The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

The Cycle of Deviant Behavior
LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH IN THE

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
An Interdisciplinary Series
Series Editors:
Howard B. Kaplan, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Adele Eskeles Gottfried, California State University, Northridge, California
Allen W. Gottfried, California State University, Fullerton, California
THE ADDICTION-PRONE PERSONALITY

Gordon E. Barnes, Robert P. Murray, David Patton, Peter M. Bentler,
and Robert E. Anderson
THE CYCLE OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

Investigating Intergenerational Parallelism
Howard B. Kaplan and Glen C. Tolle Jr.
DRUG USE AND ETHNICITY IN EARLY ADOLESCENCE

William A. Vega, Andres G. Gil, and Associates
DRUGS, CRIME, AND OTHER DEVIANT ADAPTATIONS

Longitudinal Studies
Edited by Howard B. Kaplan
FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD IN THE VIETNAM ERA

Timothy J. Owens
PREMARITAL PREDICTION OF MARITAL QUALITY OR BREAKUP

Research, Theory, and Practice
Thomas B. Holman and Associates
RESILIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

Positive Life Adaptations
Edited by Meyer D. Glantz and Jeannette L. Johnson
IN SYNC WITH ADOLESCENCE

The Role of Morningness-Eveningness in Development
Anna-Karin Andershed
TAKING STOCK OF DELINQUENCY

An Overview of Finds from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies
Edited by Terence P. Thornberry and Marvin D. Krohn
TEMPERAMENT
Infancy through Adolescence
Diana Wright Guerin, Allen W. Gottfried, Pamella H. Oliver, and
Craig W. Thomas
A continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each
new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further
information please contact the publisher.
Howard B. Kaplan
Glen C. Tolle, Jr.
The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

Investigating Intergenerational
Parallelism
Howard B. Kaplan and Glen C. Tolle, Jr.
Texas A & M University
Department of Sociology
College Station, TX 77843-4351
USA
h-kaplan@tamu.edu
glen-tolle@tamu.edu
Library of Congress Control Number: 2006923502
ISBN-10: 0-387-32643-X e-ISBN 0-387-0-387-32644-8

ISBN-13: 987-0387-32643-6
Printed on acid-free paper.
© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

All rights reserved. This wok may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they
are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are
subject to proprietary rights.
Printed in the United States of America. (SPI/SBA)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
springer.com
To the first generation,
Diane
the next generation,

Samuel, Jenny, Rachel, Jeremy
and the one after that,

Calvin Austin Kaplan
Howard B. Kaplan
To my wife, April, my family, and friends

for their love, support, and patience
Glen C. Tolle, Jr.
Preface
This volume is about understanding the relationship between deviance

and selected correlates of deviance in one generation and deviance and its
selected correlates in the next generation. By examining the significance
of these constructs in the parental generation as part of the explanation for
the same constructs in the child’s generation, we contribute to an under-
standing of the phenomena. This contribution, however, is quite limited in
the sense that we are examining in essence bivariate relationships—the
association between first-generation and second-generation phenomena—
while ignoring all of the other influences on the second-generation phe-
nomena that do not stem from or account for the intergenerational
relationship.
Nevertheless, the study of intergenerational parallelism of deviance
and its correlates justifiably has excited attention and resulted in a volu-
minous literature greater than might have been expected for any particu-
lar bivariate relationships because of the mystique surrounding
ideas—cycle of violence, reproduction of culture, to name but a few—that
are evoked by consideration of the association between such phenomena
in one generation and the same phenomena in a successive generation.
Because of the implications of studies of intergenerational paral-
lelism for understanding continuities in deviant behavior and its
antecedents and, indeed, for understanding culture stability and change,
we systematically describe and elaborate upon simple observations of
cross-generation parallelisms in deviant behavior and its putative
antecedents. The elaborations take the forms of (1) specifying the condi-
tions under which intergenerational parallelism is increased (i.e., circum-
stances that express or facilitate commonalities of experience) or
vii
viii Preface
decreased (i.e., circumstances that express or increase dissimilar life expe-

riences), (2) specifying variables that mediate the association between
first- and second-generation deviance, and (3) identifying variables that
exercise intragenerational influences in each generation and manifest
intergenerational continuity across generations.
These systematic elaboration strategies along with baseline descrip-
tions of the association between deviance in one generation and deviance
in the succeeding generation compose a logic of procedure (i.e., method-
ology) for investigating intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior
and related phenomena. It will be recognized that, at a higher level of
abstraction, this methodology reflects the procedures to be followed in
investigating any bivariate relationship, not only intergenerational paral-
lelism, to wit—establishing a temporal relationship between two vari-
ables, specifying the conditions under which the relationship is
strengthened or weakened, decomposing the temporal linear relationship
by modeling mediating variables, and attenuating the temporal linear rela-
tionship by identifying common antecedents of the two variables.
The logic of procedure outlined above is applied to the study of
intergenerational parallelism of deviant behavior and its correlates using
data from a multigeneration panel study. In Part I, the salient concepts,
theoretical framework, and methodology are described. In chapter 1, we
discuss the concepts of deviance and intergenerational parallelism at
length and outline in broad strokes the theoretical framework that guides
the elaboration strategy for studying intergenerational parallelism of
deviance. In chapter 2, the nature of the multigeneration panel study is
described. Analytical techniques, and any other specific methodological
details that are applicable to all of the ensuing chapters reporting findings,
are presented. Procedural details that are unique to only one or some of
the chapters reporting findings will be presented in the chapters in ques-
tion. In chapter 2, we also consider methodological limitations in the
extant literature on intergenerational parallelism.
In Part II, we consider intergenerational parallelism of deviant
behavior as a conditional relationship. In chapter 3, the literature on inter-
generational parallelism of deviant behavior and selected correlates of
deviant behavior is described and discussed. We present findings on inter-
generational parallelism for our major indexes and put these in the context
of the general literature on intergenerational continuity. In chapter 4, we
note that the literature reports highly variable degrees of intergenerational
parallelism of deviance and suggests that the strength of the association
Preface ix
between first- and second-generation deviance is conditional on a number

of circumstances. In this chapter, we report theoretically informed analy-
ses that specify conditions said to impede or facilitate intergenerational
parallelism. The findings are discussed in the context of the guiding theo-
retical framework and the literature bearing on the moderators of the rela-
tionship between first- and second-generation deviance.
In Part III, analyses are presented that statistically decompose the lin-
ear associations observed between first- and second-generation deviance.
In chapter 5, analyses are presented and discussed in the context of rele-
vant literatures in which the observed association between first- and sec-
ond-generation deviance (or salient correlates of deviance) is, in part,
accounted for in terms of intervening processes. In these analyses, first-
generation deviance (or its correlates) is interpreted as having a causal
impact on some intervening variable that, in turn, is interpreted as having
a causal influence on second-generation deviance (or its correlates). In
chapter 6, analyses are reported in which observed relationships between
first- and second-generation deviance (or its salient correlates) are
explained partly in terms of intergenerational continuities between first-
and second-generation variables that have a causal impact on deviance (or
its salient correlates) in their respective generations. The continuities
might be causal in nature such that a cause of deviance in the first gener-
ation has consequences that increase the likelihood of a comparable cause
of deviance in the second generation. Alternatively, sociocultural or phys-
ical context associated with the genesis of first-generation deviance might
continue to be shared by both generations.
In Part IV, the results of the previous chapters are summarized and
their implications for future research are considered. Chapter 7 reviews
the results with regard to their contributions to the understanding of
deviant behaviors, in particular, and more generally to the dynamics
underlying intergenerational parallelism, evaluates the procedures fol-
lowed in investigation of intergenerational parallelism as a worthy elabo-
ration strategy for the study of any bivariate relationship, and outlines a
research agenda for the future that promises to increase our understanding
of the meaning of earlier-generation deviance for the occurrence of
deviance in successive generations.
Howard B. Kaplan
College Station, Texas Glen C. Tolle, Jr.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by research grants R01 DA02497 and
R01 DA010016 and by a Research Scientist Award (K05 DA00136) to the
first-named author, all from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
We are pleased to recognize the unwavering dedication of Holly
Groves, “Sam” McLean, and Joseph Hall to the technical production of
the manuscript.
Where we recognize the origins of our ideas we acknowledge these
sources by appropriate textual citations. However, many of our ideas, par-
ticularly as these are synthesized in our comprehensive theory of deviant
behavior, are the end products of lifetimes of scholarly activity. The pre-
cise sources or originality of these ideas can no longer be determined.
Thus, often we must leave it to others to make judgments about the
historical roots, originality, or independent creation of the theoretical
statements in this volume.
xi
Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments xi
Part I Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Study

of Intergenerational Parallelism of Deviance 1
1. Toward an Understanding of Intergenerational
Parallelism of Deviance 5
2. Method 41
Part II The Conditional Nature of Intergenerational

Parallelism 57
3. Observing Intergenerational Parallelism in Deviance 59
4. Moderators of Intergenerational Parallelism 73
Part III Decomposing Intergenerational Parallelism 125

5. Intervening Processes 127
6. Intergenerational Continuity of Intragenerational
Causes of Deviant Behavior and Its Correlates 157
Part IV Retrospect and Prospect 193

7. Summary and Conclusions 195
References 217
Index 235
xiii
Part I
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF
INTERGENERATIONAL PARALLELISM OF
DEVIANCE
Part I introduces the intersection between two salient interests of social

scientists—the etiology of deviance and intergenerational replication of
psychosocial phenomena—by describing the conceptual/theoretical
framework and methodology employed in this investigation of intergener-
ational parallelism of deviance.
Chapter 1 deals with the conceptual issues and theoretical framework
that guide the empirical investigation, the results of which are reported in
Parts II–III. Deviant behavior is defined in terms of failure to conform to
the prescriptions and proscriptions that compose specified socionormative
systems that are taken to be the reference standards for evaluation.
Intergenerational parallelism refers to the de facto correlation
between an attribute or behavior pattern by a member of one generation
and the same attribute or behavior pattern of their children assessed at
the same developmental stage in each generation. The term intergener-
ational parallelism is used because, unlike other terms such as inter-
generational influence, it does not connote assumptions about the
nature of the explanation for the intergenerational correlation.
Influence implies a causal connection such that the attribute in one gen-
eration has consequences that, in turn, cause the presence of the attrib-
ute in the children when the intergenerational correlation in fact might
1
2 Part I
be accounted for in terms of contextual continuities that have like out-

comes in each generation.
The integrative theory that guides the analyses to be reported in sub-
sequent chapters is outlined. The theory in effect brings together a num-
ber of extant frameworks for the study of deviance. The presentation
makes explicit relationships between these specific theoretical approaches
and the integrative theory, and the relevance of these theories (and, by
implication, the integrative theory) for explaining intergenerational paral-
lelism in deviance.
The guiding theoretical framework variously identifies processes that
moderate the existence or strength of the intergenerational parallelism in
deviance, variables that mediate the influence of first-generation deviance
on second-generation deviance and intergenerational continuities that
have like influences on deviance in each generation. The identification of
these phenomena in the aggregate serves to explain a particular bivariate
relationship of interest: the association between deviance in one genera-
tion and deviance in the next generation. At the same time, the procedure
of systematically estimating theoretically informed moderators, media-
tors, and causally significant intergenerational continuities serves as a
template for addressing explanations of any bivariate relationship.
In chapter 2, the limitations of the literature on intergenerational par-
allelism, in general, and on intergenerational parallelism of deviance, in
particular, are considered. A multigenerational panel study is described as
an antidote to certain of the more salient limitations, namely the frequent
failure to use representatives of the multiple generations as separate data
sources (rather than having representatives of one generation provide data
for both generations) and the failure to have the data reported by the ear-
lier and later generation subjects at comparable stages in the life course
(rather than, for example, having the first generation provide self-reports
as parents and the second generation provide self-reports as children). The
dataset to be used in estimating the theoretically informed models describ-
ing or explaining intergenerational parallelisms in deviance is described as
consisting of self-reports of patterns of deviance and their correlates pro-
vided by a sample of eighth graders and by their children at roughly the
same developmental stage. The variables variously reflect (1) patterns of
deviant behavior (or their correlates), (2) putative moderators of the asso-
ciation between deviant patterns in the two generations, (3) variables that
mediate the observed intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior,
and/or (4) putative common intergenerationally continuous antecedents of
Theoretical and Methodological Issues 3
deviance in each generation. The models will be estimated employing

structural equation modeling methodologies focusing on three latent con-
structs reflecting deviant behavior, disposition to deviance, and negative
self-feelings, respectively.
1
Toward an Understanding of
Intergenerational Parallelism of
Deviance
In broad terms, the purpose of this study is to contribute to an under-

standing of why people engage in deviant behavior. More particularly, the
objective is to describe and explain the part played by deviance in an ear-
lier generation in accounting for deviant behavior in a later generation.
What is the relationship between deviance in an earlier generation and
deviance in a later generation? Where a significant association is observed
between deviance in one generation and deviance in the next generation,
how is this relationship to be explained? Are there specifiable conditions
that facilitate or impede the existence of such a significant correlation or
that increase (decrease) the strength of the association between first- and
second-generation deviance? Does first-generation deviance have identifi-
able consequences that, in turn, increase (decrease) the probability that
second-generation deviance will occur? Is the observed correlation
between deviance in successive generations accounted for, in part, by
intergenerational continuity of identical intragenerational antecedents of
deviance?
This project should not be taken to be more or less than it is. In its
simplest sense, the aim of the project is to account for deviant behavior in
a population of second-generation youths during late childhood/early ado-
lescence. Further, the focus is on the import of one explanatory factor,
namely similar behavior by the parents of that child at approximately the
same developmental stage. The objective of the study, then, is to examine
5
6 Chapter 1
the nature of the relationship between deviant behavior by a population of

subjects and similar behavior by the children of those subjects assessed at
similar points in the life course and to elaborate this intergenerational par-
allelism by examining (1) circumstances that moderate the strength of the
relationship, (2) variables that mediate any observed intergenerational
continuity in deviant behavior, and (3) the intergenerational parallelism of
common intragenerational predictors of youthful deviance. One the one
hand, the investigation is narrow in that in effect, the focus is on only
one explanatory variable (first-generation youthful deviance), but, on the
other hand, the nature of this relationship is elaborated greatly by speci-
fying moderating, intervening, and common antecedent variables. This
exercise, in addition to informing us about the dynamics of intergenera-
tional continuity in deviant behavior, provides a template for fully inves-
tigating the extended meaning of any particular explanatory variable in its
relationship to any particular dependent variable.
In the present chapter we discuss the concepts of deviance and inter-
generational parallelism, outline the theoretical frameworks that guide the
empirical analyses, and provide the elaboration strategy that serves as an
organizing framework for conduct of the analyses and presentation of the
findings.
Defining Deviance and Intergenerational Parallelism
The terms deviance and intergenerational parallelism are rife with

conceptual ambiguities that should be resolved before embarking on
reports of empirical findings.
The Nature of Deviance
Although the behavior patterns that are the foci of the several analy-
ses in this volume are widely recognized in the more inclusive society as
examples of deviant behavior, the concept of deviance has more general
applicability. The concept might refer to failure to conform to expecta-
tions in the context of a wide variety of interpersonal systems, including
friendship groups, marital dyads, and work groups, as well as the general
community. Indeed, the concept might refer to behaviors or attributes that
conform to the expectations of one group but violate the expectations of
Toward an Understanding of Intergenerational Parallelism 7
another group from whose perspective the judgment of deviance is made.

Deviance might refer to physical traits, social identities, experiences,
behaviors, or a variety of other phenomena that describe a person.
Deviance, then, refers to behaviors or attributes manifested by spec-
ified kinds of people in specified circumstances that are judged to violate
the normative expectations of a specified group. “Shared normative
expectations” refers to group evaluations regarding the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of certain attributes or behaviors when manifested by
certain kinds of people in certain situations.
The indication that certain patterns of behavior in certain contexts
(i.e., manifested by certain kinds of people in certain situations) are
socially defined as deviant is the administration of negative sanctions.
Members of a group that are said to share a normative system impose
these negative sanctions, which are responses that, according to the per-
ceptions of the group, are intended to serve as punishment for the (absence
of the) attributes or behaviors in question. The consistent application of
relatively severe sanctions in response to particular kinds of behavior
serves as an indication that those behaviors are deviant according to the
normative system that serves as a reference point. If the sanctions are
applied only to certain kinds of people who perform the behaviors in ques-
tion, then the implication is that the behaviors when performed by other
kinds of people are not defined as deviant. If certain behaviors evoke
negative sanctions regardless of the person’s social characteristics and
other situational contexts with perhaps very rare exceptions, then the
implication is that the behavioral (prescription) proscription is generally
applicable except in extenuating circumstances. The ranking in the hier-
archy of normative expectations of the evaluative standard that is violated
by the behavior is reflected in the severity of the sanctions. Behaviors or
attributes are deviant not only because they evoke negative sanctions but
also because they would evoke negative sanctions if representatives of the
socionormative system that defines the attributes or behaviors as deviant
became aware of them.
A group that shares a normative system might evaluate the behaviors
or attributes of individuals who do not belong to the group and might apply
negative sanctions for behaviors or attributes that are judged to deviate from
the normative expectations believed to be incumbent on even nongroup
members. Depending on the group’s access to sanctions that are meaningful
to the nongroup members, the application of negative sanctions might have
a great adverse impact on the outcomes of nongroup members.
8 Chapter 1
In some cases, individuals whose behaviors or attributes appear to

deviate from the normative expectations of a group to which they do not
belong are not judged to be deviant. This is because the individuals (per-
haps because of their perceived inferiority) are not expected to be capable
of conforming to the normative expectations. These “barbarians” or “sub-
humans” are judged to be deviant by virtue of not belonging to the group
that evaluates them, but they are not otherwise punished for failing to con-
form to the specific normative expectations that define the shared norma-
tive system. At worst, the failure to conform to the normative expectations
is taken to be a (further) indication of their primary deviation (i.e., not
being part of the group that shares the normative system).
In any case, the valuation of behaviors or attributes as deviant pre-
sumes that those making the judgment have taken into account the appli-
cability of the normative expectations to the person and, more particularly,
to the circumstances in which the person finds himself or herself. It is not
required that the deviant actor identify himself or herself as a group
member for the group to evaluate the actor’s attributes or behaviors.
The judgment that certain behaviors or attributes deviate from the
normative expectations might be made even if the deviant manifestations
are beyond the individual’s control. Every normative system offers exam-
ples of evaluative standards that stigmatize individuals for manifesting
undesirable attributes or behaviors or for failing to manifest desirable
attributes and behaviors that are beyond their control.
The de facto deviation from the expectations of specified normative
systems, thus, might be motivated or unmotivated. Motivated deviance
derives from either of two sets of circumstances. In the first set, the per-
son is a member of a group that defines the attributes or behaviors in ques-
tion as deviant. Because of his experiences in the group, the person loses
motivation to conform to the normative expectations of the group and
adopts deviant attributes or behaviors that consciously or unconsciously
are intended to serve self-enhancing functions. In the second set of cir-
cumstances, the person is a member of a group in which the attributes or
behaviors under consideration are normatively prescribed. The person is
motivated to conform to the normative prescriptions as one who has been
socialized in the group. The person is either unaware or considers it to be
irrelevant that another group judges the attributes or behaviors to be
deviant. The behavior is motivated, but the fact that the behavior or attrib-
utes are deviant does not contribute to the motivation. Rather, the per-
son’s motivation (when the performance of behavior is problematic
rather than habitual) stems from the need to conform to internalized

group standards and to evoke approving responses from group members
who share these standards for conforming to the group’s normative
expectations.
Unmotivated deviance refers to instances of failure to conform to the
normative expectations of the person’s membership or reference groups
where the failure to conform is contrary to the person’s volition. The per-
son would conform if he or she were able to conform. The circumstances
that contribute to unmotivated deviance are discussed in some detail below
(see pp. 20–22).
The patterns of deviance that are the subject of the analyses of this
volume generally fall into the category of motivated deviance.
Unmotivated deviance is relevant as an explanatory factor, rather than as
a dependent variable. The involuntary possession of traits, and the invol-
untary performance of behaviors, that are defined as deviant influences
judgment of deviance, the administration of sanctions, and correlates of
these phenomena that, in turn, influence the onset of other deviant acts or
the continuity of the deviant behaviors at the voluntary level.
The models describing and explaining intergenerational parallelism in
deviant behavior, the estimate of which will be reported in later chapters,
focus on a latent construct that reflects behavior patterns widely viewed as
deviant in our society. The latent variable, deviant behavior, is reflected in
indicators of youthful theft, intergenerational violence, and substance use.
Two other constructs will be modeled in explanatory frameworks as well.
One of these reflects disposition to deviance, which indicates attitudes
rather than specific behaviors, and demonstrates a tendency to disrespect
others, to respond to provocations with antisocial responses, and to express
disrespect for conventional patterns. The other construct reflects negative
self-feelings as is reflected in self-derogating attitudes, anxiety, and depres-
sive affect. These constructs are important explanatory constructs in
accounting for deviant behavior. However, within a broad definition of
deviance, they might be considered examples of deviance.
As we have defined the term, deviant behavior encompasses these
constructs as well as other explanatory variables such as school failure,
abusive parenting, and stigmatized personal or social characteristics. Any
or all of these might be implicated in the explanation of intergenerational
parallelism in deviance, whether as moderating or mediating variables
or as antecedents of deviance in each generation that are intergenera-
tionally continuous. For example, intergenerational parallelism in deviant
10 Chapter 1
behavior might be stronger for first-generation stigmatized groups that

feel alienated from and do not respond to conventional social controls.
Thus, their behavior might be more available for modeling by their chil-
dren. As an example of mediating influence, first-generation deviant behav-
ior might lead to deviant parenting that, in turn, motivates the
second-generation youths to engage in resentful antisocial responses.
Intergenerational continuity in deviant dispositions or negative self-feelings
that within each generation influences the onset of deviant behavior might
account for observations of intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior.
Deviance could be expressed in relatively broad or specific cate-
gories of concrete behavioral manifestations. Thus, intergenerational par-
allelism in deviant behavior could be expressed in terms of broad or
specific categories. In the latter case, for example, children of parents with
schizophrenia might be significantly more likely to manifest schizophre-
nia than children whose parents did not have schizophrenia or children of
parents who were diagnosed as alcoholics might be significantly more
likely to develop problems with alcohol use than individuals whose par-
ents were not alcoholics. In the former case, it might be observed that
individuals whose parents had some form of mental illness were more
likely to develop some form of mental illness, but not necessarily the same
form as that of their parents, compared to individuals whose parents did
not have some form of emotional disorder. As Avison (1999) observed,
reviewing the literature on intergenerational transmission of several forms
of emotional disorder:
In summary, the studies reviewed examining the functioning of the offspring

of parents with schizophrenia, depression, or alcoholism suggest that these
children are at risk for developing a variety of emotional problems. Clearly,
there is not a one-to-one correspondence between parental diagnosis and
child functioning. Thus, for example, children of depressed parents not only
exhibit higher rates of depression, but also higher levels of conduct disorder,
global psychiatric symptoms, and multiple psychiatric diagnoses. Similarly,
children of alcoholic parents are not only at elevated risk for alcohol and drug
use, but also for diagnoses of major depression and anxiety. Finally, it is
important to note that there are common problems exhibited by children in
all three groups of parental disorders. These problems include difficulties at
school, temper tantrums, headaches, problematic social functioning, and
emotional disorder. (p. 500)
For present purposes, a more general construct of deviant behavior is

adopted—a latent construct reflecting any of a diversity of acts encom-
passing theft, violence, and various patterns of substance use.
Intergenerational Parallelism
The degree to which one generation reproduces or is reproduced by

another has long excited the interest of observers of the human condition.
As Oliver (1993, p. 1316) noted: “It is hard to think of many topics so
central to society in general and psychiatry in particular as the intergener-
ational transmission, by one means or another, of human attributes.”
Generally, the discussion focuses on the opposition of forces that lead to
psychological and social stability across generations, on the one hand, and
influences that bring about intergenerational individual and social change,
on the other hand. Thus, as Atkinson and Dodder (1990) observed:
The longstanding concern over generational conflict and continuity may be

because it is through generational transmission that culture is continued and
the world of today becomes the world of tomorrow.... Generational trans-
mission acts in two major ways to pass on culture. First, it serves as the
mechanism through which values, attitudes, and ways of life are kept alive.
Secondly, it serves as the major mechanism for social change. Each genera-
tion determines what aspects of human culture will be retained from the
previous generation and what aspects of culture will be discarded or changed,
determining what will be kept as tradition and what will be discarded and
forgotten. (pp. 193–194)
Others have observed as well that the generations are continually

subject to a tension between a pressure to replicate the earlier generation
and circumstances that facilitate generational change. Bengtson (1987),
commenting on parenting, grandparenting, and intergenerational continuity
observed:
Parents invest prodigious amounts of time, energy, and material resources in

the uncertain hope of producing offspring who will be happy, healthy, and
wise—and who will, hopefully, validate at least some of their parents’ prin-
ciples. But their offspring are continually changing, as is the social environ-
ment within which they are growing up. One of the things parents strive for
is continuity: indicators in the behavior of their children that they have
achieved transmission of what is best or better than in their own lives. One of
the things children strive for is distinctiveness: a better way of life, a more
successful social order. (p. 435)
Thus, we observe a good deal of intergenerational continuity manifest in

genetic and social parallelisms between parents and children, facilitated
by the force of tradition. At the same time, however, according to
Bengtson (1987),
12 Chapter 1
...there is the process of generational turnover and replacement. This implies

change—both biological and social. Children are not mere replicas of their
parents; they represent subtly new genetic combinations in interaction with a
unique developmental environment (Rossi, 1980).... The product of unique
sociohistoric influences, children are the carriers of new perspectives and
commitments that represent the potential for change in the existing social
order (Elder, 1978). (p. 435)
The significance of events at any time and in any place is measured

by the nature and moment of the adaptive responses by individuals or col-
lectivities to these events. The extent to which adaptations endure is a
function of the transmission of the responses over time from one genera-
tion to another and/or of the stability of the circumstances that evoke
such responses. To understand the continuity of patterns of human social
behavior over time is to understand the mechanisms through which adap-
tations are transmitted and the forces that maintain the circumstances that
evoke similar response patterns over time. Conversely, to understand
individual or social change is to understand the mechanisms that impede
intergenerational transmission and/or that modify the conditions that
demand personal or collective adaptations. Unfortunately, the investiga-
tion of these mechanisms is made more difficult by identifying the phe-
nomenon under investigation with putative mechanisms that account for
the phenomenon.
Terms such as intergenerational transmission and intergenerational
continuity are frequently used to signify both the phenomenon to be
explained and the explanation of the phenomenon. Normally, intergener-
ational studies focus on individual- or social-level patterns that are
observed to be similar in successive generations. The intergenerationally
comparable patterns are explained in terms of the direct or indirect causal
influences of the first-generation pattern on the second-generation pattern,
intergenerational continuities on circumstances that have comparable
causal effects on the patterns of interest within each generation, or factors
that moderate the intergenerational influences or continuities. In order to
avoid confusion, it is proposed to signify the phenomena to be explained
(intergenerationally comparable patterns) as intergenerational parallelisms.
Terms such as intergenerational continuities will be reserved for the dis-
cussion of the mechanisms that are intended to explain intergenerational
parallelisms.
Intergenerational parallelism refers to comparable cognitions, feelings,
or behaviors across generations. The term intergenerational parallelism
is employed in order to avoid prejudging the nature of the mechanisms

that result in intergenerational parallelism. To employ a term such as inter-
generational transmission is to imply a “process through which purpo-
sively or unintendedly an earlier generation psychologically influences
parenting, attitudes and behavior of the next generation” (Van Ijzendoorn,
1992, pp. 76–77). Parallelism might be accomplished without such direct
or indirect causal influence of the first generation on the second generation.
As Van Ijzendoorn (1992) observed:
If grandparents and parents have been rearing their children in about the same
physical and social circumstances, their childrearing behavior and attitudes
may be more alike, but the earlier generation may not have exerted any direct,
psychological influence on the next generation’s parenting (Quinton &
Rutter, 1984). (p. 77)
This latter phenomenon reflects intergenerational continuities.

For present purposes, then, we will use intergenerational parallelism
as a description of comparable phenomena observed in successive gener-
ations. This term will in itself have no implications for the mechanisms
through which the intergenerational isomorphism occurs. We will use the
term intergenerational transmission to refer to causal mechanisms
(whether genetic or social-psychological) through which phenomena
observed in the first generation influence comparable phenomena in the
second generation. Intergenerational transmission might also refer to
the influences of phenomena observed in one generation on noncompara-
ble phenomena in the second generation, although these processes will be
subordinate to our predominant interests in comparable intergenerational
phenomena. The term intergenerational continuity will be reserved for
instances in which intergenerational parallelisms are accounted for in part
by intergenerationally stable or transmitted phenomena that have like
causal outcomes on the phenomenon of interest in each generation and so,
in part, account for intergenerational parallelism.
In focusing on intergenerational parallelism, by no means is it sug-
gested that the only, or even the major, cause of a phenomenon in the sec-
ond generation is the same phenomenon observed in the first generation.
For example, in one study only 24% of subjects who ran away earlier in
life had parents who had also run away earlier in life (Plass & Hotaling,
1995). If the purpose were to explain the second-generation behavior or
attributes, numerous variables other than the first-generation behavior
or attribute would be incorporated as explanatory variables. Nevertheless,
14 Chapter 1
our purpose here is to examine the conditions under which intergenera-

tional parallelism is or is not present and the circumstances under which
the degree of intergenerational parallelism increases or decreases, as well
as the explanation of the continuity in terms of mediating and intergener-
ationally (dis)continuous contextual variables.
In examining the intergenerational parallelism phenomenon, the
focus is, in effect, only on one predictor of a second-generation outcome.
There are many other predictors of the second-generation phenomenon.
However, for the moment, the spotlight is on one particular antecedent in
an attempt to understand how that first-generation phenomenon operates
to influence the second generation. As Egeland (1988) observed with
regard to the intergenerational transmission of child abuse:
The data presented here indicate that the parents’ histories of having been
abused as children should be included as a major risk factor for maltreatment
of their children. It must be stressed, however, that there are many additional
risk factors, including the families’ life circumstances and stressors and a range
of parental characteristics and caretaking skills. For purposes of early identifi-
cation and prediction, a combination of risk factors must be considered. (p. 96)
Nevertheless, our purpose here is to examine the conditions under which

intergenerational parallelism is or is not present and the circumstances
under which the degree of intergenerational parallelism increases or
decreases, as well as the explanation of the parallelism in terms of medi-
ating and intergenerationally (dis)continuous contextual variables.
Although deviant behavior in the earlier generation is only one predictor
of deviant behavior in the succeeding generation, it still represents an
important part of the explanation of deviant behavior in the next genera-
tion. For example, regarding the intergenerational transmission of abusive
behavior, Pears and Capaldi (2001) reported:
The 23% rate of intergenerational transmission found in this study is compa-

rable to Kaufman and Zigler’s (1987) best estimate for the rate of transmis-
sion of 30%. This once again illustrates that having a history of abuse is not
a guarantee that one will become abusive. However, those parents who chil-
dren reported being abused were twice as likely to have been abused them-
selves than to have had no such history, confirming that having been abused
is indeed a risk factor for transmitting abuse (Egeland, 1993). (p. 1454)
The remainder of this volume is devoted to describing, elaborating, and

explaining patterns of intergenerational parallelism in deviance and two
selected theoretically informed salient antecedents of deviance.
Guiding Theoretical Framework
Several different theoretical frameworks have been employed to

interpret instances of intergenerational parallelism in deviance. All of
these approaches are said to be incorporated within an integrative theory
of deviant behavior that informs the analyses to be reported in Parts II and
III of this volume. Here, in turn, several theoretical interpretations of
observed instances of intergenerational parallelism are presented, the guid-
ing integrative theory of deviant behavior is summarized, and the ways
in which other theoretical approaches have been incorporated into the
guiding explanatory framework are made explicit.
Diversity of Explanatory Frameworks
Explanations of intergenerational parallelism of deviance or its cor-

relates have implicated various permutations and combinations of theo-
ries, sometimes focusing on only one or another framework. The
following are presented only to illustrate the range of theoretical frame-
works that are offered. Some approaches focus, in part, on the alienating
effects of environmental stress and on social learning theories whereby
abusive behavior (for example) is imitated, observed, or reinforced
(Kaufman & Zigler, 1993; Muller, Hunter, & Stollak, 1995). Mechanisms
relating to social learning, for example, have been considered with regard
to the intergenerational transmission of early childbearing (Barber,
2001a):
Socialization is one important mechanism that may produce an association

between mothers’ and their children’s childbearing behavior. Existing
research has suggested that children born to young mothers may hold
attitudes, values, or preferences that are more favorable toward early
childbearing, and this is why they reproduce their mothers’ behavior
(Anderton et al., 1987; Kahn & Anderson, 1992; Thornton, 1991; Thornton
& Camburn, 1987). (p. 221)
Social control theories have also been implicated in explanations of

intergenerational transmission of early childbearing. Barber (2001a), for
example, stated:
Social control is another important mechanism that may explain the inter-
generational transmission of first birth timing. This perspective stresses
that the extent to which mothers are able to control their children’s dating,
16 Chapter 1
sex, and related behaviors influences how quickly they become parents.
The hypothesis is that young mothers, particularly if they are unmarried,
are less able to control their adolescents’ behavior, and thus the adolescents
are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and experience of pre-
marital pregnancy. For instance, Hogan and Kitagawa (1985) illustrated a
strong effect of parental supervision on young Black women’s risk of a pre-
marital birth. (p. 223)
The relevance of social stress-related variables are frequently noted

in conjunction with (perhaps as an antecedent of) processes that appear to
implicate social control. For example, variables that have been suggested
as mediating intergenerational transmission of early age of childbearing—
financial and marital instability—are interpretable as suggesting that these
variables attenuate the child’s emotional dependence on the family and,
therefore, the family’s ability to exercise control over the child’s behavior.
Barber (2001a) further stated:
Two consequences of early childbearing produce undesirable family circum-

stances that are particularly likely to propel children into early parenthood:
financial instability and marital instability. The hypothesis is that family
disruptions may weaken the child’s relationship with his or her parent or
encourage the child to seek emotional support and intimacy outside of the
family of origin (Wu & Martinson, 1993). Characteristics of the family of
origin that make staying at home less attractive, such as low or unstable
income, are similarly likely to propel young adults out of the family and into
families of their own (Michael & Tuma, 1985; Wu, 1996). (p. 224)
While attenuating social controls, a disposition to spend more time away

from the family might also increase opportunities to engage in risky sexual
behavior that results in early childbearing.
The relevance of labeling for understanding the social reproduction of
a criminal class is noted by Hagan and Palloni (1990), who observed that:
...modern formulations of labeling theory are oddly silent on...the occurrence

of labeling across generations. This silence is surprising because George
Herbert Mead (1918) anticipated a focus on not only intergenerational label-
ing but also the notion of class reproduction in his early article ‘The
Psychology of Punitive Justice’. Mead called attention to the inconsistency
of what we call labeling and deterrence theories and to the potential conse-
quences of the indiscriminate use of legal sanctions. In doing so, the father
of symbolic interactionism encouraged a structural perspective on the inter-
generational effects of legal sanctioning, writing that “a system of punish-
ments assessed with reference to their deterrent powers not only works very
inadequately in repressing crime but also preserves a criminal class” (p. 583).
Mead was concerned that our system of legal sanctions provides few if any
mechanisms for the revocation of the stigma involved in criminal proceed-
ings. The implication of Mead’s analysis is that crime is concentrated across
a generation in a permanent class of criminals.
Mead’s concern about a permanent criminal class focuses attention on
processes of intergenerational labeling and suggests the possibility of a fur-
ther contingency in labeling theory, namely, that deviant behaviors that meet
labeling responses early in a behavioral career may be most likely to lead to
subsequent deviant behavior when the early actor is the child of parents who
are also labeled deviant. Said more simply, labels may be most likely to affect
the behavior of adolescents where they are imposed in the context of a family
that has previously been labeled deviant. (pp. 267–268)
These statements illustrate both the range of theoretical frameworks

and their interdependence as explanations of instances of intergenera-
tional parallelism of deviance and its correlates. The need to simultane-
ously consider several different theoretical perspectives is nicely
illustrated by a case study of intergenerational transmission of deviant pat-
terns by Dunlap and her associates (2002):
This paper examines some of the social mechanisms for intergenerational

transmission of subcultural norms drawing heavily on social learning theory,
strain theory, and theories regarding identity formation. We contend that girls
growing up within severely distressed inner-city households are continually
confronted in many ways: physically, sexually, and visually by the use of
drugs within their household. Within their environment, a child’s sense of
safety, sense of self, sense of worth, and sense of any alternative future within
conventional society is continually assaulted. They become inured to what
comes next—a process of desensitization that Goffman (1961) described as
mortification of the self. Once prepared in this manner, girls learn the pre-
vailing conduct norms in their households regarding drugs, sexual exploita-
tion and interpersonal violence by modeling what others did to them. As
adults, they effectively replicate these behavioral conduct norms, re-initiating
the mortification process upon the next generation. (p. 2)
Both the range of theories that have been used to interpret instances of
intergenerational parallelism and the empirical interdependence of vari-
ables that reflect theoretical constructs in several of these theories stim-
ulate the use of an integrative theory of deviant behaviors that, in effect,
incorporates virtually all extant theoretical approaches to the study of
deviance and has proven useful in informing inclusive multivariate
models of the antecedents and consequences of deviant behavior
(Kaplan, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1995; Kaplan &
Johnson, 2001).
18 Chapter 1
An Integrative Theory of Deviant Behavior
Intergenerational parallelism is studied in the context of a general

theory of deviant behavior that addressed how people become motivated
to engage in deviant behavior, the factors that influence acting out
deviant dispositions, and the factors that influence intragenerational
(dis)continuities or (de)escalation of deviance. As the theory is applied
to an understanding of intergenerational parallelism in deviance, first-
generation variables are modeled as (in)directly mediating or moderat-
ing the influence of first-generation variance on second-generation
deviance or as common intragenerational influence on deviance in each
generation that reflect or have consequences for parallelism across gen-
erations. Consideration is given in turn to processes that reflect or influ-
ence: motivation (or disposition) to engage in behaviors defined as
deviant; acting out deviant dispositions; and (dis)continuity of deviant
behavior.
Motivation to Engage in Acts Defined as Deviant

The most immediate cause of deviant behavior is the motivation or
disposition to engage in such acts. Motivation to behave in ways that
are defined as deviant arise in either of two broad sets of circumstances.
In the first case, a person is socialized to internalize standards for self-
evaluation. Circumstances result in the person experiencing failure and
rejection. These experiences result in distressful negative self-feelings
that cause (1) alienation from (loss of motivation to conform to) the con-
ventional normative system and (2) motivation to adopt alternative
deviant patterns that promise to forestall experiences of failure and rejec-
tion or to assuage the negative self-feelings that result from such experi-
ences. In the second case, the standards are internalized prescribed
behaviors that are judged to be deviant by groups other than those in
which the person holds membership, but that are evaluated as appropri-
ate according to the standards of the person’s membership group(s). The
person is motivated to engage in the behaviors (that are defined as
deviant by other groups) because they conform to the expectations of
other group members on whom the person depends for satisfaction of
his/her quotidian instrumental and socioemotional needs and because
they conform to self-imposed expectations as well. Failure to conform to
these expectations would evoke rejecting attitudes from salient others
and self-devaluing attitudes, either of which would result in distressful

negative self-feelings. Each of these circumstances is considered in
turn.
Motivation to engage in acts that are deviant by the standards of
one’s membership group(s) is the result of negative self-feelings that are
the consequences of chronic failure to evoke positive attitudes toward one-
self from significant others and to approximate salient self-evaluative
standards. In the course of the normal socialization process, universally
and characteristically the youth (based on childhood dependence on
others for satisfaction of basic biological needs) develops, first, a need
for the approval of significant others and, later, a need for self-approval.
The child learns early on that the approval of others (and, ultimately,
self-approval) is contingent on meeting (self-) evaluative standards
regarding the possession of highly valued characteristics and the
performance of role-appropriate behaviors. Indeed, one of those standards
is the expectation of eliciting approving responses from significant
others.
The chronic failure to elicit approving responses from self and oth-
ers, resulting from the failure to approximate the now internalized self-
evaluative standards, results in the experience of stable negative
self-feelings. Because the person’s experiences in conventional member-
ship group(s) have culminated in self-perceptions of failure and social
rejection and consequent negative self-feelings, the person loses motiva-
tion to conform to the normative standards of the conventional group(s)
that have failed to provide opportunities to succeed and to evoke positive
attitudes from others: self-approval and correlated positive self-feelings.
Nor has conventional society provided the mechanisms that might have
permitted the person to assuage the negative self-feelings that are the con-
comitants of failure and rejection.
The inability to satisfy the need for self-approval (stimulated by the
self-derogation associated with chronic failure and rejection in the course of
conventional group experiences) motivates the person to seek and adopt
alternatives to the conventional patterns that were ineffectual in satisfying the
need to avoid or assuage negative self-feelings and to experience positive
self-feelings. These alternative deviant patterns would serve these needs if
the deviant patterns (1) facilitated achievement of conventional goals through
illicit means, as when theft permits the procurement of articles that signify
material success—a standard for positive self-evaluation, (2) permitted per-
ceptual distortions that allowed the rejected and failed person to think well
20 Chapter 1
of himself/herself, as when drug misuse precludes self-awareness of failure

and rejection or allows misperceptions of personal potency or grandiose
achievements, (3) permited interpersonal avoidance of conventional others
so as to forestall experiences of rejection and failure, as when the person
seeks personal isolation or withdraws into his/her own personal world, and
(4) resulted in the invalidation of the conventional standards according to
which the person was judged to be a failure and rejected by self and others
or that led to the adoption of an alternative deviant value system that offered
more easily attainable standards as a route to self-approval, as when van-
dalism or interpersonal violence serve to symbolically or in fact attack rep-
resentations or representatives of the conventional value system or when
attraction to a deviant subculture provides a potentially more achievable set
of standards (at the same time expressing contempt for conventional values)
and precludes interaction with conventional others who have judged the per-
son and found him/her wanting.
The chronic experience of failure and rejection and of consequent
distressful self-feelings, are a function of numerous circumstances, virtu-
ally all of which implicate the characteristics, experiences, and behaviors
that compose the parental histories whether as genetically transmitted,
constitutionally given, socially ascribed or transmitted, ecologically con-
textualized, or socially evaluated. The youth’s experiences of rejection
and failure in large measure reflect, or are occasioned by, what has been
labeled earlier as unmotivated deviance. That is, the youth possesses char-
acteristics, performs behaviors, or suffers experiences that are contrary to
his/her will but nonetheless, as a result, is forced to be the object of neg-
ative social sanctions that indicate to him/her outcomes worthy of judg-
ments of failure and social rejection. The self-perception of these
outcomes evokes negative self-feelings.
Some of these unwelcome and sanctionable attributes are genetically
transmitted/constitutionally given such as physical limitations, a less than
amiable temperament, or psychological deficits related to cognitive or
executive functions. Other intergenerational outcomes relate to a paucity
of resources, including those related to level of wealth, education, reputa-
tion, and group membership. The absence of resources on the part of the
parental generation increases the likelihood of failure and social rejection,
the adoption of deviant adaptations, and consequent social stigmatization.
The experience of stigmatization is suffered through association by the
child as well.
Still other parental experiences relate to the occurrence of stressful

life circumstances and the lack of effective conventional coping, adaptive,
or defense mechanisms to forestall or assuage the distressful consequences
of the stressful life experiences. The inadequate coping patterns are trans-
mitted to the child, who, in turn, deals with life experiences through the
adoption of maladaptive and unconventional response patterns. At the
same time, the experience of stressful life events by the youth is increased
by the concomitants of the deviant lifestyle of the parents, which occasions
family conflict, parental abuse and neglect, and stigmatization. Even under
circumstances where the child accepts the family climate as normative, the
youth is vulnerable to the negative social sanctions that function to deprive
him/her of resources (individual and interpersonal, instrumental and
socioemotional) that are prerequisite to the resolution of life crises.
The net effect of such intergenerational influences is the genesis of self-
rejecting feelings in the youth. Particularly where the experience of
self-rejection is associated with conventional membership group experi-
ences, the youth will attenuate any feelings of attraction to the conventional
group(s) that he/she had and will become disposed to seek deviant alterna-
tives as responses to distressful self-feelings.
The second scenario under which youths become motivated to
engage in behavior that is defined as deviance specifies the existence of
shared normative expectations that endorse the behavior as conventional
within the group although the behavior is defined as deviant by groups
other than those in which the youths hold membership; perhaps more
politically influential groups.
The group that endorses the “deviant” patterns preexists the youths
who come to share the expectations relating to the response pattern. The
youth might be born into the group and be socialized to accept these pat-
terns as normative by intergenerational parental influences, socialization
into intergenerational continuous peer groups, or observation of the preva-
lence of the pattern throughout the population that is said to share the
“deviant” pattern across generations.
Alternatively, the youth might opt to adopt the deviant patterns later
in life, having been attracted to the group as a more salubrious alternative
to more conventional groups from which the youth was alienated because
of the groups’ influence on the genesis of chronic experiences of rejection
and failure and concomitant distressful self-feelings. The “deviant” group
might offer the promise of a more easily achievable set of standards and
22 Chapter 1
consequent acceptance by others, escape from a more draconian socio-

normative system that offers the likelihood of continuing experiences of
failure, and a shared antipathy to, and denigration of, the standards
according to which the youth was judged to have failed and so suffered
social rejection and distressful self-feelings.
Acting Out Deviant Dispositions

