Intergenerational transmission of criminal and violent behaviour/ Sytske Besemer.

Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree', 'Like father like son', 'Chip off the old block'. All these idioms seem to suggest that offspring resemble their parents and this also applies to criminal behaviour. This dissertation investigates mechanisms that might explain why children with criminal parents have a higher risk of committing crime. Several explanations for this intergenerational transmission have been contrasted, such as social learning (imitation of behaviour), official bias against certain families, and transmission of risk factors. Sytske Besemer investigated this in England as well as in the Netherlands.She answers questions such as: does it matter when the parents committed crime in the child's life? Do more persistent offenders transmit crime more than sporadic offenders? Do violent offenders specifically transmit violent behaviour or general crime to their children? Might the police and courts be biased against certain families? Could a deprived environment explain why parents as well as children show criminal behaviour? Does parental imprisonment pose an extra risk?This dissertation is the first study to specifically investigate these mechanisms of intergenerational continuity. The study is scientifically relevant because of its breadth, integration of conviction data as well as data on self-reported offending and environmental risk factors, its comparative design and the long periods over which transmission is investigated. Furthermore, the dissertation has important policy implications. It demonstrates how penal policy designed to reduce criminal behaviour might actually increase this behaviour in the next generation. This is especially important since Western countries such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands show an increasing trend towards more punitive policies.Sytske Besemer studied psychology and criminology at Leiden University and at the VU University Amsterdam before embarking on a PhD at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge, UK. She has recently been awarded a NWO Rubicon fellowship to conduct post-doctoral research at UC Berkeley into intergenerational continuity of criminal behaviour, family dynamics, and the criminal justice system.

