Life-Course/Developmental
of the criminal population that can be considered
Theories
WESLEY G. JENNINGS
The origin of developmental/life-course criminol-
ogy research can be traced back to the emergence
of the criminal career paradigm, which Blum-
stein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher (1986, p. 12)
summarize as the “characterization of the lon-
gitudinal sequence of crimes committed by an
individual offender.” This statement highlights
the longitudinal/developmental or life-course
focus of this perspective and suggests that there
are initiation points for criminal activity along
with points of termination. For instance, some
individuals may have an earlier onset age for
criminal behavior such that they begin their
offending career in late childhood/early adoles-
cence, whereas others may not begin offending
into mid/late adolescence or may have an adult
onset. Similarly, other individuals may com-
mit crime at one developmental phase of the
life-course and desist from crime in this same
developmental phase; others may continue to
participate in crime in several developmental
phases of the life-course before desisting at some
point later in life (if at all). This assumption of a
point of initiation and termination of criminal
activity implies that the length or duration of an
individual’s criminal career can be determined
and calculated as well.
Beyond these criminal career elements, there
are a series of other dimensions that are rel-
evant to the criminal career framework. For
example, participation (or “yes/no involvement
in offending”) is considered along with offending
frequency. In other words, the participation or
prevalence rate of offending refers to the per-
centage of individuals who are criminally active
during any one time point, whereas the frequency
of offending refers to the total number of offenses
that have been committed by those individuals
who participated in offending during that specific
time point that is being assessed. Research in this
The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, First Edition. Edited by Wesley G. Jennings.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx152
vein is credited with identifying a small portion
the chronic or high-rate offenders, and some of
the earliest research identifying these individuals
has reported that this group of offenders make
up roughly 5% of the population of offenders
but are responsible for committing the lion’s
share of the offenses, particularly the serious and
violent offenses (Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990;
Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). This group
of chronic offenders has been replicated and
observed in a host of studies in the decades that
have followed this initial research, with estimates
of the prevalence of chronic offenders ranging
from 2% to 14% of the offending population
(Jennings, 2006).
Additional criminal career dimensions include
the notion of specialization or versatility and
offense escalation. In this regard, a considerable
amount of research has involved investigations
of notions of specialization in one type of crime
(e.g., sex offenses; Jennings, Zgoba, Donner,
Henderson, & Tewksbury, in press) or in one
type of loosely related or correlated offenses (e.g.,
violent crimes, drug crimes, property crimes, etc.;
Piquero, Jennings, & Barnes, 2012). Most of this
research suggests that the majority of offenders
are generally versatile, especially the frequent or
chronic offenders, indicating that their criminal
repertoire is varied and is not limited to only one
specific type of crime (although there may be
some tendency to specialize in certain types of
offenses such as computer crime; for example, see
Khey, Jennings, Lanza-Kaduce, & Frazier, 2009).
Relatedly, most research suggests that while
some escalation in offending may occur over the
life-course such as starting with property crimes
and then moving to drug crimes and then moving
to violent crimes, this scenario is not typically
the norm. Rather, the norm is that active, and
particularly frequent, offenders’ criminal histo-
ries are diverse and display patterns of versatility
and crime switching versus specialization only
in violence or escalating to the point of violence
and desisting from all other crimes other than
violence (Piquero et al., 2012).
2 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
While detailed reviews of developmental/life-
course theoretical frameworks do exist (Farrring-
ton, 2003; Thornberry, 1997), it is important
to review two of the more widely recogniz-
able and empirically tested developmental/
life-course theoretical frameworks. The first of
these perspectives, and arguably the most central
to this framework, is Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy
of adolescent-limited and life-course–persistent
offending.
For Moffitt (1993), life-course–persistent offen-
ders are those individuals who begin/initiate
their problem behavior early on in childhood and
continue their antisocial/delinquent/criminal
activity throughout their life-course. For
instance, the life-course–persistent offenders
are the ones who are biting and hitting in
early childhood, become truant in late child-
hood/early adolescence, steal cars and use drugs
in mid-adolescence, commit serious and vio-
lent crimes in late adolescence/early adulthood,
and then may expand into fraud or domestic
violence–related crimes in later adulthood. In this
characterization, there is essentially little belief
that these individuals will one day completely
desist from criminal activity, although there may
be times of inactivity over their life-course. This
type of offender closely resembles Wolfgang et al.’s
(1972) description of chronic offenders, and Mof-
fitt (1993) similarly argues that this offender
typology comprises a very small segment of the
offending population (about 5% to 10%). The ori-
gins of life-course–persistent offenders are rooted
in neurodevelopmental and cognitive deficiencies
and adverse environmental life circumstances.