Although youths might be motivated or disposed to engage in
deviant activities, whether they in fact act out those motives is contingent
on a number of circumstances. As noted earlier, in the normal course of
socialization, the person develops the needs to elicit positive attitudes
from significant others and to possess those characteristics and perform
those behaviors that elicit those attitudes from significant others.
Whatever the source of the deviant motivations, whether it stems from
the experiences of failure and rejection in the groups that define the acts
as deviant or from the perception that the acts are endorsed by one’s
membership groups, the performance of the motivated acts depends on
the need of the person to conform to the group’s expectations. If the per-
son needs to evoke positive responses from the group members who view
the act as objectionable, the youth will be inhibited from acting out
his/her deviant disposition. However, if the person has attenuated emo-
tional ties with group members, then their perceived disapproval of the
deviant acts will not have an inhibiting effect on acting out the deviant
disposition.
Similarly, if the individual in the course of the developmental process
internalized needs to approximate certain self-values such as being law
abiding, then the perception of a projected act as contravening that stan-
dard would inhibit the acting out of the behavior in which the person is
otherwise motivated to engage. However, if the need to be law abiding had
not been internalized, then the recognition that the act was illicit would
not inhibit the acting out of the deviant disposition; or, if the person
needed to feel in control of his/her emotions, the recognition that the use
of psychoactive substances would reduce self-control would threaten that
self-value and inhibit the behavior in which the youth was otherwise moti-
vated to engage, In the absence of that need, however, the anticipated loss
of self-control would not in itself be inhibiting.
Although some self-values such as those reviewed above are intrin-
sically valued, others are regarded as instrumental to the achievement of
other ends. If the person anticipated that a deviant act that he/she was
disposed to engage in would have consequences that deprived the person
of the resources that were essential to the achievement of higher order val-
ues, the person would be inhibited from acting out the deviant motivation;
but in the absence of recognition that receiving instrumental resources is
contingent on not performing deviant acts, the person will not be inhibited
from acting out the deviant disposition.
The internalization of the needs to evoke positive attitudinal
responses from conventional others (i.e., one’s membership group) and to
approximate other self-evaluative standards depends on first-generation
representatives effectively transmitting these needs to the youths of the
next generation. Such effective transmission depends on these same rep-
resentatives having, themselves, internalized these values, having the
opportunity (including ongoing physical presence) to transmit the values,
and being exposed to effective parenting techniques (including the ability
to elicit positive affective identification from children). In the absence of
those contingencies, the youth will not be socialized to need positive
responses from others and to otherwise approximate salient self-attitudes;
and, so, the youth will not be inhibited from acting out deviant disposi-
tions, gained from whatever source. However, even in circumstances
under which the youth was effectively socialized by conventional others,
as had been suggested earlier, long-term experiences of failure and social
rejection might attenuate emotional ties to conventional others and values
and, thus, weaken the inhibitory influence on acting out deviant disposi-
tions that might otherwise have been experienced.
Even in the presence of inhibitory influences (i.e., where the youth
is emotionally committed to the conventional individuals and standards),
the youth might yet commit deviant acts if he/she is able to justify it in
terms that are compatible with the broader social structure. Thus, inter-
personal violence might be legitimated as a justifiable extension of preva-
lent patterns in social institutions such as those related to recreation
(sports violence, television programming) or global political strategy
(war); or, illicit activities by adolescents might be rationalized as youth-
ful exuberance.
The acting out of deviant dispositions, in addition to requiring the
absence of inhibiting circumstances and the presence of rationalizations
that are compatible with conventional socionormative systems, also
requires opportunities to act out motivations to engage in deviant acts.
The opportunity to engage in deviant acts requires resources, whether
24 Chapter 1
these take the form of a ready supply of illicit drugs, an unguarded

house, an available victim of hostile urges, or other physical, personal,
or interpersonal prerequisites. The opportunity to act out deviant disposi-
tions also encompasses the situational context that provides the occasions
or stimuli for the deviant acts, as when instruments of violence interact
with predispositions to aggression to instigate interpersonal assault or
when recreational settings stimulate drug use.
The situational context and deviant motivation are mutually influen-
tial. Whereas the context facilitates activation of deviant motives, the dis-
position to deviance instigates the search for facilitating resources and
occasions to commit the deviant acts. The opportunities to engage in devi-
ant acts are a function of numerous factors, including the range of deviant
acts that might reflect the disposition and the extent of the person’s
involvement in conventional social roles. If the person is disposed to
engage in any deviant act simply because of its function as a symbolic
rejection of the conventional order from which the person feels alienated,
then a wide range of opportunities would facilitate acting out this general
predisposition. However, if drug dependency were the motivating force,
only a narrower range of opportunities would suffice to permit acting out
the predisposition, namely drug-related resources and supportive interper-
sonal situations.
The greater involvement one has in playing conventional social roles,
the less time a person who is otherwise motivated to engage in deviant
behavior has to become aware of or participate in situations conducive to
engaging in these activities. Indeed, immersion in normative roles might
provide alternative conventional pathways to forestalling experiences of
failure and social rejection or to the reduction of the distress that accom-
panies such experiences.
(Dis)continuity of Deviant Behavior

Whether a person continues or discontinues, increases or decreases,
performance of deviant acts following initiation of deviant behavior is
influenced by the more or less direct consequences of the initial perform-
ance (e.g., self-enhancing feelings, personal injury, approval by deviant
peers, stigmatization by conventional others) and by changes in the per-
son’s circumstances (e.g., developmental processes across the life course)
that influence the strength of motives that mitigate the disposition to devi-
ate and the opportunities to act out those motives.
Continuation or Escalation of Deviant Behavior

Continuation or escalation of deviant behavior is influenced by three
sets of variables: those that influence (1) positive reinforcement of deviant
acts, resulting from the satisfaction of salient needs that are traceable to
the initial deviance, (2) the weakening of social constraints that might
have forestalled continuity or escalation of initial deviance, and (3) the
establishment or continuity of opportunities to engage in deviance.
Virtually all of these implicate intergenerational processes.
Regarding positive reinforcement, deviant behavior satisfies impor-
tant needs of the individual, some of which precede and motivate the ini-
tial deviance, and another of which is a consequence of stigmatizing social
responses to the initial deviance that motivate continued or enhanced
deviance as a solution to the resultant need for self-justification.
The experience of the satisfaction of needs that preceded and moti-
vated the initial deviance increases the likelihood that the deviance will be
repeated (or escalated) when the need recurs in the anticipation that satis-
faction of the need will ensue once again. The several needs that might be
said to motivate the deviant acts relate to the more general need for posi-
tive self-feeling. This need is occasioned by self-derogatory evaluations
that stem from related experiences of social rejection and failure from
significant others in the person’s life. The deviant acts might satisfy the
person’s need for positive self-feelings in any of a number of ways,
including (1) permitting the attainment of conventional self-evaluative
standards through illicit means, (2) facilitating intrapsychic or interper-
sonal avoidance of circumstances that occasion experiences of rejection
and failure, (3) attacking, symbolically or otherwise, the validity of the
socionormative system that occasioned self-perceptions of failure and
social rejection, and (4) substituting a more forgiving and achievable set
of deviant evaluative standards for the conventional one(s) that occasioned
self-derogatory attitudes in response to judgments of failure and
concomitant rejection by self and others.
The performance of deviant acts, in addition to satisfying preexisting
needs, also creates need. By virtue of evoking stigmatizing responses to
initial deviant acts as formal and informal sanctions, the deviant actors
develops the need to assuage the distressful self-feelings associated with
being an object of stigmatizing responses. The deviant actor accomplishes
this by self-justification, or through redefinition of the deviant act in pos-
itive rather than negative terms, and by evidencing the “positive” value of
26 Chapter 1
the “deviant” acts through repetition or escalation of these acts. The

deviant actor, in the former instance, uses conventional rationalizations of
the behavior, and in the latter case, the actor rejects the validity of the
“conventional” socionormative order in favor of one centered on deviant
value, identities, and behaviors. As Coleman (1986, p. 225) suggested, the
positive reevaluation of deviant identities and behaviors permits the
deviant actor to “regain their identity through redefining normality and
realizing that it is acceptable to be who they are.” Having come to posi-
tively value the deviant identity, the “deviant” actor is motivated to con-
form to the expectations that the “deviant” patterns are good by
conforming to these expectations through the repetition or escalation of
these acts. The evaluative redefinition of deviant behavior is facilitated by
the weakening of emotional ties to the conventional society and entry into
a network of deviant actors that provides social support for the adoption
of deviant identities and the correlated performance of deviant acts.
In addition to the positive reinforcement of deviant acts, a second
circumstance that increases the likelihood of continued or escalation of
deviant behavior is the weakening of social controls that previously
worked to forestall the acting our of deviant impulses. Social controls
operate through engendering personal needs to avoid adverse conse-
quences of deviant acts (e.g., incarceration, loss of resources, rejection by
significant others) or to attain valued consequences (e.g., respect from
valued others, material rewards, a sense of satisfaction from having a
law-abiding personal identity). These controls will be weakened as effec-
tive constraints against deviant behavior if engaging in deviant acts is not
perceived as a threat to the satisfaction of these needs or if the deviant
actor no longer needs these outcomes. In the former case, deviant behav-
iors will not be considered a threat if adverse consequences are not
observable either because they do not in fact occur or because the deviant
actors have been expelled from conventional interactions and thus are not
longer vulnerable to the experiences of adverse sanctions from conven-
tional others. The deviant actors, because of the social distance created
by negative sanctions, are no longer able to be aware of any sanctions
being administered.
In the latter case, the need for conventional social approval and the
trappings of conventional achievement are weakened by the same
processes that endangered the initial disposition to engage in the deviant
acts. The experiences of rejection and deprivation of resources that follow
upon initial deviance, along with the past and ongoing experiences of
failure and rejection in the conventional world, lead to defensive rejection

of the persons and standards that are associated with the world perceived
as responsible for the distressful self-feelings that accompany the adverse
outcomes. In self-defense, the deviant persons no longer care about what
conventional others think of them or about the standards that are used to
judge the deviants (and that were once used by the deviants to judge them-
selves). No longer needing the good opinions and resources of the con-
ventional world, the deviants are no longer restrained from continuing to
engage in or escalating involvement in deviant acts by the fear that they
will not achieve the approval of conventional others and success, as this is
defined by conventional standards.
Along with positive reinforcements that result from deviance and the
attenuation of social controls that might have constrained the acting out of
deviant impulses, increased opportunities to engage in deviant acts influ-
ence the continuity or escalation of initial deviance. A number of factors
conspire to increase the interaction between those who engage in initial
deviance and deviant group members. First, the nature of sanctions that
are administered in response to initial deviance (incarceration with other
deviants, expulsion from school, avoidance by conventional others)
increases the opportunities for (or constrain) interaction with deviant
peers while (by) decreasing the likelihood of interaction with conventional
others. Second, the stigmatizing sanctions administered by conven-
tional others decrease attraction to conventional groups and increase the
attractiveness of deviant groups as potential sources of satisfaction of
needs that have not been, nor are likely to be, satisfied in the future by
conventional groups. Third, having been stigmatized by virtue of the ini-
tial deviance and as a result of being the object of punitive responses, the
deviant person appears to deviant others as an appropriate recruit into their
deviant networks.
The increased interaction with deviant networks increases the oppor-
tunities (as well as social support) for deviant acts. The youth becomes
socialized through the process of observation and positive reinforcement.
The “recruit” learns new patterns of deviance and is provided with a set-
ting that occasions such actions.
Just as positive reinforcement of deviant behaviors, the attenuation
of social controls, and increased opportunities influence the continuation
or escalation of deviant behavior, so it is to be expected that the lack of
positive reinforcement of deviant behavior, the continuity of conven-
tional social controls, and increased opportunities to satisfy needs
28 Chapter 1
through conventional patterns would decrease the opportunity to pursue

deviant mechanisms for need satisfaction. Thus, whether the deviant indi-
viduals were born into and socialized within deviant networks or were
recruited into such networks as deviant adaptations to experiences of fail-
ure and rejection in conventional groups, the failure of the deviant net-
works and behaviors to enhance positive self-feelings or, indeed, the
tendency of deviant groups to be sources of failure and rejection would
decrease the disposition to continue to engage in (deviant) behaviors that
failed to enhance self-feelings or were the source of negative self-feel-
ings (Kaplan & Lin, 2000a, 2005). Thus, discontinuance of or decrease
in deviant behaviors would ensue following recognition of the continu-
ity or onset of negative self-feelings associated with the deviant adapta-
tions. Given the expectations that conventional mechanisms were
available that gave hope of self-enhancing outcomes, the deviant actors
would be good candidates for eschewing deviant adaptations in favor of
conventional ones.
Discontinuity of deviant adaptations is likely to occur also under cir-
cumstances whereby the continuity of deviance begins to threaten new
needs that theretofore were not relevant, as when becoming a parent leads
to the commitment to fulfilling associated role expectations—a need that
would be threatened by ongoing deviant acts. In any case, despite the
alienation engendered by experiences of failure and rejection in conven-
tional groups, the needs to conform engendered by early and intense
socialization processes would not be completely obviated; thus, contem-
plation of continued deviance would generate, at the very least, ambiva-
lence and, at most, antipathy. Thus, especially given the possibility of
successfully pursuing conventional values, the deviant actor is vulnerable
to forces contraindicating continuity or escalation of deviance.
Finally, if the person’s needs, or the opportunities to meet those
needs, change, the use of deviant mechanisms to meet one’s needs might
be rendered obsolete. With maturation, the adoption of adult roles might
provide opportunities for success (e.g., through occupational pursuits) that
were theretofore denied the deviant actor; with the assumption of occupa-
tional, marital, and parental roles, the time and related opportunities to
become aware of and adopt deviant alternatives would be diminished.
This outline is provided only as a brief review of the complex inte-
grative theory of deviant behavior that guides the analyses to be reported
in chapters 3–6. Other sources provide more detailed coverage (Kaplan,
1972, 1975, 1980, 1986, 1995, 1996; Kaplan and Johnson 2001). This
theory effectively integrates a large number of special theories that

address particular aspects of explanations of deviant behavior. Our inten-
tion was not to integrate these theories. However, following the implica-
tions of our initial premises, it was inevitable that the general theory
would encompass these other perspectives. By way of justifying the use
of the integrated theory to inform the empirical analyses, the ways in
which the integrative theory overlap with numerous extant more specific
theories are highlighted, particularly regarding their applicability to the
explanation of intergenerational parallelism.
The Integrative Theory and Other Deviance Theories
The guiding theoretical framework generally is recognized as

encompassing a range of traditional theories of deviance. Thus, Akers
(2000) stated:
Howard B. Kaplan (1975) proposed a self-esteem/self-derogation theory of

adolescent deviance that brings together deviant peer influences (social
learning theory), family and school factors (control theory), dealing with fail-
ure to live up to conventional expectations (strain theory), and self-concept
(symbolic interactionism and labeling theory). (p. 248)
Earlier, Wells (1978, p. 190) cited this general theory as one of two major
exemplars of the rapprochement between two theoretical viewpoints—
respectively named structural interactionism and socialization-control
analyses—that in the 1960s were among the “dominant perspectives on
the use of the self concept in the study of deviance.”
Structural interactionism focused on deviance in subcultural terms
as a collective response to social variables. For Cohen (1955), gang delin-
quency emerged as a collective response to status-frustration that resulted
“from the intersection of social dysfunction and the fundamental motiva-
tion of people to enhance or validate their self-identities through social
interaction” (Wells, 1978, p. 190). This work was an attempt, then, to
articulate motivational, interpersonal, and situational considerations, on
the one hand, with social structural theories (notably anomie theory).
Further attempts to link social structural conditions (differentially dis-
tributed resources, experiences, and values) with the interpersonal events
by which they are produced took the form of self-role theory. Within this
perspective, a self-identity is said to arise within ongoing social interac-
tions that are, in turn, influenced by social structures of available or
30 Chapter 1
appropriate identities. The socially organized sense of self guides the

construction of new actions and is influenced by others’ responses to past
actions. Wells cites, as examples of this approach in the study of
deviance, motivational models of deviance adoption (Cohen, 1965, 1966;
Cohen & Short, 1966) and differential identification theory emphasizing
the selective action of significant others or valued reference groups on
reflected appraisal.
From the second perspective, socialization-control analyses—and
particularly in the early and later development of containment theory
(Reckless, 1967; Schwartz & Tangri, 1965)—self-concept was treated as
a developing personality variable rather than as an interactional process
intervening between individual and group-level events. A favorable self-
concept, as a mechanism of inner containment and as an insulator against
deviance, was introduced to explain deviance along with the previously
propounded social control factors (i.e., socially institutionalized struc-
tures of inducements and constraints). In the course of the socialization
process, the development of a favorable self-concept functions to inhibit
dispositions toward deviance.
The synthesis between structural interactionists and socialization-
control analysis would appear to be the outgrowth of the recognition that
social structural differences are produced through the distribution of
socialization experiences and role-learning opportunities, as well as
through the distribution of resources. “It reemphasizes that socialization is
a social process consisting essentially of interpersonal associations and
patterns which connect individuals interactively to larger social contexts”
(Wells, 1978, p. 194). Both Kaplan (1975) and Hewitt (1970), the other
exemplar, are said to relate self-concept and deviance to the social struc-
ture by the following proposals:
1. Commitment to the normative order is influenced by adequacy of level
of self-esteem.
2. Level of self-esteem is a cumulative product of socialization experiences
variously distributed across different social sectors or interpersonal asso-
ciations.
When the situational structure is unable to maintain an acceptable

level of self-esteem, the person will be disposed to seek individual or col-
lective deviant alternatives that might provide more positive experiences.
The actual adoption of the alternative activities will also be a function of
the external structure of rewards, opportunities, and resources.
The comprehensive nature of the general theory under consideration

is apparent when attention is directed toward any of several traditional
perspectives on deviance, including strain, subculture/differential associa-
tion, control, and labeling theories/perspectives. Several of these are con-
sidered, in turn, with particular attention paid to their relevance, and
therefore the relevance of the integrative theory, for explaining instances
of intergenerational parallelism of deviance.
Strain-Related Theories
From the structured strain perspective (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960;
Merton, 1938), deviant responses are viewed as outcomes of the disjunc-
tion between culturally prescribed (and personally internalized) goals and
institutionalized means for achieving these goals. Compatible with this
view, in the general theory such disjunctions reflect both the failure to
achieve culturally valued goals and the absence of instrumental resources.
These, in turn, increase the likelihood of pervasive self-rejection and the
consequent adoption of deviant responses that are consciously or uncon-
sciously intended to enhance self-attitudes. Among the available mecha-
nisms for accomplishing this is the rejection of culturally prescribed
values. Thus, the theory is particular congruent with Cohen’s (1955) view
of delinquent gangs as collective solutions to the frustration of being
unable to attain conventional goals by conventional means. The solution,
of course, is to reject the legitimate structure. More recently, Agnew
(1992) provided a more inclusive version of strain theory that went
beyond equating strain with the disjunction between goals and means.
Agnew conceived of three categories of strains, which included inability
to achieve positively valued goals, loss of positively valued relationships
and other stimuli, and the experience of being the object of negative
actions by others. This version also is compatible with the general theory
insofar as all of these “strains” implicate threats to self-acceptance and
increase the probability of self-derogation.
With regard to intergenerational parallelism, social stress theories,
and more particularly, self-derogation theory, also operate via intervening
mechanisms, intergenerational parallelism of intragenerational causes of
deviant behavior, and representation of moderating influences. Thus, the
consequences of deviant behavior, including evoking distressful social
sanctions, might mediate the intergenerational parallelism of deviant
behavior. Alienation resulting from negative social sanctions leads to
32 Chapter 1
performance of the deviant behavior by adult first-generation subjects and

thus provides the occasion for modeling such behavior by the second-
generation children. With regard to intergenerational parallelism of intra-
generational antecedents of deviance, self-derogation in each generation
and related psychological distress motivate deviant adaptations. The
psychological distress is intergenerationally continuous insofar as self-
derogation forestalls the learning of effective conventional coping mecha-
nisms that otherwise would be transmitted to the next generation.
Self-derogation also serves as a moderating variable insofar as the
association of self-derogation with deviant behavior in the first generation
might weaken the intragenerational parallelism of deviant behavior because
it has failed to assuage self-derogation and, in fact, might contribute to it.
The attenuation of intragenerational deviance, in turn, diminishes the occa-
sions for modeling of deviant behavior by the next generation.
Subcultural/Social Learning Theories

Once Cohen’s (1955) collective solutions to shared frustrations are
viewed as a stable response system, this perspective might be classified as
either a subculture or a differential association theory (Akers, 1973; Miller,
1958; Sutherland & Cressey, 1974), in that “deviant” responses reflect de
facto conformity to shared normative expectations in particular member-
ship groups. In the context of the general theory of deviant behavior under
consideration, such responses are viewed similarly as the outcome of nor-
mal socialization processes whereby the individual conforms to expecta-
tions in order to earn self-acceptance and correlated benign outcomes, such
as acceptance by other group members. The failure to conform to these
group expectations is deviant from the group perspective and initiates the
chain of events leading to motivated deviant responses (i.e., responses that
purposely contravene the group’s expectations). Motivated deviance would
not ordinarily result from conforming to the group’s expectations (which
happen to be judged as deviant from the perspective of other groups),
except under conditions where the other groups, as a result of their judg-
ment that the behavior in question was deviant, had the power to engineer
outcomes for the subject that were sufficiently self-devaluing in their
implications to more than counterbalance the self-enhancing effects of the
subject’s commitment to the normative structure.
According to the stress paradigm, intergenerational parallelism in
deviance is mediated by the induction of stress by the parents’ deviance.
The substance-use-induced stress in the children evokes the previously

learned stress-reduction response. In this instance, the stress paradigm
presumes a social learning model as well. In the social learning model, the
transmission of the deviance pattern is direct. Either deviance by the first
generation is modeled by the second generation or deviance as a stress-
reducing mechanism is learned directly by the second generation. In short,
the situational context of deviance is learned.
Social learning theory and subcultural theory in the context of the
integrative theory provide for the purposeful teaching of deviant patterns
to children, the modeling of observed deviant patterns, and related
processes reflecting “cultural or characterological processes by which
parents, through child-raising conditions and practices reproduce in their
children the characteristics that lead to crime” (Hagan & Palloni, 1990,
p. 266). Subcultural or social learning theories might also suggest that cir-
cumstances that facilitate the teaching and modeling of deviant behavior
within each generation are themselves intergenerationally continuous.
Thus, a criminogenic environment might facilitate the genesis of deviant
dispositions in one generation and be continuous across generations so
that the same or a similar environment influences deviant dispositions in
the second generation as well. Social learning theory and subcultural the-
ory also suggest moderating influences for intergenerational parallelism.
Thus, in social environments where particular deviant patterns are epi-
demic, deviant patterns performed by representatives of one generation
are more likely to be modeled by the second generation.
Social Control/Bonding Theory

In the context of control theories (Briar & Piliavin, 1965; Hirschi,
1969; Polk & Halferty, 1966) and containment perspectives (Reckless,
1967; Reckless, Dinitz, & Murray, 1956; Schwartz & Tangri, 1965; Voss,
1969), impulses toward deviant responses are checked by a variety of
socially induced factors. Control theories propose that such factors are
related to a person’s emotional commitment to the normative order based
on earlier gratifications achieved in the course of the normative socializa-
tion process. Containment theory introduces a favorable self-concept as an
insulator against deviance, in addition to the earlier noted social control
factors that inhibit the expression of deviant dispositions.
These theories, in effect, are incorporated under the general theory in
a number of ways. To the extent that a subject’s gratifications (particularly
34 Chapter 1
noteworthy among which are positive self-feelings) are associated with the
normative structure, the subject will develop positive affective ties to
the normative structure, in addition to the self-concept of one who appro-
priately seeks valued goals through legitimate means. Conversely, to the
extent that normative relations are associated with self-rejecting feelings
and correlated adverse outcomes, the person’s emotional ties with the nor-
mative structure will be attenuated, as will the need to think of himself or
herself as a person who conforms to normative expectations. Given the
attenuation of these controls, the awareness of alternative deviant routes to
self-enhancement and associated ends is likely to eventuate in the onset of
deviant responses. The adoption of deviant responses further attenuates
one’s ties to the social order insofar as the deviant actor becomes the
object of negative social sanctions, thus motivating rejection of the nor-
mative system in order to justify the earlier deviant responses.
Social control theories are also implicated in explanations of inter-
generational parallelism of deviant behavior. As an intervening variable,
deviant behavior might be thought of as evoking negative social sanctions
(i.e., social control responses). These responses, contingent on a number
of moderating conditions, either cause desistance or escalation of deviant
behavior. Escalation of deviant behavior would occur when the social con-
trol mechanisms alienate the individual from the society by foreclosing
opportunities to rejoin the normative structure in any rewarding fashion.
The alienation from conventional society would attenuate the efficacy of
social controls on the first-generation subject. The ensuing performance
of deviant acts would then be modeled by the second-generation subject
(contingent on the degree of identification of the second-generation sub-
ject with the first-generation subject). Under conditions where the indi-
vidual identified strongly with the normative structure, being the object of
negative social sanctions might decrease the subsequent performance of
deviant acts and so decrease the modeling of the deviant behavior by the
child.
Regarding the intergenerational parallelism of intragenerational
antecedents of deviant behavior, being the object of negative social sanc-
tions has consequences within each generation for the escalation of
deviant behavior (under specified conditions). Being the object of nega-
tive social sanctions in response to deviant behavior in one generation has
consequences for the parallelism of being the object of negative social
sanctions insofar as the labeling effect of negative social sanctions alien-
ates the subject from conventional society and so attenuates the efficacy
of the social controls. The increased deviant behavior would be modeled

by the second-generation child and would, in turn, increase the probabil-
ity of being the object of negative social sanctions in the second genera-
tion.
As a moderating variable, being the object of negative social
sanctions (i.e., being amenable to social control) would modulate the
degree of intergenerational transmission of deviant behavior. Under
conditions where social control was strong, whether formal or infor-
mal in nature, intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior would
be attenuated.
Labeling Theory
Aspects of a fourth theoretical perspective are also implicit in the
general theory. The labeling perspective (Becker, 1963; Kitsuse, 1962;
Lemert, 1951; Scheff, 1966) focuses on responses to initial deviance by
agents of social control who, in effect, define the social identity and,
thereby, the self-identity of the actor as deviant. A deviant self-identity, in
turn, influences the stabilization of deviant careers. These aspects of the
labeling perspectives that are implicit in the general theory include propo-
sitions regarding the influence of labeling on the onset of deviant
responses, the self-enhancing/self-devaluing consequences of labeling,
and the influence of labeling on the stabilization of deviant response pat-
terns. Regarding the first aspect, the subject’s anticipation of the reaction
of others (including labeling) to proposed deviant adaptations in the serv-
ice of the self-esteem motive will influence his or her expectations regard-
ing the net self-enhancing/self-devaluing consequences and thereby his or
her adoption of the deviant response. Regarding the second implication,
the labeling phenomenon has self-enhancing effects to the extent that it
facilitates (1) avoidance of self-devaluing membership group experiences
by attenuating the relationship between the subject and the membership
groups in which self-rejecting attitudes develop, (2) the attack of the basis
of the subject’s self-rejection since acceptance of the label symbolizes the
subject’s opposition to the very normative expectations that were the basis
of his failure, and, (3) substitution of self-enhancing opportunities for self-
devaluing experiences by permitting the deviant identity to attract positive
attitudinal responses from others similarly labeled. Insofar as self-
enhancing effects are experienced, the subject will gain a positive
emotional investment in the deviant identity.
36 Chapter 1
Finally, a third implication of the labeling phenomenon relates to the

parallelism of deviant careers. Quite apart from any influence on the par-
allelism of a deviant pattern exercised by the resultant positive emotional
investment in the deviant identity, labeling might be hypothesized to have
at least two other influences on parallelism. First, a deviant label raises the
psychological costs of attempted reentry into the normative system where,
were it not for these labeling-induced barriers, the subject might have
adopted newly available, normative, self-enhancing or self-protective
mechanisms. Second, societal labeling increases the subject’s felt need to
justify his or her initial deviant responses in order to assuage the self-
rejecting feelings deriving from the negative labeling experience. Insofar
as this justification is successful, repetition of the deviant act is facilitated.
Labeling theory also has implications for explaining intergenera-
tional parallelism in deviant behavior. As an intervening variable, being
the object of negative social sanctions labels an individual as deviant and
so alienates the person from the social order as a consequence of being so
labeled. The labeling, in turn, leads to escalation of the first-generation
subject’s deviant behaviors and so provides more circumstances for
modeling the deviant behavior by the second-generation child.
Within each generation, the labeling process influences deviant out-
comes (depending on the person’s expectations of regaining rewarding
entry into the conventional world). The labeling experience itself is inter-
generationally continuous by virtue of the increased first-generation
deviance and the modeling of that deviance by the second-generation sub-
ject. The intergenerational labeling experience is also mediated by the sins
of the father being visited on the son—that is, by virtue of the second-
generation subject being stigmatized because of the stigma associated
with the first-generation parent.
Intergenerational (dis)continuity in deviant behavior is moderated by
experiencing labeling by virtue of the deviant behavior. Where labeling
occurs and the individual has no expectation of being accepted back into
conventional society, intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior is
likely to be greater. Where labeling does not occur and social support for
the deviant behavior is present in the individual’s interpersonal world,
continuity of deviant behavior is likely to be increased. For the individual
who experiences labeling and anticipates being accepted by the conven-
tional world, the likelihood of discontinuity of deviant behavior across
generations is likely to increase by virtue of the fewer occasions available
for the second generation to model the behavior.
The labeling of first-generation behavior stigmatizes the second-

generation child. Where deviant behavior by the second-generation
child might be punished, if the deviant behavior is known to have been
committed by an individual who grows up in the family context of a stig-
matized parent, then the child is more likely to be stigmatized for the
deviant behavior, to become alienated from the conventional world, and
to adopt deviant behavior as a career contingency as a way of adjusting
to a stigmatized identity.
The comprehensive nature of the guiding general theory might have
been attested to by a consideration of a number of other special theories
or by examination of any of the wide variety of integrative theories that
purport to bring together several of these special theories (Akers, 2000).
However, these special and integrative theories are also regarded as com-
patible with or capable of being subsumed under the present general theory
(Kaplan, 2003).
Applying an Integrative Theory
Each of the major theoretical orientations addressing the etiology of

individual deviance also might be implicated in the intergenerational con-
tinuity of deviance. The involvement of these theoretical perspectives var-
iously asserts intervening variables, intergenerational continuity of
intragenerational antecedents, and moderating influences.
Virtually every construct employed in the intergenerational literature
relates on a face valid basis to traditional theories of deviant behavior. For
example, intergenerational modeling appears to relate to social learn-
ing/subcultural theories of deviance transmission. Experiences of subjec-
tive distress or antecedents of subjective distress such as marital conflict
or abusive parenting practices reflect stress theories or, more particularly,
self theories. Parental influences whether as contextual or mediating vari-
ables are interpretable in terms of degree of social control that is exercised
over children who are otherwise predisposed to engage in deviant behav-
ior or in terms of the distress caused the second-generation subject as a
result of being abused, ignored, or otherwise derogated by the parent in
the course of the socialization experiences.
The mediating, moderating, and common antecedent variables that
are observed to play a role in intergenerational parallelism are inter-
pretable at one level of abstraction in terms of a relatively small number
38 Chapter 1
of theoretical variables that together compose the above-summarized inte-

grative theory of deviance.
As the integrative theory is applied to the empirical investigation of
intergenerational parallelism of deviance, theoretical constructs are
operationalized and are specified as being related to each other either as
reflections of, or contributions to, the explanation of intergenerational par-
allelism. Intergenerational parallelism of deviance is a special case of
bivariate relationships in which a pattern of deviance observed for first-
generation subjects is associated with a like deviant pattern observed for
second-generation subjects. The explanation of the bivariate relationship,
informed by the integrative theory, takes the form of specifying (1) direct
or indirect causal effects of first-generation (G1) deviance on second-
generation (G2) deviance, (2) moderators of the linear relationships, and
(3) intergenerational continuity of intragenerational causes of deviance.
The theoretically informed models of intergenerational parallelism
of deviance are illustrated in Figure 1.1. The general theory specifies the-
oretical conditions (y) under which the empirical association between G1
and G2 deviance (a) is strengthened or weakened. For example, under
Figure 1.1. Explaining Intergenerational Parallelism (or its absence) in Deviant Behavior
conditions where the amount of interaction or emotional ties between the

two generations are lessened, the degree of intergenerational parallelism
will be weakened, as it would under conditions of rapid social change dis-
rupting commonality of attitudes and values. Conversely, where circum-
stances facilitate social learning and where positive affective ties are
maintained across generations, G1–G2 parallelism in deviance would be
increased.
Where the empirical association between G1 and G2 deviance is
hypothesized to be causal in nature, the effect of G1 deviance on G2
deviance is decomposed in terms of theoretically informed intervening
processes. For example, G1 deviant behavior (through specified inter-
vening processes) leads to G1 adult deviance (e) that is imitated by G2
adolescents (f), or G1 deviant behavior influences G1 adult deviance
(e). which influences stigmatization of the G2 adolescent (g) that, in
turn, leads to G2 deviant adaptations to the concomitant distressful self-
feelings (c).
Each of these causal linkages is contingent on specified circum-
stances (moderators). For example, the linkage between G1 adolescent
deviance and G1 adult deviance (e) is contingent on the effects of the G1
adolescent deviance on the G1 adolescent’s self-feelings (s); the stigma-
tizing effect of G1 adult deviance on the G2 adolescent (g) is contingent,
in part, on the G1 adult coming to the attention of the authorities (r); and
the direct effect of G1 adult deviance on G2 adolescent deviance (f)
depends, in part, on the visibility of the G1 adult deviance (t).
Instances of intergenerational parallelism of deviance might be
explained on theoretical grounds by processes other than, and in addition
to, the more or less direct effects of G1 deviance on G2 deviance. These
processes involve the parallel operation of intragenerational causal pro-
cesses on deviance (b, c) and causal relations between the parallel intra-
generational causes (d). For example, in each generation, the experience
of self-devaluing feelings might influence the adoption of a deviant pat-
tern as an attempt to enhance self-feelings (b, c). The self-devaluing feel-
ings of G1 subjects might have an intergenerational causal impact on G2
self-devaluing experiences, whether more or less directly (d). Less
directly, for example, G1 self-devaluing feelings as adolescents might
lead to G1 adult self-rejection (h) that, in turn, is modeled by the G2 ado-
lescent (g). Thus, whether G1 deviance has a causal effect on G2
deviance, instances of observed associations between G1 and G2 devi-
ance, in part, might be accounted for by the intergenerational causal
40 Chapter 1
relationship between variables that have parallel intrageneration effects

on deviance.
As in the case of causal relationships between G1 and G2, all of these
linear relationships have their own moderators. For example, the intra-
generational effects of self-rejection on deviance (b, c) are moderated by
the presence of social supports or self-enhancing alternatives that might
blunt the disposition to engage in deviance or of social control mecha-
nisms that might mitigate the acting out of the self-rejection-engendered
deviant impulses (z, x); also, the influence of G1 adult self-rejection on
G2 self-rejection (g) is contingent on such factors as the physical presence
and positive affective bonds between the parent and child (r).
The intragenerational causes of deviance have their own causes (i, j).
For example, in each generation, abusive parenting might cause self-
rejection (i, j) that, in turn, causes deviant behavior adaptations (b, c). As
in the case of the primary intragenerational causes, the indirect causes
might have an intergenerational (more or less direct) causal relationship,
and all of the linear effects have their own moderators (all of which are
represented in Figure 1.1 by unlettered arrows).
Following a presentation of method in chapter 2, the results of the
estimation of representative theoretically informed models are reported in
Parts II and III. In Part II, models are estimated that focus on moderators
of intergenerational parallelism of deviance and selected antecedents of
deviance. In chapter 3, models are estimated that reflect instances of inter-
generational parallelism of deviance and its correlates. In chapter 4, the
estimated models reflect theoretical conditions that facilitate or impede
intergenerational parallelism of deviance and theoretically salient
antecedents of deviant behavior.
In Part III, hypothetical causal relationships are decomposed in terms
of theoretical mediating variables (chapter 5) or intragenerational causes
of deviance and its correlates that are continuous across generations
(chapter 6).
Together, the results of the analyses as these are summarized in Part
IV (chapter 7) offer (1) a methodological template, a logic of procedure
for studying the bivariate relationship that is intergenerational parallelism
of deviance in particular (and, indeed, for studying and elaborating any
bivariate relationship), and (2) theoretically informed substantive contri-
butions to the understanding of intergenerational parallelism of deviance.
2
Method
The research on the intergenerational parallelism of deviance to be

reported in Parts II and III should be evaluated against a consideration of
the adequacy of the procedures that have been followed in extant inter-
generational research. Presented, in turn, is a critical review of the
methodological characteristics of others’ research on intergenerational
parallelism and a description of the research procedures employed in the
present study to address what are perceived as methodological limitations
in current research.
Methodological Limitations of Current Research
The research to be reported in subsequent chapters tries to assess and

explain the degree to which parent’s deviant behavior in late childhood or
early adolescence predicts similar behavior in their own children at com-
parable ages. A large literature exists that attempts to accomplish these
same objectives. A number of observers have presented what they see as
desirable characteristics of such research, implying that a good deal of
research on (what is here called) intergenerational parallelism fails to
approximate these ideal conditions. Thus, It has been argued that the
design of intergenerational research should properly meet three criteria
(Cairns, Cairns, Xie, Leung & Hearne, 1998):
First, such investigations presuppose the study of people who are observed at
approximately the same age (or developmental stage) in two or more
successive generations. The information from each generation should be
41
42 Chapter 2
longitudinal to use time and sequence as primary variables and to clarify the
potential mediational processes. Second, the longitudinal information should
be prospective rather than retrospective. Given the limitations of retrospec-
tive reports—forgetting, distorting, and interpreting the past in light of the
present—there are few alternatives to the prospective longitudinal study.
Third, the information should be multilevel and not restricted to a single
measurement source or domain. As Radke-Yarrow, Campbell, and Burton
(1968) emphasized, independence of assessment provides a buffer against
confounding in interpretation, whether the analyses are contemporary, retro-
spective, or prospective. (p. 1163)
Similarly, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) suggested with regard to studies of

the intergenerational transmission of parenting that
...longitudinal studies should be carried out measuring parenting with com-

parable instruments at comparable times across the lifespan. Furthermore,
contextual factors should be taken into account because the transmission may
be stronger or weaker depending upon the influence of these contextual
accounts on two or three generations. (p. 97)
More recently, Smith and Farrington (2004) concurred that the
...true nature of intergenerational continuities in behavior can be established

more clearly using independent information about youth behavior in two suc-
cessive generations assessed prospectively at roughly the same ages... (p. 231)
Taken together, these descriptions of desirable methodologies

include the following: observation of the different generations at compa-
rable developmental stages; use of prospective longitudinal designs;
specification of mediating causal mechanisms, intergenerationally stable
causes of the phenomenon of interest in each generation and (by
implication) moderators of intergenerational parallelism; and independ-
ent sources of data for the separate generations as the more salient
features of ideal research designs for the investigation of intergenera-
tional parallelism.
Comparable Developmental Stages
Several researchers have noted the virtues of controlling on develop-

mental stage, and the biases that might be introduced by failing to do so,
in studies of intergenerational parallelism. For example, Cairns and asso-
ciates (1998) observed:
Method 43
Early parenting studies have added significantly to the understanding of

socialization processes and the various ways that parents and young children
interact (Parke & Buriel, 1997). However, there are difficulties inherent in
invoking parent–child comparisons to explain continuity across generations.
Large differences exist between adults and children in the organization, form,
and functions of their social and cognitive patterns. Ignoring these disparities
may invite superficial evaluations of parent–child similarities and their func-
tions. More important, because of the dynamic and ephemeral nature of inter-
actional adaptations, it cannot be assumed that similarities observed in early
transactions will be maintained across successive periods of developmental
reorganization.
Given these concerns, the rigorous assessment of intergenerational conti-
nuity seems to require the study of child–child comparisons across genera-
tions (see de Beer, 1958; Cairns, Elder, & Costello, 1996; Cairns, Gariepy, &
Hood, 1990; Elder, Caspi, & Downey, 1986; Hood & Cairns, 1988;
Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). The term intergenerational development refers
to the relations between the ontogeny of behavior and cognition in children
and the ontogeny of the same characteristics in their parents when they, in
their own time, were children. To determine whether mother–child similari-
ties persist over time, parent-to-child comparisons can be embedded in a
long-term child-to-child comparisons across generations. When integrated
over time, such linked longitudinal studies may provide a picture of the rela-
tions between the childhood of the parents and the childhood of the children
and what the mediators of these effects are. Such studies also seem critical in
the identification of possible mechanisms of cross-generational continuity
and change (Burgess & Youngblade, 1988; Caspi & Elder, 1988;
Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; Serbin, 1996; Werner & Smith,
1982). (p.1162)
The failure to control on stage in the life course across generations

would be to ignore that individuals might have different life-course-
related needs that lead to biased reporting. Thus, according to generation
stake theory (Acock & Bengtson 1980, p. 512): “Each generation has an
investment in the generational bond. But, for youth, the ‘stake’ is more
toward maximizing a sense of separate identity; for parents, the invest-
ment pays off in maximizing continuity.” The young adult children would
be motivated to perceive relationships with parents as more conflictual
than they actually are, whereas the parents might be more motivated to
view the relationships in more positive terms that belie the realistic picture
of the relationship. In support of this perspective, Aquilino (1999) cited
studies of parents and children at different stages of the life cycle, including
pairs of parents and adolescents (Noller, Seth-Smith, Bouma, & Schweitzer,
1992), parents and college students (Thompson, Clark, & Gunn, 1985), and
44 Chapter 2
middle-aged children and their parents (Bond & Harvey, 1991). As another
example, Van Ijzendoorn (1992), citing a study (Hanson & Mullis, 1986)
that evaluates parenting and child-rearing attitudes of female college stu-
dents and their parents, observed that by comparing attitudes of two gen-
erations at different phases of the lifespan, it is not evident that the birth of
a baby would or would not change the students’ attitudes to children and
to child-rearing in one or another direction, which could have been ascer-
tained had the female college students been tested at the same develop-
mental stage as their parents.
As these illustrations suggest, studies of intergenerational parallelism
vary according to whether the developmental stages of the representatives
of the separate generations are comparable. Data might be provided by or
about representatives of the two generations at different or comparable
developmental stages. In the former case, for example, adults might pro-
vide information about themselves as adults and about their children when
they were preadolescent, adolescent subjects might provide information
about themselves during adolescence and about their parents’ attitudes
and behaviors, or adult subjects might provide information about their
own attitudes and behaviors and their adolescent children might provide
data about their attitudes and behaviors. In the latter case, where the data
referred to comparable developmental stages of the representatives of the
successive generations, subjects might report about the attitudes and
behaviors of their young adult children and about their own attitudes
and behaviors when they were young adults, or self-reports about adoles-
cent subjects in one generation might be compared with the self-reports of
adolescents in the next generation (i.e., their children) at the same
developmental stage. For the above-noted reasons, controlling on devel-
opmental stage is the much preferred design feature in studies of inter-
generational parallelism.
Prospective Longitudinal Studies
An important limitation of studies of intergenerational parallelism

