993). Complexity in the relationships among direct and
indirect parental controls and delinquency. Youth and Society, 24
(3), 243275.
785
*Whiteside, L. (1994). Structural equation model of adolescent
delinquency.
*Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social
control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review,
46(5), 525541.
*Williams, A. J. (2004). Risk factors for selected health-related behaviors among American Indian Adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 65 (3 B), 1602. (UMI No. 3127762).
*Wissink, I. B., Dekovic, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2006). Parenting
behavior, quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, and adolescent functioning in four ethnic groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(2), 133159.
*Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquent
behavior: do control and support matter? Criminology, 39(3), 677705.
*Zegers, M. A., Schuengel, C., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Janssens, J.
M. (2008). Attachment and problem behavior of adolescents
during residential treatment. Attachment & Human Development,
10(1), 91103.