In contrast, Moffitt’s adolescent-limited offend-
ers represent the majority of the offending
population, yet their delinquent/criminal behav-
ior is confined to adolescence (Moffitt, 2006;
Piquero, Diamond, Jennings, & Reingle, 2013).
In this regard, these individuals do not come
from adverse environments or evince any neuro-
developmental impairments or early childhood
conduct problems. Rather, their offending career
only activates in adolescence and terminates soon
thereafter. For Moffitt (1993), adolescent-limited
offenders’ delinquent criminal activity is a
result of two factors: social mimicry and the
maturity gap. Social mimicry refers to the pro-
cess where youth who are not/have not been
involved in delinquency/crime as of yet in
their life start to observe the social status and
related rewards or popularity that some of their
life-course–persistent peers are achieving due
to their truancy, shoplifting, and/or marijuana
use. It is at this point where some of these previ-
ously nondelinquent youth may begin to become
involved in some of these offenses in an effort
to attain this desired social status and power in
the eyes of their peers. Similarly, previously non-
delinquent youth in adolescence may also begin
to participate in other deviant behaviors such as
premarital sex and drinking alcohol because of
their perception of a maturity gap where they
believe themselves to be physically mature or
“adult enough” to participate in these types of
activities but society does not. Nevertheless,
despite the delinquent/criminal activity of the
adolescent-limited offenders, their offending pat-
terns are relatively brief and erratic and generally
do not include crimes of violence. In addition,
as mentioned, their career begins and terminates
in adolescence, and as such, this offender type
usually goes on to enter college, join the work-
force, get married, etc., and become productive
members of society.
Loeber (1996) has also proposed an offender
taxonomy, which he considers as a three-pathway
model for offending. One key distinction in
Loeber’s pathway model is the assumption that
behavior occurs in a logical and ordered devel-
opmental process, or what he likens to stepping
stones. In other words, an individual is believed
to progress to the higher-order steps only through
first progressing through the lesser-order steps,
not vice versa. The first pathway described by
Loeber is the overt pathway in which the ordered
progression is illustrated by an initiation of
involvement in minor acts of aggression, fol-
lowed by fighting, and then on to the commission
of more serious and violent crimes. In compar-
ison, the second pathway or the covert pathway
is defined as the progression of behavior from
minor acts of deviance to property damage to
more serious types of criminal activity. Finally,
the authority–conflict pathway represents the
third pathway in Loeber’s typology, and this
particular pathway is largely confined to minor
and stubborn acts of deviance and defiance such
as running away. Although Loeber does specify
that there is an ordered logic in the progres-
sion of behavior, his pathways model allows for
 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
individuals to move across pathways rather than
being solely confined to one pathway. In this vein,
he suggests that the more frequent and chronic
offenders are likely to be disproportionately con-
centrated among youth, who illustrate multiple
pathways of behavior, and most notably among
those youth who are identifiable in both the overt
and covert pathways.
In recognition of this developmental/life-
course theoretical framework, Farrington (2003,
p. 230) accurately summarized the key theo-
retical research questions/issues that pertain to
developmental/life-course criminological theo-
ries as follows:
1. What is the key construct underlying
offending?
2. What factors encourage offending?
3. What factors inhibit offending?
4. Is there a learning process?
5. Is there a decision-making process?
6. What is the structure of the theory?
7. What are operational definitions of theoret-
ical constructs?
8. What does the theory explain?
9. What does the theory not explain?
10. What findings might challenge the theory?
(Can the theory be tested?)
11. Crucial tests: How much does the theory
make different predictions from another
theory?
Similarly, Farrington (2003, pp. 229–230) also
delineated the following serial list of what he con-
siders to be the key empirical research questions/
issues that are germane to developmental/life-
course research and theorizing:
1. Why do people start offending?
2. How are onset sequences explained?
3. Why is there continuity in offending from
adolescence to adulthood?
4. Why do people stop offending?
5. Why does prevalence peak in the teenage
years?
6. Why does an early onset predict a long crim-
inal career?
7. Why is there versatility in offending and
antisocial behavior?
8. Why does co-offending decrease from ado-
lescence to adulthood?
3
9. Why are there between-individual differ-
ences in offending?