in deviant behavior is the correlational nature of these investigations—
that is, the failure to establish temporal priority among parental deviance,
putative intervening circumstances, and deviance of the children
(Downey & Coyne, 1990). Cairns and his associates (1998, p. 1162)
noted that “only a handful of empirical researchers have assessed,
Method 45
prospectively, the behavioral and cognitive development of children rel-

ative to the development of their parents when they, in their own time,
were children (but see Eron & Huesmann, 1987; Furstenberg et al., 1987;
Serbin et al., 1991).”
When studying intergenerational continuities, many research
designs do not permit disentangling the influence of parents on children
from the influence of children on parents. This is less of an issue in cir-
cumstances such as the present study in which measures on the parental
generation were taken well before parenthood was reached. Thus, if
causal processes are implicated at all, temporal priority of the baseline
measures of the first-generation subjects have been clearly been estab-
lished to be temporally prior to second-generation outcomes. This is not
to say that more proximal processes might not involve reciprocal influ-
ences. As others have noted, particularly during late adolescence and
early adulthood, relationships tend to be increasingly egalitarian
(Vollebergh, Iedema, & Raaijmakers, 2001). In any case, particularly
where the specification of intervening processes is an issue, prospective
longitudinal designs facilitate less equivocal interpretations of observed
instances of intergenerational parallelism.
Mediators, Common Antecedents, Moderators
Research protocols that aim at a more complete understanding of

instances of intergenerational parallelism must permit the specifica-
tion and measurement of hypothetical mediating, moderating, and
common antecedent variables. Any complete understanding of inter-
generational parallelism must focus on intervening mechanisms of
intergenerational transmission. As Van Ijzendoorn (1992) observed in
connection with a review of studies of intergenerational transmission
of parenting:
Remarkably little is known about the mechanism of intergenerational trans-

mission of parenting. Learning to be a parent and to acquire a certain parent-
ing style may be the outcome of modeling, coaching, or other cognitive
processes, and we are not able to derive from the studies reviewed here which
(combination of) learning process(es) is most supported by the empirical evi-
dence. Most studies are restricted to just showing that a relation between
infant and adult characteristics exists, and do not give insight into the causal
mechanism. (p. 95)
46 Chapter 2
Specification of intervening mechanisms provides insight into some

of the circumstances that moderate instances of interpretational paral-
lelism. Any variable that is observed to mediate the intergenerational trans-
mission could be assumed to be a moderator of that relationship. Thus, if
the intergenerational continuity of poverty is mediated by the influence of
poverty on the educational level of the next generation, then the degree of
continuity depends on the level of education of the second-generation sub-
ject. Under conditions whereby the second-generation subject gains a
higher level of education, intergenerational continuity of poverty is less
likely to be observed. Where poverty in one generation decreases a parent’s
commitment to educational level in the second generation, first-generation
parental commitment to the educational aspirations of the second genera-
tion will modulate the intergenerational transmission such that under con-
ditions of high educational aspirations by the first-generation parent,
intergenerational continuity of poverty is less likely to be observed.
Although many instances of intergenerational parallelism might be
explained by consequences of first-generation behavior or characteristics
(and, by extension, moderators of the parallelism), these same or other
instances might be explained, in part, by intergenerational continuities in fac-
tors that within each generation are significant causes of the phenomenon of
interest (i.e., the construct that manifests intergenerational parallelism).
Intergenerational parallelisms might be explained at many different levels.
Thus, intergenerational continuities might result from continuities in social
context or by intergenerational communication. As Vollebergh et al. (2001)
observed with regard to intergenerational congruity in cultural orientation:
Comparable orientations in both parents and their children may result from
sharing the same environment or sharing comparable social status.
Explanations for the intergenerational transmission of attitudes are therefore
on at least two levels of analysis: on the level of the intergenerational trans-
mission of social status and social positions from parents to their children
(Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986) and on the level of direct transmission
of cultural orientations of parents to those of their children through commu-
nication within the family (Acock & Bengtson, 1980; Beck & Jennings,
1975; Moen, Erickson, & Dempster-McClain, 1997; Petit, Clawson, Dodge,
& Bates, 1996). Past empirical studies have suggested that both explanations
are valid and complementary (Glass et al., 1986; Moen et al., 1997;
Vollebergh, Iedema, & Raaijmakers, 1999). (pp. 1185–1186)
Clearly, then, the research design that attempts to account for, rather than
merely describe the existence of, intergenerational parallelism requires
Method 47
the specification of intervening processes, variables that moderate the

presence and magnitude of intergenerational parallelism, and intergenera-
tional continuities that have causal impact on the outcome of interest in
each generation.
Independent Sources of Data
Studies of intergenerational parallelism vary according to whether a

representative of one generation provides data about both generations or
information on each generation is provided by a representative of that gen-
eration. In the former instance, for example, youth, adolescent, or adult
subjects might provide data about themselves and about their parents or
grandparents or adult subjects might provide information about them-
selves and about their children. Responses by the person regarding com-
parable attitudes or behaviors of the two generational representatives are
taken to be an indication of intergenerational continuity or parallelism. In
the latter instance, data are provided by a representative of each of the
generations. Thus, parents might provide responses about their own
behavior and their children might provide data about their own behavior.
Where the separate responses indicate comparable behaviors or attitudes,
intergenerational continuity or parallelism is said to have occurred.
Studies of intergenerational transmission too frequently use reports
by one or the other generation of the phenomenon that is examined across
generations. Thus, for example, findings indicating that children of
depressed parents demonstrate poorer psychological functioning than
children of parents who are not depressed are often based on parents’
reports of the children’s functioning rather than on the children’s
self-reports or independent observations of the children. Thus, it is possi-
ble that the effect of parental depression on children’s psychological func-
tioning might be the spurious result of the tendency of the depressed
parents to bias their perceptions in a negative direction (Avison, 1999;
Rickard, Forehand, Wells, Griest, & McMahon, 1981). As another
example, Velleman and Orford (1990) reported data for themselves as
adults and for their parents with drinking problems.
The importance of having independent reporters for each generation
is apparent when contrasting methods in which a single reporter was used
with those in which in separate representatives of the multiple gene-
rations reported. Thus, Chassin and her associates (1998), examining the
48 Chapter 2
continuity of parenting across generations, observed such continuity when

the mothers offered data on their own parenting behavior assessed in
adulthood. However, intergenerational continuity was not observed when
the children’s perceptions of maternal support were used.
Studies in which the same subject provides data about both genera-
tions, whether the data are provided about the different generations at dif-
ferent developmental stages, are vulnerable to criticism on numerous
methodological grounds. Validity might be compromised by problems
associated with method variance whereby associations between measures
of the two generations are artificially inflated due to, for example, com-
mon underlying personality traits. As Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and
Wu (1991) observed:
In the issue of intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting, it may be

that aggressive individuals tend to see others, including their parents, as dis-
playing high rates of aggressive behavior (Straus et al., 1980) thereby pro-
ducing an artifactual relationship between descriptions of their own behavior
and that of their parents. (p. 160)
In support of this assertion, although studies based on adolescents’ per-

ceptions of congruence reveal intergenerational continuity regarding val-
ues dealing with educational goals, career, and major life concerns, the
relatively few studies dealing with congruence based on reports from parents
and their adolescent children observe relatively little congruence (Gecas
& Seff, 1990).
Another problem with collecting data on the two generations from a
common source is that the relationship might be artifactually reduced if
we are dealing with socially undesirable data. The cross-generational data
are further threatened when a representative of only one of the generations
provides data about both generations due to retrospective distortion. As
Oliver (1993) observed with regard to the intergenerational transmission
of child abuse:
Omission, confusion, irrationality, distortion, and most bizarre of all, ideal-

ization in accounts of cruel, rejecting, or neglectful grandparents (G1) by par-
ents (G2) with rearing difficulties and/or ill-treated children (G3) are
universal findings. (p. 1320)
The work of Aquilino (1999), alluded to earlier in connection with the

need to control on stage in the life course, is relevant also in regard to
requiring that each representative of successive generations provide data on
Method 49
their own situation rather than having one or the other representative pro-
vide data for both. It apparently does matter who provides self-report data
on such matters as relationship quality contact and interaction patterns.
Systematic differences exist in the perspectives of parents and their adult
children regarding the nature and quality of their relationships. In general,
the parents are more likely to provide a happier view of the intergenera-
tional relationships than a sample of adult children. This might be due, in
part, to the two generations having different stakes in the relationship—that
is, different psychological needs of the two generations at different points
in the life cycle (Acock & Bengtson 1980). Thus, young adult children
might exaggerate conflictual relations with parents in order to facilitate
their need for separation from the family of procreation. The older parents,
on the other hand, might experience a need for continuity of preexisting
relationships and, therefore, might need to perceive a more positive rela-
tionship with the adult children. As Aquilino (1999) concluded:
...theoretical and empirical scholarship on intergenerational relations would

benefit from more attention to the issue of divergent perspectives in families.
I believe there is a strong case for making the collection of equivalent data
from both generations a standard practice in designing research on parents
and adult children. (p. 869)
A number of studies can be mentioned that conform to some of the fea-

tures of an ideal study design but not to the others. Thus, although very
few studies exist that permit assessments of antisocial behavior across
“two generations of children at comparable ages, employing independent
reporters and comparable measurements” (Smith & Farrington, 2004,
p. 231), Smith and Farrington (2004) cite a number of studies that have
these desirable characteristics:
The Concordia Longitudinal Risk Project followed female subjects from

childhood over a span of 20 years, and assessed a subsample of 89 Canadian
females and their children at ages 5 to 13 (Serbin et al., 1998) Here a weak
correlation between aggression in successive generations was found,
although this was largely mediated by the mother’s educational attainment.
Farrington (1993) utilized Cambridge Study data to assess bullying and
antisocial behavior in a sample of 411 London males from the age of 8, and
in their resident children aged 3–15 when the men were ages 32. This study
found continuity in bullying, with 30% of men who had been identified as
bullies, at age 14 reporting that their children were bullies, compared with
17% of men who had not been bullies. Huesmann and his colleagues (1984b)
assessed aggression in over 600 subjects followed from age 8 to age 30, and
50 Chapter 2
found that in the subjects at age 8 predicted aggression in the subject’s chil-
dren 22 years later when they were aged 8. (p. 231)
Other studies of intergenerational parallelism (whether or not focused on

antisocial behavior) might be cited as well, in which data are provided by
these representatives of the several generations at comparable developmen-
tal stages (Blee & Tickamyer, 1986; Harburg, Gleiberman, DiFranceisco,
Schork, & Weissfeld, 1990; Lefkowitz, Huesmann, & Eron, 1978).
Although these studies display a number of desirable design features,
they are limited in other ways. For example, Smith and Farrington’s
(2004) study of continuities in antisocial behavior and parenting across
three generations uses data on only 411 inner-city (London) males. Data
from the earlier point in time come from first-generation mothers, whereas
data at the later point in time come predominately from second-generation
fathers; that is, data on the index child’s (second generation) conduct
problems were provided by the child’s mothers, whereas data on the chil-
dren of those subjects (grown up) were provided by the fathers. In Capaldi
and Clark’s (1998) investigation, antisocial behavior was measured by dif-
ferent indicators for the parents as opposed to their 10-year-old boys.
Other studies failed to address the issue of explaining observed instances
of intergenerational parallelism in terms of intervening processes, moder-
ating variables, and intergenerationally stable effects that have causal
implications for the variable of interest in each generation.
The present research design meets these criteria. The subjects in each
generation are observed at approximately the same developmental stage
(early adolescence) in two successive generations. The information for the
first generation is longitudinal in nature, the subjects having been assessed
several times between early adolescence and the fourth decade of life. The
second-generation subjects have been or will be interviewed at different
points in the life course. The longitudinal information is prospective rather
than retrospective. Information on the respective generations is provided
by the separate representatives of the generations rather than being
provided for both generations by the representative of one of the genera-
tions. The sample size is adequate to estimate reasonably complex
models. Analyses take into account moderators, intervening processes,
and intergenerationally continuous factors that have common causal
effects within each generation on the object of the investigation of
intergenerational parallelism. We now turn to a description of the multi-
generation prospective longitudinal study that provides the data for the
investigation of intergenerational parallelism of deviance.
Method 51
A Multigeneration Prospective Study
Data Collection
The data used in this study were collected from a first-generation

(G1) panel starting in 1971 (G1T1) from a target population made up of
the seventh-graders (N = 9,056) enrolled in a random half of all the jun-
ior high schools (N = 18) in the Houston Independent School District.
These adolescents were surveyed again in 1972 (G1T2) and in 1973
(G1T3). The survey instrument consisted of 209 items and was identical
in all three waves with the exception that waves two and three provide
(for the most part) self-reported deviant behaviors for the previous year,
rather than the previous month, as in the first wave. Since then, the sub-
jects have been surveyed through personal interviews (including the
T1–T3 variables) using greatly expanded instruments in the 1980s
(G1T4) and again in latter part of the 1990s (G1T5), which was the final
G1 data wave with a total of 5,467 subjects.
At G1T5, the adult respondents were asked about the number, ages,
sex, and addresses of their biological, step, adopted, and foster children.
The parent’s permission was then sought to interview their children
(G2), who would be contacted to participate in a second-generation study
(G2T1). If the child subject was younger than the age that their parent was
when he or she was first interviewed, then that child was not interviewed
until they were at least 12 years old. At the end of the G2T1 data collec-
tion wave, a total of 7,519 second-generation subjects had been inter-
viewed. It was from these parents and their children that the sample for
this study was drawn.
The selection criteria needed for the G1 subjects to be included in the
sample were that they provided data in both the Time 1 (T1) and Time 2
(T2) data collection waves and had a least one child interviewed at G2T1.
The selection criteria for the G2 subjects were that they provided data at
Time 1, they were biologically related to the parent subject, and they were
one to 2 years younger or older in age than the parent subject at the time
he or she was interviewed. These criteria produced an initial sample size
of N = 2,721.
The sample was then aggregated, so that G1 subjects who had mul-
tiple children in the sample had their children’s responses averaged within
their respective families. This means that the variable values were first
added together for all children within any given family and then were
52 Chapter 2
divided by that same number of children in each family independently.

This produced a one-to-one correlation of one G1 subject to an averaged
G2 subject for each intergenerational relationship, for a total sample size
of N = 1,658.
Missing Data
Ignorable missing data are usually a product of two types of mech-

anism: missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random
(MAR). Data are MCAR when a subject’s nonresponse to a question is
not dependent on any other measured or observed variable related to the
subject, study, or the question itself. If a subject’s nonresponse to a given
question is contingent on subject characteristics or a previous response,
but not dependent on the question itself, then the data are considered
MAR (Enders & Bandalos, 2001; Rubin, 1976). It should be evident that
MCAR is the stronger assumption, because data that are MCAR are also
MAR.
Missing data in the variables reported here are assumed to be the less
restrictive MAR type. However, given the nature of the variables, it is pos-
sible that the subjects’ responses might not even meet MAR assumptions.
There are several methods for addressing missing data. Such methods
include theory-based direct maximum likelihood (ML) or full information
maximum likelihood (FIML), listwise and pairwise deletion, and different
forms of multiple imputation. In general, the majority of recent research
into the efficiency of missing-data methods has shown that direct ML
techniques outperform all other methods (Enders, 2001; Little & Rubin,
1987). One drawback of the direct ML method is that it assumes multi-
variate normality similar to all ML estimation methods. However, little is
known about how these methods work in the presence of nonnormal data
and/or clustered data such as used for the study. If it follows other ML
estimation techniques, then parameters will be increasingly biased as the
degree of nonnormality and clustering increase.
An alternative form of imputation, and the one used for this study,
called the similar response pattern method has been implemented in
PRELIS 2, which is a preprocessor for the LISREL program (Joreskog &
Sorbom 1994a). The method attempts to impute real values from another
case with similar observed values by using a minimization routine based
on a set of matching variables. If the routine cannot find a case with
Method 53
complete data using the matching variables, then the missing value for
that variable is not imputed into the case and remains missing. A study
by Brown (1994) found that compared to listwise and pairwise deletion,
mean imputation, and hot-deck imputation, similar response pattern impu-
tation produced the least bias overall with regard to structural and meas-
urement model parameters. However, he did find that there was some
positive bias in the error estimates, indicating that Type 1 error rates
would be larger than normal.
Although there is no statistical theory that would support this
method over direct missing-data methods, the fact that it imputes values
from similar cases is attractive because of the clustered nature of the
second-generation data. If it is plausible that children from the same fam-
ily would have more similar responses to each other than to children from
other families, then possibly imputing a value from a respondent’s sibling
does have some validity. As suggested in the PRELIS manual, a large
number of matching variables were used, including subject identification
numbers, that were not otherwise used to select the G1 or G2 subjects or
used in any of the model estimations as moderators, indicators, or other
variables.
Variable Construction
All variables, except for the binary moderators, are cumulative

indexes made up of a number of binary items. The items were coded such
that as the value of the variable increased the negative effect of the variable
increased. Specifically, the first-generation deviant behavior variables were
taken from a combination of the Time 1 and Time 2 surveys. As mentioned
earlier, the items that were used to construct these indicators were based on
two different time references. Time 1 questions asked whether each subject
preformed the deviant behavior within the last month, except for the alco-
hol use question, which asked if it had happened within the last 2 weeks.
The same questions were asked at Time 2, but the time reference was
within the last year, except for the alcohol use question, which again asked
if it had happened within the last 2 weeks.
The Time 2 data were the primary responses used for G1 variable con-
struction. If G1 subjects had a missing value at Time 2, then the Time 1
response was substituted in its place. If, for any given item, the value was
missing at both Time 2 and Time 1, then that response was coded as a
54 Chapter 2
missing value. The effect of this scheme minimized missing data at Time 2
and best replicated deviant behavior ever engaged in by the G1 subject
despite the fact that the questions only covered behavior within the last 2
years of the subject’s life. Given that the G1 variables were indeed simple
additions of similar items with less than seven categories, all of them were
treated as true ordinal-scale variables
The survey questions for the G2 subjects specifically asked whether
they had ever performed the deviant behavior in their lives up to the point
of the survey. Thus, only the G2T1 survey responses were used to con-
struct their indicator variables. Because in many instances there was more
than one G2 subject from a family in the sample, after the variable indi-
cators were constructed they were then added together with their siblings
and then divided by the total number of their siblings within each family.
This averaging produced more values for each G2 variable than the SEM
software would classify as ordinal, so the G2 indicators were treated as
continuous such that when used with the ordinal indicators of the G1
subjects, polyserial correlations were adopted in model estimation.
For both G1 and G2, the items used to construct the disposition to
deviance and negative self-feeling variables were not time referenced. In
general, missing values for these items were very low, so only Time 2
responses were used to construct the G1 variables. As with the deviant
behavior items, only the G2T1 survey responses were used to construct
the G2 variables.
Variable Nonnormality
As previously mentioned, the scale of the G1 variables were treated

as ordinal and the G2 variables were treated as continuous. There is some
ambiguity and debate about how to classify variables measured on an ordi-
nal scale when there are only three to five categories, as is the case with
many of the G1 variables. Given that these variables were cumulative
indexes composed of face valid, similar items, with relatively high relia-
bility coefficients, it is plausible that the values between categories were
equidistant. It is also plausible that the relationship between the categorical
measured variable and the underlying theoretical variable that it was sup-
posed to measure had a linear relationship. However, given the nature of
deviant behavior in general, both the G1 and G2 variables measuring the
behavior were, in a univariate sense, both heavily skewed and kurtotic.
Method 55
Another way to investigate the degree of nonnormality is to estimate

the bivariate polyserial correlations between all of the indicators in any
model to be estimated. PRELIS 2 has a unique routine that allows the
evaluation of the degree of nonnormaily of any given polyserial correla-
tion by a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) score
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1994a). All of the variables used in the models and
their corresponding polyserial correlations with the other variables in any
specific model fell within the acceptable range.
Statistical Methods and Latent Variable Model Estimation
SPSS 11.1 and LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1994b) were
used for variable recoding, calculation of univariate statistics, data impu-
tation, bivariate normality evaluation, and any needed secondary analy-
ses. The software used for the estimation of the latent variable models
was Mplus 3.12 (Muthen & Muthen, 2004). The output from Mplus
includes univariate and multivariate statistics, model fit, and residual
information that was used to assess the hypotheses and theories that
motivated this study.
Structural equation modeling specifies hypothesized relationships
between observed variables and their latent constructs and the structural
relationships among the latent constructs in the model. The measurement
model describes the hypothesized relationship between the observed vari-
ables and the unobserved constructs that are presumed to underlie the
indicators. The relationship between indicator and construct is expressed
in terms of factor loadings and error terms for both variable and construct.
The structural model reflects the hypothesized causal relationships
between latent constructs as regression coefficients. For ordinal models,
the interpretation of the estimates/coefficients for paths to a categorical
outcome in Mplus, such as paths from predictors to an observed categor-
ical dependent variable, are probit regression coefficients. The test statis-
tic for the indicators is the estimated parameter divided by its standard
error. The asymptotic distribution of Est./S.E (Estimate divided by
Standard Error) can be treated as standard normal with a z-distribution
(Muthén, & Satorra, 1995).
The models computed with Mplus used the WLSMV estimator,
which produces weighted least square parameter estimates utilizing a
diagonal weight matrix with robust standard errors and a mean and
56 Chapter 2
variance modified chi-square test statistic. The models were evaluated in

terms of the strength of the indicator regressions, magnitude of the struc-
tural parameter(s), and the goodness of fit. The three fit statistics used
were the chi-square value, Steiger’s RMSEA as described by Steiger and
Lind (1980), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) as described by
Bentler (1990). The chi-square value was the primary evaluator, but
given its susceptibility to bias, if it was found to be too high given suffi-
cient sample size and simple model structure, then the other two fit
statistics were used.
Multigroup Analysis
Binary moderators were used to divide the sample into two sub-
groups. These subgroups were then compared for invariance across the
models of interest. In general, two types of comparison can be employed
to test for invariance, model form, and parameter congruence (Bollen,
1989). Given the relative simplicity of the models, it was assumed that the
form of the models would be identical. Thus, only the model parameters
were tested for invariance.
The strategy of the multigroup analysis was to first estimate the base-
line models for each subgroup separately to see if the separate models fit
the data. This is an important first step, because if the models do not fit the
data for one of the subgroups, then it would be unlikely that the two sub-
groups would be equivalent on a significant number of the model parame-
ters, which would negate the need for further tests of invariance. If it was
found that the models fit both of the subgroups via inspection of their
respective fit indexes, then the measurement parameters were tested for
invariance by placing across group equality constraints on the factor load-
ings for each group and estimated as a stacked model. The p-value of the
chi-square statistic was inspected and if it was found to be significant,
then the invariance of the measurement model was supported. When the
measurement model was found to be invariant, the third step of constrain-
ing the structural parameter to equivalence across the subgroups was per-
formed. The difference in chi-square statstic between the constrained
measurement parameters and the fully constrained model and its respec-
tive p-value was calculated to test whether the structural parameter was
invariant across the two subgroups.
Part II
THE CONDITIONAL NATURE OF
INTERGENERATIONAL PARALLELISM
Part II considers both the observed nature and magnitude of intergenera-

tional parallelisms and the conditions under which the intergenerational
continuities will be observed in greater or lesser degree. In chapter 3, the
literature on intergenerational parallelisms is reviewed with regard to
putative correlates of deviant behaviors and patterns of deviant behavior.
Patterns of deviant behavior encompass psychiatric disorders of mood and
cognitions, socially disvalued behaviors, and deviant role performance in
the context of traditional social institutions. The literatures reflect a
plethora of instances of intergenerational parallelism, with some excep-
tions, although the magnitudes tend to be quite modest. Consistent with
the literature, intergenerational parallelisms in deviant behavior, disposi-
tion to deviance, and negative self-feelings were observed at statistically
significant but less than appreciable levels.
Variability in the significance and magnitudes of intergenerational
correlations suggest that the relationships are conditional ones. Chapter 4
considers the literature on moderators of interpersonal parallelism and
reports the estimation of models that specify the conditions under which
intergenerational continuities will be observed to be stronger or weaker.
The focus is on moderating circumstances that facilitate or impede inter-
generational parallelism in deviance and in two important constructs
known to be implicated in the onset and continuity of deviant behavior,
namely disposition to deviance and negative self-feelings.
57
3
Observing Intergenerational
Parallelism in Deviance
The behavioral and social science literatures are rife with instances
of observed intergenerational parallelism. In this chapter an overview of
the literatures is offered as a context for considering observations
of intergenerational parallelism of deviance observed in our own multi-
generation study.
Literature on Intergenerational Parallelism
Ample evidence exists that at least modest degrees of intergenera-

tional parallelism might be discerned for traits and behavioral dispositions
regardless of their dysfunctional or nondysfunctional nature (Belsky &
Penksy, 1988). The latter category can be thought of, in a very general
way, as correlates of deviant patterns rather than as reflections of deviant
patterns per se.
Correlates of Deviant Behavior
Transgenerational continuities have been observed with regard to a

wide variety of phenomena that are interpretable as intragenerational
antecedents/causes of deviant behavior, including similarity in occupation
(Biblarz, Raftery, & Bucer, 1997), parental bonding style (Miller, Kramer,
59
60 Chapter 3
Warner, Wickramaratne, & Weissman. 1997), attitudes toward consump-

tion of specific foods (Stafleu et al., 1995), parenting of siblings (Kramer
& Baron, 1995), and disciplinary practices (Fry, 1993; Simons et al.,
1991). Arguably, the most frequently reported parallelisms relate to
parenting patterns.
A number of studies reflect continuity across generations of parent-
ing patterns. That is, individuals who as children experience certain kinds
of parenting responses are likely to replicate those responses when they
themselves become parents (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Simons, Beaman,
Conger, & Chao, 1993; Simons et al., 1991). Evidence of intergenera-
tional transmission of parenting patterns is summarized by Van
Ijzendoorn (1992) and Putallaz and associates (1998), also cited by Smith
and Farrington (2004). These reviews conclude “that higher-order parent-
ing dimensions such as supportive/attached and punitive styles of parent-
ing show the most intergenerational stability and there are a few
longitudinal studies that illustrate this” (Smith & Farrington 2004, p. 232).
Numerous studies have reported on the intergenerational transmission of
parenting practices, whether of the abusive (Egeland, Jacobvitz, &
Papatola 1987; Putallaz, Constanzo, Grimes, & Sherman 1998) or con-
structive (Chen & Kaplan 2001) varieties.
Several studies have reported intergenerational parallelism in posi-
tive parenting. In general, parents who recalled their own parents as
being warm, more accepting, sensitive, supportive, less intrusive, and
nonconflictful tended to be more responsive and to adapt better to their
own infants (Heinicke, Diskin, Ramsey-Klee, & Given, 1983; Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy 1985; Ricks 1985). Whereas the preceding studies
focused on the second-generation parents’ responses to their infants,
similar results were found for adolescent children. Simons and his asso-
ciates (1993) also reported intergenerational continuity of supportive
parents. The respondents’ recalled their own early upbringing, whereas
their own parenting behavior was reported by their adolescent children
as well as being manifest through household observations. Evidence
also exists for the intergenerational transmission of specific parenting
attitudes. Thus, Chassin and her associates (1998, p. 1200) reported:
“Mothers who, in adolescence, perceived their parents as opposing their
smoking later grew up to provide more smoking-specific discussion to
their own children.”
In addition to continuities in parenting patterns, intergenerational
parallelisms have been reported for a wide variety of other dimensions of
Observing Intergenerational Parallelism in Deviance 61
human response. Thus, parallelism in sex role attitudes between mother

and daughter has been observed (Smith & Self, 1980) and intergenera-
tional transmission of sexual behavior has been noted (Newcomer & Udry,
1984), as has intergenerational parallelism in interpersonal competence
(Filsinger & Lamke, 1983). Vollebergh et al. (2001) reported parallelisms
between parental worldviews and the worldviews of the adult children of
those parents, as others have observed (Acock & Bengtson, 1980;
Dalhouse & Frideres, 1996; Jennings & Niemi, 1981; Miller & Glass,
1989; Raajimakers, 1999), and Bengston (1975) reported intergenera-
tional continuity in value orientations.
Instances of intergenerational parallelism have been reported for
virtually every social institution: Harvey, Curry, and Bray (1991)
reported intergenerational transmission of relational patterns of individ-
uation and intimacy and Amato and Booth (1997) reported evidence for
intergenerational transmission of marital quality; Wickerama and asso-
ciated (1999) reported evidence of intergenerational (parent to adoles-
cent child) transmission of health-risk behavior; Bao and associates
(1999) provided evidence of intergenerational transmission of religious
behavior and attitudes; and Cairns and his associates (1998, p. 1162)
noted that “the academic competence of mothers when they were chil-
dren was significantly linked to the academic competence of their chil-
dren at school age.”
Finally, intergenerational parallelism in income has been reported
frequently (Israel & Seeborg, 1998):
Economists have generally found a relatively small but significant correla-

tion between parents’ income and their children’s earnings (Behrman &
Taubman, 1985; Corcoran, et al. 1990, 1992; Krein & Beller 1988; Peters,
1992; Solon, 1992; Solon, Corcoran, Gordon, & Laren, 1991). For example,
using a sample of parent/child pairs from the National Longitudinal
Surveys, Peters (1992) estimated that parents’ log income explains between
9% and 11% of the variation in children’s log incomes, and Solon (1992)
found substantial father/son correlations in hourly wages and family
income. (p. 755)
Deviant Patterns
More germane to the present study are observations of intergenera-

tional parallelism of patterns of deviance. These include psychiatric disor-
ders reflecting aberrant patterns of mood or thinking, a variety of socially
62 Chapter 3
disvalued behaviors, and deviant responses in institutionalized social

roles. Each category is considered in turn.
Psychiatric Disorders
Intergenerational parallelism of psychiatric disorder is well estab-
lished (Velleman, 1992). Children of psychiatric patients are significantly
more likely to manifest persisting emotional behavioral difficulties rela-
tive to children whose parents were not psychiatric patients (school class-
room controls; Rutter, Quinton, & Yule, 1976). Individuals with
schizophrenic parents are significantly more likely to develop schizo-
phrenic symptoms than children of nonschizophrenic parents (Cohler,
Gallant, & Grunebaum, 1977; Emery, Weintraub, & Neale, 1982; Fisher
& Jones, 1980; Sameroff, Seifer, & Zax, 1982; Willerman & Cohen,
1990). Kaplan and Liu (1999) observed a substantial intergenerational
continuity in antisocial character between mother-daughter dyads tested at
the same developmental stage (early adolescence).
These investigations vary with regard to whether the observations of
the multiple generations are made at comparable developmental stages. In
some instances, the observations of psychiatric disorders are made at dif-
ferent stages of the life course for the two generations. Thus, studies of the
intergeneration transmission of depression might observe the effect of
adult parental depression on the infant’s or child’s psychological difficul-
ties (Field, Healy, Goldstein, & Guthertz, 1990; Lee & Gotlib, 1991). In
other studies, stage in the life course is held constant. Thus, in the case of
intergenerational transmission of alcoholism, it is frequently observed that
children of alcoholic parents as adults are at increased risk for alcoholism
(Sher, 1991).
Socially Devalued Behaviors

Intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior has been observed
for a wide variety of deviant patterns, including substance abuse in gen-
eral (Sheridan, 1995), child maltreatment (Zuravin, McMillen, DePanfilis,
& Risley-Curtiss, 1996), eating disorders (Steiger, Stotland, Trottier, &
Ghadirian, 1996), running away (Plass & Hotaling 1995), alcoholism
(Johnson & Bennett 1995), aggression (Doumas, Margolin, & John 1994),
antisocial behavior (Tapscott, Frick, Wooton, & Kruh, 1996), and harsh
parenting techniques (Simons et al. 1991). Regarding other substance
abuse, intergenerational continuity in such behavior has been observed

between parents and adolescent children (Fawzy, Coombs, & Gerber,
1983). Intergenerational parallelism has been noted, for example, between
the drinking practices of first-generation adults and second-generation
adolescents (Peterson, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 1994; Velleman,
1992). Cross-generational parallelism in smoking behavior also has been
noted (Chassin et al., 1998).
Numerous studies have reported cross-generational parallelism in
indices of antisocial behavior (Cairns et al., 1998; Serbin et al., 1998). For
example, an intergenerational association between paternal antisocial
behavior and children’s conduct disorder has been reported (Tapscott
et al., 1996). Evidence is available also for the intergenerational transmis-
sion of running away (Plass & Hotaling, 1995). The children of parents
who ran away from home are more likely to run away themselves than are
children whose parents did not run away.
Regarding deviant patterns in the school environment, Kaplan,
Kaplan, and Liu (2000) reported a significant intergenerational effect of
parents’ junior high school school-related deviant behaviors and their chil-
dren’s school-related deviant behaviors observed at a comparable develop-
mental stage. School-related deviance was modeled as a latent construct
reflected in measures of school failure, being the object of formal sanctions
(suspension/expulsion, taken to the office for punishment), rejection by
teachers, truancy, and disobedience to teachers. Intergenerational continuity
in school failure has been noted by others as well (Cairns et al., 1998).
In addition to instances of intergenerational isomorphism in deviance
where the index of deviance was similar or identical for both first- and
second-generation subjects, forms of deviant behavior manifested in one
generation are observed to be associated with other forms of deviance in
the next generation. Thus, substance abuse in one generation is linked to
other forms of antisocial behavior in the children of the substance abusers
(Hayes & Emshoff, 1993).
Deviance in Social Role Performance

Many instances of intergenerational parallelism in deviance refer to
failure to conform to role expectations, particularly in the context of the fam-
ily. Four patterns of intergenerational parallelism in familial deviance are
particularly noteworthy in the literature. These relate, respectively, to marital
conflict, divorce, early pregnancy/childbearing, and abusive parenting.
64 Chapter 3
Intergenerational transmission of marital conflict has been noted fre-

quently (Cowan, Cowan, Schulz, & Heming, 1993). Growing up in fami-
lies characterized by marital conflict increases the likelihood of marital
conflict in the next generation (Tallman, Gray, Kullberg, & Henderson,
1999). In examining the intergenerational transmission of marital aggres-
sion, Kalmuss (1984) distinguished between two types of modeling:
Generalized modeling occurs when childhood family aggression communi-

cates the acceptability of aggression between family members and thus
increases the likelihood of any form of family aggression in the next genera-
tion. Generalized modeling does not necessarily involve a direct relationship
between the type of aggression in first- and second-generation families.
Specific modeling occurs when individuals reproduce the particular type of
family aggression to which they were exposed. Intergenerational modeling of
marital aggression appears to involve specific more than generalized model-
ing. Severe marital aggression was more strongly related to observing
parental hitting than it was to being hit by one’s parents. (p. 15)
That is, intergenerational aggression appears to be role-specific.
Exposure to aggression between specific family members teaches children

the appropriateness of such behavior between the inhabitants of those family
roles. Thus, parental hitting teaches the acceptability of marital more than of
parent-child aggression. Similarly, parent-child hitting should more
effectively communicate the acceptability of parent-child than of marital
aggression. (Kalmuss, 1984, p. 17)
Numerous studies have reported intergenerational parallelism in the

likelihood of being divorced (Amato, 1996; Bumpass, Martin, & Sweet,
1991; Greenstein, 1995; McLeod, 1991; Wolfinger, 1999). Adult children
of divorced parents were significantly more likely to have their own mar-
riages end in divorce than the children of parents who did not divorce
(Amato 1996; Bumpass et al., 1991; Glenn & Kramer, 1987; Keith &
Finlay, 1988; McLanahan & Bumpass, 1988). The risk of intergenera-
tional continuity in divorce is even greater if both of the first-generation
spouses have divorced (Amato 1996).
Amato and DeBoer (2001) reported that the likelihood of offspring
divorcing is approximately doubled if parents had divorced. This relation-
ship could not be accounted for by the distress that precipitated the
parental divorce because children who had parents whose marriages were
distressed but who remained married did not have an increased likelihood
of divorce. The observation that divorce is more likely to be transmitted
intergenerationally if the parents reported a low level of discord (Amato

& DeBoer, 2001) is compatible with reasoning that
...if parents exhibit relatively little overt discord prior to divorce, then chil-
dren may conclude that the marital promise can be broken even if the mar-
riage is not seriously troubled. Divorces that occur among low-discord are
more likely to weaken offspring’s commitment to lifelong marriage than
divorces that occur among high-discord couples. (p. 1041)
Transgenerational parallelism in early childbearing has been noted

in several studies (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Hardy, Astone, Brooks-Gunn,
Shapiro, & Miller, 1998; Serbin et al., 1998), thus supporting the find-
ings of earlier investigators (Card, 1981; Furstenberg, Levine, &
Brooks-Gunn, 1990; Haveman, Wolfe, & Peterson, 1997; Kiernan &
Diamond, 1983). Manlove (1997) reported intergenerational parallelism
in early motherhood independent of the influence of several family,
school, and individual variables. Thus, daughters of teen mothers have a
significantly higher likelihood of teen childbearing themselves com-
pared to daughters of older mothers (Kahn & Anderson, 1992). More
recently, Barber (2001b) reported on intergenerational transmission of
age at first birth among sons as well as among daughters and particularly
when the intergenerational transmission relates to premaritally con-
ceived first births.
Finally, abusive parenting is frequently the subject of investigations
of intergenerational parallelism: Pears and Capaldi (2001) reported data
congruent with the existence of a direct effect for intergenerational trans-
mission of abusive behavior. Parents who had a history of being abused
tended to be abusive toward their own children; Simons and his associ-
ates (1995) reported a correlation between parental reports of having
been the object of harsh discipline during childhood and reports of their
own children being the object of corporal punishment; Rand (1992)
reported on the intergenerational transmission of rejecting parenting
independent of the intergenerational transmission of depression; Doumas
et al. (1994) reported that exposure to aggression anticipates aggressive
behavior across three generations; and McCloskey and Bailey (2000,
p. 1032) observed the following: “The presence of a maternal sexual
abuse history placed girls at 3.6 times the risk for sexual abuse as other
girls in the sample.”
Apparently, then, there is no shortage of studies of intergenerational
parallelism of deviant patterns. Thus, there would be no need to offer
66 Chapter 3
further analyses that provide such instances were it not for the following
circumstances. First, many of the studies that comprise the literature on
intergenerational parallelism of deviance are characterized by severe
methodological limitations. In the great majority of studies of intergen-
erational continuities, some methodologically related distortions might
have been introduced because the data were collected from only the par-
ent or the child, or from the parents and children at different develop-
mental stages in the life course. Second, these studies do not provide a
systematic logic of procedure for explaining instances of intergenera-
tional parallelism.
In order to address these concerns, three instances of intergenera-
tional parallelism are reported in which the data are provided by the par-
ent and child, respectively, at comparable developmental stages. These
relationships are used, then, as a basis for illustrating a systematic
methodology by which the instances of intergenerational parallelism are
explained by specification of moderating, mediating, and intergenera-
tionally stable intragenerational causal variables.
Estimates of Intergenerational Parallelism
As a baseline for gauging the influence of moderators, mediators,

and common antecedents of intergenerational parallelism in deviant
behavior and its correlates, the extent of intergenerational continuity in
deviant behavior and two theoretically informed antecedents of deviant
behavior was estimated. The two antecedents of deviant behavior were
disposition to deviance and negative self-feelings. The three constructs
were selected to reflect a basic theoretically informed model that was pre-
viously tested on the first-generation sample in a multigenerational study
(Kaplan & Johnson, 2001). On theoretical grounds, it was specified that
negative self-feelings associated with experiences of failure and rejection
in the conventional world disposed the individual to engage in deviant
behavior. The disposition to deviant behavior reflects both an alienation
from the conventional world that was associated with the genesis of neg-
ative self-feelings and an attraction to deviant patterns that offered alter-
native responses that would assuage the distressful self-feelings and
would provide experiences of success and acceptance that would be asso-
ciated with more positive self-feelings. The disposition to engage in
deviant behavior, in turn, would increase the likelihood of engaging in
such behavior through any of a number of routes, including the associa-

tion with deviant peers.
Deviant behavior, disposition to deviance, and negative self-feelings
are measured as latent constructs, each of which is reflected in three meas-
ured variables. Deviant behavior is reflected in three multi-item indexes
indicating engagement with theft, violence, and substance use, respec-
tively, for both the first (G1) and second (G2) generations. For the G1
youths, the responses were reported for the previous year, whereas for the
G2 youths, the responses reflected having “ever” engaged in the
responses. Because the G2 youths were, on average, younger when
responding to the baseline questionnaire and the G2 youths tended to
report lower frequencies of deviant acts, the use of “ever” for the G2
youths increased the likelihood of tapping into deviant behavior for the
second-generation subjects. The five-item theft index reflected taking
things of different value (worth less than $2, between $2 and $50, more
than $50), stealing from someone’s desk or locker, and joyriding (taking
a car for a ride without the owner’s knowledge). The six-item interper-
sonal violence index affirms instances of beating up “someone who had
not done anything to you,” using “force to get money or valuables from
another person,” taking “part in a gang fight,” starting a fistfight, carrying
“a razor, switchblade or gun as a weapon,” and “getting angry and break-
ing things.” Substance use was reflected in using “wine, beer, or liquor
more than two times in the last week” and smoking marijuana.
Disposition to deviance is reflected in three multi-item measures indicat-
ing, respectively, antisocial coping responses to stress (“If someone
insulted me I would probably hit him,…take it out on someone else,
…think about ways I could get even,…insult him back”), disrespect of
others (self-reports of not being kind to others, not being a fairly honest
person, telling lies, not having good manners), and rejection of conven-
tional norms (affirmation of “I have a better chance of doing well if I cut
corners than if I play it straight,” “The kids who mess up with the law
seem to be better off than those who play it straight,” “If you stick to law
and order you will never fix what is wrong with the country,” “The law is
always against the ordinary guy”).
Negative self-feelings is conceptualized as the confluence of negative
self-evaluations and distressful self-feelings. Negative self-evaluations is
measured by a seven-item index (self-derogation) indicating a need to
have more respect for oneself, being dissatisfied with oneself, feeling that
one does not have much to be proud of, feeling like a failure, not having
68 Chapter 3
a positive attitude toward oneself, thinking that the person is no good at

all, and feeling useless at times. Distressful self-feelings is measured by a
nine-item index of symptoms of anxiety (e.g., hands sweating, avoidance
of competition in things that one is not good at, pressure or pain in the
head, nervousness, trouble concentrating) and a six-item index of depres-
sive affect (wishing to be as happy as others seem to be, feeling downcast
and dejected, not getting a lot of fun out of life, most of the time not feel-
ing in good spirits, on the whole not being a fairly happy person, not see-
ing the bright side of things).
The structural equation models were estimated specifying the inter-
generational parallelism of the three constructs. Each is considered in turn.
Deviant Behavior
The estimation of the structural equation models specifying inter-

generational parallelism in deviant behavior is summarized in Figure 3.1.
The figure indicates the loading (unstandardized and completely stan-
dardized) of the measurement variables on the latent constructs as well as
the structural effect indicating the degree of intergenerational parallelism
for the 1,658 intergenerational units (the G1 youth’s deviant behaviors and
the aggregated deviant behaviors of their children, the G2 youths, reported
Figure 3.1. Intergenerational Parallelism of Deviant Behavior

at approximately the same developmental stage by the representatives of

the respective generations). The same data are reported for disposition to
deviance (Figure 3.2) and negative self-feelings (Figure 3.3).
As hypothesized, and consistent with the literature on intergenera-
tional parallelism, a statistically significant but modest effect of G1
deviant behavior on G2 deviant behavior was observed (b = 0.240, B =
0.239). The measurement variables all had appreciable and statistically
significant loadings on the respective G1 and G2 latent constructs. By the
criteria of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) index (0.996) and the the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (0.026), a very good fit
between the hypothesized and observed models existed. The fit was
Figure 3.2. Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance
Figure 3.3. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-Feelings

