The Mediating Role of Street Code Attitudes on the Self-Control and Crime Relationship

ABSTRACT

Research has demonstrated strong but independent attention to the role of self-control and street code attitudes in predicting criminal and violent behavior. Yet, there are good theoretical notions to believe that street code attitudes may be a salient mechanism in the self-control–offending relationship. Specifically, the present study investigates: (1) the extent to which self-control predicts adopting street code attitudes and (2) whether street code attitudes mediate the effect of self-control on criminal behavior. Using data collected from a multisite sample of over 900 young adults, we assess this mediation hypothesis for three distinct types of criminal activity: violent, property, and drug use. Our results reveal that individuals with lower self-control are more likely to adopt street code attitudes, that self-control is related to all three forms of offending, and that street code attitudes fully mediate the effect of self-control on violence, partially on property crime, but not in the case of drug use. Findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Notes

¹ According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), self-control is developed by proper parental rearing practices, which include (1) monitoring the child’s behavior, (2) recognizing deviant behavior, and (3) punishing deviant behavior when it occurs (p.97). In contrast, low self-control is a result of ineffective/poor parental rearing practices. Consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s assertions, prior research suggests that parenting affects self-control (Cullen et al. 2008; Hay 2001; Unnever, Cullen, and Pratt 2003). However, scholars recognize that other factors (e.g., genetics, neighborhood conditions, and additional parenting elements) are also important in establishing self-control (Hay 2001; Pratt, Turner, and Piquero 2004; Wright and Beaver 2005).

² Henson, Swartz, and Reyns (2016) altered Stewart and Simons (2006, 2010)) original street code measures to fit specifically within an “online” context. For example, Stewart and Simons’ street code construct included items such as “People tend to respect a person who is tough and aggressive” and “It is important to show others that you cannot be intimidated,” whereas Henson and colleagues’ modified scale included statements such as “Appearing tough or aggressive is a good way to keep others from messing with you online” and “If I appear tough online, people will be more likely to respect me offline.”

³ The Midwest sample = 42.2% majors (57.8% nonmajors), Northeast sample = 45.1% majors (54.9% nonmajors), and the South sample = 61.7% majors (38.3% nonmajors).

⁴ A comparison of results using the dichotomous measure versus the variety measures with property crime and drug use produced substantively similar results.

⁵ Some readers may be interested in the overlap between self-control and street code attitudes. To investigate this claim, a factor analysis was performed. The results illustrated that self-control items and street code items loaded on two distinct factors, each with an eigenvalue exceeding the normal cutoff of 1.0. Thus, it provides support that self-control and street code attitudes are distinct constructs.

⁶ Equation for assessing significant reduction when using a single mediator: Z = .

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jonathan Intravia

JONATHAN INTRAVIA is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Ball State University. He received his PhD from the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. His research interests include neighborhoods and crime, juvenile delinquency, violence, police–citizen relations, and contextual effects.

Benjamin R Gibbs

BENJAMIN R. GIBBS is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Ball State University. His research interests primarily focus on sex offenders and community-based corrections, including drug courts and parole performance.

Kevin T Wolff

KEVIN T. WOLFF is an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty as well as the chief methodologist at the Research and Evaluation Center. He earned his PhD from the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. His research interests include the spatial patterning of crime, juvenile justice, criminological theory, and quantitative methods.

Rocio Paez

ROCIO PAEZ is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Ball State University. Her current research interests include the relationship between neighborhood social organization and crime, juvenile justice, and life-course criminology.

Allison Bernheimer

ALLIE BERNHEIMER is a criminal justice doctoral student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She earned master’s stor from Teachers College, Columbia University in Neuroscience and Education“ to ”She earned her masters from Teachers College, Columbia University in Neuroscience and Education.

Alex R Piquero

ALEX R. PIQUERO is Ashbel Smith professor of Criminology and associate dean for Graduate Programs in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas; adjunct professor at the Key Center for Ethics, Law, Justice, and Governance, Griffith University Australia; and faculty affiliate with the Center for Violence and Injury Prevention, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis. He has received several research, teaching, and mentoring awards and is a fellow of both the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. In 2014, he received the University of Texas System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award.