10. What are the key risk factors for onset and
desistance, and how can they be explained?
11. Why are there within-individual differences
in offending?
a. Long term (over life)
b. Short term (over time and place)
12. What are the main motives and reasons for
offending?
13. What are the effects of life events on offend-
ing?
Relying on these lists of the theoretically
relevant developmental/life-course issues along-
side the understanding of the empirically relevant
research questions that developmental/life-course
research considers, Farrington (2003, pp.
223–224) was led to make what he believed
to be a list of the 10 most widely accepted con-
clusions concerning the development of criminal
offending over the life-course that have been
generated through rigorous developmental and
empirical research:
1. The prevalence of offending peaks in the late
teenage years.
2. The peak age of onset of offending is
between 8 and 14, and the peak age of
desistance from offending is between 20
and 29.
3. An early age of onset predicts a relatively
long criminal career duration.
4. There is marked continuity in offending and
antisocial behavior from childhood to the
teenage years and to adulthood.
5. A small fraction of the population (the
“chronic offenders”) commits a large frac-
tion of all crimes.
6. Offending is versatile rather than special-
ized.
7. The types of acts defined as offenses are
elements of a larger syndrome of antisocial
behavior.
8. Most offenses by those aged up to the late
teenage years are committed with others,
whereas most offenses from by those aged
20 and older are committed alone.
9. The reasons given for offending up to
the late teenage years are quite variable,
4 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
including utilitarian, for excitement or
enjoyment, or because people get angry.
10. Different types of offenses tend to be first
committed at distinctively different ages.
Provided with this theoretical backdrop and
summary of some of the empirical “truths” that
have emerged from developmental/life-course
research, it is particularly important to briefly
discuss the considerable contributions of
offending trajectory-based research to the
developmental/life-course criminological lit-
erature. In the early 1990s, Nagin and Land
(1993) and Nagin (1999, 2005) developed a
particularly useful analytic technique to esti-
mate group-based trajectories of offending. In
essence, this type of analytic strategy permits the
user/modeler to arrive at the most optimal and
best-fitting model by navigating the modeling
space through the use of a variety of parametric
and functional forms for the trajectories and
by varying the number of trajectory groups in
order. In the end, and after considering a series of
relevant statistical criteria for evaluating model fit
such as the Bayesian Information Criteria and on
examination of the mean posterior probabilities
for group assignment, the modeler is left with a
trajectory model that has assigned individuals to
mutually exclusive trajectory groups by using a
maximum-likelihood procedure and has done so
with precision (Nagin, 2005).
Following the determination of the most opti-
mal and best-fitting trajectory model, researchers
typically use the trajectory group membership
variable as an outcome, or what is commonly
referred to as the classify–analyze approach.
In this fashion, researchers can use the tra-
jectory group membership variable, estimate
a multinomial logistic regression model (with
the nonoffenders as the reference category), and
determine what risk and protective factors signifi-
cantly distinguish the offending trajectory groups
from one another. The reference trajectory group
can also be changed to contrast any particular
trajectory group with one another (Jennings,
Maldonado-Molina, & Komro, 2010a; Jennings
et al., 2010b; Maldonado-Molina, Jennings,
& Komro, 2010; Maldonado-Molina, Piquero,
Jennings, Bird, & Canino, 2009; Reingle, Jennings,
& Maldonado-Molina, 2011a, 2011b; Reingle,
Maldonado-Molina, Jennings, & Komro, 2012).
Jennings and Reingle (2012) recently provided
the most comprehensive meta-review to date of
105 empirical studies that used trajectory models
and reported a number of summary statements
regarding the state of this literature. For instance,
Jennings and Reingle indicated that the number
of trajectory groups identified ranged from two
to seven trajectory groups, but the most com-
monly identified number of trajectory groups
was three or four. Regarding the shape or type of
trajectory groups, Jennings and Reingle reported
that most of the 105 studies identified trajecto-
ries that resembled Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy
of adolescent-limited and life-course–persistent
offenders or chronic offenders, but other tra-
jectory groups were also apparent, such as
low-level chronic offenders, escalators, desisters,
and late-onset offenders. Furthermore, both
the number and shape of the identified trajec-
tory groups tended to vary across the studies
depending on the sample, operationalization
and measurement of the outcome variable,
developmental/life-course phase that was being
evaluated, length of observation/follow-up, and
geographical context.