70 Chapter 3
improved by specifying an association between the theft and violence

measures for the G1 deviance latent construct (b = 0.237, B = 0.237).
Disposition to Deviance
As in the case of deviant behavior, a structural equation model was

estimated that specified an intergenerational effect between G1 disposi-
tion to deviance and G2 disposition to deviance. The results are summa-
rized in Figure 3.2. Again, the measurement variables manifested
appreciable and statistically significant loadings on G1 and G2 latent con-
structs. The structural effect was statistically significant but modest in
magnitude (b = 0.311, B = 0.216). Again, by the criteria of the CFI (0.990)
and RMSEA (0.025), a quite good fit was observed between the data and
the hypothesized model.
Negative Self-Feelings
The estimation of the structural equation model specifying intergen-

erational parallelism for negative self-feelings is summarized in Figure 3.3.
The measurement variables manifested strong and statistically signifi-
cant loadings on the latent constructs for G1 and G2 negative self-feelings.
As in the cases of disposition to deviance, a statistically significant but mod-
est intergenerational effect was observed between G1 and G2 negative self-
feelings (b = 0.385, B = 0.228). Again, by the criteria of CFI and RMSEA
values, the observed model was a good fit to the hypothetical model.
Discussion
Although intergenerational transmission of deviant behaviors has

been noted frequently, the association between outcomes in the earlier and
later generations is less than perfect (Serbin et al., 1998):
The intergenerational cycle of risk for poverty, crime, psychological dis-

tress, and illness is a well-established and stubborn social phenomenon,
leading sociologists and journalists to refer to the existence of a ‘perma-
nent underclass’ in North America (Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn,
1995; Furstenberg, Levine, & Brooks-Gunn, 1990; Wilson, 1987).
Children growing up in disadvantaged conditions are likely to become the
parents of another disadvantaged generation, who, like their parents, are

born with a high risk of serious psychosocial and health problems.
However, longitudinal studies have revealed that psychosocial risk is, as
the term denotes, probabilistic. Many children from ‘high risk’ back-
grounds grow up to have reasonably prosperous and productive lives,
despite their poor prospects at birth (Elder & Caspi, 1988; Furstenberg,
Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; Hardy et al., 1997; Rutter, 1987; Werner
& Smith, 1992). (p. 1246)
Indeed, the incompleteness of cultural transmission might in many

ways be a desirable state of affairs. Phalet & Schönpflug (2000) stated:
Although cultural persistence is essentially a question of transmission

(Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, 1981), cultural transmission is not and can-
not be complete. Rather, culture is being shaped and reshaped by the ongo-
ing interactions between persons and groups and their environment. The
process of cultural transmission does not lead to the replication of culture
in successive generations; it falls somewhere in between an exact transmis-
sion (with hardly any difference between parents and offspring) and a com-
plete failure of transmission (with hardly any similarity between the
generations). Functionally either extreme would be problematic for a soci-
ety. Complete transmission would not allow for novelty and change, and
hence the ability to respond to new situations, whereas failure of transmis-
sion would not permit coordinative action between generations (Boyd and
Richerson, 1985). (p. 489)
Not only are all instances of intergenerational parallelism far from per-
fect, in some cases no significant intergenerational parallelism is
observed at all. For example, Smith and Farrington (2004) reported that
second-generation child conduct problems did not predict third-
generation child conduct problems in a study of continuities in antiso-
cial behavior and parenting across three generations. However, in that
study, antisocial parents did predict conduct problems in second- and
third-generation children.
Generally, however, intergenerational overlap is observed to be sta-
tistically significant but modest in magnitude (Van Ijzendoorn 1992):
Our review shows that the effect sizes indicating the amount of intergenera-
tional transmission differ strongly between different research programs. The
traditional research program using rather large samples and quite global
questionnaire measures does not yield much evidence for a relation between
parenting across generations. Effect sizes are somewhere between 3 and 15%
of explained variance, and even these figures may well be inflated because of
lack of control for contextual continuity. (p. 93)
72 Chapter 3
The above-reported results for the present study are not strikingly
different from the range of effects reported in the literature; that is, we
observed statistically significant but modest degrees of intergenerational
parallelism in deviant behavior. However, that variation in the fact and
degree of intergenerational parallelism has been observed and the modest
magnitudes of parallelism that have been reported stimulates the question:
Under what conditions is the magnitude of intergenerational continuity
strengthened or weakened? The literature and analyses directed toward
answering this question are considered in the following chapters.
4
Moderators of Intergenerational
Parallelism
As noted previously, and as will be apparent throughout the volume, any

given phenomenon in the second generation is not perfectly predicted by
the same phenomenon in the first generation. For example, although there
is an increased likelihood that children who run away had parents who ran
away, only 24% of runaways in one report had parents who had also been
runaways (Plass & Hotaling, 1995). Thus, the question is raised as to the
conditions under which a phenomenon in the second generation is pre-
dicted by the same phenomenon in the first generation. Under what
conditions will the association across generations be high or low? That is,
under what conditions does intergenerational (dis)continuity occur?
The less-than-universal observation of intergenerational continuity is
noted by others as well (Oliver, 1993):
The crude rates of intergenerational transmission of child abuse according to

the studies reviewed are as follows: one-third of child victims grow up to
continue a pattern of seriously inept, neglectful, or abusive rearing as parents.
One-third do not. The other one-third remain vulnerable to the effects of
social stress on the likelihood of their becoming abusive parents. (p.1315)
Whether this is surprising depends on one’s expectations at the out-

set. On the one hand, one would expect strong intergenerational paral-
lelism in behaviors and traits because of the influence of one generation
on another, genetic transmission, and stable environmental factors across
generations. On the other hand, one would expect low levels of intergen-
erational parallelism because of changes that occur in the capacity of the
73
74 Chapter 4
first-generation subject to influence the second generation or in disruption

of cross-generational stability of influences on the behaviors or character-
istics in question, whether due to historical changes or to idiosyncratic
influences on the (in)stability of causal influences. In any case, as others
have observed (Rutter, 1998), the only moderate degrees of continuity
noted in the cross-generational studies suggests the need to model dis-
continuities as well as continuities.
In attempting to explain the variable degrees of intergenerational par-
allelism that have been reported, numerous investigators have turned to
specifying the conditions that moderate the strength of the intergenera-
tional relationship. The literature on moderators of degree of intergenera-
tional parallelism will be discussed first, as background for the
presentation of the theoretically informed estimation of models from
the present study that specify the conditions for greater or lesser degrees
of intergenerational parallelism in deviance and selected correlates of
deviance.
Research Literature on Moderators
The research literature on moderators of intergenerational paral-

lelism variously speaks to general moderators without regard to the
nature of the parallelism or to moderators of specific instances of inter-
generational parallelism. In the former case, the issues variously relate
to methodologically relevant moderators or to substantively significant
social-psychological and social structural contingencies. When consid-
ering specific patterns of intergenerational parallelism, some studies do
not necessarily focus on instances of deviant behavior but are, neverthe-
less, reviewed because they might be implicated in explanations of
deviance. Other studies, however, explicitly focus on moderators of
intergenerational parallelism of patterns that are generally recognized as
deviant.
General Issues
Consideration of moderators of intergenerational parallelism have

considered both the methodological and substantive implications of
findings.
Moderators of Intergenerational Parallelism 75
Methodological Moderators
Methodological features of research designs influence the degree of
intergenerational correspondence that will be observed. The greater the
similarity in circumstances between the two generations, the greater is the
likelihood that the indicator of intergenerational parallelism will be
stronger. For example, the stability between generations in an “inhibited
behavior pattern” was stronger when parents had been assessed at an age
closer to that of their toddler children (Cairns, Cairns, Xie, Leung, &
Hearne, 1998).
The need to assess the phenomenon of interest across generations at
the same developmental stage was noted by Patterson (1998):
For example, simply correlating children’s trait scores with parents’ trait
scores immediately introduces two possible confounds. A possibility is that
a trait score measured in children at 5 years of age may mean something
quite different when it is compared with the trait measured in the parents at
25 years of age. It may also be that the trait scores are measured in very
different ways for parents and for children. (p. 1263)
Substantive Moderators
Among the factors that are thought to moderate intergenerational
parallelism are those related to broad social changes, family environment
(whether related to such social changes), and intrafamilial relations. Thus,
under conditions of rapid social change, we should expect a decreased
degree of intergenerational parallelism than during periods of stability.
Broad social changes might be noted, for example, with regard to
increases or decreases in secularism in particular societies (Wadsworth &
Freeman, 1983). If the dimension of social change is a correlate of deviant
behavior (or some other phenomenon of interest), then broad sociohistorical
changes over the intergenerational period should attenuate the relationship
between first- and second-generation values on the variable of interest. If
the second generation grows up in a more secular context than the first
generation and religiosity is inversely related to deviant behavior, then
fewer constraints would be placed on a individual disposed to engage in
deviant behavior and less correspondence would be observed between the
first and second generations’ acting out of deviant dispositions.
Numerous intrafamilial factors have been considered regarding mod-
eration of intergenerational (dis)continuities. As Simons and his
76 Chapter 4
colleagues (1992) suggested with regard to intergenerational transmission

of parenting beliefs:
Future research needs to focus upon the possible sources of this discontinu-
ity. It may be, for example, that children are only influenced by the parenting
behaviors displayed by their mother or father when they have a close,
involved relationship with the person. Or, degree of consonance between par-
ents with regard to parenting practices may be important. Thus parents may
have a strong impact on parenting beliefs of their children when they engage
in similar parenting styles, but exert little influence when they demonstrate
dramatically different approaches to the role of behavior. Future studies need
to investigate the extent to which such factors account for the modest degree
of intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs. (p. 834)
With regard to parent-child relations, presumably the more a child

identifies with the mother and feels positive affect for the mother, the
more the child will emulate the attitudes and behaviors of the mother.
Conversely, intergenerational modeling might be moderated by the degree
of conflict that characterizes the families insofar as such modeling is less
likely to occur in the presence of conflict (Hetherington & Frankie, 1965).
When parents and children have more satisfying relations, intergener-
ational parallelism appears to be stronger. Thus, although the association
between value endorsements of parents and children were generally quite
strong, the correlations tended to be appreciably stronger for low right-wing
authoritarian parents who (it is speculated) might have been more respon-
sive to the needs of their children (Rohan & Zanna, 1996). Consistent with
this, intergenerational transmission of values on sexual permissiveness was
hypothesized and observed to be moderated by the quality of family inter-
action (Taris, Semin, & Bok, 1998). Intergenerational transmission of val-
ues was greater when family interaction was said to be characterized by
mutual respect and understanding (but see Taris, 2000).
Among the salient moderating variables that have been suggested in
accounting for intergenerational continuities is stage in the life cycle. For
example, intergenerational parallelism in personality patterns (particularly
the inhibited behavior pattern) is stronger when the characteristics are
assessed earlier in life. However, this might suggest the operation of
genetic rather than, or in addition to, environmental influences.
Some moderators may be more distal in their influence, while other
variables may be more proximal in their effects on the degree of intergen-
erational continuity or on the effects of putative antecedents of deviant
patterns. More distal moderators may have their own correlates that are
more proximally influential on the nature of such relationships. A case in

point is gender. The moderating influence of the gender of the first gener-
ation parent is apparent in a number of studies. For example, data sug-
gest that the similarity between parent and adolescent child level of
individuation may be stronger for mothers than for fathers (Bartle &
Anderson, 1991). Wickrama and associates (1999) reported a moderating
influence of thechild’s gender on intergenerational continuity of health-
risk behaviors:
The findings of the separate models for boys and girls demonstrated that (1)
father’s health-risk lifestyles affected only boys’ health-risk lifestyle,
whereas (2) mother’s health-risk lifestyle affected only girls’ health-risk
lifestyle. (p. 258)
Variables such as gender of the first- and second-generation subjects

and of the congruence between them might be surrogates for more proxi-
mal moderating variables. Thus, daughters in early adolescence are at a
cognitive developmental stage when they can perceive similarity to a per-
son with whom they have an important relationship and to idealize and
identify with such persons. Mothers might be such significant role models
who influence their daughters’ self-esteem through their role relationship,
their nearness, as well as their common gender and sex role. In addition,
they are characterized by psychological closeness (Curtis, 1991). A young
girl’s identification with the mother continues throughout life, whereas a
young boy’s identification with the mother is broken and switched to the
father (Chodorow, 1978). At the same time, mothers identify with their
daughters because of shared gender, projection of feelings about self, and
the disposition to act toward the daughter as part of herself (Eichenbaum &
Orbach, 1983). Women experience less social pressure to differentiate
from their mothers than men experience to differentiate from their fathers
(Flax, 1981). Further, women’s identity is based on different values than
are men’s identities. A woman’s identity is based on values of affiliation
and mutual relationships, perhaps arising from the women’s identification
with a caregiving mother (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1986; Noddings, 1984).
Specific Intergenerational Relationships
The literature contains numerous exemplars of reports of (1) moder-

ators of intergenerational parallelism of phenomena that are not ordinarily
78 Chapter 4
taken to be (but are open to interpretations as being) instances of deviant

behavior, but are frequently reviewed as correlated with, or causally
implicated in, the genesis of deviant behavior and (2) moderators of inter-
generational parallelism of phenomena that are generally interpreted as
instances of deviant behavior.

The literature is replete with studies of moderators of intergenera-
tional continuities of phenomena that, where they are not regarded as
instances of deviance, are reviewed as implicated in the etiology of
deviant patterns. Among intergenerational patterns that are more
frequently attended to with regard to moderating influences are teenage
fertility, divorce and related familial patterns, religious behavior, poverty,
and parenting patterns.
A variety of factors are said to moderate intergenerational (dis)con-
tinuity in teenage parenthood. Thus, Hardy and her associates (1998)
reported regarding intergenerational patterns of age at first birth:
Girls who avoided teenage parenthood when being reared by an early child-
bearer were more likely to have mothers who were married, were not poor,
were not on welfare, and had graduated from high school. In addition, these
girls had higher IQ scores. So, even though they initiated sexual activity prior
to age 16 at the same rates, had similar grade repetition rates, and at similar
ages at menarche, they did not become mothers. We suspect that their house-
holds were characterized by more parental supervision and monitoring, as
well as possibly by greater emphasis placed on education (Brooks-Gunn &
Chase-Lansdale, 1995). (p. 1230)
Race has also been observed to moderate intergenerational patterns of

teenage fertility. Kahn and Anderson (1992) observed:
For whites, we find that intergenerational patterns of premarital fertility are
explained almost completely by measures of socioeconomic and family con-
text. Intergenerational patterns of teen marriage and marital fertility persist,
however, even after these factors are controlled. For blacks, we only find
intergenerational patterns of premarital fertility, and they are explained only
partially by the socioeconomic and family context in which teenagers grow
up. (p. 55)
They further speculated that broad social changes might increase the like-
lihood of recapitulation of the earlier generation’s behavior by the later
generation (Kahn & Anderson, 1992):
In contrast, intergenerational patterns of premarital teen fertility are likely to

reflect the weakening of norms against nonmarital childbearing. One need
only look at the declining rates of legitimation and relinquishment to see that
childbearing outside of marriage simply has become more acceptable in our
society. Within families, a mother’s prior experience with premarital fertility
may serve as a role model for her daughter. Although our results generally
support such an intergenerational pattern of premarital childbearing, it appears
the impact may be weakening among more recent cohorts. Yet, before we
become too excited about this trend, we should emphasize that the intergen-
erational pattern is weakening only because of the increasing prevalence of
premarital childbearing in all sectors of the population. Thus, unless teens
truly believe that a premarital birth will severely limit their future life options,
there is little reason to believe that the overall trends will change. (p. 55)
Intergenerational parallelism in divorce is also moderated by a num-

ber of variables. The relationship between parental divorce and divorce by
the children is stronger where the marriages of the children were of short
duration and where the parents’ divorce(s) occurred when the children
were 12 years of age or younger (Amato, 1996). Gender of children mod-
erates the observed transmission of divorce from one generation to
another. Thus, evidence has been reported of intergenerational transmis-
sion of divorce from parents to daughters but not from parents to sons
(Feng, Giarrusso, Bengtson, & Frye, 1999).
Broad social changes represent an important class of moderators of
the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Between 1973 and 1996 a
substantial decline in intergenerational transmission of divorce has been
observed (Wolfinger, 1999). The attenuation of intergenerational continu-
ities in divorce are compatible with explanations based on broad social
changes that have occurred over the same period. In general, Americans
have become more accepting of divorce (Cherlin, 1992; Philips, 1991;
Thornton & Camburn, 1987; Wolfinger, 1999). These changing attitudes
have had outcomes that might account for the attenuation of intergenera-
tional transmission of divorce (Wolfinger, 1999):
First, as divorce has become more common and people have become more
accepting of it, children in divorced families may suffer less stigmatization,
either real or imagined. In the past, when divorce was less common (see, for
example, Cherlin 1992), single mothers and their children were frequently
harassed or ostracized (Philips 1991). Under these conditions, children may
have been less likely to develop normal relationships with their peers, moth-
ers, or grandparents. This experience may have made divorce more traumatic
for children, thereby leading to higher rates of divorce transmission earlier in
the study period.
80 Chapter 4
A second consequence of the increased acceptance of divorce may be the

changing circumstances under which couples choose to end their mar-
riages. In the absence of no-fault divorce laws, a couple desiring a divorce
often needed to demonstrate the total and absolute deterioration of their
relationship. Normative expectations persuaded quarreling couples to ‘stick
it out’ under circumstances such as domestic violence that today would
be readily recognized as reasonable grounds for a divorce. When couples
finally ended their marriages, the situation may have deteriorated far
more than is typical in divorces today, thereby bringing greater harm to
children. (p. 415)
Intergenerational discontinuity in religious beliefs was moderated

by family disengagement. The greater proportion of individuals report-
ing change in religious beliefs (including abandonment) was observed
in the group who reported seeing their parents least often (Wadsworth
& Freeman, 1983). Consistent with this, intergenerational transmission
of religious beliefs and practices appears to be moderated by percep-
tions of parental acceptance by the adolescent children (Bao, et al.,
1999):
Mothers’ church attendance and religious belief affected all aspect of boys’
religiousness when they perceived high or moderate acceptance from their
mothers. This indicated that, for boys, a supportive mother-son relationship
was an important facilitator in their initiation and modeling of their mothers’
religiousness.
However, fathers’ religious beliefs and practices had substantial impact on
girls’ concept of God when girls perceived low levels of acceptance from
their fathers. Studies of projections of images of God have indicated that for
females the God-father relationship was crucial and that the father’s image
was important to the girl’s concept of God . . . .our results suggest that low
perceived acceptance from fathers may be compensated by high religiousness
on the part of the father in predicting girls’ concept of God . . . It probably
happened to girls because girls’ concept of God was more related to parents’
attributes and parenting styles than boys’ concept was (Dickei et al., 1997).
(pp. 370–371)
Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990) also reported a significant interaction

effect in that parent-child attachment had relatively little effect on the
child’s religiousness when the parents’ religiousness was high.
Intergenerational change in religious beliefs was moderated by education
levels such that more educated young adult children were more likely to
have changed religious beliefs; also, intergenerational discontinuity in
religious beliefs was associated with self-assessments of probability of
changing one’s social class (Wadsworth & Freeman, 1983).
Although some degree of intergenerational continuity in poverty has

been observed, the relationship is far from perfect. Children who grow up
in poor families might not become poor adults; and downward social
mobility might occur as well. Presumably, as Shlonsky (1984) noted:
...some selection takes place in the process of the transmission of poverty
from parents to their offspring. Either not all the offspring in some poor fam-
ilies inherit their parents’ social position or not all the poor parents transmit
their poverty to their offspring. Or, perhaps, the intergenerational transmis-
sion does not take place evenly in all social spheres. For instance, while sons
and daughters may continue in their parents’ low social position in some
aspects, they might advance into higher positions in the hierarchy in other
regards. Thus, a son who falls, like his father, into the lowest income
bracket, may have surpassed his father in terms of the level of education he
attained. (p. 457)
In short, the degree of correspondence between first- and second-genera-

tion poverty is a conditional relationship. Intergenerational continuities in
poverty depend, in part, on social norms and practices (Harper, Marcus, &
Moore, 2003):
Public action to tackle poverty and interrupt poverty transfers clearly also
reflects social norms. Where there is a strong sense of collective responsibil-
ity for social welfare, there may be stronger support for public safety nets,
resource distribution or good quality education for all, than where the well-
being of the next generation is viewed largely as a private familial matter
(Esping-Andersen, 1990). (p. 541)
Degrees of intergenerational continuity are moderated by a number of

other factors as well. Thus, several constructs might be suggested to
account for the observation that with each successive generation, a smaller
degree of intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic stratum was
observed (Biblarz, Bengtson, & Bucur, 1996):
Haut (1984, 1988) shows that education may condition the relationship
between occupational origins and destinations—the association between
occupational origins and destinations was not significant among respondents
with college degrees in a recent period. The occupational destinations of G2s
may have been less determined by their origins than those of the G1s because
the G2s may have had greater access than the G1s to higher education. The
G3s may have had even more access in higher education than the G2s, but
they also may have been the first of the three generations examined here to
experience their parents’ divorces during childhood. Like education, the
experience of family disruption also reduces intergenerational inheritance
(Biblarz and Raftery, 1993), in part through its effect on family resources
82 Chapter 4
available to children. At the same time, family size (both the size of the fam-
ily that children grow up in and the number of children they have as adults)
and parental childrearing values and practices covary with each generation
and may affect occupational inheritance and social mobility....
An alternative possibility is that the mother’s occupation begins to sup-
plant the father’s occupation as a primary determinant of their offspring’s
occupation. Perhaps the family transmission of occupation has not so much
weakened as shifted from one parent to the other. Women have joined the
paid labor force in increasing numbers over recent decades. As more moth-
ers are employed (and as fewer families have a father present), the mother’s
occupation may become a better proxy than the father’s occupation for fam-
ily resources that affect the intergenerational transmission process. (p. 197)
Frequently, moderating variables are antecedents of moderators that

are more proximal conditions for intergenerational (dis)continuity. A case
in point is the moderating influence of being black on intergenerational
continuity of poverty (Israel & Seeborg, 1998):
Cohen and Tyree (1986) find that being black is one of the strongest predic-
tors of the income mobility of the poor. Both economists (e.g., Borjas 1992;
1995) and sociologists (e.g., Wilson, 1987) have explored mechanisms mak-
ing upward mobility difficult for blacks, especially lack of employment
opportunities, neighborhood effects, and effects of government programs.
These analyses are most often couched in terms of intervening variables. For
example, Wilson (1987) argues that being black increases the probability of
exposure to adverse social and economic conditions (i.e. underclass environ-
ment) which in turn reduces the probability of intergenerational movements
out of poverty. (p. 757)
That is, being black has consequences that, in turn, moderate the degree
of intergenerational continuity of poverty.
Perhaps the most frequently investigated intergenerational patterns,
particularly with regard to moderators, relates to parenting—whether the
focus is on intergenerational transmission of abusive or more benign
responses. The experience of stressful life events also appears to moderate
the intergenerational continuity of abusive parenting (Egeland, 1988):
Mothers abused as children who are currently abusing their children had very
high life stress scores and lived in chaotic and disruptive environments. Living
in poverty and experiencing large amounts of life stress appear to increase the
likelihood of continuity of abusive patterns across generations. (p. 94)
Consistent with this, the experience of anxiety and depression by mothers

who had experienced abuse appeared to increase the likelihood of inter-
generational continuity of abusive parenting (Egeland, 1988):
The continuity group had extremely high scores suggesting that the func-
tioning of mothers in this group may have been impaired because of high lev-
els of anxiety. Effective caretaking of an infant requires, among other things,
a sensitivity to the baby, responsiveness, and flexibility. High anxiety is likely
to interfere with the mother’s ability to be flexible and to tolerate frustration
which often accompanies the care of young children. For example, high anx-
iety sensitizes people to noise, so a crying baby would be more difficult to
tolerate. The highly anxious mother also is less likely to learn new
approaches to child care and instead to rely on approaches with which she is
most familiar. (p. 95)
However, under certain conditions, dysphoric affect might decrease phys-

ical abuse. Parental depression and posttraumatic stress disorder have
been observed to moderate the intergenerational continuity of experiences
of abuse (Pears & Capaldi, 2001):
There was a significant interaction between parent depression and PTSD and
a history of abuse, such that parents who had experienced high levels of
abuse but who also demonstrated high levels of depression and PTSD were
less likely to be abusive than parents who had experienced high levels of
abuse but had low levels of depression and PTSD. It may be that parents who
are depressed and experiencing symptoms of PTSD tend to withdraw from
interactions with their children, making it less likely that they will be physi-
cally abusive. (p. 1454)
In any case, incompetence in parenting seems to be stress-inducing

and to lead to continuity of abuse. Thus, intergenerational parallelism in
physical abuse was moderated by parental consistency of discipline (Pears
& Capaldi, 2001):
Parents who experienced high levels of abusive acts and injuries but who
were consistent in their discipline were less abusive than abused parents who
were inconsistent disciplinarians. This is congruent with prior research sug-
gesting that abusive parents may represent an extreme group of unskilled and
ineffective parents (Burgess and Youngblade, 1988; Greenwald et al., 1997;
Knutson and Bower, 1994; Zaidi et al., 1989). A parent who has very poor
discipline skills is likely to experience a great deal of stress and frustration in
dealing with their children. When this is coupled with a history of having
received severe physical punishment, it is not surprising that the outcome
might be the transmission of abusive treatment from one generation to the
next. (p. 1454)
Not surprisingly, intergenerational continuity of abusive parenting

tends to be moderated by the quality of attachment relationships with
caregivers such that under conditions of poorer quality attachment
84 Chapter 4
relationships during childhood, the probability of transmission of abusive

parenting across generations is increased (Zuravin et al. 1996). Further,
continuity in cultural attitudes favoring abusive parenting practices might
be expected to increase the degree of intergenerational continuity of expe-
riences of abusive parenting (Cashmore & de Hass, 1995). The continuity
might be the consequence of stability of social-class-related subcultural
patterns of child rearing and, perhaps, social-class-linked stressors
(Simons et al., 1995).
Just as moderators specify conditions under which intergenerational
continuity of abuse occurs, so also the moderators specify contingencies
for intergenerational discontinuity. One review of the literature suggests
that two major factors distinguish between nonrepeaters and repeaters of
parental abuse (Putallaz et al., 1998):
The first factor is that mothers who described themselves as victims of child-
hood abuse but were not abusing their own children reported involvement in
an emotionally supportive relationship with a nonabusing adult during child-
hood or with a therapist at any point in their lives.... Nonrepeaters were also
more likely to be receiving emotional support currently from the father of the
baby and/or of the family members...or were involved in more satisfying
interpersonal relationships...presumably these supportive relationships func-
tioned to modify therapeutically the feelings and expectations of these par-
ents....The second factor is that nonrepeating parents were aware of their
abuse and spoke of it in a coherent, integrated fashion with much emotion
and detail and further verbalized how they wanted to raise their children. In
contrast, the parents who abused their children spoke of their abusive history
in vague generalities without emotion, were unable to recall specific experi-
ences, and provided idealized descriptions of parents.... (p. 392)
As a specific example, Egeland (1988) reported with regard to a study of

the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting:
Our attempts to account for the exceptions to continuity from one genera-
tion to the next yielded some interesting findings which made intuitive as
well as theoretical sense.... The most compelling findings were in the area
of relationships, where we found that mothers who broke the cycle of abuse
were as children more likely to have an emotionally supportive relationship
with another adult and were as adults more likely to have an emotionally
supportive husband or boyfriend.... These emotionally supportive relation-
ships provided the parents with an alternative working model of relation-
ships which is different from the abusive relationships they experienced as
a child. Parents who experienced abuse and other forms of maltreatment
as a child carry a set of expectations regarding self and others into adult-
hood. Without an alternative model, parents abused as children develop
expectations that care and nurturants are not available and that they are not a
lovable, valuable person. Carrying the model of poor quality relationships
experienced in childhood into adulthood is a likely explanation for continu-
ity of parental maltreatment. (p. 92)
Numerous other investigators confirm that these or similar variables

moderate intergenerational continuity in parenting patterns, and they
suggest other factors that function in this way: Social support has been sug-
gested as a moderator of the intergenerational transmission of abuse
(Hunter & Kilstrom, 1979); intergenerational continuity is weakened
when parents are less demanding of their children (Caliso & Milner,
1994); religious affiliation has also been observed to moderate intergener-
ational continuity of experiences of abuse (Kaufman & Zigler, 1993); and
the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting experiences can be
moderated by interventions that enhance self-esteem and provide more
acceptable techniques for adapting to adverse life circumstances
(Youngblade & Belsky, 1990).
As in the case of other intergenerational patterns, some moderators
are more distal in their effects, operating through more proximal contin-
gencies. Cases in point are the genders of each generational representative
and the congruity of gender across generations. A good deal of evidence
exists that the gender of the earlier generation moderates intergenerational
continuity. Thus, Simons and his associates (1991) reported gender dif-
ferences concerning the strength of the direct paths between parenting of
two successive generations. They reported that the association between
the generations was much stronger for the mothers than for the fathers, a
finding that might be accounted for by a culture that assigns mothers the
primary supporting role and fathers the supporting role in the socialization
process. They also reported that harsh discipline by the grandmother, but
not by the grandfather, had an effect on the mothers’ severe discipline of
boys and girls and on the fathers’ harsh parenting of boys. Similarly, Van
Ijzendoorn (1995) reported on the basis of a meta-analysis that there was
a stronger association between attachment representations of mothers and
their children than between fathers and their children possibly because
fathers ordinarily play a lesser role in child care during the early years.
However, the father’s influence might increase during the child’s later
years. Finally, intergenerational relationships between parents’ and chil-
drens’ recollection of parental responses are observed to be moderated by
the gender of the parent and offspring Lundberg, Perris, Schlette, and
Adolfson (2000) found that:
86 Chapter 4
...the correlation concerning emotional warmth is stronger in the father-son

than in the father-daughter constellation. Also, correlations concerning emo-
tional warmth are nearly nil in the mother-son constellation and much less
pronounced than those concerning the fathers and the mother-daughter con-
stellation. The experience of overprotection appears to be modestly corre-
lated in the father-son constellation and in both the mother-son and the
mother-daughter combinations. (p. 874)
Deviant Behaviors
As is the case with putative causes or correlates of deviant behavior,
intergenerational continuity or discontinuity in deviant patterns is influ-
enced by a number of contingencies. Some observers perseverate on and
suggest possible moderators of intergenerational discontinuity of deviant
behavior (Smith & Farrington, 2004).
Discontinuities are potentially more important than continuities, not least

because they shed light on processes by which risk may be interrupted
(Rutter et al., 1998; Rutter, 1998). Since data suggest that continuing antiso-
cial behavior, pairing with antisocial mates, and high levels of marital con-
flict are implicated in continuity, it might be important to look further at the
G3 children of G2 antisocial males who have harmonious relationships with
a non-antisocial spouse to see if such a relationship moderated the risk for the
child. To the extent that some of the most antisocial fathers may not be liv-
ing with their children, this may also be protective to the extent that these
fathers may parent poorly and their relationships with partners may be highly
disruptive. Although further investigations of this issue is beyond the scope
of this paper, several studies have suggested that partnerships with prosocial
mates represent turning points and discontinuity within the life span in anti-
social trajectories, even for those with genetic risk factors (Farrington and
West, 1995; Sampson and Laub, 1993). (p. 244)
A number of these suggestions find support in the research literature,

but the effects are complex in nature. Some evidence exists that the degree
to which an antisocial parent is present in the home moderates the
degree of intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior. Thus, when
fathers with criminal backgrounds were not absent for periods greater than
6 months before the child’s 17th birthday, the male child was more likely
to be arrested than the children of fathers with criminal backgrounds who
were absent for at least 6 months. For noncriminal fathers, criminality was
associated with the absence of the fathers (McCord, 1991). However,
Tapscott and associates (1996) found that the degree of exposure to the
antisocial father did not moderate intergenerational continuity between

paternal antisocial personality disorder and child conduct disorder.
The presence/absence of an antisocial parent might or might not be
associated with identification with the parent. In any case, the degree of
identification with a parent moderates intergenerational continuity in
deviant behavior. Thus, subjects who had been exposed to aggression and
identified strongly with their fathers had significantly higher scores on
current relationship aggression than did subjects who had a low identifi-
cation with their fathers (MacEwen, 1994).
Identification might be facilitated by warmth; thus, intergenerational
(dis)continuity in deviance might be moderated by parental warmth.
However, the hypothesis that a more positive relationship with the
problem-drinking parent will lead to greater risk of excessive drinking in
the second-generation subjects finds some support only for women with
fathers with drinking problems. The prediction that the offspring most at
risk have had more negative relationships with parents finds support in the
subgroup of men with mothers with drinking problems. In this subgroup,
offspring were more at risk for drinking if they had poor relationships with
their fathers (Orford & Velleman, 1991). Imitation of abstention or low-
volume alcohol-use parents tends to occur under conditions where the
dominant parent shows relatively strong religious beliefs and has no signs
of problem drinking and where the offspring feels strong affection for
both parents, and they hold relatively strong religious beliefs and attend
church regularly (Harburg, et al., 1990).
Where social changes indicate, for example, a relaxation of many
informal and formal social controls, one might expect individuals in suc-
cessive generations measured at the same developmental stage to differ in
performance of deviant behavior. Straus and Gelles (1988) reported
nationwide decreases in the incidence of child and spouse abuse between
1975 and 1985. These data were compatible with explanations in terms of
“changes in American society that took place during or immediately
before the decade of this study, including: changes in the family, in the
economy, in the social acceptability of family violence, in alternatives
available to women, in the social control processes, and in the availability
of treatment and prevention services” (p. 475). Thus, social changes could
disrupt the continuity of intergenerational transmission of related
phenomena.
As with correlates of deviant behavior (which might or might not
be interpretable as reflections of deviance), intergenerational parallelisms
88 Chapter 4
in deviance have been reported to be moderated by distal variables such

as gender and gender congruity. Thus, Jankowski and her associates
(1999) reported that subjects who observed their same-sex parent exclu-
sively manifest physical aggression against their spouse were increas-
ingly likely to manifest dating aggression, whereas subjects who
exclusively witnessed their opposite-sex parent display marital aggres-
sion were not at greater risk for displaying dating aggression. These
researchers also cited other studies indicating that same-sex parents are
prominent models for their children (Bussey & Bandura, 1984; Perry &
Bussey, 1979). In another study (Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994),
exposure to aggression predicted aggressive behavior across three gen-
erations for males, but not for females. For females, however, marital aggres-
sion in the first generation predicted husband-to-wife marital aggression
in the second generation.
Gender also appears to moderate intergenerational parallelism in
substance use as well. Thus, parental substance use is more strongly
related to female adolescent substance use than to male adolescent use
(Clayton, 1991; Thompson & Wilsnack, 1984). Smoking by the mother is
more strongly related than smoking by the father to children’s smoking,
particularly daughter’s smoking (Kandel & Wu, 1995). More imitation in
drinking level occurs between offspring and same-sex parent, while non-
imitation is associated with cross-sex parent drinking, particularly for the
only female single child displaying a negative correlation with father’s
drinking level (Harburg, Davis, & Caplan, 1982).
Specifications of distal moderators by themselves are not very
informative. It is only when “mediational moderators” are offered that we
begin to approach an understanding of the moderating conditions for
intergenerational (dis)continuity of deviant behavior. For example, Stith
and her associates (2000) observed gender effects in their meta-analysis of
the intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse and offered possible
explanations for the effect:
There are a variety of explanations for why growing up in a violent home
may have a stronger relationship to victimization for female offspring than to
perpetuation for male offspring. One possible explanation may be that chil-
dren are modeling the behavior of their same-sex parent. Differential social-
ization practices may also help to explain these findings...Boys are reinforced
more often for being aggressive, whereas girls are reinforced for being pas-
sive. Thus cultural socialization practices may interact with modeling of
same-sex parent behavior, leading to differential effects for boys and girls
growing up in violent homes. (p. 648)
Summary
The literature offers a plethora of instances in which specific vari-

ables are observed to moderate degree of intergenerational (dis)continuity
in patterns of deviant behavior or their correlates. At the very least, it
might be concluded that these exemplars of intergenerational parallelism
are conditional on a number of factors. It might even be possible to sug-
gest that some of the moderators are particularly meaningful as contingen-
cies for observing intergenerational (dis)continuity. Certainly variables
such as changes in normative definition, identification, family conflict,
parental warmth, gender, and related variables surface again and again.
However, in the absence of a general theoretical structure, it is not possible
to organize these variables in a way that contributes to an understanding of
intergenerational continuity. Are these variables causally related to each
other or alternative specifications of the same theoretical construct? How
should any one of these variables be interpreted theoretically—does
absence of the father from the home signify lack of a role model, attenu-
ated social support, an occasion for stigmatization, loss of income, weak-
ened social control, or any combination or all of these? It is not likely that
any interpretations will be credible unless it is viewed in the context of a
general theory/nomological network. Although these questions will not be
definitively answered even with being guided by a theoretical framework,
certainly the attempt to explain intergenerational discontinuity will proceed
in an orderly fashion if it is guided by such a theory. Therefore, informed
by a general theory, a number of models were estimated that specified con-
ditions under which intergenerational (dis)continuity in deviant behavior
and causally related constructs would be observed.
Estimating Moderators of Intergenerational Parallelism
From the review of the literature, it is apparent that intergenerational

continuities in deviant behavior and their hypothetical causally related
constructs are contingent on a variety of moderating circumstances.
Instances of intergenerational parallelism are variable in the nature of the
circumstances that moderate the relationship. As expected, each of the three
focal constructs under consideration (deviant behavior, disposition to
engage in deviance, and negative self-feelings) has their own theoretically
indicated moderators.
90 Chapter 4
Deviant Behavior
According to the general theory of deviance that guides the analy-

ses presented in this chapter, the continuity of deviant behavior depends
on at least two general factors. First, the first-generation subjects (G1)
must necessarily be alienated from the conventional world. Under con-
ditions of such alienation, conventional influences are less likely to
stimulate changes in deviant behavior over the first-generation subject’s
life course. If changes in deviance had occurred over the first-genera-
tion subject’s life course, they would be less likely to transmit deviant
attitudes to this next generation and would be less likely, as well, to
model such behavior for the next generation (G2).
Second, intergenerational continuity in deviant behavior is more
likely to occur under conditions where an environment conducive to
deviant behavior existed for the second-generation (G2) subject. If the
environment was less than conducive to or supportive of deviant behavior
that might otherwise have been transmitted by the first-generation subject
to the second-generation youth, there is a lesser likelihood that parallelism
in deviant behavior across generations would be observed.
To test these hypotheses, the structural equation models estimating
the degree of intergenerational parallelism were tested and compared
under mutually exclusive conditions. For multi-item indexes, the
groups were defined as being above or below the median value of the
score. For single-item indexes, the groups were defined by having
affirmed or denied the item. Where there were more than one eligible
G2 child in the family, the scores for the G2 youths were aggregated.
The latent construct for deviant behavior was modeled as described in
chapter 3.
All variables were selected to reflect alienation from the conven-
tional world and contexts conducive to continuity of deviant behavior,
respectively. For each of four variables (see Tables 4.1–4.4), it was
hypothesized that subjects that were high on the variable indicating alien-
ation from the conventional world or an environment conducive to support
for deviant behavior, the degree of intergenerational parallelism noted in
deviant behavior would be significantly greater than that observed for
individuals who were low on the variable in question. Three variables
were taken to reflect G1 alienation from the conventional environment and
one variable was taken to reflect environments conducive to the continu-
ity of deviance in the second generation.
Alienation from Conventional Others

One indicator of identification with, or alienation from, the conven-
tional world is the extent to which values held by one’s peer group are
endorsed by the subject. Failure of G1 youths to endorse values of their
age cohort is taken as an indicator of alienation form the cohort. The values
in question relate to appearance (“important to be good looking”), ath-
letics (“...good at sports”), and popularity (“...liked by kids of the appro-
priate sex”, “...have a lot of friends”). That these values are reflective of
broad acceptance is suggested by the large majority endorsing them in
each case.
The comparison of the measurement models and structural effects for
intergenerational parallelism of deviance under the two mutually exclu-
sive conditions is summarized in Table 4.1. Referring to the unstandard-
ized (b) coefficients, as expected, for individuals who judged these values
as “not important,” and therefore appeared to be alienated from the value
system of their age cohort, the degree of intergenerational continuity in
deviant behavior (b = 0.316) was appreciably higher than for youths who
endorsed the values and therefore were more likely to be subject to con-
ventional internal and external evaluative judgments (b = 0.195).
It was reasoned that alienated youths who rejected conventional val-
ues would be less subject to pressures to forego continued deviant activi-
ties and so would be more likely to continue the deviant activity into
Table 4.1. Intergenerational Parallelism of Deviant Behavior by Endorsement or

Rejection of Conventional Peer Values by G1 Youths
Endorse Conventional Reject Conventional

Peer Values (N = 1,041) Peer Values (N = 617)
b B Significance b B Significance
G1 deviant behavior
a
Theft 1.000 0.627 0.000 1.000 0.658 0.000
Violence 0.785 0.492 14.063 0.756 0.497 8.652
Drugs 1.454 0.911 3.397 1.297 0.853 4.175
G2 deviant behavior
Theft 1.000 0.734 0.000 1.000 0.747 0.000
Violence 0.850 0.717 17.249 0.865 0.698 12.747
Drugs 0.472 0.611 14.551 0.517 0.625 10.975
Intergenerational
parallelism effect 0.195 0.188 4.113 0.316 0.330 4.920
a
Fixed parameter.
92 Chapter 4
adulthood, and so serve as deviant models for G2 youths, or (through

deviant parenting) would induce stressful life experiences and maladap-
tive deviant coping patterns to assuage the distress experienced in con-
junction with the life experience. For individuals who were low on the
score measuring rejection (“not important”) of the salience of peer values,
the intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior was appreciably and
significantly less (albeit still significant) (b = 0.195). Presumably, for indi-
viduals who endorsed conventional peer values, those G1 youths who
engaged in deviant behavior would be subject to pressures to discontinue
deviant behavior. The conventional peers would serve as a positive refer-
ence group and the expectations of conventional groups would deter (to
some extent) continuity of deviant behavior throughout the G1 life span,
and so the occasion to serve as models or stimuli for deviant adaptations
in G2. The significant (but lower) G1-G2 correlation under the condition
of endorsing conventional values would be expected because of conse-
quences (negative sanctions) of G1 deviance that would to some degree
confirm deviant disposition throughout the G1 life course.
By the same reasoning that informed the hypothesis that rejection of
conventional peer values would moderate the intergenerational parallelism
of deviance, it was hypothesized that the perception of rejection by con-
ventional peers would moderate the degree of intergenerational parallelism
that was observed. Perceived rejection by the kids at school by G1 youths
was measured by a two-item index indicating that the kids at school did not
like them very much and that they were not very good at the kinds of things
that the kids at school think are important. The contrasting structural equa-
tion models estimating the effect of G1 deviant behavior on G2 deviant
behavior for G1 youths who were high and low respectively on perceived
rejection by school peers are summarized in Table 4.2. As hypothesized,
intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior was moderated by G1 per-
ceptions of rejection by kids at school. For G1 youths who asserted that the
kids at school did not like them very much and/or that they were not very
good at the kinds of things that the kids at school think are important,
the degree of intergenerational parallelism in deviance was appreciably
greater (b = 0.319) than for G1 youths in the mutually exclusive category
(b = 0.156). Indeed, the coefficient was twice as strong in the former group
than in the latter group.
The sense of alienation from the conventional peer group due to per-
ceived failure and rejection leads to an attenuation of identification with
the conventional normative framework and a need to seek alternative
Table 4.2. Intergenerational Parallelism of Deviant Behavior by G1 Youth’s