Table of contents provided by Syndetics

• Preface (p. iii)
• List of Tables (p. ix)
• List of Figures (p. xi)
• 1 Introduction (p. 1)
• 1.1 Definitions (p. 2)
• 1.1.1 Intergenerational transmission (p. 2)
• 1.1.2 Crime (p. 2)
• 1.1.3 Aggressive and violent behaviour (p. 3)
• 1.2 Mechanisms explaining intergenerational transmission (p. 3)
• 1.2.1 Risk factors: a criminogenic environment (p. 4)
• 1.2.2 Social learning (p. 6)
• 1.2.3 Genetic or biological transmission (p. 6)
• 1.2.4 Official bias against certain families (p. 7)
• 1.2.5 Assortative mating (p. 7)
• 1.2.6 Interactional theory of intergenerational transmission (p. 8)
• 1.3 Research questions and outline of the dissertation (p. 9)
• 1.3.1 Outline (p. 9)
• 1.3.2 Intergenerational specialisation in violence (p. 9)
• 1.3.3 Timing and frequency of parental crime in the child's life and risk factors (p. 10)
• 1.3.4 Intergenerational continuity of conviction trajectories (p. 11)
• 1.3.5 Official bias and labeling (p. 11)
• 1.3.6 Parental imprisonment (p. 12)
• 1.4 Methodology (p. 12)
• 1.4.1 Cross-national comparison: England and the Netherlands (p. 12)
• 1.4.2 England: The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (p. 13)
• 1.4.3 The Netherlands: The NSCR Transfive Study (p. 13)
• 1.4.4 Measures (p. 15)
• 1.4.5 Data Analytic Approach (p. 16)
• 1.5 Summary (p. 17)
• 2 Specialised versus versatile intergenerational transmission of violence (p. 19)
• 2.1 Introduction (p. 19)
• 2.2 Theories of specialisation in intergenerational transmission (p. 22)
• 2.3 Hypotheses (p. 24)
• 2.4 Method (p. 25)
• 2.4.1 Sample (p. 25)
• 2.4.2 Measures (p. 25)
• 2.4.3 Analytic Approach (p. 26)
• 2.5 Results (p. 28)
• 2.5.1 Traditional approach (p. 28)
• 2.5.2 Latent Class Analysis (p. 30)
• 2.6 Discussion (p. 34)
• 2.7 Summary (p. 37)
• 3 The impact of timing and frequency of parental criminal behaviour and risk factors on offspring offending (p. 39)
• 3.1 Introduction (p. 39)
• 3.2 Theoretical Background (p. 40)
• 3.3 Hypotheses (p. 44)
• 3.4 Method (p. 46)
• 3.4.1 Sample (p. 46)
• 3.4.2 Measures (p. 46)
• 3.4.3 Analytic Approach (p. 43)
• 3.5 Results (p. 49)
• 3.5.1 Parents' frequency of convictions (p. 49)
• 3.5.2 Timing of parents' crime in the child's life (p. 50)
• 3.6 Discussion (p. 54)
• 3.7 Summary (p. 53)
• 4 Intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour: conviction trajectories of fathers and their offspring (p. 59)
• 4.1 Introduction (p. 59)
• 4.2 Hypotheses (p. 62)
• 4.3 Method (p. 62)
• 4.3.1 Sample (p. 62)
• 4.3.2 Measures (p. 62)
• 4.3.3 Analytic Approach (p. 63)
• 4.4 Results (p. 65)
• 4.4.1 Fathers' conviction trajectories - England (p. 65)
• 4.4.2 Fathers' conviction trajectories - the Netherlands (p. 66)
• 4.4.3 Offspring offending behaviour per father trajectory group (p. 68)
• 4.4.4 Sons' conviction trajectories - England (p. 68)
• 4.4.5 Sons' conviction trajectories - the Netherlands (p. 70)
• 4.4.6 Daughters' conviction trajectories - England (p. 72)
• 4.4.7 Intergenerational resemblance of conviction trajectories (p. 72)
• 4.5 Discussion (p. 76)
• 4.6 Summary (p. 79)
• 5 Official bias in intergenerational transmission and the impact of labelling on criminal behaviour (p. 81)
• 5.1 Introduction (p. 81)
• 5.2 Previous research on official bias and labelling (p. 83)
• 5.3 Hypotheses (p. 86)
• 5.4 Method (p. 88)
• 5.4.1 Sample (p. 88)
• 5.4.2 Measures (p. 88)
• 5.4.3 Analytic Approach (p. 90)
• 5.5 Results (p. 92)
• 5.5.1 Impact of biasing variables on self-reported offending versus official convictions (p. 92)
• 5.5.2 Relationship between biasing variables and offspring convictions while controlling for self-reported offending (p. 92)
• 5.5.3 The impact of a conviction on subsequent offending (p. 97)
• 5.5.4 Interaction between labelling and convicted parent (p. 97)
• 5.6 Discussion (p. 99)
• 5.7 Summary (p. 103)
• 6 The relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands (p. 105)
• 6.1 Introduction (p. 105)
• 6.2 Theoretical Background (p. 107)
• 6.2.1 Unfavourable impact (p. 108)
• 6.2.2 No impact (p. 109)
• 6.2.3 Favourable impact (p. 109)
• 6.2.4 Moderators (p. 110)
• 6.2.5 Hypotheses (p. 112)
• 6.3 Method (p. 112)
• 6.3.1 Sample (p. 112)
• 6.3.2 Measures (p. 113)
• 6.3.3 Data analysis (p. 113)
• 6.4 Results (p. 113)
• 6.4.1 Moderators (p. 115)
• 6.4.2 Multivariate Regression Analyses (p. 119)
• 6.5 Discussion (p. 121)
• 6.6 Summary (p. 127)
• 7 Discussion (p. 129)
• 7.1 What we know now (p. 129)
• 7.1.1 Intergenerational specialisation of violence (p. 129)
• 7.1.2 Timing and frequency of parental crime in the child's life and risk factors (p. 130)
• 7.1.3 Intergenerational continuity of conviction trajectories (p. 130)
• 7.1.4 Official bias and labelling (p. 131)
• 7.1.5 Parental imprisonment (p. 131)
• 7.1.6 Cross-national comparison: England and the Netherlands (p. 132)
• 7.2 Implications for theories on intergenerational transmission (p. 133)
• 7.2.1 Risk factors: a criminogenic environment (p. 134)
• 7.2.2 Social learning: imitating behaviour (p. 135)
• 7.2.3 Genetic or biological transmission (p. 136)
• 7.2.4 The impact of sentencing of parents on intergenerational transmission (p. 136)
• 7.3 Strengths and limitations of the present research (p. 138)
• 7.3.1 Strengths (p. 139)
• 7.3.2 Limitations (p. 139)
• 7.4 Implications for future research (p. 141)
• 7.4.1 Intergenerational transmission with self-reported offending behaviour (p. 141)
• 7.4.2 Intergenerational transmission for females (p. 142)
• 7.4.3 Intergenerational specialisation of violence (p. 142)
• 7.4.4 Intergenerational resemblance of conviction trajectories (p. 143)
• 7.4.5 Experimental designs (p. 143)
• 7.4.6 Reciprocal relationships (p. 144)
• 7.4.7 Peers and school environment (p. 145)
• 7.4.8 Other settings (p. 145)
• 7.5 Implications for policy and politics (p. 146)
• 7.6 Conclusion (p. 149)
• References (p. 151)
• Summary (p. 169)
• Appendix (p. 171)
• Subject Index (p. 173)
• Author Index (p. 175)

Author notes provided by Syndetics