What was apparent from Jennings and Reingle’s
(2012) meta-review was that there were only a
handful of studies in existence that used con-
siderably lengthy follow-ups that have been able
to account for much of the actual life-course of
individuals and their offending behavior. This
reality was even further evidenced in a recent
study conducted by Jennings et al. (2013). Specif-
ically, Jennings et al. estimated the life-course
offending trajectories of a cohort of 375 Hispanic
men ranging in age from 18 to 50 years, which
represents the longest follow-up of Hispanics
to date using a trajectory-based approach. The
authors were able to identify four distinct trajec-
tory groups: very low-rate offenders, high-rate
late-onset escalators, initially high-rate desisters,
and high-rate chronic offenders. Further, using
the traditional classify–analyze approach, Jen-
nings et al. illustrated that Hispanic immigrants
were significantly less likely to be in either of
the high-rate trajectory groups relative to their
low-rate counterpart trajectory groups. Collec-
tively, Jennings et al.’s (2013) comprehensive
life-course analysis with Hispanics revealed a
number of key results relative to the handful
of other studies in existence with a similarly
 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
lengthy follow-up in terms of the trajectory
groups identified in Jennings et al.’s study. These
important findings are summarized next:
1. [T]he very low-rate offenders mirror the
very low-rate chronic offenders identified by
Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein (2007)
and the sporadic offenders identified by
Blokland, Nagin, and Nieuwbeerta (2005).
2. [T]he initially high-rate desisters resemble
the moderate-rate desisters identified by both
Sampson and Laub (2003) and Blokland et al.
(2005), and the high-rate chronic offenders
are similar to the high-rate chronic offenders
identified by Piquero et al. (2007) and Samp-
son and Laub and the high-rate persisters
identified by Blokland et al.
3. The high-rate late-onset escalator group
has been the focus of recent discussion
in other life-course research (Eggleston &
Laub, 2002; Gomez-Smith & Piquero, 2005;
Kratzer & Hodgins, 1999; Zara & Farring-
ton, 2009, 2010). Still, it is interesting to
note that among these prior studies, which
included data from adolescence, Piquero
et al. were the only researchers to identify
an adolescent-limited group resembling
Moffitt’s taxonomy, whereas the other two
(offender-based) studies identified groups
of sporadic offenders, desisters, and chronic
offenders or persisters (similar to [Jennings
et al.’s 2013] study) (Jennings et al., 2013,
p. 637).
Ultimately, based on the results from Jen-
nings and Reingle’s (2012, p. 486) recent
meta-review on trajectory-based research,
they conclude with offering the following five
main recommendations concerning future
developmental/life-course research focusing on
trajectories specifically:
1. “[I]t is important that future research move
beyond using phrases such as ‘This is the
first study to ever estimate trajectories on
this sample or on this type of offenders’
as the sole justification for their research.
We as a field are far more advanced theo-
retically than to consider applying a fancy
statistical technique on some dataset and just
because we are the first to do it think that this
5
warrants consideration as making a valuable
contribution to the criminological literature.
2. [F]uture trajectory-based research should
seek to unpack the nature of the influence of
risk and protective factors on different trajec-
tory groups. For instance, do the same risk
and protective factors that distinguish nonof-
fenders from life-course persistent offenders
also distinguish adolescent-limited offenders
from life-course persistent offenders, or does
this same set of risk and protective factors
have a differential effect across trajectory
groups? In this same vein, perhaps there is
a unique set of risk and protective factors
that explain adolescent-limited offending,
life-course persistent offending, low-level
chronic offending, late-onset offending, etc.
3. [R]ecognizing the costs and time involved
in conducting longitudinal research, par-
ticularly prospective longitudinal research,
scholars should make an effort to initiate
their developmental study early on in the
life-course (childhood) and continue this
follow-up into late adulthood. Furthermore,
multiple observations should be performed
over time across a host of data sources
(child/youth reports, parent reports, teacher
reports, director observer reports, official
records, etc.) in order to ensure the best
triangulation of data sources to inform the
trajectory models and aid in identifying
relevant risk and protective factors.
4. [T]here is a considerable need for policy-
relevant trajectory-based research. While
prior applications of the trajectory method-
ology are numerous, there has been less
attention or discussion on the policy implica-
tions of the results that have been produced
through the utilization of this statistical
technique. On one end of the spectrum, it
is possible to imply that these studies point
toward the need for selective incapacitation
of those who are identified as ‘life-course
persistent or chronic offenders.’