Perceived Rejection by Conventional Peers
High G1 Perceived Rejection by Low G1 Perceived Rejection by

Conventional Peers (N = 897) Conventional Peers (N = 761)
G1 deviant behavior
a
Theft 1.000 0.618 0.000 1.000 0.713 0.000
Violence 0.679 0.419 9.357 0.905 0.645 14.946
Drugs 1.459 0.901 4.286 1.164 0.830 3.212
G2 deviant behavior
Theft 1.000 0.781 0.000 1.000 0.697 0.000
Violence 0.804 0.713 16.696 0.905 0.701 13.292
Drugs 0.453 0.627 13.659 0.522 0.575 11.955
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
deviant adaptations. Under these conditions, the G1 subjects who engaged

in deviance would be likely to continue the deviant responses throughout
the life course and either (1) serve as socialization models for G2 deviance
or (2) (through deviant parenting) motivate deviant adaptations while
depriving the G2 youths of models for conventional coping patterns.
Continuity of deviance depends in part on the (in)effectiveness of
social controls. In the presence of strong social controls, youths who
engage in deviance (for whatever reason) are less likely to continue
deviant behavior throughout the life course. Where social controls are
weak, youths are less likely to be deterred from, or are more motivated to
continue, deviance. One indication of strength of social controls is the
salience of attitudes of conventional others. It is to be expected that among
youths who care what conventional others think of them, there would be
less continuity (greater discontinuity) of deviant behavior than among
youths who do not care what conventional others think of them (i.e., for
youths who are not uncomfortable with their deviance).
Reasoning that youths who were not uncomfortable with their
deviance (or were comfortable with their deviance) would say that they
were not bothered very much when their parents, or teachers, or kids at
school disapproved of their behavior, whereas youths who were uncom-
fortable with their deviance would admit to being bothered by disapproval
by these (apparently significant) others, an additive score was contrived
94 Chapter 4
consisting of three items: “When I do something my parents (teachers, the

kids at school) dislike it bothers me very much.” The distribution was
divided into those G1 youths who were more and less bothered by disap-
proval (of their behavior) by parents, teachers, and the kids at school. It
was expected that for those who cared less about others’ disapproval,
a greater degree of intergenerational parallelism in deviance would be
observed in comparison with the degree that was observed for youths who
cared more about others’ opinions.
The contrasting structural equation models estimating the effects of
G1 deviant behavior on G2 deviant behavior for G1 youths who cared
more or less about conventional others’ opinion of their behavior are sum-
marized in Table 4.3. As expected, intergenerational parallelism in
deviance was significantly greater for youths who were less bothered
when significant others disliked their behavior (b = 0.288) than when they
were more bothered (b = 0.176). The greater continuity in deviance for the
“less bothered” group is accounted for, in part, by the relative inefficiency
of any sanctions that might have been administered by significant others
in response to G1 deviant behavior. If you do not care what others think,
then you are less likely to modify your behavior in response to their
expressed attitudes. The lesser (but still statistically significant) intergen-
erational continuity in deviant behavior observed for the “more bothered”
group is accounted for, in part, by G1 modification of deviant behavior in

Emotional Investment in the Evaluations of Conventional Others
Bothered More by Evaluations of Bothered Less by Evaluations of

Conventional Others (N = 941) Conventional Others (N = 717)
G1 deviant behavior
a
Theft 1.000 0.547 0.000 1.000 0.708 0.000
Violence 0.846 0.462 12.305 0.718 0.508 10.608
Drugs 1.812 0.990 2.296 1.158 0.820 4.576
G2 deviant behavior
Theft 1.000 0.725 0.000 1.000 0.762 0.000
Violence 0.880 0.717 15.674 0.811 0.695 13.741
Drugs 0.453 0.565 13.837 0.510 0.658 11.566
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
response to perceived disapproving attitudes on the part of significant oth-

ers. That some degree of continuity is still observed for G1 youths who
care less about others’ evaluations is explainable in terms of consequences
of G1 adolescent deviant behavior (alienation producing, negative social
sanction, G1 deviant parenting patterns, G1 adult deviant modeling) that
have implications for G2 deviant behavior. Indeed, not caring might be a
defensive reaction to earlier negative sanctions by significant others to G1
deviance. In order to assuage the distressful self-feelings consequent on
G1 deviant behavior, the G1 youths denigrate the sources (and therefore
the legitimacy) of the negative sanctions.
In sum, G1 alienation from the conventional world moderates the
degree to which G1 deviant behavior is associated with G2 deviant
behavior. G1 alienation is reflected in the rejection of conventional val-
ues or normative standards, perceptions of being rejected by conven-
tional others, and emotional withdrawal from conventional others who
might have served as agents of social control. Presumably, G1 alienation
increases intergenerational parallelism through facilitating G1 intragen-
erational continuity of deviant behavior into adulthood. Adult deviance
influences G2 deviance through (1) modeling deviant adaptations, (2)
inducing stressful life circumstances and concomitant negative self-feel-
ings that, in turn, evoke deviant adaptations by G2 youths, (3) failing to
provide conventional social controls, and (4) facilitating access to sup-
portive deviant environments. Indeed, this last consequence reflects a
second class of moderators of intergenerational parallelism of deviant
behavior.
Supportive G2 Social Contexts

In addition to G1 circumstances reflecting alienation from the con-
ventional world that moderate the intergenerational continuity of deviant
behavior, the social contexts of G2 youths would be expected to moderate
the degree of intergenerational continuity. The likelihood that G1 adoles-
cent deviant behavior would influence G2 deviant behavior via adult
deviant behavior, and under conditions of weakened social controls,
would be magnified when the G2 social context is supportive of G2
deviant behavior. An important such context would be the G2 (perceived)
peer environment at school.
Presumably, where deviant behavior is prevalent among peers and,
therefore, is to a degree normalized, there would be less resistance to
96 Chapter 4
engaging in deviant behavior given the disposition to do so (as the object

of dysfunctional parenting patterns or as the observer of deviant parental
role models). Further, the prevalence of deviance among one’s peers
would offer models for learning deviant patterns and occasions to practice
deviant behaviors. In short, where deviant behaviors are prevalent, youths
would be more likely to perceive social support for, learn, and have oppor-
tunities to engage in deviant behaviors. Thus, where deviant behaviors
were perceived as more prevalent, youths would be more likely to enact
deviant behaviors, and where deviant behaviors were viewed as less
prevalent, youths would be less likely to act out deviant dispositions.
To test for the moderating influence of perceived prevalence of peer
deviance, the G2 youths were divided into two groups as relatively high
or low on a four-item index indicating whether “many of the kids at
school” were perceived by G2 youths as engaging in deviant acts: pur-
posely damage or destroy public or private property that does not belong
to them; carry razors, switchblades, or knives as weapons; take little
things worth less than $2 that do not belong to them; beat up people who
have not done anything to them.
For each of the two groups, a structural equations model was esti-
mated that specified intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior. The
results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.4. As hypothesized,

Perception of Peer Deviance at School
Lower Prevalence of Peer Higher Prevalence of Peer

Deviance (N = 1,130) Deviance (N = 528)
G1 deviant behavior
a
Theft 1.000 0.610 0.000 1.000 0.646 0.000
Violence 0.818 0.499 14.158 0.704 0.454 8.862
Drugs 1.512 0.922 3.541 1.410 0.910 3.554
G2 deviant behavior
Theft 1.000 0.672 0.000 1.000 0.773 0.000
Violence 0.910 0.680 16.194 0.783 0.679 11.160
Drugs 0.502 0.545 14.989 0.483 0.659 8.765
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
magnitude of intergenerational continuity was appreciably greater (more

than twice the size) for youths who were higher (b = 0.350) than for the
youths who were lower (b = 0.163) on the index of perceived deviance by
“many of the kids at school.” Thus, the findings support the hypothesis
that the degree of intergenerational parallelism is moderated by G2 per-
ceptions of the prevalence of deviance among school peers.
In sum, the findings reported thus far suggest that intergenerational
continuity in deviant behavior is moderated by the following: degree of
(lack of) endorsement of conventional peer values; perceived failure
according to peer standards and consequent rejection by conventional
peers; (not) caring about the attitudes of “significant” others toward the
behavior of the G1 youths; and G2 social contexts that provide support
for and opportunities to learn and enact deviant patterns. The findings are
congruent with a theoretical framework that specifies intragenerational
continuity of G1 deviant behavior over the life course to be a function of
alienation from conventional normative systems and those who adhere to
those systems and the sequelae of such alienation: (1) weakened social
controls that otherwise have forestalled continuity of deviant behavior
and (2) motivation to seek alternative (deviant) adaptations to achieve
gratifications that were frustrated in the context of the conventional nor-
mative system.
The influence of the G1 life course on G2 continuity of deviance is
presumed to be effected through (1) the G2 youth being part of a stigma-
tized familial network and correlated G1 deviant parenting patterns that
alienate the G2 youth and lead to deviant adaptations to assuage emotional
distress that is secondary to the G1 parent’s stigmatizations, abuse, and
indifference and (2) modeling of G1 deviant behaviors that are imitated by
G2 youth who simultaneously are deprived of models for more efficacious
and conventional modes of coping. These effects of G1 adults on G2
deviance are expected to be magnified under conditions where the G2
youths operate in the context of a deviant peer environment that provides
emotional support, models, occasions, and opportunities for acting out
deviant dispositions.
As will be noted further in chapter 6, intergenerational parallelism in
deviance is explainable, in part, in terms of continuity of causes of deviance
in each generation. For example, in both G1 and G2, deviant attitudes would
be expected to increase the likelihood of acting out deviant behaviors; also,
intergenerational parallelism in deviance would be accounted for by conti-
nuity in deviant attitudes across generations. The deviant attitudes in G1
98 Chapter 4
would have consequences that increase the likelihood of G2 deviant atti-

tudes and, so, intergenerational parallelism in deviance might be explain-
able in terms of the intergenerational continuity of common
intragenerational causes of deviant attitudes in each generation.
In any case, instances of intergenerational continuity of putative
common intragenerational causes of deviant behavior have their own
moderators. Two instances of intergenerational continuity, with regard to
their moderators, will be considered because of their predominate theo-
retical significance as intragenerational causes of deviance: moderators of
(1) intergenerational continuity of deviant dispositions and (2) intergener-
ational continuity of negative self-feelings.
Intergenerational stability in disposition to deviance (and, indeed, in

any disposition) is contingent on circumstances that facilitate (1) intra-
generational stability in G1 deviant dispositions between youth and adult-
hood and (2) intergenerational influences of G1 adults on G2 youths.
Intragenerational Stability
In general, deviant dispositions would be expected to be continuous
throughout the life course (as would any dispositions) to the extent that
youths did not experience discomfort in their social relationships whether
that is reflected in rejection by others, new expectations incumbent upon
one, thwarted aspirations, or simply disquietude regarding meeting others’
expectations. Youths who were comfortable with who they were and their
current station in life would have no need to change their disposition to
behave; nor would they be moved to change if significant others were
comfortable with (or were perceived as comfortable with) the youths and
their deviant behavior. However, discomfort with oneself, whether caused
by others’ discomfort with the youth’s behavior or by frustrated aspira-
tions or by new expectations, would increase the need to change one’s atti-
tudes. Discomfort with one’s self-evaluations would instigate changes in
reference groups and correlated attitudinal changes. Both the experience
of (dis)comfort and the stability or change in reference groups are caused
by or reflected in one’s experiences in social relationships or groups or in
changing circumstances that influence such experiences.
Youths characterized by deviant attitudes who, nevertheless, were

not negatively sanctioned as adults but, rather were made to feel comfort-
able in their social networks would be more likely to continue their atti-
tudes throughout the life course, and so communicate these attitudes to
their children. Conversely, youths characterized by deviant attitudes who
were negatively sanctioned and for this or other reasons were made to feel
uncomfortable in their peer groups would be less likely to continue their
deviant dispositions throughout the life course, and so would be less likely
to communicate these attitudes to their children. In order to test this rea-
soning, structural equation models specifying intergenerational paral-
lelism in disposition to deviance were estimated for two groups: those
who affirmed and those who denied as young adults, that they felt com-
fortable with their friends. In this and all other multigroup models dealing
with moderators of disposition to deviance, the latter construct was mod-
eled as described in chapter 3. The comparison of the models is summa-
rized in Table 4.5. As hypothesized, the magnitude of intergenerational
parallelism in deviant attitudes was observed to be appreciably greater for
G1 young adults who asserted that they felt comfortable with their friends
(b = 0.404) than for those who asserted that they were not comfortable
with their friends (b = −0.012, not significant).
Table 4.5. Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance by

G1 Affirmation/Denial as Young Adults That They Feel Comfortable with
Their Friends
G1 Young Adult Does Not G1 Young Adult Feels

Feel Comfortable with Comfortable with Friends
Friends (N = 313) (N = 1,345)
G1 deviant behavior
a
Theft 1.000 0.545 0.000 1.000 0.452 0.000
Violence 1.119 0.611 5.597 1.289 0.583 8.353
Drugs 1.317 0.719 5.094 1.400 0.633 7.509
G2 deviant behavior
Theft 1.000 0.614 0.000 1.000 0.694 0.000
Violence 0.400 0.409 3.975 0.405 0.491 12.243
Drugs 0.646 0.518 3.343 0.649 0.587 12.438
Intergenerational
parallelism effect −0.012 −0.010 −0.102 0.404 0.264 4.902
a
Fixed parameter.
100 Chapter 4
Presumably, where the youth does not (or ceases to) find gratification
in groups that are supportive of deviant attitudes and where the youth
develops affection for other positive reference groups, the motivation to
maintain the same behavioral disposition is attenuated. Because the G1
dispositions to behave are not stable, any influence on G2 disposition to
replicate the G1 youth’s attitudes would similarly be weakened.
Consistent with the previous reasoning, it was expected that G1
young adults who perceive themselves as rejected by their friends would
feel alienated and change their attitudes that were previously endorsed by
the group either as a reflection of alienation from the group or in order to
feel accepted by an alternative positive reference group that eschewed
those antisocial attitudes. In either case, intragenerational continuity of
antisocial attitudes over the G1 life course would be diminished, as would
the antisocial influence of G1 adults on G2 antisocial attitudes whether by
(1) providing antisocial models or (2) inducing stressful experiences and
consequent deviant adaptations on the part of G2 youths.
Conversely, G1 subjects characterized by youthful antisocial disposi-
tions, but who as young adults do not feel unwanted, would be more likely
to continue to hold such attitudes throughout the life course within a social
(peer) context that either endorses or tolerates such attitudes. Continuing
to hold such attitudes as adults increases the likelihood of transmitting
them to the next generation as role models or by eliciting G2 adaptations
in response to distressful correlates of the antisocial attitudes.
In order to test this reasoning, structural equation models specifying
intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance were estimated for
two groups of subjects differentiated according to whether the G1 young
adults did or did not feel unwanted by their friends. The results are sum-
marized in Table 4.6. Presuming that the G1 youths who were higher on
disposition to deviance but as young adults did not feel unwanted by their
friends indicated an interpersonal network that was supportive of
deviance, it was expected that intergenerational parallelism of disposition
to deviance would be greater where G1 subjects (as young adults) indi-
cated that they did not feel unwanted by their friends than where they
indicated that they felt unwanted by their friends.
As hypothesized, for G1 youths who do not feel unwanted by their
friends, the degree of intergenerational parallelism in deviant attitudes
(dispositions) was appreciably greater (b = 0.390) than for youths who
assert that they do feel unwanted (b = −0.068, not significant). To have
held antisocial attitudes (characterized as having had a deviant disposition)
Table 4.6 Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance by G1

Affirmation/Denial as Young Adults of Feeling Unwanted by Their Friends
G1 Young Adults Do Not Feel G1 Young Adults Feel Unwanted

Unwanted by Friends (N = 1475) by Friends (N = 183)
G1 Disposition to
Deviance
*
Antisocial Coping 1.000 0.458 0.000 1.000 0.622 0.000
Disrespect Others 1.261 0.577 8.701 1.053 0.655 6.271
Rejection of Norms 1.387 0.635 7.915 1.246 0.776 5.646
G2 Disposition to
Deviance
Antisocial Coping 1.000 0.668 0.000 1.000 0.741 0.000
Disrespect Others 0.396 0.468 11.861 0.498 0.545 5.160
Rejection of Norms 0.650 0.577 11.770 0.664 0.560 5.032
Intergenerational
Parallelism Effect 0.390 0.263 5.056 −0.068 −0.058 −0.505
*
fixed parameter
while asserting that one does not feel rejected by one’s friends suggests
membership in a deviant group or the presence of a supportive deviant
subculture. In such a case, G1 intragenerational continuity in deviant dis-
positions is facilitated, as is adult G1 communication of such attitudes to
G2 youths.
Similar results should be obtained, and like interpretations would be
warranted when using another indicator of comfort with adult peers. It
was hypothesized that for G1 young adults who indicated that they do not
worry about their relationships with their friends, intergenerational paral-
lelism in disposition to deviance would be appreciably greater than for G2
young adults who indicated that they do worry about their relationships
with their friends. The hypothesis was tested by estimating structural
equations models specifying intergenerational continuity in disposition to
deviance separately for G1 young adults who do and do not, respectively,
worry about their relationships with their adult peers. The results of the
analysis are summarized in Table 4.7. As hypothesized, intergenerational
parallelism in disposition to deviance was appreciably (about five times)
greater for G1 subjects who indicated as young adults that they did not
worry about their relationships with friends (b = 0.398) than for G1 sub-
jects who indicated as young adults that they did worry about their
102 Chapter 4

G1 Affirmation/Denial as Young Adults of Worrying About Their Relationships
with Friends
G1 Young Adults Does Not

Worry About Relationship G1 Young Adult Worries About
(N = 1,228) Relationship (N = 430)
G1 disposition to
deviance
a
Antisocial coping 1.000 0.486 0.000 1.000 0.481 0.000
Disrespect others 1.119 0.543 7.889 1.354 0.652 6.065
Rejection of norms 1.286 0.625 7.222 1.506 0.725 5.864
G2 disposition to
deviance
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
relationships with their friends (b = 0.078, not significant). Presumably,

for the former group, a level of psychological comfort with friends as
young adults indicates a supportive environment for continuity of deviant
dispositions displayed by the G1 adolescent youths and, thus, opportuni-
ties to transmit such attitudes to (or to provide problematic/distressful sit-
uations that evoke deviant attitudes by) G2 youth. For the latter group,
worrying about one’s peer relationships suggests that deviant dispositions
are problematic for the G1 subjects’ friendship groups, thus rendering
these attitudes as amenable to change prior to G1 parenthood; and the
absence of G1 intragenerational stability in deviant attitudes diminishes
the likelihood of transmitting the deviant dispositions to G2 youths.
The intragenerational stability of deviant attitudes should depend on
the stability of one’s membership/reference groups. If one is comfortable
with one’s friendship groups, even when holding deviant dispositions, the
likelihood of intragenerational stability and cross-generational transmis-
sion of deviant behavior should be facilitated. In fact, we have seen that
this is the case when focusing on G1 young adult relationships with their
friends. Similarly, if the G1 youth who holds deviant attitudes as a youth
remains comfortable with his socioeconomic station as a young adult, it
might be assumed that such attitudes are compatible with those endorsed
in the G1 adult’s social class (assuming intragenerational stability). Thus,
the G1 adult might be more likely to display and model behaviors reflect-
ing those attitudes for the G2 youth. However, if the person is uncomfort-
able with his or her social class, it might appear that the G1 adult has
changed reference groups and correlated expectations of, or aspirations
for, oneself—aspirations or expectations that are incompatible with youthful
deviant dispositions; thus, the adult would be less likely to communicate
deviant dispositions (or occasion distressful correlates of such attitudes
that might evoke G2 deviant adaptations) to the G2 youths.
Informed by these considerations, separate models were estimated
that specified intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance for
G1 subjects who as young adults denied and affirmed, respectively, that
they felt unsure about themselves when thinking about their social class.
It was expected that for those who did not feel unsure of themselves,
intergenerational continuity would be appreciably greater than for those
who were unsure of themselves. The results of the analysis are summarized
in Table 4.8.

G1 Affirmation/Denial as Young Adults of Feeling Unsure When Thinking About
Their Social Class
Do Not Feel Unsure About Feel Unsure About

Themselves (N = 1,380) Themselves (N = 278)
G1 disposition to
deviance
a
G2 disposition to
deviance
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
104 Chapter 4
Consistent with expectations, intergenerational continuity in

deviant dispositions between G1 and G2 youths was appreciably greater
when the G1 youths as young adults indicated that they did not feel
unsure of themselves when thinking about their social class (b = 0.400)
than when the G1 youths as young adults indicated that they did feel
unsure of themselves when thinking about their social class (b = 0.006,
not significant). For the former group, comfort with one’s social class
would suggest continuing compatibility of youthful antisocial disposi-
tions with adult social class (again, assuming intragenerational stability
in deviant dispositions and socioeconomic stratum); thus, the transgen-
erational communication of antisocial attitudes would be facilitated. For
the latter group, signification by the G1 youths as adults that they were
unsure of themselves when thinking about their social class suggests
changing perceptions about the normative standards of one’s social class
or changing aspirations about one’s desired social class. In either case,
reevaluation of the acceptability of youthful antisocial disposition is
likely to impede intergenerational transmission of deviant dispositions
from the G1 adult to the G2 youth.
First-generation youths whose life circumstances remain stable are
more likely to manifest intragenration stability in attitudes (including dis-
position to deviance) as well and so are more likely to transmit these atti-
tudes to G2 youths. Conversely, a change in life circumstances would be
expected to disrupt the viability of stable attitudes whether over the life
course or intergenerationally.
A case in point is a life event such as being promoted at work. Youths
with deviant dispositions who reported as adults that they were promoted
at work would be obliged to meet new expectations, would be further
immersed in a conventional network, and would be more subject to con-
ventional social controls. Further, by virtue of the increased gratifications
in their conventional roles, they would be less disposed to maintain their
deviant attitudes: thus, they would be less likely to communicate the deviant
attitudes of their youth to their own children. Youths with deviant attitudes
who did not report such a life event would be more likely to manifest sta-
bility in other life circumstances, including those that continued to be
supportive of preexisting deviant attitudes. Based on the assumptions, it
was hypothesized that G1 subjects who reported as young adults that they
were not promoted at work would manifest appreciably greater intergen-
erational parallelism in disposition to deviance than G1 subjects who
reported as young adults that they were promoted at work.
To test this hypothesis, structural equation models were estimated

that specified intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance for
G1 subjects who as young adults reported that they were not promoted
at work and for G1 subjects who reported that they were promoted at
work. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.9. As
hypothesized, persons who reported as young adults that they were not
recently promoted at work manifested an appreciably greater degree of
intergenerational continuity in adolescent deviant attitudes (b = 0.633)
than individuals who reported that they had been recently promoted at
work (b = 0.181). To some extent, these interpretations replicate those
offered for feeling unsure when thinking about their social class. Being
unsure suggests changing standards and expectations and, therefore,
decreased perceptions of the acceptability of youthful antisocial dispo-
sitions. Decreased perceptions of the acceptability of antisocial disposi-
tions on the part of the G1 adult decreases the likelihood of
communication of these attitudes to the G2 youth. In addition, the pos-
sibility exists that not being promoted at work might reflect an occasion
for exacerbation of alienation from the conventional world, assuming
that the young adult anticipated being promoted and judged not being
promoted as unjust.
Table 4.9. Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance by G1 Young

Adult Affirmation/Denial of Recently Being Promoted at Work
Not Promoted at Work Promoted at Work

(N = 313) (N = 1,085)
G1 disposition to
deviance
a
G2 disposition to
deviance
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
106 Chapter 4
Intergenerational Influences
Given intragenerational stability between early adolescence and
adulthood, intergenerational parallelism of deviant dispositions depends
on circumstances that facilitate or impede communications of the antiso-
cial disposition from the G1 adult to the G2 youth.
Among the more salient circumstances that moderate the degree of
communication of antisocial dispositions from the G1 adult to the G2
youth is the nature of the relationship between the two. Presumably, the
G2 youth would be more likely to identify with and adopt the parents’
antisocial attitudes if the youth had more, rather than less, favorable atti-
tudes toward the parents. On the basis of this reasoning, it was hypothe-
sized that the degree of intergenerational continuity of deviant
dispositions would be greater for G2 youths who find it easy to discuss
problems with their parents than for the youths who do not find it easy to
discuss problems with parents. This would suggest that here the G2 dis-
positions are the product of social learning rather than the alternative
outcome of alienated adaptations to parent-induced stress.
In order to test the hypothesis, two structural equation models were
estimated that specified intergenerational parallelism in disposition to
deviance for G2 youths who did and did not, respectively, find it easy to
discuss problems with their parents. The results of the analysis are sum-
marized in Table 4.10. As predicted, the degree of intergenerational con-
tinuity in deviant dispositions was substantially greater when the G2
youths indicated close relations with their parents (b = 0.470) than when
the G2 youths indicated more strained relations with their parents (b =
0.113, not significant).
In sum, the results taken as a whole suggest that intragenerational
continuity in deviant dispositions is contingent on three kinds of modera-
tor: social support for antisocial dispositions (suggested by the friendship
moderators reported by the G1 youths as adults); stability in life circum-
stances (reflected in not being promoted at work, and not feeling unsure
of oneself when thinking about one’s social class reported by G1 subjects
as young adults); and close relations with parents (reflected in G2 reports
of finding it easy to discuss problems with parents). Under conditions
where peer support for deviant attitudes appears to exist (suggesting a
deviant subculture), intragenerational stability in life circumstances exists,
and G1 parents and G2 youths have a good relationship (suggesting G1
social support as well as G2 influencibility), the degree of intergenerational
Table 4.10. Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance by G2 Youth

Affirmation/Denial That It Is Easy to Discuss Problems with Parents
Not Easy to Discuss Problems Easy to Discuss Problems with

with Parents (N = 876) Parents (N = 782)
G1 disposition to
deviance
a
G2 Disposition to
deviance
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
continuity in deviant dispositions tends to be appreciably stronger. Where

peer support for deviant dispositions appears to be lacking, changes in
life circumstances or reference groups occur, and parent-child rela-
tions are strained, intergenerational parallelism of deviant dispositions is
diminished.
As noted earlier, within each generation, negative self-feelings influ-

ences the adoption of deviant patterns toward the goal of reducing these
distressful feelings. The transgenerational continuity in negative self-
feelings accounts, in part, for the transgenerational continuity in deviant
attitudes and behavior. However, the intergenerational continuity of nega-
tive self-feelings is contingent on a number of circumstances. Some of
these moderators refer to G1 intragenerational continuity of negative self-
feelings between early adolescence and adulthood, whereas other contin-
gencies refer to the influence of G1 parental negative self-feelings on G2
youthful negative self-feelings.
108 Chapter 4
Moderators of Intragenerational Continuity

It was expected that intergenerational parallelism in negative self-
feelings would be greater under conditions in which the G1 youths
reported higher levels of various deviant patterns. Presumably deviant pat-
terns would evoke negative sanctions and other distressing consequences
that would stabilize distress over the life course. Additionally, engaging in
deviant patterns might reflect the absence of efficacious conventional cop-
ing mechanisms that might have assuaged or forestalled negative self-
feelings. In either case, manifestations of negative self-feelings and the
modeling of ineffective coping mechanisms by G1 subjects as parents
would increase the probability that the G2 youths would manifest similar
negative self-feelings.
In accordance with this reasoning, structural equation models speci-
fying intergenerational parallelism were estimated separately for G1
youths who scored above and below the median, respectively, on a meas-
ure of engaging in theft-related activity as youths (using the measure
described in chapter 3). It was hypothesized that for G1 youths who
scored above the median on the theft score in early adolescence, the
degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings would be
appreciably greater than for G1 youths who scored below the median on
the theft score in early adolescence. The results of the analysis are sum-
marized in Table 4.11. Consistent with this reasoning, it was observed that
for G1 youths who scored higher on a scale indicating involvement in
theft as adolescents, the degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative
self-feelings between G1 and G2 adolescents was appreciably greater
(b = 0.537) than for G1 youths who scored lower on the measure of theft
activity (b = 0.279).
It was also hypothesized that engaging in violent acts as youths would
moderate the degree of intergenerational continuity of negative self-
feelings. As expected (see Table 4.12) for G1 subjects who scored higher
on a measure of engaging in violent behavior as adolescents, the degree of
intergenerational continuity in negative self-feelings was appreciably
greater (b = 0.687) than for G1 subjects who scored lower on the measure
(b = 0.266). Again, it is presumed that engaging in deviant behavior will be
associated with distressing sequelae such as rejection by conventional others
and deprivation of resources needed to satisfy one’s needs.
It will be noted that the degree of intergenerational parallelism in
psychological distress was still statistically significant for G1 adolescent
Table 4.11. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by

G1 Involvement in Theft During Early Adolescence
Low G1 Involvement in High G1 Involvement in

Theft (N = 959) Theft (N = 699)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.564 0.000 1.000 0.515 0.000
Self-derogation 1.112 0.627 13.666 1.155 0.595 10.265
Depression 1.352 0.762 12.245 1.527 0.787 9.208
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.602 0.000 1.000 0.572 0.000
Self-derogation 1.029 0.794 16.857 1.135 0.762 11.996
Depression 0.770 0.785 15.861 0.905 0.775 13.033
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
Table 4.12. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by

G1 Involvement in Violence During Early Adolescence
Low G1 Involvement in High G1 Involvement in

Violence (N = 1,203) Violence (N = 455)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.576 0.000 1.000 0.470 0.000
Self-derogation 1.065 0.613 14.161 1.264 0.594 8.653
Depression 1.281 0.737 13.117 1.792 0.842 7.239
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.610 0.000 1.000 0.560 0.000
Self-derogation 1.018 0.786 18.341 1.152 0.756 8.945
Depression 0.782 0.782 18.535 0.894 0.766 9.066
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
110 Chapter 4
subjects who were below the median in theft and interpersonal violence
(although the intergenerational continuity was substantially less than for
the mutually exclusive groups). Apparently, psychological distress
remains stable across the G1 life course and continues to provide models
for ineffective or maladaptive coping practices for the G2 youths.
The concurrence of deviant behavior with negative self-feelings
for G1 youths suggests that the deviant behavior does not so much
reflect a subcultural endorsement of the behavior as it would appear
to reflect maladaptive or ineffective coping responses that would likely
facilitate G1 intragenerational continuity of psychological distress and
transgenerational communications of ineffective/maladaptive coping
patterns that would fail to forestall or assuage G2 experiences of nega-
tive self-feelings. Consistent with this reasoning, it was expected that
alienation from conventional sources of social support would moderate
the observation of intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings.
Alienation, in the sense of emotional divorcement, from conventional
others (parents, teachers, friends) deprives the person of important
sources of social support. Negative self-feelings are more likely to con-
tinue in the absence of social support than in its presence. Social support
provides opportunities to resolve stress-inducing problems and offers
the potential for esteem-inducing responses. In the presence of social
support, the experience of negative self-feelings is more likely to be dis-
continuous because the sources of distress might be obviated through
the problem-solving/affective support mechanisms offered by signifi-
cant others. Conversely, in the absence of support, the initial G1 experi-
ence of psychological distress (reflecting as it does the inability to
forestall occasions for or assuage negative self-feelings) is likely to con-
tinue over the G1 life course, and the G2 youths are more likely to be
deprived of effective coping patterns for dealing with distressful life
circumstances by modeling G1 parental responses.
In order to test this reasoning, the G1 population was divided into
two groups according to whether the youths were above or below the
median on a score indicating whether the youths thought it was very
important what their parents, teachers, and the kids at school thought of
them. A higher score indicated that the G1 youths tended not to evalu-
ate these opinions as important and that, therefore, the distressed youth
was alienated from what might otherwise have been important sources
of social support. It was hypothesized that for youths scoring higher
on the index, the observed degree of intergenerational parallelism in
negative self-feelings would be substantially greater than for youths

scoring lower on the index.
A comparison of the structural equations models estimated for the
two groups is summarized in Table 4.13. As hypothesized, intergenera-
tional continuity in negative self-feelings was appreciably greater for G1
youths who indicated that the opinions others (parents, teachers, kids at
school) hold of them were not important (b = 0.514) than for G1 youths
who indicated that the opinions held of them by significant others were
important (b = 0.293). For the latter group, presumably, the negative self-
feelings experienced had the potential of being assuaged by recourse to
sources of social support; thus, the experience of negative self-feelings
was less likely to be continuous throughout the life course. Nor, in this
instance, was communication of ineffective coping strategies as likely to
be communicated to G2 youths in the absence of G1 distress continuing
into parenthood.
If it is assumed that reports of negative self-feelings by G1 youths
signify the learning of ineffective or maladaptive coping patterns, it is to
be expected that consistent socializing responses by parents would
increase the likelihood of maintaining these ineffective responses through-
out the life course. The absence of effective coping patterns, and the
Table 4.13. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G1 Alienation

from Conventional Others During Early Adolescence
Important What Parents, Teachers, Not Important What Parents,

Kids at School Think of G1 Teachers, Kids at School
Youth (N = 934) Think of G1 Youth (N = 724)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.560 0.000 1.000 0.651 0.000
Self-derogation 1.129 0.633 14.553 0.847 0.552 6.765
Depression 1.450 0.813 12.578 1.091 0.711 6.670
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.592 0.000 1.000 0.584 0.000
Self-derogation 1.059 0.779 15.431 0.950 0.669 6.611
Depression 0.848 0.797 14.792 0.782 0.815 7.860
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
112 Chapter 4
increased probability of experiences of psychological distress, then would

be communicated by the G1 parents to the G2 youths.
By this reasoning, it was expected that for G1 youths who indicated
in early adolescence that their “parents pretty much agree about how they
should be raised,” the degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative
self-feelings would be substantially greater than for G1 youths who
denied that their parents agreed on how they should be observed. The
hypothesis was supported. Reference to Table 4.14 will indicate that, for
the former group, the observed degree of intergenerational continuity in
negative self-feelings was appreciably greater (b = 0.464) than for the G1
youths who denied that their parents reached consensus on how they
should be raised (b = 0.029, not significant). For this latter group, the lack
of consensus decreases the probability of continuity in maladaptive or
ineffective mechanisms over the life course and, therefore, their commu-
nication to the next generation.
Individuals who are disposed to experience negative self-feelings as
youths apparently do not posses the kinds of effective coping mechanism
that are capable of forestalling or assuaging distressful experiences.
Therefore, in the presence of such experiences later in life, they would be
likely, once more, to experience negative self-feelings, assuming that they
Table 4.14. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G1 Youth

Reports of Parental Agreement on Child Rearing
G1 Youth Asserts That Parents G1 Youth Asserts That Parents
Agree on How the Youth Do Not Agree on How Youth
Should Be Raised (N = 1,424) Should Be Raised (N = 234)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.538 0.000 1.000 0.515 0.000
Self-derogation 1.155 0.621 15.583 1.155 0.595 10.265
Depression 1.464 0.787 14.013 1.527 0.787 9.208
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.584 0.000 1.000 0.572 0.000
Self-derogation 1.094 0.792 18.820 1.135 0.762 11.996
Depression 0.855 0.789 18.382 0.905 0.775 13.033
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
have not developed efficacious coping mechanisms in the interim; as par-

ents, they would be likely to model and communicate ineffective or mal-
adaptive coping mechanisms to their G2 children.
By this reasoning, it is to be expected that intergenerational continu-
ity in negative self-feelings (via G1 intragenerational continuity) would be
appreciably greater under conditions whereby the G1 subjects as adults
experienced life events that (1) required adaptation to new normative
requirements that might challenge essentially inadequate coping patterns
(suggested by preexisting psychological distress), (2) disrupted existing
coping patterns, or (3) were intrinsically distressful. Accordingly, it was
hypothesized that for G1 youths who (as young adults) indicated that they
“got married or started living with someone of the opposite sex” the
degree of intergenerational continuity in negative self-feelings observed
would be appreciably greater than for G1 youths who indicated (as young
adults) that they did not enter into a marital or cohabitating relationship.
The hypothesis was tested by comparing structural equations models
specifying intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings for G1
subjects who did and did not report as young adults that they had entered
into a marital or cohabitating relationship. The results of the analysis are
summarized in Table 4.15. As hypothesized, the degree of intergenera-
Table 4.15. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G1 Reports as

Young Adults Entering into a Marital or Cohabitating Relationship
G1 Young Adult Did Not Enter G1 Young Adult Did Enter into
into Marital or Cohabitating Marital or Cohabitating
Relationship (N = 270) Relationship (N = 1,388)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.549 0.000 1.000 0.565 0.000
Self-derogation 1.252 0.687 7.216 1.083 0.612 16.345
Depression 1.364 0.748 6.945 1.378 0.778 14.757
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.630 0.000 1.000 0.579 0.000
Self-Derogation 0.809 0.721 8.481 1.131 0.787 18.259
Depression 0.565 0.736 8.642 0.883 0.787 18.381
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
114 Chapter 4
tional continuity in negative self-feelings observed between G1 and G2

was substantially larger (b = 0.405) for the group indicating entering into
marital or cohabitating relations as young adults than for the mutually
exclusive group (b = 0.082, not significant). This finding is compatible
with the conclusion that for G1 youths who initially experienced negative
self-feelings, entering into marital or cohabitating relations (particularly
in early adolescence) provides a stress-invoking experience for those who
apparently early on had not developed effective coping mechanisms for
dealing with life stress.
By similar reasoning, it was hypothesized that for G1 youths who
indicated as young adults that someone important to them died, the degree
of intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings would be sub-
stantially greater than for the mutually exclusive group. The loss of
someone important is an intrinsically noxious event and, by definition,
reflects the loss of a salient source of socioemotional support that might
ordinarily assuage the distress associated with adverse life experiences.
Further, to the extent that the G1 subject was functionally interdependent
with the object of bereavement, he or she might be required to take on the
role obligations of the deceased—a circumstance that is also potentially
stress-inducing. The combination of youthful (G1) inability to forestall or
assuage distress (evidenced by G1 negative self-feelings) and the pre-
sumed continuity of this into adulthood, and the challenges faced by
young adults, via distressful life circumstances increase the probability
that G2 ineffective coping with life stress will be learned by the G2 chil-
dren and occasions for experiencing negative self-feelings will be pro-
vided to the G2 children.
As in the case of entering into marital or cohabitating relation-
ships, the hypotheses were tested by estimating separate structural
equations models specifying intergenerational parallelism in negative
self-feelings for G1 subjects who did and did not, respectively, report
as young adults having had someone important to them die. The results
of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.16. Consistent with these
expectations, the magnitude of observed intergenerational parallelism
in negative self-feelings was observed to be substantially greater for G1
youths who, as young adults, reported the recent loss of an important
person in their life (b = 0.731) than for the mutually exclusive category
of G1 youths (b = 0.274).
Table 4.16. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G1 Reports as

Young Adults That Someone Important to Them Died
G1 Young Adult Does Not Report G1 Young Adult Does Report

That Someone Important to That Someone Important to
Them Died (N = 1,249) Them Died (N = 409)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.552 0.000 1.000 0.595 0.000
Self-derogation 1.167 0.645 15.241 0.956 0.568 9.632
Depression 1.394 0.770 13.514 1.336 0.795 9.578
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.559 0.000 1.000 0.654 0.000
Self-derogation 1.167 0.791 16.846 0.885 0.751 113.574
Depression 0.890 0.785 17.177 0.724 0.795 10.540
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
Moderators of Transgenerational Continuity

Intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings depends, in
part, on G1 continuity of youthful psychological distress into parenthood,
at which time the ineffective coping mechanisms that failed to forestall or
assuage psychological distress are modeled for, and communicated to, the
children of the next generation. The moderators just considered relate pri-
marily to the facilitation of intragenerational continuity of G1 negative
self-feelings. Other moderators influence the extent to which G1 parental
psychological distress influences G2 distress.
The transgenerational continuity of negative self-feelings depends, in
part, on the G2 youth’s experience of rejection and failure. If the G2
youths have such experiences, in the absence of socialization into the use
of effective coping mechanisms, they are likely to experience higher lev-
els of psychological distress, as did their parents. As an index of social
rejection, the G2 respondents were asked to respond to a three-item index
indicating whether they were liked by peers. As an indicator of failure, the
G2 youths responded to three items signifying whether they, for example,
doubted if they would get ahead in life as far as they would really like.
116 Chapter 4
Regarding G2 experiences of rejection as a moderator of intergener-

ational continuity of negative self-feelings, it was hypothesized that the
magnitude of intergenerational continuity would be greater where the G2
youths reported higher levels (above the median) of peer rejection during
early adolescence than where the G2 youths reported lower levels (below
the median) of peer rejection on a three-item index based on responses to
the following: “Do you have a lot of friends?” “Do you have a close friend
right now” “Are you liked by kids of the opposite sex?”.
The hypothesis was tested by estimating separate structural equation
models specifying intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings
for G2 youths who were above and below, respectively, the median score
on the measure of peer rejection. The results of the analysis are summa-
rized in Table 4.17. As expected, under conditions whereby G2 youths
perceived themselves as not liked by peers, the degree of intergenerational
continuity of negative self-feelings observed was far greater (b = 0.522)
than that observed for G2 youths who affirmed that they were liked by
peers (b = 0.280). Where G2 youths are rejected by peers, the presumed
inadequate coping patterns (suggested by G1 negative self-feelings) trans-
mitted by the G1 parents would preclude G2 youths forestalling or assuaging
the distressful self-feelings that ordinarily accompany peer rejection.
Table 4.17. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G2 Reports

in Early Adolescence of Peer Rejection
Low G2 Peer Rejection High G2 Peer Rejection
(N = 1,089) (N = 569)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.569 0.000 1.000 0.556 0.000
Self-derogation 1.093 0.621 14.432 1.128 0.627 10.801
Depression 1.342 0.763 12.931 1.451 0.807 10.189
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.583 0.000 1.000 0.581 0.000
Self-derogation 1.012 0.763 16.199 1.180 0.796 11.896
Depression 0.771 0.752 16.464 0.937 0.823 11.592
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
Hence, G2 youths under such conditions would be prone to parallel the

experiences of negative self-feelings manifested by the G1 youths. In the
absence of such provocative circumstances and through the use of
avoidant (and other) defense mechanisms, it might be possible for G2
youths to forestall repetition of the G1 youths’ higher levels of psycho-
logical distress.
Regarding G2 self-perceptions of failure as a moderator of intergen-
erational continuity of negative self-feelings, it was expected that for G2
youths who anticipated failure in life, the likelihood of replicating G1 neg-
ative self-feelings would be greater than for G2 youths who did not antic-
ipate failure. A comparison of structural equation models specifying
intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings for G2 who scored
variously high and low on a measure of expectations of failure is summa-
rized in Table 4.18. As hypothesized, intergenerational parallelism in neg-
ative self-feelings was moderated by an index of anticipated failure on the
part of G2 youths. For G2 youths who anticipated failure in life (above
median scores on a three-item index: I doubt if I will get ahead in life as
far as I would really like. There isn’t much chance that a kid from my
neighborhood will get ahead; I would do a lot better in life if society didn’t
have the cards stacked against me), the observed degree of intergenerational

Expectations of Failure
Low Expectation of High Expectation of

Failure (N = 860) Failure (N = 789)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.585 0.000 1.000 0.523 0.000
Self-derogation 1.133 0.663 13.708 1.113 0.583 11.474
Depression 1.298 0.759 13.011 1.526 0.799 9.908
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.503 0.000 1.000 0.558 0.000
Self-derogation 0.969 0.691 9.731 1.246 0.796 13.499
Depression 0.760 0.691 10.902 0.924 0.786 13.380
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
118 Chapter 4
parallelism in negative self-feelings was appreciably greater (b = 0.447)

than for G2 youths who scored below the median on the index (b = 0.191).
Of course, it should be noted that any index of perceived (anticipated) fail-
ure at the same time reflects the perceived inability to forestall these cir-
cumstances through personal effort. In any case, where G2 youths
anticipate the inability to forestall failure, they are more likely to parallel
the subjective distress (ordinarily associated with anticipated failure)
manifested by G1 youths.
Experiences of social rejection and failure by G2 youths are likely to
exacerbate and, so, replicate the negative self-feelings experienced by
their parents at a comparable developmental stage. However, the experi-
ence of negative self-feelings in the face of failure and rejection is most
likely to occur in the absence of social support that might have assuaged
these predictable distressful sequelae.
Among the more salient potential sources of social support available
to the child are the parents. Under benign circumstances, parents would be
available to help the child either forestall the occasions for negative self-
feelings or to soften the impact of such distressful feelings. Thus, sup-
portive parents would lessen the replication of any negative self-feelings
experienced by the parents themselves as youths. However, in the absence
of parental support, the G2 youth would be more likely to parallel the neg-
ative self-feelings experienced by their parent(s) at comparable develop-
mental stages. This is the case not only because the child is deprived of
coping resources but also because the perception by the child of parents’
failure to provide instrumental and socioemotional support is intrinsically
distressing insofar as it reflects badly on the G2 youths’ sense of worth.
The absence of parental support is reflected in a number or ways:
absence of supervision, the child not being disposed to display affection
or feel close to the parents, and not receiving positive reinforcement for
desirable behaviors—to name a few. For each of the indicators of absence
of social support, it would be expected that G2 youths who were higher
on the index would be more likely to recapitulate the negative self-
feelings of the parents at the same developmental stage than G2 youths
who were lower on the index. These expectations were tested by compar-
ing the structural equations models specifying intergenerational continu-
ity of negative self-feelings for G2 youths who were high and low,
respectively, on each index of G2 lack of parental support.
One indicator of lack of parental support is neglecting—that is, not
caring enough about the child to exercise supervision, as is reflected in a
four-item scale indicating allowing the child to leave the house without
telling the parent, not knowing where the child is and whom they are
with, and not knowing the child’s best friends and the parents of the
child’s best friends. It was hypothesized that the magnitude of intergen-
erational parallelism in negative self-feelings would be appreciably
higher where the G1 parent manifested scores above the median on the
index of absence of parental supervision than where the G1 parent mani-
fested scores below the median on absence of parental supervision. The
results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.19. As hypothesized,
the degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings was
appreciably greater where the G2 youth perceived the parents exercising
low parental supervision (b = 0.509) than where the G2 youth perceived
the parent as exercising more supervision (b = 0.268). In the absence of
parental support, the G2 child is less likely to have the resources (psycho-
logical or otherwise) to forestall the experience of stressful life circum-
stances or to assuage the concomitant distressful self-feelings. Thus, the
G2 youth is more likely to replicate the experiences of negative self-
feelings reported by the G1 parents as adolescents. This is in contrast to
the situation where the G2 youths have more access to supportive parents
Table 4.19. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G2 Reports of

Parental Supervision
G2 Youth Reports High G2 Youth Reports Low

Parental Supervision Parental Supervision
(N = 1,019) (N = 639)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.567 0.000 1.000 0.547 0.000
Self-derogation 1.058 0.600 13.568 1.191 0.651 11.442
Depression 1.334 0.757 11.981 1.489 0.815 11.167
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.596 0.000 1.000 0.550 0.000
Self-derogation 1.077 0.828 17.387 1.123 0.705 10.909
Depression 0.760 0.762 17.071 1.004 0.822 11.232
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
120 Chapter 4
who might help forestall the experience of distress (thus altering the
degree of intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings).
The attenuation of positive affective ties between parent and child
also reflects a relative paucity of social support. Thus, it was hypothesized
that for G2 youths who deny that they openly show affection to their par-
ents, the degree of intergenerational parallelism in psychological distress
would be greater than for G2 youths who affirm that they openly show
affection to their parents. (See Table 4.20.) As hypothesized, for the G2
youths who denied that they openly show affection to their parents, the
magnitude of intergenerational parallelism in psychological distress was
appreciably greater (b = 0.532) than for the G2 youths who affirmed that
they show affection to their parents (b = 0.302). For the latter group, the
probability was somewhat greater that the affectional ties with parents
would be somewhat instrumental in allowing the G2 youths to cope emo-
tionally with distressful life circumstances; thus, the G2 youths would be
less likely to replicate the experience of negative self-feelings by the G1
youth at the same developmental stage.
Not surprisingly, in view of the preceding findings, examination of
Table 4.21. supports the expectation that a report of (not) feeling close to
one’s parents moderates the magnitude of intergenerational parallelism in
negative self-feelings. For G2 youths who deemed that they do not feel
Table 4.20. Intergenerational Parallelism of Negative Self-feelings by G2 Reports

of Showing Affection to Parents
G2 Youth Shows Affection to G2 Youth Does Not Show
Parents (N = 1,229) Affection to Parents (N = 429)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.541 0.000 1.000 0.609 0.000
Self-derogation 1.151 0.623 15.901 1.000 0.609 8.275
Depression 1.495 0.809 14.076 1.161 0.707 8.064
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.564 0.000 1.000 0.646 0.000
Self-derogation 1.080 0.790 16.377 1.028 0.736 10.893
Depression 0.780 0.767 18.028 0.916 0.804 9.557
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.

Assertions of Feeling Close to Parents
G2 Youth Feels Close to G2 Youth Does Not Feel Close

Parents (N = 1,462) to Parents (N = 196)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.553 0.000 1.000 0.611 0.000
Self-derogation 1.121 0.620 16.986 0.988 0.604 5.579
Depression 1.429 0.791 15.295 1.126 0.688 5.834
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.577 0.000 1.000 0.583 0.000
Self-derogation 0.922 0.744 17.211 1.330 0.813 6.325
Depression 0.742 0.754 18.372 1.088 0.797 6.036
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
close to their parents, the observed degree of intergenerational parallelism

in psychological distress was substantially greater (b = 0.536) than for G2
youths who affirmed that they feel close to their parents (b = 0.300).
Again, emotional identification with parents suggests the presence of
resources that might facilitate effective coping with negative self-feelings,
and the presence of resources that forestall or assuage distress lessens the
likelihood of the G2 youth replicating the experience of negative self-
feelings reported by the G1 youth.
The absence of social support is reflected also in the inability to
evoke rewarding responses from parents when conforming to their expec-
tations. The ability to evoke rewarding responses from parents is reflected
in responses to the question addressed to G2 youths: “When you have
been especially good, how often (often, sometimes, hardly ever or never)
does your parent praise you...kiss or hug you,...let you have something
special to eat,...buy you something special,...let you have extra privi-
leges?” A high score indicates that rewards are hardly ever or never forth-
coming. It was hypothesized that for G2 youths who hardly ever or never
receive rewards (above the median scores), the degree of intergenerational
parallelism in negative self-feelings would be greater than for G2 youths
who more often receive rewards (below the median scores). The results
122 Chapter 4
summarized in Table 4.22 are congruent with the hypothesis. For G2

youths who are less likely to receive parental rewards for good behavior,
the degree of intergenerational parallelism observed was greater (b =
0.458) than for G2 youths who were more likely to receive parental
rewards (b = 0.279). Presumably, the failure to evoke rewards for conven-
tional behavior reflects the attenuation of ties with a potentially valuable
tension-reducing resource. At the same time, the lack of rewards fails to
reinforce the behaviors that are likely to evoke rewarding/tension-
reducing responses from others in the G2 youth’s environment. Hence, the
G2 youths who are not the objects of appropriate rewards are more likely
to experience the kinds of distress that parallel those of the G1 youths at
comparable developmental stages. However, youths who maintain ties
with sources of support who reinforce adaptive patterns are less likely to
recapitulate negative self-feelings experienced by the G1 youths.
The extent to which the G2 youth experiences negative self-feelings
and so repeats the experiences of negative self-feelings reported by G1
youths depends, in part, on the degree to which the G2 youth learns from
his parents effective and conventional, as opposed to ineffective and mal-
adaptive, coping mechanisms for dealing with distressful feelings.

Assertions of Receiving Parental Rewards for Good Behavior
G2 Youth Does Not Receive

G2 Youth Does Receive Rewards Rewards for Good Behavior
for Good Behavior (N = 851) (N = 807)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.558 0.000 1.000 0.565 0.000
Self-derogation 1.111 0.620 13.125 1.109 0.626 12.291
Depression 1.391 0.776 11.563 1.378 0.778 11.538
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.603 0.000 1.000 0.570 0.000
Self-Derogation 0.948 0.770 14.859 1.196 0.784 13.675
Depression 0.714 0.765 14.615 0.949 0.803 13.803
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
Presumably, the exposure to maladaptive coping mechanisms would

simultaneously preclude forestalling occasions for, and assuaging, nega-
tive self-feelings and indeed would constitute another source of stress.
A case in point is the G2 observation of regular and prolonged parent use
of alcohol or marijuana over a long period of time. It was hypothesized
that the degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings
observed would be substantially greater for G2 youths who observed reg-
ular and long-term use of alcohol or marijuana by the parent than for G2
youths who did not indicate such patterns.
The results summarized in Table 4.23 support the hypothesis. The
magnitude of intergenerational parallelism was substantially greater for
the G2 youths who reported regular and prolonged parental substance use
(b = 0.671) than for G2 youths who did not report this pattern (b = 0.309).
This result was to be expected for several reasons. First, as suggested ear-
lier, these patterns over the long term are ineffective in reducing negative
self-feelings. Second, the learning of maladaptive coping mechanisms
often precludes the learning of conventional and efficacious patterns.
Third, the parental substance use patterns have concomitants that repre-
sent sources of negative self-feelings for the G2 youths, including abusive
and neglectful parenting patterns, stigmatization of the G2 youth as the

Assertions of Regular and Prolonged Use of Alcohol or Marijuana by Parent
G2 Youth Does Not Report G2 Youth Does Report

Regular and Prolonged Regular and Prolonged
Parental Use (N = 1,446) Parental Use (N = 212)
G1 negative self-
feelings
a
Anxiety 1.000 0.554 0.000 1.000 0.600 0.000
Self-derogation 1.133 0.627 15.916 1.011 0.606 7.965
Depression 1.390 0.769 14.804 1.339 0.803 6.898
G2 negative self-
feelings
Anxiety 1.000 0.571 0.000 1.000 0.635 0.000
Self-derogation 1.112 0.791 19.112 1.035 0.758 6.691
Depression 0.833 0.778 19.345 0.832 0.759 6.982
Intergenerational
a
Fixed parameter.
124 Chapter 4
child of substance-abusing parents, and the necessity of the child frequently

prematurely taking on a caretaker role and the burden of performing
duties that the parent is no longer (if he or she ever was) willing and able
to perform. Thus, under circumstances of parental substance use, the like-
lihood is increased that the G2 youth would manifest levels of psycholog-
ical distress that parallel those reported by the G1 youth at a comparable
developmental stage.
In sum, the degree of intergenerational parallelism in negative
self-feelings that is observed is contingent on circumstances that facilitate
the continuity of such feelings between youth and parenthood for the first
generation and that facilitate the influence of the first-generation on sec-
ond-generation experiences that either reflect on or have implications for
the level of negative self-feelings. The continuity of negative self-feelings
between early adolescence and parenthood for the G1 subjects is facili-
tated by the early performance of stress-inducing behavior and its con-
comitants (deviant behaviors and consequent negative social sanctions),
alienation from potential sources of social support that might forestall
stress or assuage distress (not important what parents, teachers, kids at
school think of me), consistent parental socialization in inadequate coping
patterns (the combination of higher levels of psychological distress and
parental agreement on patterns of child rearing), and the experience of late
life events that challenge inadequate coping patterns (the combination
of higher levels of distress with life events as young adults such as
marriage/cohabitation and the death of a significant other).
The intergenerational transfer of psychological distress from G1 par-
ents is conditional on the G2 youth’s experiences of rejection (by peers)
and failure (no expectations of upward socioeconomic mobility), absence
of supportive parents who might have helped forestall stress and assuage
distressful feelings (G2 youth does not show affection or feel close to par-
ents and does not receive positive reinforcement for conventional coping),
and G2 perceptions of G1 parental use of ineffective and maladaptive coping
mechanisms (substance use).
Part III
DECOMPOSING INTERGENERATIONAL
PARALLELISM
In Part III, the relevant literature on the decomposition of intergenera-

tional (dis)continuities in deviant behavior and its correlates are reviewed.
Informed by the guiding general theory of deviant behavior and the liter-
ature, models are estimated that, in part or totally, statistically decompose
the intergenerational continuities in deviant behaviors and its selected
salient correlates observed in a multigenerational longitudinal study.
Intergenerational continuities are accounted for in two ways: First, first-
generation deviance (or related phenomena) is assumed to have conse-
quences that, in turn, influence second-generation deviance; that is, part of
the explanation for observed intergenerational continuities is in terms of
intervening causal processes. The specification of the intervening (indi-
rect) effect attenuates the direct association observed between the first-
generation phenomenon and the second-generation phenomenon. Second,
intergenerational continuity in deviance (or its selected salient correlates)
are explained (partly or in toto) in terms of common antecedents of
deviance (or the common correlates of deviance) in each generation.
Specification of a particular cause of deviance in each generation and
specification of intergenerational continuity for the hypothetical cause, at
least in part, explain (statistically decompose) the originally observed
intergenerational parallelism in deviance. The intergenerational continuity
in the putative cause of deviance is also explainable either in terms of
causal consequences of the first-generation cause on the second-
generation cause (intervening processes) or in terms of intergenerational
stability of intragenerational antecedents.
125
126 Part III
In chapter 5, we review the literature on intervening processes in

observed intergenerational continuities in deviant behavior and related
phenomena. In the context of this literature and guided by a general theory
of deviant behavior, models are estimated that specify intervening
processes in intergenerational parallelism of deviance or in selected hypo-
thetical causes of deviant behavior (disposition to deviate and negative self-
feelings). In chapter 6, models are estimated that specify common causal
antecedents and intergenerational continuity of these causes of deviant
behavior, disposition to deviance, and negative self-feelings. As in the
case of intervening processes, the models are specified and discussed in
the context of the relevant literatures and the guiding theoretical
framework.
5
Intervening Processes
In chapter 4, it was argued that the degree of intergenerational (dis)conti-

nuity that is observed (whether in deviance, correlates of deviance, or
unrelated phenomena) is contingent on a number of variables. Under some
circumstances, intergenerational parallelism is observed to exist and to be
relatively strong, whereas under other circumstances, the degree of inter-
generational continuity is not statistically significant or is relatively weak.
In any case, where a statistically significant intergenerational paral-
lelism is observed, whether for the population of interest at large or for a
segment of the population that is defined by some moderating value, the
question remains as to how to explain the significant intergenerational
parallelism. One kind of explanation is in terms of mediating variables;
that is, parallelism might occur because the first generation sets in motion
a chain of reactions according to which intervening processes mediate the
causal relationship between the first- and second-generation phenomena.
If these intervening processes are modeled, the originally observed inter-
generational relationship is weakened or reduced to nonsignificance, sug-
gesting that the putative mediating variables indeed offer part or all of the
explanation of the observed intergenerational parallelism. The effects of
intervening processes on decomposing instances of intergenerational par-
allelism have been hypothesized and observed widely, and certain of these
intervening circumstances have been modeled successfully in the present
study. Following a review of the literature on intervening processes, exem-
plars of models that specify mediating variables are described and dis-
cussed in the context of this literature and the guiding theoretical
framework.
127
128 Chapter 5
Literature on Intervening Processes
Numerous instances of the decomposition of intergenerational paral-

lelism have been presented in the literature. In some cases, the models
have reflected what are interpretable as intergenerational parallelism in
correlates of deviant behavior. In other instances, the models reflect inter-
vening processes in intergenerational parallelisms in deviant behavior
itself. The literature for each are considered in turn.
In some instances it is difficult to determine whether certain putative

causes or correlates of deviant behavior should be treated as deviant
behaviors themselves. Should abusive parenting practices, for example, be
treated as causes of other forms of deviant behavior within each genera-
tion, or should abusive parenting be treated as manifestations of deviant
responses/impulses in their own right? In any case, for present purposes,
we will treat such variables as correlates rather than reflections of deviant
behavior.
A broad range of intergenerational patterns have been explained in
terms of intervening variables. For example, the transgenerational conti-
nuity in school-related failure and rejection was decomposed, in part, by
a number of intervening variables, including “family structure, mothers’
educational attainment, and level of mothers’ involvement in their chil-
dren’s school activities and interest in their progress at school” (Kaplan,
Kaplan, & Liu, 2000, p. 235). Similarly, a number of factors are impli-
cated in the continuity or discontinuity of the intergenerational cycle of
poverty (Harper, Marcus, & Moore, 2003):
A multitude of causal factors—economic, political, environmental and

social—are involved in life course and intergenerational poverty transmis-
sion. Negative impacts of, for example, indebtedness, unemployment,
conflict, ecological stress, or cultural norms, to name a few, can result in
harm in childhood that impacts over a life course or between generations.
Some critical examples include poor nutrition and chronic ill-health, low
educational achievement, psychological harm and low aspirations. What is
pertinent is how and whether the real and felt negative effects can be over-
come over a life course and/or between generations and, if not, what it is that
prevents positive outcomes. There are clearly potential opportunities to dis-
rupt negative poverty cycles, opportunities which themselves are mediated
Intervening Processes 129
through the same economic, social, political and environmental drivers that
have the potential to harm (Moore 2001). (p. 536)
Among the more frequently considered intergenerational patterns

that are considered with regard to their intervening patterns are early child
bearing, divorce, and (particularly abusive) parenting patterns.
Early Childbearing
Alternative explanations based on causally related intervening mech-
anisms, as opposed to intergenerationally continuous intragenerational
causal mechanisms, have been discussed with regard to, for example,
intergenerational transmission of age at first birth (Barber, 2001b):
Bengtson (1975) suggests that parents’ and children’s attitudes, values, and
preferences may be similar because of their shared social positions, back-
ground, and experiences. Similarly, parents’ and children’s childbearing
behavior may be similar because of their shared social positions, background,
and experiences. This is consistent with the idea that the socialization of chil-
dren is only spuriously related to their mother’s age at first birth; children
may behave like their mothers simply because their mothers’ and their own
opportunities and constraints were shaped by the same social forces...
An important alternative hypothesis is that the first-generation mother’s
childbearing behavior itself produces the intergenerational similarity in first-
birth timing. This hypothesis also draws on the socialization perspective. One
plausible explanation is that a direct effect of mother’s age at first birth on her
child’s age at first birth is through mother’s attitude change. Mothers who
experience early first births are likely to form a more positive attitude toward
early childbearing as a result, and they transmit those attitudes to their chil-
dren through socialization processes. These attitudes may lead to earlier
childbearing (Barber, 2001)[a]. Even if mothers do not transmit those values
to their children, children respond directly to their mother’s attitudes toward
childbearing behavior, regardless of their own attitudes (Barber 2000).
Another plausible explanation is that children model their own behavior
directly on their mother’s behavior. (p. 222)
Others have suggested attitudinal transmission or modeling as medi-

ating variables. Intergenerational continuity in teenage childbearing
(Manlove, 1997) was mediated in part by preferences for age of child-
bearing. Teen mothers tended to produce daughters who reported earlier
ideal ages for childbearing, which, in turn, was associated with increased
likelihood of teenage childbearing by the daughter. Hardy and her associ-
ates (1998) suggested that
130 Chapter 5
...normative expectations of timing of childbearing, neighborhood effects,

and parenting behavior during the childhood or adolescent years (i.e., coer-
cive parenting cycles occurring during the elementary school years and low
supervision and monitoring of behavior and peers during the high school
years) are potential pathways for such intergenerational continuity (Capaldi,
Crosby, & Stoolmiller, 1996; Patterson, De Baryshe, & Ramsey, 1989;
Serbin, Moskowitz, Schwartzman, & Ledingham, 1991). (p. 1229)
Others suggested that intergenerational parallelism in teenage mother-

hood is accounted for, in part, by the intervening influence of the daughter’s
educational performance. First-generation teen mothers had daughters who
achieved less well and were less likely to attend schools that were academ-
ically oriented. These variables, in turn, were associated with increased risk
of teenage births (Manlove, 1997).
Divorce
Intergenerational continuity in divorce is explainable, in part, by
intervening variables relating to the consequences of the parental divorce
for the child that might persist into adulthood. These include the experi-
ence of emotional distress and impaired ability to participate in interper-
sonal relationships (Amato, 1996; Amato & Booth, 1997; Amato &
Rogers, 1997; Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998; Ross &
Mirowsky, 1999), educational attainment (Sandefur & Wells, 1999), and
time of marriage (Bumpass et al., 1991; South, 1995). Thus, intergenera-
tional transmission of divorce migth be mediated by adverse psychologi-
cal outcomes on children that persist over the life course (Amato & Keith,
1991; Cherlin et al., & McRae, 1998). As Wolfinger (1999) observed:
Perhaps as a result, the adult children of divorce more often report low levels
of marital satisfaction than do people from intact families (Amato & Booth
1991; Glenn & Kramer, 1985). Recent evidence suggests that impaired inter-
personal skills play a strong role in explaining the intergenerational trans-
mission of divorce (Amato 1996). (p. 415)
Regarding the mediating effect of interpersonal behavior (Amato, 1996):
Offspring whose parents divorced, compared with those whose parents

remained continuously married, are more likely to have an interpersonal style
marked by problematic behavior (problems with anger, jealousy, hurt feelings,
communication, infidelity, and so on), and these interpersonal problems, in
turn, increase the risk of divorce. Furthermore, lifecourse and socioeco-
nomic variables mediate little of the association between parental divorce and
interpersonal behavior problems. These findings suggest that parental divorce

has direct impact on these interpersonal behaviors. These findings are consis-
tent with the notion that adult children from divorced families are exposed to
poor models of dyadic behavior and may not learn the skills and attitudes that
facilitate successful functioning within marital roles. Similarly, children of
divorce may be predisposed to develop traits (such as lack of trust or an inabil-
ity to commit) that exacerbate relationship tension. (p. 638)
The mediating role of age at marriage and cohabitation in the inter-

generational transmission of divorce might be for any of a number of rea-
sons (Amato, 1996). With regard to age at marriage, parental divorces
might motivate early marriage so that the children can escape from an
unhappy household and seek alternative solutions to their unresolved
needs; also, early age at marriage by the children might predict divorce
because they impulsively select less-than-suitable partners and have failed
to experience successful anticipatory socialization during which they
could learn necessary coping skills to deal with interpersonal relationships
successfully.
Regarding cohabitation, it is possible that the offspring of divorced
parents have learned unconventional adaptations to life stress or because
they have an inhibition against committing to long-term relationships.
Cohabitation, in turn, might increase the probability of divorce because it
reflects a preexisting disposition to escape from, rather than commit to,
interpersonal relationships that are at all stress-inducing. Uncommitted
individuals experience less normative constraint against marital dissolution
when the cohabiting individuals eventually marry.
Abusive Parenting or Experiences of Abuse

The practices of abusive parenting and the experience of abuse have
both been observed to be intergenerationally continuous, and both have
been the object of analyses or speculations that attempt to explain these
continuities in terms of intervening processes. Among the related mediating
mechanisms that have been offered are the following: social learning, anti-
social attitudes, mate selection, attitudes of insecurity, inadequate coping
mechanisms, and neurodevelopmental factors.
The intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting, where the use
of corporal punishment is replicated by the children of those parents when
they become parents, appears to be mediated by the social learning of
aggressive behavior from the physically punitive parents (Muller et al., 1995);
132 Chapter 5
that is, intergenerational parallelism in physically punitive parenting

is mediated by aggressive behaviors learned by the children of punitive
parents in the course of the socialization process. Consistent with this
formulation are numerous studies that indicate a relationship between
being the object of corporal punishment and aggressive responses to
others (McCord, 1988; Muller, Fitzgerald, Sullivan, & Zucker, 1994;
Simons et al., 1991).
Considering possible mediating factors in the observed intergenera-
tional transmission of risk for child sexual abuse, McCloskey and Bailey
(2000) speculated that attachment theory might provide a mediating
mechanism accounting for intergenerational risk for sexual abuse:
It is possible that women who have been sexually abused develop an ‘inter-
nal working model’ of sexual relationships that encompasses exploitive,
coercive, and domineering behavior among men. If such a relationship ‘tem-
plate’ results from early exposure to sexual abuse, then these women might
be more tolerant of men either in their relationships or their social spheres
who are potential abusers of their daughters. (p. 1032)
Dissociation has been suggested as a mediating variable intervening

between the experience of child abuse and the exercise of abuse as adults
(Narang & Contreras, 2000):
Importantly, level of dissociation significantly mediated the observed associ-

ation between physical abuse history and physical abuse potential. Thus,
over-reliance on dissociation appeared to function as a mechanism explain-
ing the relation between abuse history and abuse potential. (p. 660)
Parental attachment has been suggested as one mediator of the inter-

generational continuity of abusive behavior such that children who are the
objects of abusive parental behavior experience insecurity in their rela-
tionship with their parents, which, in turn, increases the probability that,
as parents, these insecure individuals will manifest similar rejecting/abu-
sive behavior that they experienced as children toward their own children
(Main & Goldwyn, 1984).
Recent neurodevelopmental perspectives implicate the development
of the brain as mediating intergenerational continuity of parenting pat-
terns. Thus, Chen and Kaplan (2001) citing Perry (1997) pointed out that
researchers in the neurodevelopment field argue
...that childhood experiences affect the development of the brain, which in

turn influences emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. The
development of the brain is highly use-dependent. Growing up in a violent or

neglectful family environment tends to impair the development of the higher
and more complex part of the brain, which controls primitive impulses and
promotes capabilities of empathy and attachment, while facilitating the
development of the lower and simpler portion of the brain, which prompts
adaptive survival functions, such as a ‘fight or flight’ state. Conversely, early
experiences of good parenting that assist the development of the higher
portion of the brain should promote empathetic capabilities for better
interpersonal relations. Although brain research focuses on the impact of
early experiences, assuming continuity of human behavior, parental behavior
assessed during adolescence should in part reflect substantial early
experiences. (p. 20)
Simons and his associates (1995,) reported that intergenerational

continuity in harsh parenting was mediated by an antisocial orientation on
the part of the parents:
Harsh treatment as a child was associated with a general antisocial orienta-

tion, which in turn, predicted chronic aggression toward one’s children.
Further, parents with this antisocial behavior trait were likely to engage in
violence toward their spouse. Physical aggression toward the marital
partner was related to violence toward children but this relationship was
eliminated when the effect of antisocial behavior trait was controlled,
suggesting that the two phenomena are correlated because each is a reflec-
tion of an underlying antisocial orientation. This pattern of findings is
consistent with criminological theories that view persistent aggression
toward family members as an expression of a general antisocial syndrome
that has its roots in inept parenting (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990;
Patterson et al., 1992). (p. 162)
Many of these same mediators are specified as mediators in the

observed instances of intergenerational continuities in deviance.
Deviant Behavior
Both the theoretical and empirical literatures suggest a number of

conceptually related variables that are hypothesized or observed to medi-
ate (in whole or in part) observed instances of intergenerational paral-
lelism in deviance. The mediating constructs include G1 deviant behavior
observed at a later stage in the life course, G1 adult experiences of family
conflict, G1 psychological distress subsequent to G1 deviance, G1 adult
parenting patterns, and socioeconomic states.
134 Chapter 5
Adult Deviant Behavior

The observation of intergenerational parallelism in deviance
between youths in one generation and their children at the same devel-
opmental stage is explained often in terms of the intervening influence
of adult deviance on the part of the first-generation subject. In effect, as
Smith and Farrington (2004, p. 242) observed, “an important mediating
mechanism for intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior may
be the intra-generational continuity of antisocial behavior into early
adulthood.…”
Intragenerational stability in deviant behavior between childhood
and adulthood is observed frequently (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, &
Walder, 1984b), and adult deviance is associated with deviant behavior by
the children of those adults (Farrington, 2002; Stern & Smith, 1995). The
intervening influence of G1 adult deviance on G2 deviance might reflect
the operation of any of a number of mechanisms. Adult deviance by G1
subjects effectively models and legitimates such behavior for their chil-
dren. Such behavior also might induce distressful circumstances that the
child adapts to through the adoption of deviant coping mechanisms, par-
ticularly in the absence of models for effective conventional coping mech-
anisms. Distress-inducing circumstances for the G2 youth include the
interrelated phenomena of family conflict, G1 adult psychological
distress, and inadequate or maleficent parenting patterns.
Family Conflict
Intergenerational continuity of childhood behavior might be medi-
ated through selection of spouse and marital conflict that leads to an envi-
ronment conducive to behavioral problems in the next generation
(Belsky, Youngblade, & Pensky, 1989; Caspi & Elder, 1988). A large
body of the literature in fact suggests that the intergenerational paral-
lelism noted for various forms of deviant behavior is mediated by mari-
tal conflict (Offord, Allen, & Abrams, 1978; West & Prinz, 1987).
Deviant behavior on the part of parents is related to marital conflict
(Billings, Kessler, Gomberg, & Weiner, 1979; Hooley, Richters,
Weintraub, & Neale, 1987; Jacob & Krahn, 1988; Ruscher & Gotlib,
1988), and marital conflict among parents is associated with deviant
adaptations on the part of their children (Amato & Keith, 1991; Grych &
Fincham, 1990; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).
A case in point is the work of Caspi and Elder (1988) as described by

Putallaz and her associates (1998):
Caspi and Elder found strong correlations among personality, marital, and par-
enting difficulties within each generation, correlations which held in each suc-
ceeding generation, that is, they were reproduced intergenerationally. Their
analyses suggested that from one generation to the next, unstable personalities
(involving explosive behavior and irritability) developed through socialization
within family contexts characterized by marital conflict and poor parenting.
Children with unstable personalities or problem behaviors then carry this
instability into adulthood, increasing the likelihood that they will establish a
marital relationship which is high in conflict. This conflictual relationship then
creates a context more conducive to non-optimal parenting, which results in
problem behaviors in their children, the next generation. Thus, within a gener-
ation, problem behaviors lead to problem relationships; across generations,
problem relationships create a socialization environment which results in off-
spring developing problem behaviors, and the cycle continues. (p. 410)
The mediating role of parental conflict in the frequently observed

association between some form of deviant behavior in the first generation
and deviant behavior in the second generation might be accounted for by
a number of mechanisms. Parental conflict might be regarded as a stres-
sor in the lives of the children that is adapted to through the use of deviant
mechanisms. Parental conflict might reflect the failure of the parents to
employ effective coping mechanisms in dealing with stress and, therefore,
the failure to transmit such coping mechanisms to their children, who use
maladaptive mechanisms in the absence of more effective coping patterns.
Parental conflict might also reflect the necessity of focusing energy on the
marital relationship to the exclusion of oversight of their children’s activ-
ities, thus permitting the performance of deviant acts that might otherwise
be forestalled by parental monitoring.
Psychological Distress
As an example of the mediating influence of psychological distress,
Kaplan and Liu (1999) reported that a substantial intergenerational paral-
lelism in antisocial character for a sample of mother-daughter dyads tested
at the same developmental stage (early adolescence) was partially decom-
posed by the mediating influence of the mother’s psychological distress.
The psychological distress was, in part, influenced by poor child-rearing
practices that were an outcome of antisocial character in the first generation.
136 Chapter 5
However, child-rearing patterns had no independent effect on antisocial

character, but, rather, they have an indirect effect via its association with
psychological distress. Apparently, first-generation female antisocial dis-
positions lead to ineffective parenting skills that contribute to the emo-
tional distress of a mother. The inability to control the behavior of her
daughter and being the object of the daughter’s hostile responses to the
inadequate parenting style presumably leads to psychological dysfunc-
tion. The mother’s psychological distress, in turn, precludes the transmis-
sion of adequate coping styles, a sense of self-efficacy, and self- acceptance
to the daughter who adapts to her circumstances with an antisocial coping
style.
Consistent with these speculations are a number of related findings
in the literature. Thus, Conger and his associates (1994) reported that
adolescent externalizing and internalizing symptoms are the outcome of
parental hostility secondary to parent-adolescent conflict, marital con-
flict, parent’s depressed mood, and economic pressure. These dynamics
are compatible with the observation that the mid-life mother is experi-
encing the physical, psychological, and social changes associated with
this stage in the life cycle and with Rossi’s (1980) suggestion (cited by
La Sorsa and Fodor, 1990) that the parent undergoing mid-life develop-
mental stress might influence low morale and family strain by compli-
cating the parent’s ability to cope with the adolescent child or by
contributing to the adolescent’s experience of stress. Perhaps the strain
associated with the sequelae of early antisocial involvement on the part
of the mid-life parents, exacerbated by the experience of stresses associ-
ated with mid-life crises, intensified the disruption of adequate parenting
practices and the experience of psychological distress (to which the inad-
equate parenting also contributes). The intense distress experienced by
the parent precludes the transmission of adequate coping resources to the
adolescent child and, in effect, invites the child to adopt antisocial
responses in more or less effective attempts to reduce the adolescent’s
own experiences of psychological distress.
Findings relating to the mediating influence of psychological dis-
tress is consistent also with the observation by Gest and his associates
(1993) that the experience of negative life events (presumably associated
with subjective distress) involving the parents of the subjects was asso-
ciated with the subjects’ increases in conduct problems. Effective par-
enting was associated with fewer parent-related negative events during
the subjects’ adolescence. The effective parenting did not compensate
for the negative effects of the adversity and it did not moderate the
effects of adversity. These results are also interpretable (along with
those of Kaplan and Liu, 1999) as indicating that effective parenting is
an epiphenomenon of the paucity of subjectively distressful experiences.
It is further possible that parental psychological dysfunction reflects
both the prior inability to cope with children, in particular, and to cope
more generally. If this is the case, then parental psychological dysfunc-
tion might reflect the inability to transmit adequate coping patterns to
the next generation and, therefore, the need to adopt deviant adaptations
to deal with life stress. Consistent with this, Holloway and Machida
(1991) reported that the use of coping strategies involving distancing,
escape/avoidance, and social support was associated with symptoms of
distress. However, the use of active behavioral and cognitive coping
strategies was associated with feelings of control in child-rearing situa-
tions and with authoritative parenting.
Child-Rearing Patterns
Whether regarded as antecedents, consequences, or independent cor-
relates of other mediating variables, arguably, parenting practices have
excited the most interest among students of the intergenerational continu-
ity of deviant behavior. Intergenerational parallelism in antisocial behavior
is, in part, accounted for by the mediating influence of parenting practices
such that antisocial behavior leads to less-than-salutary parenting, which,
in turn, influences antisocial behavior in the next generation (Patterson &
Dishion, 1988).
First-generation parenting patterns have been observed to mediate
the relationship between a variety of first-generation and second-genera-
tion deviant patterns (Chassin, Pillow, Curran, Molina, & Barrera, 1993;
Conger, Patterson, & Ge, 1995; Roosa, Tien, Groppenbacher, Michaels, &
Dumka, 1993). Influence of parental drinking on drinking by the adoles-
cent appears to be mediated by family management practices and prohibi-
tions against involvement of children in alcohol abuse by other family
members (Peterson et al., 1994). First-generation deviant patterns influ-
ence the development of less-than-acceptable parenting techniques. The
families of substance abusers tend to display poor parenting skills
(Kandel, 1990) and increasingly apply punitive responses to children
(Smyth, Miller, Janicki, & Mudar, 1995). Sons of alcoholic fathers expe-
rience less effective discipline than sons of control fathers. In general,
138 Chapter 5
quality of parental discipline was worse in the substance-abusing families

(Tarter, Blackson, Martin, Loeber, & Moss, 1993).
Poor parenting styles, in turn, influence second-generation antiso-
cial outcomes (Sansbury & Wahler, 1992; Simons, Johnson, & Conger,
1994). The research literature consistently supports hypothesized associ-
ations between parenting patterns and any of a variety of deviant
outcomes (Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Baumrind, 1991; Roosa et al., 1993;
Sampson & Laub, 1993), including substance abuse patterns (Tarter
et al., 1993), internalizing disorders (Straus & Kantor, 1994), and antiso-
cial behavior (Sansbury & Wahler, 1992). Simons and his associates
(1995) indicated that aggression toward family members might be a
particular expression of a general antisocial syndrome that has its roots
in inappropriate parenting.
A range of specific parenting patterns have been implicated in
second-generation antisocial outcomes. Parenting practices that increase
the probability of any of a range of deviant outcomes include inadequate
supervision, ineffective disciplinary practices, and rejecting, distrusting,
and abusive parental responses toward the child (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle,
1994; Kumpfer, 1995). Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986, pp. 29–30)
conducted a meta-analysis of concurrent and longitudinal studies of the
relation of family factors to juvenile conduct problems and delinquency
and concluded: “Analyses of longitudinal data show that socialization
variables, such as lack of parental supervision, parental rejection, and
parent-child involvement are among the most powerful predictors of juve-
nile conduct problems and delinquency.”
Late delinquency was anticipated by child-rearing patterns charac-
terized by authoritarian approaches, absence of sensitive communication
and negotiation between parent and child, and the use of physical punish-
ment (Newson, Newson, & Adams, 1993), which weaken the ties between
parent and child. Parenting patterns that attenuate the relationship between
the parent and child, in turn, influence the child’s deviant behavior
(Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Mann & MacKenzie, 1996; Patterson
& Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Wooton, Frick, Shelton, & Silverthorn, 1997).
One of the more robust findings in the literature is the association between
parental deviance and parenting practices that attenuate the relationship
between the parent and the child. The weakening of the parent-child bond
refers both to the absence of positive affect expressed between the parent
and child and the absence of oversight by the parent of the child’s behav-
iors. For example, depressed parents are less responsive to their children
(Goodman & Brumley, 1990) and alcoholic fathers are less directive
toward their children than nonalcoholic fathers (Jacob, Ritchey,
Cvitkovic, & Blane, 1981).
The mechanisms through which first-generation child-rearing pat-
terns lead to second-generation antisocial outcomes, again, appear to be
highly variable. Ineffective parenting patterns impede internalization of
conventional normative prescriptions and proscriptions (Brook, Brook,
Gordon, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1990), which would contravene deviant
acts through the exercise of self-control (Giever, 1995). Being raised by
generally aggressive parents increases the probability that aggressive
behavior will be regarded as normative. Children reared in homes in
which the parents are punitive tend to become egocentric. Both unbridled
expressiveness and egocentricity increase the likelihood of antisocial
behavior (McCord, 1988). Deviant outcomes by children in response to
dysfunctional family patterns, in turn, evoke rejecting or avoidant patterns
from the parents that exacerbate dispositions to engage in deviant out-
comes on the part of the children (Tarter et al., 1993). The weakening of
parental ties might attenuate social controls that might have forestalled
acting out of deviant impulses. Parenting patterns that reflect overly
aggressive or withdrawing behavior might be modeled to deviant extremes
by the children in place of available conventional coping mechanisms.
In sum, at least in part, the relationship observed between antisocial
behavior in successive generations might be accounted for by the inter-
vening influence of poor parenting practices that are the outcome of the
deviant behavior by the earlier generation and that, in turn, increase the
likelihood of antisocial behavior in the next generation (Patterson &
Dishion, 1988). Whether the effects of G1 deviance on G1 parenting prac-
tices and the effects of G1 parenting practices on G2 deviance are medi-
ated by other intervening mechanisms (and the nature of these
mechanisms) remains to be determined.
Socioeconomic Status
Variables related to socioeconomic status (educational level, income,
occupational status) might reasonably be hypothesized to intervene in the
process of intergenerational continuity of deviance. First-generation
deviance, by virtue of negative social sanctions or their sequelae, might
foreclose opportunities for upward social mobility, and frustration associ-
ated with foreclosed opportunities and their correlates occasion deviant
140 Chapter 5
adaptations. The literature supporting such speculation is not abundant.

However, some studies do suggest the intervening influence of socioeco-
nomic-status-related variables in observed instances of intergenerational
continuity of deviance. For example, mothers’ education levels, in part,
mediated the intergenerational association between mothers’ childhood
aggression and withdrawal, on the one hand, and their children’s func-
tioning, on the other hand (Serbin et al., 1998). Further, teenage parent-
hood observed in the first generation decreases parental encouragement of
the daughter remaining in school and staying in school is inversely related
to teenage pregnancy (Manlove, 1997). However, the precise mechanisms
through which G1 deviance affects G1 or G2 socioeconomic status and
socioeconomic status affects G2 deviance, remain to be determined.
Structural Equation Models
The magnitude of intergenerational parallelism that is observed,

whether for the total sample or for a subgroup defined by a moderating
value, is explainable in either or both of two ways: in terms of mediat-
ing/intervening processes or in terms of intergenerational continuity of
intragenerational causes. In this chapter, theoretically informed models
are estimated that specify mediating mechanisms that, in part, account
for observed intergenerational continuity (for the full sample) of deviant
behavior and of two salient causes of deviant behavior: disposition to
deviance and psychological distress. The models specify that G1 deviant
behavior (or its putative causes) have statistically significant conse-
quences that, in turn, have significant consequences for G2 deviance (or
its putative causes). The effect of specifying the intervening variable is
to attenuate the original observed intergenerational effect. The structural
equation models specifying each of several intervening (mediating) con-
structs for each of the intergenerational patterns (of deviant behavior,
disposition to deviance, and negative self-feelings) are summarized in
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively. Column 1 in each table specifies
the intervening construct. Column 2 recalls the baseline intergenera-
tional parallelism coefficient (the effect of G1 on G2). Column 3 indi-
cates the residual intergenerational effect after specifying the mediating
construct. The difference between columns 3 and 4 signifies the degree
to which the intergenerational effect was accounted for by the mediating
construct. Column 4 in each table indicates the effect that the G1
Table 5.1. Unstandardized (b)/Completely Standardized (B) Effects in Structural
Equation Models Specifying Intervening Constructs in Intergenerational
Parallelism of Deviant Behavior
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Intervening Baseline Residual Effect of G1 Effect of

Constructs Intergenerational Intergenerational Deviant Behavior Intervening
Effect for Deviant Effect for Deviant on Intervening Construct on
Behavior (Prior to Behavior (After Construct G2 Deviant
Specifying Specifying Behavior
Intervening Intervening
Construct) Construct)
G1 young adult 0.240/0.239 0.161/0.117 −0.295/−0.214 −0.194/−0.293

socioeconomic
status
G1 young adult 0.240/0.239 0.164/0.182 0.150/0.236 0.339/0.240
distressful
emotions
G2 youth 0.240/0.239 0.163/0.184 0.565/0.287 0.091/0.203
perception of
parental
religiosity
Table 5.2. Unstandardized (b)/Completely Standardized (B) Effects in

Structural Equation Models Specifying Intervening Constructs in
Intergenerational Parallelism of Disposition to Deviance
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Effect for Effect for Deviant on Intervening Construct on
Deviant Behavior Behavior (After Construct G2 Disposition
(Prior to Specifying to Deviance
Specifying Intervening
Intervening Construct)
Construct)
G1 young adult 0.311/0.216 0.078/0.056* −0.593/−0.388 −0.382/−0.421

Socioeconomi
status
G1 parental 0.311/0.216 0.101/0.068* −0.449/−0.347 −0.498/−0.435
socioeconomic
status
G1 family 0.311/0.216 0.153/0.109* 0.708/0.349 0.219/0.316
conflict
reported by
G1 parent of
G2 youth
Note. An asterisk indicates not significant.