5. [A]pplications of trajectory methods to
dependent variables other than violence,
aggression, and delinquency specifically
(e.g., victimization, victim-offender overlap,
mental health, and psychometric scales)
are becoming more commonplace in crim-
inology (Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, &
6 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
Gibson, 2009; Jennings et al., 2010, 2012a;
Reingle et al., 2012). As this literature con-
tinues to emerge, it will certainly lead to
recognition of the more ‘global’ applicability
of the trajectory model framework beyond
merely a focus on offending.”
Taken together, developmental/life-course the-
ories and developmental/life-course research can
still be considered to be in its relative infancy
compared with more-traditional criminolog-
ical theories such as social bonding (Hirschi,
1969) and social learning (Akers, 1973) theo-
ries. Nevertheless, there is now a considerable
interest in criminological theorizing and in
empirical applications to be focused through
a developmental/life-course lens. This interest
has ushered in a number of methodologically
sophisticated and important contributions thus
far. Having said this, there is certainly room for
this theoretical perspective to grow, as well as a
place for continued empirical assessments on the
validity of developmental/life-course theories.
Developmental/life-course criminology rese-
arch has its broader appeal and rightful place in
a number of related disciplines, including psy-
chology, epidemiology, and public health. In this
regard, it is logical to assume that developmental
patterns of antisocial behavior, delinquency,
crime, psychopathy, and impulsivity, for example,
are likely to look relatively similar in terms of their
shape or, at the very least, “track” one another
to some degree. Further, an argument can easily
be made that there is likely a similar set of risk
and protective factor domains (e.g., individual,
familial, peer, environmental, etc.), which may all
have a constellation of factors that are potentially
relevant for increasing the risk of experiencing
a number of adverse outcomes such as criminal
offending (Jennings et al., 2010b), victimization
(Higgins et al., 2009), mental health issues (Silver
et al., 2011), and physical health issues (Reingle
et al., in press) and to be disproportionately
concentrated in the group of individuals who
are commonly referred to as having the “dual
diagnosis” as being victims and offenders (or
those who exhibit an overlap in offending and
victimization) (Jennings et al., 2012b).
With this in mind, it is important for future
developmental/life-course criminological rese-
archers to be cognizant of and open to branching
out from traditional criminological theories and
to embrace interdisciplinary constructs in order
to develop and/or further hone in on what are
the necessary elements and key ingredients of
a well-balanced developmental/life-course the-
ory. Similarly, criminologists should be open to
expanding their outcome of interest beyond just
crime, to include an array of seemingly relevant
indicators of a more general underlying syndrome
of problem behavior. Finally, in the spirit of Loe-
ber’s (1996) stepping-stone approach, researchers
interested in developmental/life-course criminol-
ogy and theorizing should collectively embark
on an empirical journey to identify the essen-
tial and relevant “stones” that contribute to
behavior and the developmental progression of
said behavior and to leave no “stone” unturned
in this effort. Only at the point in time when
a saturation may be observed through multi-
ple replications and empiricism can the best
developmental/life-course theoretical perspective
be solidified.
SEE ALSO: Criminology; Longitudinal Research;
Research Methods.
References
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning
approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C.A
(Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career crim-
inals”, Vol. 1. Report of the Panel on Criminal
Careers, National Research Council. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Blokland, A. J., Nagin, D. S., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005).
Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction
cohort. Criminology, 43, 919–954.
Eggleston, E. P., & Laub, J. H. (2002). The onset of adult
offending: A neglected dimension of the criminal
career. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 603–622.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course
criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues:
The 2002 Sutherland Address Award. Criminology,
41, 221–255.
Gomez-Smith, Z., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). An exami-
nation of adult onset offending. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 33, 515–525.
Higgins, G., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson,
C. L. (2009). Exploring the link between self-control
and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents.
Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36, 1070–1084.
 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Jennings, W. G. (2006). Revisiting prediction models in
policing: Identifying high-risk offenders. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 35–50.
Jennings, W. G., Maldonado-Molina, M. M., & Komro,
K. A. (2010a). Sex similarities/differences in trajecto-
ries of delinquency among Chicago youth: The role of
delinquent peers. American Journal of Criminal Jus-
tice, 35, 56–75.
Jennings, W. G., Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Piquero, A.
R., Odgers, C. L., Bird, H., & Canino, G. (2010b). Sex
differences in trajectories of offending among Puerto
Rican youth. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 327–357.