142 Chapter 5
Table 5.3. Unstandardized (b)/Completely Standardized (B) Effects in Structural

Equation Models Specifying Intervening Constructs in Intergenerational
Parallelism of Negative Self-Feelings
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Effect for Deviant Effect for Deviant on Intervening Construct on
Behavior (Prior to Behavior (After Construct Negative
Specifying Specifying Self-Feelings
Intervening Intervening
Construct) Construct)
G1 young 0.385/0.228 0.214/0.128 0.331/0.423 0.503/0.236

adult
stressful
emotions
G1 family 0.385/0.228 0.230/0.136 0.657/0.352 0.235/0.260
conflict
reported by
G1 parent
of G2 youth
construct (e.g., deviant behavior) had on the intervening construct,

and column 5 indicates the effect of the intervening construct on the G2
construct (e.g., deviant behavior).
Deviant Behavior
Three theoretically informed constructs were specified as, in part,

accounting for intergenerational continuity in deviant behavior: G1 young
adult socioeconomic status, G1 young adult distressful emotions, and the
G2 youth’s perception of the G1 parent’s religiosity. These intervening
constructs variously relate to the continuity of G1 deviant behavior over
the life course and to the influence of the G1 parents on G2 youths with
regard to G2 deviant behavior.
The performance of deviant behavior by G1 youths has important
structural consequences for the vertical social mobility of the G1 youths
and these consequences, in turn, influence the likelihood of G2 youths
engaging in deviant behavior. Deviant acts by G1 youths have the conse-

quence of evoking negative social sanctions that stigmatize and deprive
the G1 youth of resources that are necessary for the youth’s need satisfac-
tions. These facts (further) alienate the G1 youth from conventional
society; thus, he or she loses motivation to achieve according to conven-
tional standards and, rather, opts for deviant values or deviant adaptations
for the satisfaction of conventional values. Among the sanctions that are
employed by conventional society is suspension from school, and among
the deviant adaptations opted for by the alienated youth, is dropping out
of school.
This outcome along with the concomitant difficulties of prior stigma-
tization decrease the likelihood of upward mobility in the social structure
and increase the likelihood of downward social mobility by young adult-
hood for the G1 subject. Among the consequences of these outcomes for
the G2 youth are experiences of stigmatization, a paucity of social
resources, the failure to learn conventional adaptations from alienated
parents, and the learning of ineffective maladaptive outcomes.
By this reasoning, it is to be expected that the position in the con-
ventional hierarchical structure would mediate intergenerational
parallelism in deviant behavior. To test this expectation, a structural
equations model was estimated that specified an inverse effect of G1
deviant behavior on the G1 young adult position in the social structure
and an inverse effect of the G1 young adult socioeconomic position on
G2 deviant behavior. The structural effects are reported in the first row of
Table 5.1. The latent constructs for G1 and G2 deviance are specified as
described earlier in chapter 3. The socioeconomic position of the G1 sub-
ject as a young adult was specified as a latent construct reflected in two
measurement variables: years of formal schooling, measured on an 11-
point scale ranging from “no formal schooling” to “postgraduate
degree;” and a 6-item scale ranging from “lower class” to “upper class”
in response to the followingquestion: “Judging by the prestige or the
respect people have for the occupation, education, income, family, and
group memberships of you and your family members, do you think you
are in the ….” The items were administered when the G1 subjects were
young adults. Higher scores indicated higher placement in the socioeco-
nomic structure.
As hypothesized, G1 young adult socioeconomic status partially
decomposed intergenerational parallelism in deviance. Referring to the
completely standardized (bottom) coefficients in Table 5.1, G1 deviant
144 Chapter 5
behavior was inversely related to G1 young adult socioeconomic status (B

= −0.214) and G1 young adult socioeconomic status was inversely related
to G2 deviance (B = −0.293). Although the residual degree of intergener-
ational parallelism in deviance remained significant (B = 0.177), the mag-
nitude of intergeneration parallelism in deviance was reduced from the
baseline model prior to specifying the mediating influence (B = 0.239).
Thus, the mediating influence of G1 adult socioeconomic status, in part,
explained the observed intergenerational parallelism of deviance.
Although these results will not be reported here in detail, it should be
noted that similar results were observed for the intervening influence of
G1 socioeconomic status when the G1 adult was 35–39 years of age using
the same two indicators as reported above along with an additional indi-
cator of occupational prestige.
Distressful Emotions
The performance of deviant acts on the part of G1 youths for what-
ever reason is expected to have a range of consequences that would
adversely affect the life course of the youths into adulthood. The experi-
ence of being the object of consequent negative sanctions, concomitant
stigmatization, and social rejection by conventional others, loss of social
support and of the instrumental resources ordinarily provided by conven-
tional others, and the learning of deviant and inefficacious coping patterns
rather than more conventional and effective adaptive responses increases
the likelihood that the person will experience feelings of alienation from
the conventional world. These feelings would be exacerbated as the G1
adult, bereft of resources and conventional effective coping responses,
inevitably experiences failure and rejection in the range of social roles.
The experience of chronic dysphoria on the part of G1 adults, in turn,
has implications for the G1 adults. The experience of distress influences
the inadequate performance of social roles—most notably, the parental
role. The neglectful or abusive parenting and the concomitant failure of
G1 parents to transmit effective conventional coping parents to G2 youths,
along with stressful social contexts that are the lot of the G1 deviant adult,
influence feelings of alienation and dysphoria and consequent deviant
adaptations on the part of the G2 youth.
These theoretically informed linkages that are compatible with the
above-reviewed empirical literature suggest that dysphoric emotions should
mediate and partially decompose intergenerational continuity in deviant
behavior. To test this formulation, a model was established that specified

a positive effect of G1 deviance during early adolescence on G1 distress-
ful emotions measured during early adulthood and a positive effect of G1
young adult distressful emotions on G2 adolescent deviance. The estima-
tion of this structural equation model is summarized in the second row of
Table 5.1.
The latent constructs for G1 and G2 deviance are measured as
described in chapter 3. The latent construct for Distressful Emotions is
reflected in four measurement variables, each of which reflects responses
by the G1 subject during early adulthood. In all cases, higher scores indi-
cate greater experience of distressful emotions. The first measure is based
on cumulative responses to two items: “Can you think of any time during
the past several years, say since you started junior high school until now,
when you were very unhappy of when you were under great stress or pres-
sure, almost more than you could bear?” “…when you were extremely
happy, so happy you could hardly be more pleased?” (reverse coded).
The second measurement variable is a cumulative score based on the
number of “unhappy” (as opposed to either “happy” or “neither happy nor
unhappy”) responses that the G1 young adult indicated in response to the
question: “Looking back over the years since you started junior high
school until now, in general how happy have you been about: the number
or kinds of friends you had; your relations with your parents; your fam-
ily’s or your income; your experiences at school; your jobs or work expe-
rience; your marriages; your relationship with males/females (opposite
sex); being accepted and included by other people or groups; your race,
religion, or ethnic group; your physical appearance?”
The third measure is a cumulative score based on “yes” responses to
the following question: “Can you think of any time between when you
were in the seventh grade and now that: you felt alone and without any-
one to help you solve your problems; you didn’t know who to go to for
help; your situation was so different you had to learn everything all over
again?”
The fourth measurement variable is a cumulative score based on the
frequency (often, sometimes, hardly ever, never) with which they experi-
enced dysphoric emotions thinking about their life as a whole or about
specific kinds of relations (friendships, on the job, unemployment, mari-
tal status, parenthood, extended family). The emotions include upset, wor-
ried, satisfied (reverse coded), happy (reverse coded), unsure of yourself,
bothered, angry, ashamed, bored, dissatisfied, and lonely,
146 Chapter 5
As hypothesized, G1 experiences of distressful emotions as young

adults in fact mediated the observed intergenerational parallelism in
deviant behavior between G1 and G2 youths: G1 deviant behavior had a
positive effect on G1 young adult distressful emotions (B = 0.236) and G1
young adult distressful emotions was positively associated with G2 youth-
ful deviant behavior (B = 0.240). The residual direct effect of G1 youthful
deviance on G2 youthful deviance (b = 0.182) remained statistically sig-
nificant. However, this effect was reduced from that observed in the base-
line model (b = 0.239) prior to specifying G1 young adult distressful
emotions as a mediating construct.
Parental Religiosity
Both on theoretical grounds and congruent with the theoretical liter-
ature, it is to be expected that G1 youthful deviance would have the effect
of alienating the G1 youth from conventional social institutions and moti-
vate seeking alternative deviant adaptations through which he or she
might gain an acceptable self-image. The negative social sanctions that
are the consequences of G1 deviant behavior are both reflected in and
influence social rejection and deprivation of resources that are precursors
to social failure. In response to the experience of rejection and failure that
are secondary to the stigmatization associated with being the object of
negative social sanctions, the G1 subject comes to reject the validity of
conventional values and becomes more amenable to the adoption of alter-
native deviant standards that he or she might more easily approximate and
so facilitate a more acceptable self-image.
The alienation from conventional institutions on the part of G1
adults, in turn, has implications for the deviant behavior of G2 youths. The
alienation from conventional social institutions and values is transmitted
to the G2 youth, and the G2 youth inherits the fruits of the infelicitous
sequelae of the G1 parent’s youthful and possibly continuing deviance.
The combination of the learned negative attitudes toward conventional
social institutions and the attenuation of social controls that is implicit in
such attitudes, along with the stressful circumstances associated with a
less-than-savory family reputation and concomitant negative sanctions
(alienation from conventional institutions is itself an occasion for being
the object of negative social sanctions) increases the likelihood of the G2
youth engaging in deviant activities.
Although G1 rejection of conventional institutions is to some
extent implicit in downward social mobility (insofar as this implicates an
amotivational syndrome), arguably a more germane indicator of rejection

of conventional social institutions is nonparticipation in religious institu-
tions. Not participating in organized religion at the same time implies
attenuation of ties to conventional values and social networks, nonrespon-
sivity to social controls that might otherwise constrain deviant impulses,
and vulnerability to negative social sanctions by virtue of violating norms
prescribing participation in religious institutions. Accordingly, a structural
equations model is estimated that specifies the mediating role of G1 adult
religiosity in the intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior. The
model specifies a positive effect of G1 youthful deviance on G1 adult non-
participation in religious institutions (as this is perceived by the G2 youth)
and a positive effect of G1 adult nonparticipation on G2 youthful deviant
behavior.
The results of estimating the structural equation model are summa-
rized in the third row of Table 5.1. The latent constructs for G1 and G2
deviance are reflected in the same measurement variables as described in
chapter 3. The degree of nonparticipation in religious institutions was
reflected in four measurement variables: the reports by G2 youths of the
frequency (a 5-point scale ranging from “once a week or more” to a high
score of “hardly ever or never”) of attendance at religious services by the
youth’s mother or father and of the importance of religion (along a 4-point
scale ranging from “very important” to a high score of “not at all impor-
tant”) in the life of the G2 youth’s mother and father.
Referring to the completely standardized (bottom) coefficients in Table
5.1, it will be observed that, as expected, G1 youthful deviance had a sig-
nificant positive effect on the G1 parent’s nonparticipation in religion, when
the G1 parent was 35–39 years of age (B = 0.287), and the G1 parents non-
participation in religion had a positive impact on the G2 youth’s deviant
behavior (B = 0.203). The residual direct intergenerational effect on G1
youth deviance on G2 youth deviance remained statistically significant (B =
0.184), but the magnitude of the effect decreased from that observed in the
baseline model (B = 0.239) before specifying the intervening construct.
In summary, part of the explanation of observed intergenerational
parallelism in deviance is accounted for by specification of intervening
constructs that are modeled as consequences of G1 youths’ deviance and
as antecedents of G2 youths’ deviance. The mediating constructs are inter-
pretable in terms of (1) the adverse consequences of G1 youth deviance
that alienate the G1 youth from conventional social institutions over the
life course via stigmatization and deprivation of resources that are sec-
ondary to the negative sanctions induced by the G1 youth deviance and (2)
148 Chapter 5
the transmission by alienated G1 adults of: deviant coping patterns, cir-

cumstances that are likely to be stress-inducing, thus motivating deviant
adaptations, and attenuated social controls that (had they been effective)
would have forestalled the acting out of deviant adaptations.
It will be noted that the mediating influences of the intervening con-
structs are modest in their explanatory value. This is the case, in part,
because the effects of G1 deviance on intervening constructs, and the
effects of the intervening constructs on G2 deviance are themselves con-
tingent on numerous specifiable circumstances. The continuity and trans-
mission of deviant behavior are more likely to evoke contingent
consequences because of their visibility, unlike disposition to deviance
and negative self-feelings—intrapsychic phenomena that need not be as
visible to others (except for their behavioral consequences). In any case,
as will be observed shortly, the explanatory value of intervening con-
structs in accounting for observed intergenerational parallelism in dispo-
sition to deviance and negative self-feelings (salient hypothetical causes
of deviant behavior) is greater than in accounting for continuity of deviant
behavior. Rather (as will be observed in chapter 6), continuity in deviant
behavior is better explained in terms of intergenerational continuity of
intragenerational causes of deviant behavior (such as disposition to
deviance, negative social sanctions, and deviant peers).
Because disposition to deviance is known to be a salient cause of

deviant behavior, it is essential to understand the intergenerational con-
tinuity of this construct as well. In part, such continuity is explained in
terms of the consequences of G1 disposition to deviance over the G1 life
course that, in turn, have consequences for G2 deviance. Three con-
structs were estimated to be mediating constructs, two of which relate to
structural disadvantage and the third of which relates to familial rela-
tions. The results of the three structural equation models that specify
constructs as intervening in the intergenerational parallelism of disposi-
tion to deviance are summarized in Table 5.2. Unlike the models speci-
fying intervening constructs in the relationship between G1 and G2
deviant behavior, the specification of the intervening constructs in the
relationship between G1 and G2 disposition to deviance reduces the
relationship to nonsignificance.
Structural Disadvantage
As in the case of intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior,
socioeconomic status was expected to mediate the observed intergenera-
tional parallelism in disposition to deviance. The development of disposi-
tion to deviance as it becomes apparent in behavioral expressions is likely
to evoke sanctions in the forms of social rejection and deprivation of
resources that further cause alienation of the G1 youth from the conven-
tional normative structure. The alienation is expressed in the form of loss
of motivation to conform to and the genesis of motivation to deviate from
the normative structure. The loss of motivation to pursue conventional val-
ues together with the impediments posed to upward social mobility that
accompany or reflect negative social sanctions increase the likelihood that
G1 youth deviance would be inversely related to the G1 socioeconomic
status of the G1 young adult.
Undesirable placement in the conventional system of stratification, in
turn, has consequences such as the experience of psychological stress
associated with a paucity of material and interpersonal resources, alien-
ative attitudes, and (perhaps) social-class-related child-rearing practices
that together increase the inability of the G2 youth to forestall stress, gain
social acceptance, and achieve success. The alienation of the G2 youth
that is consequent to these outcomes increases the disposition to seek
alternative deviant adaptations, lacking effective conventional coping
resources, through which the G2 youth can satisfy his needs.
Based on this reasoning, two structural equations models were esti-
mated that specify an inverse effect of G1 youth disposition to deviance
on G1 socioeconomic states and an inverse effect of G1 socioeconomic
status on G2 youth disposition to deviance. The first of these specifies G1
young adult socioeconomic status and the second model specifies G1
socioeconomic status when the G1 subject was the parent of the G2 ado-
lescent. The two models are summarized in the first two rows of Table 5.2.
The measurement variables for the G1 young adult socioeconomic
status latent construct are as described earlier in this chapter in connection
with the mediating influence of G1 young adult socioeconomic status in
the intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior. For the socioeco-
nomic status constructs measured when the G1 subject was a parent of the
G2 adolescent, a third measurement variable was included that reflected
occupational prestige, gauged by a 14-point scale ranging from laborer to
professional with a doctoral degree or the equivalent.
150 Chapter 5
Regarding the specification of G1 young adult socioeconomic status

as an intervening construct, reference to the completely standardized val-
ues (following the slashes) in the first row of Table 5.2, will indicate that,
as hypothesized, G1 youth disposition to deviance had an inverse effect on
G1 young adult socioeconomic status (B = −0.388) and G1 young adult
socioeconomic status had an inverse effect on G2 youth disposition to
deviate (B = −0.421). The specification of the intervening construct had
the effect of reducing the baseline intergenerational coefficient (B = 0.216)
to a nonsignificant level (B = 0.056). Thus, the explanatory value of the
mediating construct was appreciably greater for disposition to deviance
than for deviant behavior. Although the results do not demonstrate the
validity of the theoretical linkages that informed the analysis, they are,
indeed, congruent with that reasoning.
Reference to the second row in Table 5.2 will indicate that virtually
identical results were obtained when the model specified G1 socioeco-
nomic status when the G1 parents were 35–39 years of age as an inter-
vening variable. G1 disposition to deviance was inversely related to G1
socioeconomic status (B = −0.347) and G1 socioeconomic status was
inversely related to G2 youth disposition to deviance (B = −0.435). The
residual direct effect of G1 disposition to deviate on G2 disposition to
deviate following specification of the intervening parental socioeconomic
status (B = 0.068) was not significant and reflected an appreciable reduc-
tion from the baseline intergenerational coefficient (b = 0.216) observed
before specifying the intervening construct.
Familial Relations
Another construct specified as intervening in the relationship
between G1 and G2 disposition to deviance reflects intrafamilial relations.
The construct reflects conflictual relations between G1 spouses and
between G1 parents and G2 children.
On theoretical grounds, family conflict is expected to be both an out-
come of G1 youth disposition to deviance and an antecedent of G2 youth
disposition to deviance. G1 disposition to deviance, composed of both
loss of motivation to conform to and motivation to deviate from conven-
tional norms, along with the behavioral manifestations of these antisocial
attitudes, would be expected to eventuate in selecting deviant social net-
works, learning maladaptive coping mechanisms, and being deprived of
learning how (and motivation) to conform to conventional role definitions,
including the roles of spouse and parent. The conflictual family relations
that result from this situation throughout the life course of the G1 respon-
dent have important consequences for the G2 youth’s own disposition to
engage in conflictful relations. Familial conflict serves to model for the
G2 youth maladaptive and antisocial attitudes. In addition, the familial
conflicts (marital and parent-child) are intrinsically distressing situations
that evoke coping, defensive, or adaptive responses that represent attempts
to assuage, if not forestall, the distress. Because the G2 youth has not been
socialized to utilize conventional and effective coping patterns and often
shares the parents’ alienative attitudes, he or she will be disposed to
engage in deviant patterns.
As this is expressed in a hypothetical structural equations model, G1
youth disposition to deviance is expected to have a positive effect on
familial conflict when the G1 subject is 35–39 years of age. G1 familial
conflict as an adult parent of the G2 youth, in turn, is expected to have a
positive effect on G2 youth disposition to engage in deviant activities. The
estimation of the structural effects and measurement models is summa-
rized in the third row of Table 5.2.
Familial conflict was reflected in terms of three measurement vari-
ables reported by the G1 respondent at age 35–39 years. The first meas-
ure is a cumulative score consisting of eight items indicating that: the
marriage/partnership is characterized by lack of reciprocity, lack of open-
ness, unreliability of the spouse, unapproachability, lack of mutual affec-
tion, lack of spousal appreciation, and unsatisfactory sexual relations. The
second measure is a cumulative score based on three items indicating that
the G1 adult insulted, swore at, threatened to hurt, or physically hurt the
spouse/partner. The third measure concerns the parent-child relationship
and is a 4-item cumulative index indicating that when the (G2) child does
something wrong, the (G1) parent often ridicules the child, acts cold or
unfriendly, physically punishes the child, and expresses anger.
Referring to the completely standardized coefficients in the third row
of Table 5.2 (following the slash), it will be observed that familial conflict
indeed mediated the observed intergenerational parallelism in disposition
to deviance. G1 youth disposition to deviance was positively related to
familial conflict (B = 0.349) and familial conflict, as reported by the G1
respondent at age 35–39, anticipated G2 youth disposition to deviance
(B = 0.316). By interpolating the intervening construct, the baseline inter-
generational parallelism (B = 0.216) was reduced to nonsignificance (B =
0.109). The findings were consistent with the assumption that the observed
intergenerational parallelism reflected, at least in part, a causal relationship
that was mediated by a familial conflict construct or its correlates.
152 Chapter 5
Negative self-feelings on theoretical grounds is expected to have,

within each generation, important effects on deviant disposition and, less
directly, on deviant behavior. This expectation appears to be warranted in
view of the demonstration of the observed temporal relationship using
longitudinal data (Kaplan and Johnson, 2001). Indeed, as will be demon-
strated in chapter 6, intergenerational continuity in negative self-feelings,
together with the G1 and G2 intragenerational effects of this construct, in
part explain instances of observed intergenerational parallelism in dispo-
sition to deviance. Consequently, it is necessary to understand and explain
intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings in terms of mediat-
ing mechanisms as well as (in chapter 6) common intragenerational
antecedents that manifest intergenerational continuity. Negative self-
feelings is continuous across generations both because it has continuity
across the G1 life course and because later in the G1 life course, it directly
affects the attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes of the G2 youths.
Intragenerational stability in G1 psychological distress is observed,
in part, because G1 youth negative self-feelings reflects a stable, change-
resistant trait as well as a momentary state. The G1 youth negative self-
feelings also reflects the absence of adequate coping mechanisms that
might have permitted successful performance and the evocation of posi-
tive attitudes from significant others and the forestalling of stressful expe-
riences and the assuagement of distressful emotions. Across generations,
the G1 adult transmits inadequate coping, defensive, or adaptive patterns
and occasions for the G2 youth experiencing unbearable distress. These
linkages are illustrated by two intervening constructs. One of these
reflects the inability of the G1 youth to forestall negative self-feelings
over the life course. The other intervening construct reflects the genesis of
stressful circumstances and the modeling of maladaptive coping
mechanisms by the G1 parent for the G2 youth.
G1 Young Adult Stressful Emotions

The stability of negative self-feelings throughout the G1 subjects’
life course is prerequisite to the construct exercising an effect on G2 nega-
tive self-feelings. Implicit in the expectation of intragenerational continuity
of negative self-feelings is the ongoing experience of unhappy life cir-
cumstances, including unmet obligations and unsatisfactory relationships,
absence of social support to facilitate meeting one’s obligations and to

assuage distress, and concomitant distressful affects evoked in all of one’s
social relationships. This constellation of outcomes is captured in the
construct described earlier under the rubric of distressful emotions as a
mediator of intergenerational continuity of deviance in connection with
the model summarized in the second row of Table 5.1.
Early G1 youth negative self-feelings is expected to anticipate as
well as reflect ongoing G1 distressful life circumstances throughout the
life course, as well as the lack of adaptive coping patterns or social sup-
port that might have forestalled or rendered distressful life circumstances
tolerable. These G1 circumstances in the lives of the G1 young adult sub-
jects, in turn, would be expected to increase the likelihood of G2 youth
negative self-feelings insofar as (1) the inability of G1 adults to perform
adequately in their social roles (including the parental and breadwinner
roles) would increase the likelihood of G2 youths encountering stressful
life circumstances and (2) the absence of G1 adult conventional and adap-
tive mechanisms would preclude the transmission of effective and con-
ventional coping mechanisms that might have forestalled the unabated
experience of negative self-feelings.
Hence, a structural equations model was estimated that specified the
intervening influence of distressful emotions in the intergenerational con-
tinuity of negative self-feelings. Whereas negative self-feelings reflected
the experience of negative affect, the construct of distressful emotions
reflected more the social context in which distressful emotions were expe-
rienced and the absence of resources that might have forestalled or
assuaged the experience of distress. Both G1 and G2 negative self-feelings
were measured as described in chapter 3 and G1 young adult distressful
emotions was measured as described in connection with the estimation of
the model summarized in the second row of Table 5.1. These measures, it
will be recalled, reflected the experience of distressful life circumstances,
the consequent experience of dysphoric affects, and the absence of
intrapsychic and interpersonal resources that might have forestalled or
assuaged the experience of negative self-feelings.
The estimation of the model specifying G1 young adult distressful
emotions as intervening in intergenerational parallelism of negative self-
feelings is summarized in the first row of Table 5.3. As hypothesized,
referring to the completely standardized coefficients (following the slash),
youth negative self-feelings has a direct positive effect on G1 young adult
distressful emotions (B = 0.423) and G1 young adult distressful emotions
154 Chapter 5
has a direct positive effect on G2 youth negative self-feelings (B = 0.236).

The residual effect of G1 youth negative self-feelings on G2 youth nega-
tive self-feelings (B = 0.128) is reduced appreciably from the baseline
intergenerational coefficient (B = 0.228) observed prior to specifying the
intervening construct; that is, the intergenerational continuity in negative
self-feelings is explained (decomposed) in part by the intervening dis-
tressful emotions construct: G1 youth negative self-feelings affects G1
young adult distressful emotions and G1 young adult distressful emotions
affects G2 youth negative self-feelings.
Family Conflict
On theoretical and empirical grounds, it is to be expected that G1
youth negative self-feelings, reflecting a lack of psychological and social
resources to forestall or assuage negative self-feelings and to negotiate
interpersonal relations in mutually satisfying ways, would eventuate in
conflictful family relationships during later adulthood. Familial conflict
would model maladaptive rather than efficacious conventional coping pat-
terns, which would engender other stressful circumstances, leading to
further negative self-feelings for the G2 youths.
These linkages suggest that familial conflict reported by the G1 adult
would mediate the observed intergenerational parallelism in negative self-
feelings. To test this presumption, a structural equations model was esti-
mated that specifies a positive association between G1 youth negative
self-feelings and G1 parental reports of familial conflict and between
reports of familial conflict and G2 negative self-feelings.
Both G1 and G2 youth negative self-feelings were measured as
described in chapter 3. Familial conflict was measured as described ear-
lier in this chapter in connection with the decomposition of observed
intergenerational parallelism of disposition to deviance, a structural
equations model that was summarized in the third row of Table 5.2. The
construct involved marital dissatisfaction and spousal abuse by the G1
adult (when 35–39 years of age) and parenting patterns involving
ridicule, cold and unfriendly attitudes, expressions of anger, and physical
punishment.
The estimation of the model is summarized in the second row of
Table 5.3. As hypothesized, familial conflict mediated intergenerational
parallelism in negative self-feelings: G1 youth negative self-feelings had
a positive effect on G1 adult (parent) reports of familial conflict
(B = 0.352) and G1 adult reports of familial conflict had a positive effect

on G2 youth negative self-feelings (B = 0.260). The baseline coefficient
for intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings (B = 0.228) was
attenuated to B = 0.136 as a result of specifying the intervening construct.
Summary
The observed intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior and

two putative causes of deviant behavior is accounted for, in part, by inter-
vening mechanisms that are consequences of the G1 phenomenon and
antecedents to the G2 phenomenon. The mediating function of the puta-
tive intervening construct is suggested by the combination of its temporal
mediation and the effect that it has on attenuating the magnitude of the
baseline intergenerational continuity after specifying the intervening con-
structs. The mediating mechanisms implicate both intragenerational
stability of circumstances over the life course of the G1 subject between
youth and parenthood, and the proximal impact of the G1 parent on the
G2 youth.
For intergenerational parallelism of deviance, the (modest) mediating
effects that were hypothesized and observed suggested that G1 youth
deviance had consequences that alienated the G1 subject from conven-
tional social institutions over the life course. The alienation presumably
resulted from the deprivation of social resources and the stigmatization
that were secondary to being the object of negative social sanctions. The
proximal impact of G1 adult intervening constructs on G2 youth deviance
are presumed to operate through the G1 transmission of stress-inducing
maladaptive coping mechanisms to the G2 youth that occasion G2 deviant
adaptations and through the attenuation of G1 social controls exercised by
the G1 adult.
Disposition to deviance, a salient cause of deviant behavior in each
generation, has been observed to exercise intergenerational continuity
through a variety of mediating mechanisms. Disposition to deviance both
reflects and has consequences that exacerbate G1 alienation from the con-
ventional normative system throughout the G1 life course. The mediating
variables are said to reflect G1 experiences of rejection and failure, con-
comitant dysphoria, alienative dispositions directed toward the conven-
tional socionormative system, the adoption of ineffective and deviant
coping mechanisms over the period between youth and parenthood, and
156 Chapter 5
engagement in dysfunctional role performance in a variety of social

spheres, including the family. These constructs, in turn, occasion the G2
experience of stress, alienation from the conventional social structure, and
the disposition to adopt deviant adaptations to life stress.
Negative self-feelings, an antecedent of both disposition to deviance
and deviant behavior, also has consequences for the life course of the G1
subject that, in turn, influence the negative self-feelings of the G2 youth.
The mediating variables that, in part, explain intergenerational parallelism
in psychological distress are said to reflect, or incur at later stages in the
life course, the experience of distressful life circumstances of failure and
rejection, the lack of effective coping mechanisms, and dysfunctional role
performance in a variety of social relational contexts. These outcomes, in
turn, either constitute stressful life circumstances for the G2 youth or
reflect the transmission of ineffective coping patterns to the G2 youth that
might otherwise have served to forestall or assuage the negative self-
feelings associated with threatening life circumstances.
The foregoing models suggest that part of the explanation of inter-
generational parallelism lies in the causal effects of the G1 phenomenon
on intervening constructs that, in turn, have consequences for the G2 phe-
nomenon. However, another facet of the explanation of intergenerational
parallelism implicates intergenerational continuity of variables that have
common influences on the phenomenon of interest in each generation. It
is to this explanatory mode that attention is now directed.
6
Intergenerational Continuity of
Intragenerational Causes of Deviant
Behavior and Its Correlates
In chapter 5, it was observed that intergenerational parallelism in

deviance, disposition to deviance, and psychological distress were, in part,
accounted for by intervening processes whereby the consequences of
these constructs, in turn, had causal implications for the same constructs
in the next generation. The modeling of the intervening construct had the
effect of attenuating the original intergenerational parallelism, thus
demonstrating the explanatory significance of the intervening construct.
In the present chapter, the decomposition of the intergenerational effects
implicates intergenerational continuity of common antecedents of
deviance (or disposition to deviance or psychological distress) in each
generation. For example, in both the first and second generation, deviance
is influenced by dysfunctional parenting patterns, and dysfunctional par-
enting practices are continuous across generations. The continuity of the
common intragenerational cause of deviance (here, dysfunctional parent-
ing) might be decomposed (explained) by intervening processes or by
intergenerationally continuous variables that are common antecedents of
the intragenerational causes.
In the first section of this chapter, literature will be reviewed that
comment on or demonstrate that intergenerational continuities in deviance
or its salient correlates might be accounted for by intergenerational conti-
nuities of phenomena that are taken to be causally implicated in the onset
of deviance-related phenomena in each generation. In the second section,
157
158 Chapter 6
a number of theoretically informed models will be estimated that specify

intergenerationally continuous constructs that influence deviance (or its
correlates) in each generation and (by so doing) account in large measure
for the initial observation of intergenerational parallelism of deviant
behavior (or its salient correlates).
Literature on Intergenerational Continuities of

Intragenerational Causes
An abundant, but largely speculative, literature exists that addresses

the explanation of intergenerational parallelism in terms of common
antecedents. The literature is said to be speculative in the sense that one
or more elements of the explanatory model is missing in the empirical
estimates. In addition to a baseline model that specifies an association
between the dependent variable in one generation with the same variable
in the second generation, the model would necessarily specify an effect of
the G1 explanatory variable on the G1-dependent variable, an effect of the
G2 explanatory variable on the G2-dependent variable, an intergenera-
tional effect of the G1 explanatory variable on the G2 explanatory vari-
able, and an intergenerational effect of the G1-dependent variable on the
G2-dependent variable. Insofar as the baseline intergenerational effect for
the dependent variable is attenuated by the specification of the intragen-
erational and cross-generational effects of the explanatory variable, to that
extent is the original intergenerational effect explained by the intergener-
ational continuity of a putative common intragenerational antecedent.
Although systematic tests of the assumptions are rare, numerous
observers presume that intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior
or other phenomena need not be explained by mediating processes alone
(Markowitz, 2001):
The relationship between experiencing violence as a child and engaging in

violence against children and spouses as an adult may be due, in part, to other
factors such as stable differences in personality, genetic similarities, or par-
ents’ and children’s exposure to similar adverse social environments
(Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). (p. 215)
Similarly, Huesmann and his associates (1984b) observed:
Quite probably the impressive stability of aggressive behavior across time

and generations is a product both of the continuity of constitutional factors
Intergenerational Continuity of Intragenerational Causes 159
and the continuity of environmental factors. Certainly, constitutional charac-

teristics including genetic factors (Lagerspetz & Lagerspetz, 1974;
Christiansen, 1977), hormonal factors (Kreuz & Rose, 1972; Rada, Kellner,
& Winslow, 1976), and neurological trauma (Mark & Ervin, 1970) play some
role in aggressive behavior. Just as certainly, a person’s environment and
learning history strongly influences his or her aggressive tendencies
(Bandura, 1973; Berkowitz, 1962; Eron et al., 1971; Huesmann et al.,
1984[a]). The relative importance of these factors is arguable. What is not
arguable is that aggressive behavior, however engendered, once established,
remains remarkably stable across time, situation, and even generations within
a family. (p. 1133)
Independent of the explanation of intergenerational parallelism in

terms of mediating causal linkages, it has been noted also that continuity
might be stimulated by sharing of genes between generations and by sharing
the same physical and social circumstances (Van Ijzendoorn, 1992):
Living in the same neighborhood, and even in the same family house, may
constitute factors stimulating intergenerational continuity. This is an example
of cumulative continuity in which an individual’s environment reinforces a
certain interactional style, thereby sustaining the behavior pattern across the
life course, and maybe even across generations (Caspi, Bem, and Elder,
1989). Therefore, the strength of intergenerational parenting will be inflated
if genetic transmission of parenting determinants and contextual stability
influencing the continuity of parenting attitudes and behaviors are not taken
into account. (pp. 77–78)
For example, the relationship observed among male subjects between

having punitive parents and being punitive parents, although significant in
bivariate relationship, was obviated when controlling for father’s occupa-
tion and subject’s IQ. Thus, intergenerational parallelism might be
accounted for by common antecedents and exercise their influence inter-
generationally. It is possible that subcultural values relating to the expres-
sion of aggressive impulses might account for the parallelism. It is also
possible that genetically transmitted IQ influenced the ability to use alter-
native forms of social control (Lefkowitz et al., 1978). Further, in the case
of experience of sexual abuse,
it is possible that this heightened risk of sexually abused women’s daughters

could be explained through extended family relationships that include the
mothers’ family members. That is, women might sustain contacts with their
family of origin despite prior sexual abuse experiences perpetrated by family
members, and this continued contact places their daughters at the same risk
to which they were once subjected. (McCloskey & Bailey, 2000, p. 1032)
160 Chapter 6
Although numerous common antecedents of deviant behavior (and

its salient correlates) might be specified, two of the more frequently cited
common antecedents of deviant behavior that manifest intergenerational
continuity are presented for purposes of illustration: parenting patterns
and socioeconomic status. Each of these examples is reported to influence
outcomes of interest (deviant behavior and its correlates) in each genera-
tion and each of these is reported to display intergenerational continuity.
Further, each of these examples of intergenerational parallelism might be
explained in terms of intervening causal processes, common intragenera-
tional antecedents that display intergenerational continuity, or moderating
circumstances.
Parenting Patterns
It has been well established that intragenerational experiences of,

for example, abusive parenting (both physical and verbal) influence
deviant behavior in that generation. Research has further suggested that
observations of intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior might
be accounted for by the intergenerational transmission of causes of
deviant behavior such as abusive parenting (Frias-Armenta, 2002).
Regarding the intragenerational effects of parenting patterns, abusive
parenting patterns lead to aggressive behavior on the part of the child
throughout the life span (Luntz & Widom, 1994; Malinosky-Rummell &
Hansen, 1993). Other reports have suggested a linkage between abusive
parenting patterns and the subsequent alcohol abuse of the children suf-
fering parental abuse (Brown & Anderson, 1991; Downs, Miller, Testa,
& Panek, 1992). Victims of parental abuse also experienced greater
emotional problems, including self-derogation and depression (Carlin
et al., 1994; Silverman, Reinherz, & Giaconia, 1996; Styron & Janoff-
Bulman, 1997).
Intragenerational influences of parenting practices on children’s
deviant behavior are nicely summarized by Smith and Farrington (2004):
Consistent evidence shows that various aspects of maladaptive parenting by one

generation influence the unfolding of antisocial behavior in the children of the
next generation. Aspects of parenting that have been implicated include poor
supervision, inconsistent discipline, parental conflict, and lack of affection and
support (for example, Farrington 1995; McCord, 1991; Patterson, Reid, &
Dishion, 1992; Simons, Wu, Johnson, & Conger, 1995; Stern & Smith, 1999).
There is also evidence that parental attitudes and parenting styles, particularly
authoritarianism and permissiveness, have a negative impact on children’s
development and behavior (Baumrind, 1966, 1978; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger,
& Chyi-In [sic, Wu], 1991; Steinberg, 2000). Intergenerational continuities as
well as negative behavioral impact have perhaps been most clearly documented
in the case of very harsh or abusive parenting (Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe,
1988; Kaufman & Zigler, 1987; Rutter, Quinton, & Liddle, 1983). (p. 232)
These influences on deviance in each generation are themselves

continuous across the generation’s behavior. Thus, poor parental super-
vision, which within-generation is observed to be associated with child
conduct behaviors, is observed to be continuous across generations
(Smith & Farrington, 2004); that is, those who experience poor
supervision by their parents tended to be poor supervisors as parents. In
general, poor parenting practices in each of successive generations are
transmitted from one generation to the next (Patterson & Dishion, 1988).
Evidence has been reported of intergenerational transmission of
perceived parenting. For example, correlations have been reported
between parents’ and offspring’s early memories of parental rearing, par-
ticularly with regard to the experience of emotional warmth as
recollected by fathers and their offspring (Lundberg et al., 2000). The
somewhat weaker correlations between mothers’ and offspring’s recol-
lections of early parental rearing referred primarily to dimensions of
parenting relating to overprotection and rejection.
Putallaz and her associates (1998) citing the work of Main and associates
(1985) noted:
...strong evidence for intergenerational continuity in attachment status as the

parents’ mental representations of the security of their own attachment was
related to the measures of their children’s attachment security taken during
infancy, with the relations being particularly strong for mothers relative to
fathers... (p. 7).
Thus the characteristics of family context tend to be reproduced

across generations. Offer and his associates (2003) contrasted groups of
adolescents who were followed up 27 years later:
The Continuous growth group, our early research showed, had no adolescent
turmoil and sailed through adolescence and young adulthood. Twenty-seven
years later, this group still stands out from the other two developmental
groups. They have more traditional families and interests, reflecting the fam-
ilies of their childhood and adolescence.
162 Chapter 6
The Tumultuous group, by contrast, was more likely to come from

disrupted or disturbing backgrounds, to be disturbed as teenagers, and less
focused on family and traditional institutions as adults.
The Surgent group was between these two poles, less well adjusted than
the Continuous group and better adjusted than the Tumultuous group in ado-
lescence and continuing this pattern into their middle-age years. (p. 7)
The intergenerational parallelism in patterns of parenting or (more

broadly) family context is explainable (as is deviance, disposition to
deviance, and negative self-feelings) in terms or moderating variables,
intergenerational continuity of intragenerational effects, intervening
processes, and (perhaps) residual direct effects reflecting social modeling
mechanisms.
Moderating Variables
The degree of continuity across generations in intergenerational
continuity of parenting patterns is contingent on a number of circum-
stances, one of the more salient of which is cultural change or stability in
attitudes toward child-rearing patterns. For example, general population
surveys tend to indicate a decreasing use of harsh discipline (Straus &
Gelles, 1988; Straus et al., 1980). Consistent with these surveys, Simons
and his associates (1991) reported an appreciable decrease in harsh par-
enting over the course of a single generation. Insofar as the generations
differ in the degree to which there is social support for certain behaviors,
to that extent a lesser degree of intergenerational continuity in the behavior
will be observed.
Intergenerational Continuities of Intragenerational Effects