Jennings, W. G., & Reingle, J. (2012). On the num-
ber and shape of developmental/life-course vio-
lence, aggression, and delinquency trajectories: A
state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice,
40, 472–489.
Jennings, W. G., Reingle, J., Staras, S., & Maldonado-
Molina, M. M. (2012a). Substance use as a risk factor
for intimate partner violence overlap: Generational
differences among Hispanic young adults. Interna-
tional Criminal Justice Review, 22, 139–152.
Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. (2012b).
On the overlap between victimization and offend-
ing: A review of the literature. Aggression & Violent
Behavior, 17, 16–26.
Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle,
J. (2013). Offending trajectories among native-born
and foreign-born Hispanics to late middle age. Soci-
ological Inquiry, 83, 622–647.
Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K., Donner, C., Henderson,
B., & Tewksbury, R. (in press). Considering special-
ization/versatility as an unintended collateral conse-
quence of SORN. Journal of Criminal Justice.
Khey, D. N., Jennings, W. G., Lanza-Kaduce, L., &
Frazier, C. (2009). An exploration into the factors
associated with specialization among college stu-
dent computer criminals. Criminal Justice Studies, 22,
421–434.
Kratzer, L., & Hodgins, S. (1999). A typology of
offenders: A test of Moffitt’s theory among males
and females from childhood to age 30. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 57–73.
Loeber, R. (1996). Developmental continuity, change,
and pathways in male juvenile problem behaviors
and delinquency. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency
and crime: Current theories (pp. 1–27). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Piquero, A. R., Jennings,
W. G., Bird, H., & Canino, G. (2009). Trajectories of
delinquency among Puerto Rican children and ado-
lescents at two sites. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 46(2), 144–181.
7
Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Reingle, J. M., Tobler, A. L.,
Jennings, W. G., & Komro, K. A. (2010). Trajectories
of physical aggression among Hispanic urban ado-
lescents and young adults: An application of latent
trajectory modeling from ages 12 to 18. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 121–133.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-
course-persistent antisocial behavior: A develop-
mental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100,
674–701.
Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-course persistent versus
adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D. Cic-
chetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psy-
chopathology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajecto-
ries: A semiparametric group-based approach. Psy-
chological Methods, 4(2), 139–157.
Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal careers,
and population heterogeneity: Specification and esti-
mation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model.
Criminology, 31, 327–362.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007).
Key issues in criminal career research. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Barnes, J. C. (2012).
Violence in criminal careers: A review of the liter-
ature from a developmental life-course perspective.
Aggression & Violent Behavior, 17, 171–179.
Piquero, A. R., Diamond, B., Jennings, W. G., & Rein-
gle, J. (2013). Adolescence-limited offending. In M.
Krohn & C. L. Gibson (Eds.), Handbook on life course
criminology (pp. 129–142). New York: Springer.
Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Maldonado-Molina,
M. M. (2011a). The mediated effect of contextual
risk factors on trajectories of violence: Results from a
nationally representative, longitudinal sample of His-
panic adolescents. American Journal of Criminal Jus-
tice, 36, 327–343.
Reingle, J., Jennings, W. G., & Maldonado-Molina, M.
M. (2011b). The mediated effect of contextual risk
factors on trajectories of violence: Results from a
nationally representative, longitudinal sample of His-
panic adolescents. American Journal of Criminal Jus-
tice, 36, 327–343.
Reingle, J., Staras, S, Jennings, W. G., Branchini, J., &
Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2012). The relationship
between marijuana use and intimate partner violence
in a nationally representative longitudinal sample.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1562–1578.
Reingle, J., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., &
Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (in press). Is violence bad
for your health? An assessment of chronic disease
outcomes in a nationally representative sample.
Justice Quarterly.
8 L I F E-C O U R S E/ D E V E L O P M E N TA L T H E O R I E S
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course
desisters? Trajectories of crime among delin-
quent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41,
301–340.
Silver, E., Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, N. L.,
& Leiber, M. (2011). Assessing the violent offending
and violent victimization overlap among discharged
psychiatric patients. Law & Human Behavior, 35,
49–59.
Thornberry, T. P. (Ed.). (1997). Developmental theories
of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action Publishers.
Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M. (1990).
Delinquency in two birth cohorts. New York: Plenum.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972).
Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Childhood and
adolescent predictors of late onset criminal careers.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 287–300.
Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). A longitudinal
analysis of early risk factors for adult onset offending:
What predicts a delayed criminal career? Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 20, 257–273.