The explanation of intergenerational continuities in parenting pat-
terns often might be explained in terms of constructs that have effects on
parenting practices in each generation and themselves are intergenera-
tionally continuous. Cases in point are parental beliefs about parenting,
socioeconomic status, and depression.
In each generation, beliefs about parenting affect actual parenting
practices. These beliefs, via their influences on parenting practices, are
transmitted intergenerationally in addition to the transmission of the par-
enting behaviors themselves (Simons et al., 1992):
Overall, the results indicated that mothers and fathers convey their beliefs to
their adolescent children via their parenting practices. Parents who endorse
corporal punishment tend to engage in harsh discipline, and this style of dis-
cipline was in turn associated with adolescent children subscribing to corpo-
ral punishment as an effective approach to discipline. Similarly, parents who
believe that parenting has a major impact on child development were likely
to be involved and supportive, and their adolescent children, in turn, endorsed
the idea that quality of parenting influences child outcomes. (p. 833)
Evidence exists that socioeconomic status might represent a con-

textual variable, the continuity of which accounts, in part, for intergen-
erational parallelism in any of a variety of phenomena. For example, it
has been observed that parents of low education relative to highly edu-
cated parents are more likely to use harsh discipline in raising boys
(Simons et al., 1991). Both mothers’ and fathers’ education were corre-
lated with education and economic hardship in their respective families
of origin. These findings are consistent with a conclusion that intergen-
erational continuity in socioeconomic status is associated with harsh
parenting of boys within the respective generations and that these asso-
ciations might attenuate any observed intergenerational continuity in
harsh parenting of boys.
The intergenerational continuity of parenting patterns might be
explained, in part, by the effects of depression on parenting in each gen-
eration and the intergenerational continuity of depression (mediated by
first generation adult parenting) (Whitbeck et al., 1992):
In summary, this research replicated retrospective and prospective studies on
parental depression and the parent-child relationship by combining both
methodologies into an intergenerational model. The model provides evi-
dence for the negative consequences of parental depressed mood on parent-
ing behaviors and suggests a cycle of intergenerational continuity of
depressed affect and rejecting parenting. These findings contribute to a
growing body of evidence that suggest that childrearing practices are trans-
mitted across generations both indirectly through the development of per-
sonality traits that affect parenting and directly through modeling of
parenting behaviors. (p. 1044)
Frequently, the observed intergenerational continuity in family
processes, including parenting patterns, is accounted for by the conse-
quences of the G1 family processes that, in turn, influence G2 family
164 Chapter 6
processes (i.e., in terms of intervening mechanisms). The intergenera-

tional continuity of abusive or constructive parenting has been observed to
be mediated by a number of variables. Chen and Kaplan (2001), for exam-
ple, have observed that the intergenerational continuity of constructive
parenting is decomposed, in part, by the intervening influence of interper-
sonal relations and social participation.
More often than not, the intervening variables are taken to be G1
deviant responses to their parents’ parenting patterns. In this connection,
Brook, Whiteman, and Zheng (2002) reported:
This investigation provides evidence for a process of intergenerational influ-
ence whereby the effects of the grandmother-parent relationship are trans-
mitted across two generations through their association with the
parent-toddler relationship. A more distant grandmother-parent (G1/G2)
relationship when the parent was an adolescent predicted unconventional
behavior and psychological problems in the parent as the young adult (G2),
which then were associated with his or her having a less warm relationship
with his/her own child (G2/G3). This, in turn, predicted problem behavior in
the toddler (G3). There appears to be a parallel between the path linking the
grandmother-parent relationship and parent personality and the one linking
the parent-toddler relationship and toddler behavior. These relationship vari-
ables seem particularly strong in view of the fact that the G1/G2 was assessed
when the parent was an adolescent and the G2/G3 relationship was assessed
when they were parents of toddlers. (p. 73)
Although West and Farrington’s (1977) data might be interpreted

as fitting a model by which socialization experiences mediate the
influence of first-generation deviant behavior on secondgeneration
deviant behavior, the data might also be taken to fit a model of inter-
generational continuity of criminogenic environments that produce
deviant patterns within each generation. The continuity of crimino-
genic environments is mediated by the deviant behavior of the first-
generation subject:
[a] constellation of adverse features of family background (including
poverty, too many children, marital disharmony, and inappropriate childrea-
ring methods) among which parental criminality is likely to be one element,
leads to a constellation of antisocial features when sons reach the age of
eighteen, among which criminality is again likely to be one element. Young
delinquent adults, by their irresponsibly hedonistic attitudes and ineffectual
methods of coping with social demands, tend to recreate for their own chil-
dren the same undesirable family environments, thus perpetuating from one
generation to the next a range of social problems of which delinquency is
but one symptom. (p. 161)
Social Modeling
The intergenerational continuity in parenting patterns that is observed
frequently is, in part, explained as a direct effect reflecting socialization-
related processes. Stability effects across generations that remain after
hypothesizing stability of intragenerational causes and intervening variables
are compatible with explanations involving socialization/ role-modeling
processes. However, it is rare that studies are able to test these explanations
of intergenerational stability. As Kahn and Anderson (1992) observed:
Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that teen births are repeated
across generations because mothers socialize their daughters with attitudes
and preferences regarding the appropriate time and way to start a family.
Unfortunately we cannot measure these underlying family-building prefer-
ences for either the mother or her daughter.... (p. 50)
The intergenerational parallelism of deviant behavior (or its corre-

lates) is explainable frequently in terms of the intragenerational effects of
socioeconomic status on deviance (or its correlates) in each generation
and the intergenerational continuity of socioeconomic level. A case in
point is the role of stable socioeconomic environments on intergenera-
tional patterns of teenage fertility (Kahn & Anderson, 1992):
Early first births also may be reproduced across generations because of their
indirect impact on the socioeconomic and family environment in which chil-
dren grow up. Mothers with early first births are more likely than other
mothers to raise their children in impoverished conditions (Garfinkel &
McLanahan 1986). This is the case in part because they are more likely to
have come from a poor background, but also in part because their early
pregnancy may have cut short their education as well as the development of
marketable job skills (Hofferth & Moore 1979; Moore & Burt 1982). In
addition, teenage mothers are more likely to raise their children as single par-
ents, either because they never married or because their teen marriage placed
them at a higher risk of divorce (Furstenberg 1976; Moore et al. 1981).
Growing up in these kind of socioeconomic (e.g., with limited financial
resources and few opportunities for upward mobility) has been shown to
place daughters at a higher risk of teenage pregnancy. This pattern may be
due to the low opportunity costs for early pregnancies for poor youth in view
of their relatively low aspirations and the reduced alternatives that they
foresee (Hofferth, Kahn, & Baldwin 1987; McLanahan & Bumpass 1988).
Also, the local neighborhood and peer group may play important roles either
166 Chapter 6
by encouraging risky behavior or by providing role models of other teens

who become pregnant outside marriage (Hogan & Kitagawa 1985). Finally,
teens growing up in poorer environments also may face higher risks of preg-
nancy because they have less access to effective contraception (Kahn,
Rindfuss, & Guilkey 1990). (pp. 41–42)
Continuity in socioeconomic level across generations has also been

implicated in intergenerational parallelism of putative causes of deviant
behavior such as parenting patterns. Thus, Simons and his associates
(1995) observed, with regard to the role of social-class influences in
accounting for intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting:
Given this association, there are at least two ways in which social-class
influences might account for the correlation between parenting practices
across generations. First, the linkages that have been reported between gen-
erations may merely represent the tendency of adult children to replicate the
lower social-class status of their parents with its accompanying stressors and
life-style, a life-style that may promote irritability and increase the likeli-
hood of harsh parenting (Burgess and Youngblade, 1988)...., growing up in
a lower class family may influence people’s approach to child-rearing or
their child-rearing values regardless of the socioeconomic level that they are
able to achieve. This possibility requires taking into account that the socioe-
conomic status of the parents during the years that the adult children was
growing up. (pp. 159–160)
The intergenerational effects of socioeconomic status on deviance

and its correlates are mediated and moderated by a number of constructs.
Socioeconomic status has indirect effects on deviant outcomes in a num-
ber of ways. Thus, lower income parents are more likely to exert power-
assertive discipline particularly in circumstances where they feel the
environment is out of control; lower socioeconomic status (SES) parents
are less likely to provide support, to respond to the child’s needs, and to
express affection; lower SES tends to stimulate marital conflict and abu-
sive and neglectful responses to children and to attribute willfulness to
their children; lower SES parents manifest negative affect expressed as
depression, feelings of helplessness, alienation, and related affects in
response to stressful life circumstances (Baumrind, 1994). As Pears and
Capaldi (2001) observed:
Analyses indicated that the effect of SES on parents’ abusive behavior toward
their children was mediated by the parents’ own experiences of abuse. This
is consistent with other studies showing that the effects of contextual factors
like SES on behaviors may be mediated by more proximal factors, such as
parenting skills (DeGarmo, Forgatch, & Martinez, 1999). (p. 1455)
These adverse outcomes of socioeconomic status are moderated by

environmental factors (Baumrind, 1994):
Community support lessens poor parents’ tendency to engage in punitive and
coercive discipline, in part by monitoring the caregiving of mothers in
distress (Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Wilson, 1989). Well-organized neigh-
borhoods with caring neighbors who show respect for each other appear to
buffer the effects of poverty (Garbarino & Sherman, 1980). The presence of
a stable partner or a compatible grandmother has been found to be an impor-
tant source of support for poor families (Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, &
Morgan, 1987; Kellam, Ensminger, & Turner, 1977). Emotional support from
their own mothers has been found to decrease adolescent mothers’ hostility
and indifference toward their children (Colletta, 1981). (p. 362)
That intergenerational continuity in socioeconomic-related phenom-

ena exists does not appear to be in doubt. With regard to education and
occupation, some degree of intergenerational continuity has been
observed. Second-generation subjects who have low educational and
occupational positions tend to have parents who also have low educational
and occupational positions (Shlonsky, 1984). Regarding being black,
Rutter and Madge (1976) observed for England:
Continuities may... be evident within socio-cultural groups. During the two
generations or so that black people have been in this country, they have con-
tinued to be disadvantaged in educational attainment, employment, and
housing. All of these patterns constitute a form of cycle of disadvantage...
(pp. 303–304)
However, the degree of intergenerational continuity in socioeco-

nomic status is contingent on a number of circumstances. Intergen-
erational transmission of socioeconomic status is moderated by broad
social changes such as the movement of the occupational opportunity
structure from a more ascriptive oriented to a more achievement oriented
structure, and changes in familial values from emphasis on obedience
toward emphasis on autonomy (Biblarz, Bengtson, & Bucur, 1996). The
change from ascription to achievement would decrease the extent to which
social class in a later generation would be inherited from an earlier one as
would the greater decision-making power of the child to choose his or her
own destiny. Others (Harper et al., 2003) have noted that to achieve opti-
mal child development and to forestall intergenerational transmission of
poverty:
...two contexts need to exist. The first is that which enables individual par-
ticipation in society through positive social relations and socio-political
168 Chapter 6
structures. The second is a wider enabling environment that presents oppor-

tunities for development, such as adequate labor markets and the state provi-
sion of public services...
The wider enabling environment is vast. For example, in relationship to
the generation of the retention of financial assets to allow for child sur-
vival, protection and development, a wide range of actions is needed. This
enabling environment is well-documented in the development literature
and includes (to name a few) the generation of nonexploitative adult labor
markets, land distribution, asset retention, nondiscriminatory inheritance
law, and social safety nets. Providing these and adequate education
requires tax collection, debt relief, and reduced military spending to
enable state financing, adequate provision of and access to formal educa-
tion for children, and adult education, and where necessary motivational
campaigns and legal action to prevent discrimination against particular
children. (pp. 548–549)
The consideration of the instances of intergenerational continuity of

parenting patterns and socioeconomic status serve to illustrate how
observed patterns of intergenerational parallelism in deviance and its cor-
relates might be explained in terms of intergenerational continuity of
intragenerational (antecedents) causes of deviant behavior. In some cases,
the explanation is that the observed intergenerational parallelism in
deviance is the spurious outcome of continuity in causal contexts; that is,
G1 deviant behavior has no direct or indirect causal impact on G2 deviant
behavior. Rather, both G1 and G2 deviance seem to be continuous because
each is the outcome of a stable deviance-inducing circumstance. The
causal processes that are involved are the direct intragenerational effects
of (for example) G1 and G2 antecedents on G1 and G2 deviance, respec-
tively, the indirect effect of the G1 antecedents on G2 deviance via the G2
antecedent, and the indirect effect of G1 antecedents on G2 deviance via
G1 deviance. However, these causal effects do not explain the intergene-
rational continuity of G1-G2 deviance.
In other cases, the intergenerational parallelism in deviance is atten-
uated by specifying causal pathways implicating the intergenerational
continuity of the G1-G2 antecedents. For example, the G1 antecedent
affects G1 deviance; G1 deviance affects the G2 antecedent (thus attenu-
ating the G1-G2 continuity of the antecedent construct), and the G2
antecedent affects G2 deviance (thus partly explaining the G1-G2 inter-
generational parallelism in deviance).
In any case, the continuity of G1-G2 intragenerational antecedents
of deviance constitute part of the explanation for observed instances of
intergenerational parallelism of deviance. Attention now turns to the

estimation of a series of models informed by the theoretical framework
outlined in chapter 1 that accounts for intergenerational parallelism in
deviance, disposition to deviance, and negative self-feelings in terms of
intergenerationally continuous common antecedents.
Explaining Intergenerational Parallelism of Deviance:

Intergenerational Stability of Intragenerational Antecedents
Aspects of the general theory of deviant behavior outlined in chapter 1

were tested by estimating models specifying intergenerational stability of
common antecedents of deviant behavior (and its correlates) in the first and
second generations. The intergenerational stability of theoretically informed
constructs that were associated with the dependent variable (deviant behav-
ior or selected correlates) at appreciable and statistically significant levels in
each generation were expected to account for the original observation of
intergenerational parallelism (in deviance or its correlates) in large measure.
Although the intragenerational predictors were operationalized in terms of
data that were collected at the same point in time as the dependent variables
for the respective generation, earlier analyses (Kaplan & Johnson, 2001)
established the temporal precedence of the putative causes of the dependent
variables. In addition to estimating models that specify intergenerational
stability of common antecedents of deviant behavior (including disposition
to deviance), models will be estimated that specify intergenerational stabil-
ity of common antecedents of disposition to deviance (including negative
self-feelings) and of negative self-feelings. In all instances, it was expected
that the specification of intergenerational continuity of intragenerational
causes would (at least partially) decompose the observed intergenerational
parallelism of deviant behavior (or disposition to deviance, or negative self-
feelings, whatever the case).
Deviant Behavior
Within both the first (G1) and second (G2) generations, it was
hypothesized that each of four constructs would have a strong association
with deviant behavior; and the specification of intergenerational stability
of each construct would serve to attenuate the observed relationship
170 Chapter 6
between G1 and G2 deviance that was observed prior to specification of

the G1 and G2 intragenerational association of the construct with deviant
behavior and the intergenerational stability of the construct. The general
theory specifies deviant behavior to be a consequence of the following
mutually influential constructs that exert direct or indirect influences on
deviant behavior: disposition to deviance, negative social sanctions,
deviant friends, and experiences of social rejection. Each of these is
considered in turn.
A major influence on both G1 and G2 deviance is the disposition to
engage in deviant behavior as this is reflected in the loss of motivation to
conform to conventional behavioral prescriptions and the genesis of moti-
vation to engage in deviant behaviors. The loss of motivation to conform
to normative requirements in one’s membership groups is the outcome of
experiences of rejection and failure in the person’s conventional member-
ship groups. These experiences derive from any of a variety of sources,
including congenitally given stigmatizing attributes, not the least salient
of which are intrinsically disvalued group memberships. Failure and rejec-
tion also stem from the absence of resources that are prerequisite to the
achievement of socially valued ends. The absence of resources might be
traced to a variety of other circumstances, including congenitally given
inadequacies and the interrelated experiences of sociocultural deprivation,
faulty socialization experiences that fail to transmit adequate coping pat-
terns but rather communicate maladaptive patterns of response to life
stress, and life events that impose obligations on the person that cannot be
met given resources that (where they were previously adequate) are no
longer adequate to meet one’s obligations.
The failure to meet one’s obligations and the correlated experiences
of social rejection evoke negative self-evaluations and concomitant dis-
tressful self-feelings. In light of the failure of conventional responses to
forestall experiences of failure and rejection by others and to assuage con-
comitant distressful self-feelings, the person is disposed to seek alterna-
tive (deviant) mechanisms to accomplish these ends. These deviant
adaptive mechanisms have their own consequences (coming to the atten-
tion of the authorities, associating with deviant peers, exacerbation of
social rejection) that further alienate the person from conventional
socionormative systems and increase the disposition to adopt deviant
adaptations to life stress. The disposition to engage in deviant adaptations

to stressful circumstances would be expected to increase the likelihood of
actually engaging in deviant behavior, partly as a consequence of the
weakening of social controls that are secondary to the person’s alienation
from conventional authorities.
Hence, it was hypothesized that G1 disposition to engage in deviant
behavior would increase the likelihood of G1 deviant behavior. It was fur-
ther hypothesized that G1 disposition to deviant behavior would have con-
sequences that would increase the likelihood that G2 youths would
become disposed to engage in deviant behavior and that G2 youths who
were disposed to adopt deviant coping patterns would be more likely to
adopt deviant coping patterns.
The hypothesized intergenerational continuity of disposition to
deviance is based on the premise that G1 youths who acted out their
deviant dispositions with contranormative acts would evoke negative
social sanctions and, consequently, experience distressful self-feelings
and intensified feelings of alienation from conventional socionormative
systems throughout the life course. These feelings would be exacerbated
by the perceived deprivation of needed resources and exclusion from con-
ventional society. The latter would increase the likelihood of association
with deviant peers, one manifestation of which might be inappropriate
mate selection. This factor, together with chronic experience of distressful
self-feelings and exclusion from normative influences, increases the like-
lihood that the G1 adult will engage in inappropriate parenting patterns
characterized by neglect, abuse, and the modeling of deviant and mal-
adaptive mechanisms. These outcomes, together with the paucity of
resources available to the G2 youth and the stigmatizing circumstances
associated with a conflictful and unconventional home life, increase the
likelihood that the G2 youth would become disposed to adopt deviant
mechanisms for dealing with life stress and such a disposition would
increase the probability of in fact engaging in deviant behavior.
These relations were tested by specifying a model in which G1 dis-
position to deviance was positively associated with G1 deviance, G2
disposition to deviance was positively associated with G2 deviance, G1
disposition to deviance influenced G2 disposition to deviance, and
G1 deviance was associated with G2 deviance. The observation of an
attenuation of the intergenerational effect of G1-G2 deviance noted
prior to specifying the intragenerational effects and cross-generation sta-
bility of disposition to deviance would suggest that (1) the observed
172 Chapter 6
intergenerational parallelism in deviance was, in part, explainable in terms

of intergenerationally continuous disposition to deviance, a construct that
is associated with deviant behavior in each generation, and (2) some vali-
dation for the theoretical premises on which the model was based.
The constructs deviant behavior and disposition to deviance for both
G1 and G2 were measured as described in chapter 3. The latent construct
deviant behavior was reflected in three measurement variables reflecting
respectively theft, interpersonal violence, and substance use. The latent
construct disposition to deviance was reflected in three measurement vari-
ables reflecting respectively aggressive coping patterns, disrespect of oth-
ers, and contempt for conventional norms.
The estimation of the structural equations model is summarized in
Figure 6.1. In this and all other figures in the chapter, the unstandardized
(b) and completely standardized (B) coefficients are presented for both the
measurement and structural models. The completely standardized coeffi-
cients are in parentheses. As expected, within each generation, disposition
to deviance has an appreciable and statistically significant effect on
deviant behavior (B = 0.819 for G1 and B = 0.698 for G2) and some
degree of stability exists between G1 and G2 disposition to deviance (B =
0.195). Modeling these relationships has the effect of attenuating the
Figure 6.1. Intergenerational Stability of Disposition to Deviance as a Common Antecedent of G1

and G2 Deviant Behavior
intergenerational parallelism from the baseline effect of B = 0.239 to B =

0.097. The results support the conclusion that intergenerational continuity
of this putative antecedent of deviant behavior (disposition to deviance) in
each generation, in part, accounts for the previously observed intergener-
ational parallelism of deviant behavior.
Negative Social Sanctions

Given the stability of deviant behavior over the life course, it is to be
expected that in any generation, earlier deviant behavior will evoke nega-
tive social sanctions. The experience of negative social sanctions, in turn,
will have consequences that will increase the probability of subsequent
deviant behavior. The negative social sanctions function to stigmatize the
person and to exclude the person from access to conventional resources
that might permit resolution of salient needs. The combined circum-
stances of stigmatization and deprivation of resources alienate the person
from the conventional sources of the sanctions and dispose the person to
seek and employ alternative deviant adaptive mechanisms to assuage the
distress that accompanies being the object of sanctions and to resolve life
problems. As has been noted earlier, the disposition to seek alternative
deviant response patterns increases the likelihood of adopting such pat-
terns, particularly when opportunities to do so arise and perception of
countervailing costs is minimal.
The experience of negative social sanctions in any generation, then,
has consequences that increase the probability of subsequent deviant
behavior in that generation. The negative social sanctions in the earlier
generation, through the intervening consequences of the G1 deviant
behavior and its sequelae, are intergenerationally continuous into the sec-
ond generation and have consequences for G2, similar to those described
for G1, that eventuate in G2 deviant behavior.
The intergenerational continuity of being the object of negative
social sanctions is mediated by the G1 performance of deviant acts as
adaptations to the consequences (in particular, negative social sanctions)
of earlier deviance. The deviant adaptations continue to have conse-
quences throughout the G1 life course that increase the likelihood of the
G2 youth experiencing negative social sanctions. These intervening
circumstances include G1 exclusion from conventional socialization
experiences, conflictual and otherwise inappropriate performances of adult
familial roles, socialization of G2 youths in the use of unconventional
174 Chapter 6
and maladaptive coping patterns, stigmatization of the G2 youth by asso-

ciation with deviant parents, G2 early performance of deviant acts as
adaptive attempts to resolve life problems, and, finally, the G2 experience
of negative social sanctions in response to early G2 deviant adaptations
and other stigmatizing attributes. The G2 experience of negative social
sanctions then has the same consequences that were described for G1 that
increase the likelihood of future G2 deviant behavior.
Consistent with these theoretical premises, it was hypothesized that
G1 and G2 negative social sanctions would be significantly and apprecia-
bly associated with G1 and G2 deviant behavior, respectively, G1 negative
social sanctions would manifest a significant intergenerational effect on
G2 negative social sanctions, and specifying these effects would attenuate
the originally observed G1-G2 intergenerational parallelism of deviant
behavior. The latent construct, negative social sanctions, was reflected in
two measurement variables. The first variable was a cumulative 3-item
index indicating suspension or expulsion from school, being sent to the
(school) office for punishment, and being sent to a psychiatrist, psycholo-
gist, or social worker within the last year. The second variable is a single
item indicating coming to the attention of police, sheriff, or juvenile offi-
cers “for something you did or they thought you did.”
The estimated structural equation model is summarized in Figure
6.2. As hypothesized, being the object of negative social sanctions was
strongly associated with deviant behavior in both generations (B = 0.996
for G1 and B = 0.968 for G2); the cross-generation effect for negative
social sanctions was statistically significant (B = 0.257), and the original
intergenerational coefficient for deviant behavior (B = 0.239) was attenu-
ated to nonsignificance (B = −0.029) as a result of specifying the intra-
generational effects of negative social sanctions on deviant behavior and
the intergenerational continuity of negative social sanctions.
These results are compatible with theoretical assumptions regarding
the intervening processes stemming from the consequences of being the
object of negative social sanctions in the earlier generation, and they sup-
port the expectation that the observed intergenerational parallelism in
deviance is explainable in terms of intergenerational continuity of nega-
tive social sanctions and the intragenerational effects of this construct on
deviant behavior for both G1 and G2. The sequelae of G1 youths being the
objects of negative social sanctions (including exacerbation of G1
deviance and its consequences) ultimately influences G2 youths being the
Figure 6.2. Intergenerational Stability of Negative Social Sanctions as a Common Antecedent of

G1 and G2 Deviant Behavior
object of negative social sanctions and the increase in G2 deviant behav-

ior that results from this experience.
Deviant Friends
On theoretical grounds, it is to be expected that membership in a devi-
ant friendship network would increase the likelihood of engaging in
deviant behavior. Participation in a deviant friendship network is the out-
come of any of a number of circumstances. In some cases, youths are born
into and raised in neighborhoods where what is regarded as deviant in the
more inclusive (conventional) society is regarded as normative in this con-
text. Thus, having deviant friends is the normal outcome of “conforming”
to subcultural expectations. In other instances, having deviant friends is
the end product of a sequence of events involving early deviance, being
the object of negative social sanctions, feeling alienated and excluded
from conventional society, and being attracted to and recruited into friend-
ship groups by deviant peers. These circumstances are increasingly likely
to occur as a result of sanctions that exclude the youth from conventional
society.
176 Chapter 6
In any case, once a part of a deviant friendship group, the youth is

increasingly likely to engage in deviant behavior. In some instances, the
“deviant” behavior represents conformity to the norms of the friendship
group that satisfies many of the youth’s quotidian needs. In other
instances, the deviant friends provide social support for acting out moti-
vations to engage in deviant behavior, resources that are prerequisite to
engaging in such behavior (e.g., drugs), and opportunities or occasions for
engaging in deviant behaviors.
When youths in a given generation become part of a deviant friend-
ship network, they set in motion a chain of events that eventuates in the
youths of the next generation becoming part of a deviant peer network,
with the increased likelihood that those youths would engage in deviant
behavior. Participation in a deviant peer network evokes negative social
sanctions from conventional authorities, alienates and excludes the person
from conventional society, and increases the likelihood that the G1 adult
would make unconventional choices in setting up a family, fail to be
socialized to play the parenting role in a conventional manner, and fail to
exercise effective social controls over the G2 youth’s activities (including
choice of friends). At the same time, distressful experiences (familial and
otherwise) associated with upbringing by parents with a deviant back-
ground would motivate the seeking for and adoption of deviant patterns
that might forestall or assuage distressful self-feelings. These adaptations
would include the selection of deviant peers, a circumstance that is facil-
itated by having been the object of negative social sanctions that exclude
the youth from conventional contacts and facilitate contact with deviant
peers. The entry into deviant friendship networks by the G2 youths would
then have the same consequences for G2 deviant behavior as were
described for the G1 youths.
Based on these premises, a model was estimated that specified direct
effects of deviant friends on deviant behavior within each generation,
intergenerational continuity of deviant friends, and any residual intergen-
erational parallelism that might obtain for deviant behavior. The latent
construct deviant friends was measured by two variables: a cumulative
2-item index indicating affirmative responses to “Do many of your good
friends smoke marijuana?” and “Do many of your good friends take nar-
cotic drugs to get high?”; and, agreement with the single item “Most of
my close friends are the kinds of kids who get into trouble a lot?” The esti-
mation of the structural equations model is summarized in Figure 6.3. As
hypothesized, deviant friends was strongly associated with deviant
Figure 6.3. Intergenerational Stability of Deviant Friends as a Common Antecedent of G1 and G2

Deviant Behavior
behavior in both generations (B = 0.963 for G1 and B = 0.787 for G2), the
cross-generation stability effect (B = 0.255) was significant, and the inter-
generational effect for deviant behavior observed prior to specifying the
intrageneration and stability effects of deviant friends (B = 0.239) was
attenuated to nonsignificance (B = −0.004). Thus, these findings are con-
gruent with the theoretical framework that informed the hypothetical
model and support the contention that the intragenerational effects of
deviant friends on deviant behavior and the intergenerational stability
effect of deviant friends are implicated in the explanation of the observed
intergenerational parallelism of deviant behavior.
Social Rejection
In each generation, on theoretical grounds, perceived rejection by
conventional groups is expected to be associated with higher levels of
deviant behavior. Social rejection, the outcome of the youth being charac-
terized by disvalued attributes and behaviors, (further) alienates the youth
from conventional normative structures, thus attenuating the social con-
trols that might have impeded acting out deviant dispositions also result-
ing from the increased alienation from conventional membership groups.
178 Chapter 6
The experience of social rejection has consequences that increase

the likelihood of social rejection by the next generation’s youths. Deviant
behavior in G1 that is secondary to social rejection tends to be stable over
the life course, causing stigmatization, social exclusion, a disposition to
associate with deviant others (in part expressed in choice of marital part-
ners), and unconventional performance of social roles (notably, parent-
ing). Poor parenting, reflected in neglect and abuse of the G2 youth, is
taken as parental rejection in the eyes of the G2 youth. The stigmatiza-
tion attaching to membership in a deviant kinship network and any
deviance that results from the paucity of resources and maladaptive cop-
ing patterns that are provided by the family as a result of being rejected
and excluded from conventional society in turn cause the G2 youth to be
the object of rejecting attitudes by other conventional membership
groups such as peers and teachers. Social rejection of the G2 youth then
increases the likelihood of deviant behavior through the same mechanism
described for G2 youths.
Informed by these theoretical premises, a structural equations model
was estimated that specified: positive effects of G1 and G2 experience of
social rejection on deviant behavior in G1 and G2, respectively, positive
effects of G1 social rejection on G2 social rejection, and a residual effect
of G1 deviant behavior on G2 deviant behavior. Experience of social
rejection was modeled as a latent construct reflected in three measurement
variables. The first measure, perceived rejection by parents, was a cumu-
lative 4-item score based on the youth’s affirmation of My parents hardly
ever trust me to do something on my own; As long as I can remember, my
parents have put me down; My parents are usually no interested in what
I say or do; My parents do not like me very much. The second measure,
rejection by teachers, was a cumulative 4-item index based on the youth’s
affirmation of My teachers are not very interested in what I say or do; By
my teacher’s standards I am a failure; My teachers do not like me very
much; My teachers usually put me down. The third measure, rejection by
the “kids at school,” was a 4-item cumulative index based on the youth’s
affirmation of More often than not I feel put down by the kids at school;
I am not very good at the kinds of things the kids at school think are
important; The kids at school are usually not very interested in what I say
or do; Most of the kids at school do not like me very much.
Support for the model would be taken as some validation of the the-
oretical premises that informed the model, and attenuation of the inter-
generational stability coefficient for deviant behavior relative to that
observed in the baseline model would support the proposition that inter-
generational parallelism in deviant behavior is explainable partly in terms
of intergenerational stability of a common intragenerational influence,
namely perceived social rejection.
The estimation of the model is summarized in Figure 6.4. As
hypothesized, G1 and G2 perceived social rejection was strongly associ-
ated with G1 and G2 deviant behavior, respectively (B = 0.602 for G1
and B = 0.698 for G2) and a significant intergenerational stability coeffi-
cient for perceived social rejection was observed (B = 0.193). Also as
expected, the baseline intergenerational stability coefficient for deviant
behavior (B = 0.239) was attenuated (B = 0.145) as a result of specifying
intragenerational effects of, and intergenerational stability of, perceived
social rejection.
Earlier, empirical support was observed for the theoretical premise

that intergenerational parallelism in deviance is explainable, in part, by the
intergenerational continuity of a common intragenerational influence on
Figure 6.4. Intergenerational Stability of Perceived Social Rejection as a Common Antecedent of

G1 and G2 Deviant Behavior
180 Chapter 6
deviant behavior, namely disposition to deviance. The guiding theoretical

framework that informed this expectation also leads to the expectations
that intergenerational stability in disposition to deviance is explainable in
terms of cross-generational stability of common intragenerational
antecedents of disposition to deviance, namely negative self-feelings, neg-
ative social sanctions, membership in deviant friendship networks, and
perceived social rejection.
The loss of motivation to conform to and the genesis of motivation to
deviate from conventional socionormative systems that compose the dis-
position to deviate construct in each generation is the result of the experi-
ence of chronic negative self-feelings in the course of membership group
experiences. These negative self-feelings stem from formal and informal
negative social sanctions in response to disvalued attributes and behaviors
and in response to the early deviant adaptations to being the object of such
negative social sanctions (including being attracted to deviant friendship
networks).
The experience of distressful self-feelings in any given generation
has consequences that increase the likelihood of intergenerational conti-
nuity of negative self-feelings. Within G1, distressful self-feelings associ-
ated with failure and rejection in conventional membership groups and the
social rejection that accompanies the G1 youth’s disvalued attributes and
behavior dispose the person to adopt deviant behaviors. Consequent
deviant behaviors by G1 youths lead to stigmatization, social exclusion,
deprivation of conventional social resources, and unconventional adapta-
tions that increase the likelihood of conflictual and otherwise dysfunc-
tional G1 family environments for the rearing of the G2 youth. The
experience of neglectful and otherwise abusive childhood experiences
along with the socialization into the adoption of ineffective and maladap-
tive coping patterns predispose the G2 youth to experience distressful
negative self-feelings. These distressful self-feelings along with the recog-
nition of their source alienate the G2 youth from the conventional
environment and dispose the youth to adopt deviant response patterns.
Based on these premises, it was hypothesized that within each gen-
eration, negative self-feelings would be associated with disposition to
deviance, negative self-feelings at G1 would be associated with negative
self-feelings at G2, and the stability coefficient for G1-G2 disposition to
deviance would be attenuated relative to the observed coefficient for dis-

position to deviance in the baseline model. Disposition to deviance was
measured as described in chapter 3 and earlier in this chapter as
described with reference to the model reported in Figure 6.1. Negative
self-feelings were measured as described in chapter 3, as reflected in
three measurement variables. One measure was a cumulative 7-item scale
reflecting self-derogatory attitudes. A second measure was a 9-item
cumulative index reflecting affirmation of widely recognized symptoms
of anxiety. The third measure was a 6-item cumulative index reflecting
depressive affect.
The estimation of the structural equation model is summarized in
Figure 6.5. As hypothesized, within each generation, negative self-feel-
ings was strongly associated with disposition to deviance (B = 0.602 for
G1 and B = 0.765 for G2) and the intergenerational stability coefficient
(B = 0.217) was statistically significant. Also as expected, the intergener-
ational stability coefficient for disposition to deviance was attenuated
(B = 0.081) relative to the baseline coefficient (B = 0.216) observed prior
to specifying the intragenerational effects of negative self-feelings on dis-
position to deviance and the intergenerational stability effect for negative
self-feelings. Thus, the results are congruent with the theoretical premises
Figure 6.5. Intergenerational Stability of Negative Self-Feelings as a Common Antecedent of G1

and G2 Disposition to Deviance
182 Chapter 6
that informed the analyses, and the baseline intergenerational parallelism

in disposition to deviance is explainable in part by the intergenerational
continuity of a construct that has common intragenerational effects on dis-
position to deviance, namely negative self-feelings.

On theoretical grounds, being the object of negative social sanctions
would be expected to dispose the youth to adopt deviant patterns as mech-
anisms for dealing with life stress. Being the object of negative social
sanctions stigmatizes the youth, excludes the youth from conventional
society and accessibility to resources that ordinarily accompany social
acceptance, and so reduces motivation to conform to conventional norms
and, rather, generates motivation to seek and adopt deviant alternatives to
the conventional coping patterns that are no longer (if they ever were)
available to the youth.
Being the object of negative social sanctions in one generation has
consequences that increase the likelihood of the next generation being the
object of negative social sanctions, and in the next generation, negative
social sanctions increase the likelihood of becoming disposed to deviant
behavior. When the G1 youth becomes the object of negative social sanc-
tions (perhaps due to deviant adaptations to earlier social rejection), the
resulting acting out of deviant dispositions and their sequelae have conse-
quences that eventuate in G1 parents modeling deviant behavior. In addi-
tion, deviant parenting practices (abuse and neglect) cause distressful
self-feelings that motivate deviant adaptations by the G2 youth. The G2
deviance that is modeled after G1 patterns as ways of dealing with dis-
tressful self-feelings evokes negative social sanctions that, in turn, exacer-
bate disposition to deviance through the same intervening mechanisms
that were described for the G1 youth.
Based on these premises, a structural equations model was estimated
that specified intragenerational effects of being the object of negative
social sanctions on disposition to deviance for both G1 and G2 youths, a
stability effect of G1 on G2 negative social sanctions, and a G1-G2
stability effect for disposition to deviance that was expected to be sub-
stantially weaker than the baseline intergenerational coefficient. Being the
object of negative social sanctions was modeled as a latent construct as in
the estimation summarized in Figure 6.2, reflecting sanctioning responses
primarily by school and police-related authorities.

G1 and G2 Disposition to Deviance
The estimated model is summarized in Figure 6.6. As expected, in

both G1 and G2, being the object of negative social sanctions was
strongly associated with disposition to deviance (B = 0.733 for G1 and
B = 0.700 for G2) and a statistically significant relationship between G1
and G2 negative social sanctions (B = 0.267) was observed. Also as
expected, the baseline intergenerational stability effect for disposition to
deviance (B = 0.216) was attenuated to nonsignificance (B = 0.052) after
specifying the intragenerational effects of negative social sanctions on
disposition to deviance and the cross-generational stability of negative
social sanctions. Thus, again, the results were compatible with the theo-
retical premises that informed the model, and the expectation that
observed intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance was
explainable, in part, by common intragenerational effects on disposition
to deviance of a construct, namely negative social sanctions, that mani-
fested intergenerational stability.
Deviant Friends
Whether participation in deviant friendship networks was the out-
come of (1) a deviant adaptation to social rejection by conventional
groups, (2) being born in to an environment in which the individuals
184 Chapter 6
judged to be deviant by an external group were in fact conforming to nor-

mative expectations, or (3) being the object of negative social sanctions
that demanded interaction among deviant peers, deviant friendships would
be expected to dispose the youth to engage in deviant behavior. The
expectations of deviant friends would motivate the G1 youth to conform
in order to secure their approval, the deviant peers would provide
resources and occasions for engaging in deviant behavior, and the deviant
friendship nexus would provide rationalizations for otherwise conven-
tional youths to adopt deviant responses.
was estimated that specified intragenerational effects of deviant friends on
disposition to deviance for both G1 and G2 youths and an intergenera-
tional path between G1 and G2 deviant friends. The residual path between
G1 and G2 disposition to deviance was expected to be weakened greatly
relative to the baseline path. Deviant friends was measured as in the
analysis summarized in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.7. As expected, the intragenerational effects of deviant friends
were substantial (B = 0.762 for G1 and B = 0.811 for G2) and the inter-
generational path for deviant friends (B = 0.246) was statistically
Figure 6.7. Intergenerational Stability of Deviant Friends as a Common Antecedent of G1 and G2

significant. Also as hypothesized, the specification of the intragenera-

tional effects of deviant friends on disposition to deviance and the cross-
generational stability of deviant friends served to attenuate the
prespecification intergenerational stability for disposition to deviance (B
= 0.216) to nonsignificance (B = 0.010). Thus, the theoretical premises
that informed the hypothetical model received support, and the expecta-
tion that intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance would be
explainable, in part, by specification of intergenerational continuity of a
construct (deviant friends) that had intragenerational effects on disposi-
tion to deviance in both G1 and G2 was rewarded.
Social Rejection
The perception of social rejection by conventional groups and the
concomitant negative self-feelings increase alienation from those groups
that are perceived as the source of the distressful self-feelings. Because
conventional coping resources patently have been ineffective in fore-
stalling or assuaging social rejection and negative self-feelings, it is to be
expected that the youths in each generation who experience social rejec-
tion from conventional membership groups (family, school teachers,
peers) would be disposed to seek and adopt deviant coping patterns that
offer promise of reducing the distressful self-attitudes that accompany
social rejection.
The experience of social rejection by youths in one generation has
consequences for the experience of social rejection in the next generation.
As noted earlier, social rejection motivates the adoption of deviant mech-
anisms that offer promise of more effectively reducing distress than the
manifestly ineffective coping mechanisms. Because the deviant mecha-
nisms preclude full participation in conventional socialization activities as
a result of evoking exclusionary responses, the G1 youth develops into an
adult who frequently performs social roles (including spouse and parent)
in deviant fashion and transmits to the G2 child deviant coping patterns
while occasioning stressful family circumstances (abuse and neglect) that
evoke these mechanisms. These outcomes, along with the stigma attach-
ing to the family, evoke social rejection of the G2 youth and the same
sequelae as described for the G1 youth that further dispose the G2 youth
to adopt deviant patterns.
Informed by these theoretical premises, a model was estimated that
specified intragenerational effects of social rejection on disposition to
186 Chapter 6
deviance for both G1 and G2 youths and a G1-G2 intergenerational sta-

bility effect for social rejection. The residual intergenerational stability
effect for disposition to deviance was specified but was expected to be
much attenuated by the intragenerational and intergenerational effects of
social rejection. Social rejection was again modeled as a latent construct
reflected in three measurement variables (rejection by parents, teachers,
peers, respectively) as described earlier for the model summarized in
Figure 6.4.
The structural equations model is specified in Figure 6.8. As hypoth-
esized, significant and appreciable intragenerational effects of social
rejection on disposition to deviance were observed (B = 0.858 for G1 and
B = 0.835 for G2), as was a significant intergenerational stability effect for
social rejection (B = 0.201). Also as expected, the residual intergenera-
tional stability effect for disposition to deviance was attenuated to non-
significance (B = 0.062) from the baseline coefficient observed prior to
specification of the intragenerational and stability effects of social rejec-
tion (B = 0.216). Thus, the theoretical premises that informed the model
received some support, as did the expectation that intergenerational paral-
lelism in disposition to deviance was explainable, in part, in terms of the
intergenerational stability of a construct (social rejection) that had intra-
generationl influence on disposition to deviance within both G1 and G2.
Figure 6.8. Intergenerational Stability of Social Rejection as a Common Antecedent of G1 and G2

Deviant Behavior
The construct negative self-feelings that, through its intergenera-

tional stability and its intragenerational influence on disposition to
deviance in G1 and G2, directly explains, in part, intergenerational paral-
lelism in deviant disposition and thus indirectly explains intergenerational
parallelism in deviant behavior is itself explainable in terms of the inter-
generational stability and intragenerational effects of several constructs.
Among the more salient of these are the interrelated constructs social
rejection and negative social sanctions.
Social Rejection
In the course of the normal socialization experience, individuals
learn to need the approval of others, particularly those others who are in a
position to satisfy or frustrate basic socioemotional or instrumental needs.
Initially the most significant others are parents. Later, these others encom-
pass school authorities and peers. The inability to evoke approving atti-
tudes and, rather, the evocation of rejecting attitudes from these relevant
others evoke distressful self-feelings. This pattern of linkages occurs in
each generation.
The experience of social rejection by youths in any generation has
consequences that lead to the experience of social rejection by youths in
the next generation. The experience of rejection by parents, teachers, and
peers evokes distressful self-feelings that are associated in the youth’s mind
with experiences in conventional groups. The result is to feel alienated
from such groups and the readiness to adopt deviant responses, values, and
groups that offer greater promise of forestalling rejection and concomitant
distress than the patently ineffective conventional mechanisms. However,
these mechanisms also evoke rejecting attitudes by virtue of their deviant
nature. Further, the failure to learn conventional social role behavior as a
parent (partly due to social exclusion as a deviant) frequently results in dis-
tressful neglect and abuse of the G2 youth. At the same time, the G1 par-
ent fails to convey effective and conventional coping mechanisms to the G2
child that might have forestalled stressful life circumstance or assuaged the
concomitant distressful self-feelings. Thus, the combination of learning
maladaptive mechanisms, failing to learn effective conventional coping
patterns, stigmatizing experiences as a member of a deviant familial
groups, and being an object of neglectful or abusive parenting increases the
188 Chapter 6
likelihood that the G2 youth will parallel the G1 youth in both being the
object of rejecting attitudes by conventional others and consequently expe-
riencing negative self-feelings.
Based on these theoretical premises, a structural equations model
was estimated that specified intragenerational effects of social rejection on
negative self-feelings in both G1 and G2 and G1-G2 stability in social
rejection. Although a G1-G2 path for negative self-feelings was specified
as well, it was expected that the coefficient would be attenuated greatly,
relative to the baseline coefficient. Social rejection was measured as
described in the analysis summarized in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.9. As hypothesized, social rejection (reflecting perceived rejec-
tion by parents, teachers, and peers) was appreciably and significantly
related to psychological distress for both G1 and G2 youths (B = 0.897 for
G1 and B = 0.754 for G2) and the intergenerational stability coefficient for
social rejection (B = 0.245) was statistically significant. Also as expected,
the baseline intergenerational stability coefficient for negative self-
feelings (B = 0.228) was attenuated to nonsignificance (B = 0.053) as a
result of specifying intergenerational stability of social rejection and the
intrageneration effects of this construct on negative self-feelings in G1
and G2. The results, then, both support the theoretical premises that
Figure 6.9. Intergenerational Stability of Social Rejection as a Common Antecedent of G1 and G2

informed the analysis and were compatible with the expectation that inter-
generational parallelism in negative self-feelings was explainable, in part,
by the intergenerational continuity of a construct (social rejection) that
had within-wave effects on negative self-feelings in both G1 and G2.

Among the causes of negative self-feelings are the negative social
sanctions that are directed toward those youths who display objectionable
characteristics or behaviors, including those deviant patterns that reflect
deviant subcultural conformity or deviant adaptations to social rejection
and other antecedents of alienation from conventional society. Being the
object of negative social sanctions occasions negative self-feelings insofar
as the socialization experience leads the person to value approving
responses from these groups and being the object of negative social sanc-
tions is a stigmatizing event, and these experiences deprive the person of
access to valued social resources and have other outcomes that increase the
likelihood of future distress-inducing experiences of rejection and failure.
Being the object of negative social sanctions has consequences that
increase the likelihood that the G2 youth also will be the object of nega-
tive social sanctions. Stigmatization and deprivation of resources that are
consequences of being the object of negative social sanctions by G1
youths increases the likelihood of G1 youths being further alienated and
adopting deviant patterns that continue into adulthood. These circum-
stances increase the likelihood of transmitting the disposition to adopt
deviant coping patterns to G2 youths, as does the experience of stigmatiz-
ing association with the deviant familial context. The resultant deviant
responses by G2 youths, in turn, increase the likelihood of G2 youths
being the object of negative social sanctions, hence manifesting intergen-
erational continuity of negative social sanctions. In the second generation,
being the object of negative social sanctions, in turn, increases the likeli-
hood of negative self-feeling, operating through the same intervening
processes as were described for G1 youths.
was estimated that specified intergenerational continuity of being the
object of negative social sanctions and within-wave effects of negative
social sanctions on negative self-feelings for both G1 and G2. Negative
social sanctions were measured as described in connection with the model
summarized in Figure 6.6.
190 Chapter 6

G1 and G2 Negative Self-Feelings

Figure 6.10. As hypothesized, the intergenerational stability effect of neg-
ative social sanctions was statistically significant (B = 0.330) and within-
wave effects of negative social sanctions on negative self-feelings were
appreciable and significant (B = 0.515 for G1 and B = 0.426 for G2). Also
as expected, the intergenerational stability coefficient for negative self-
feelings was attenuated (B = 0.132) relative to the baseline coefficient
observed prior to specifying the intragenerational effects of negative
social sanctions on self-feelings and the intergenerational stability of
social sanctions (B = 0.228). Thus, these specifications in part account for
the intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings. In addition, the
results suggest support for the theoretical premises that informed the
structural equations model.
Summary
In chapter 3, results were reported that demonstrated the conditional

nature of intergenerational parallelism. The strength of the associa-
tion between G1 and G2 phenomenon (deviant behavior or one or
another of its theoretically informed correlates) is contingent on specified
circumstances. However, whether such contingencies are specified the

linear association between the G1 and G2 phenomena remains to be
explained. Is the intergenerational continuity, explainable in terms of
intervening processes such that the G1 phenomenon has consequences
(mediating variables) that in turn influence the G2 phenomenon? The
analyses conducted in chapter 4 suggest that part of the explanation of
intergenerational continuity might well be found in intervening
processes; or is the explanation of intergenerational parallelism to be
found in the intergenerational continuity of common antecedents that are
themselves intergenerationally continuous?
Regarding the latter possibility, the analyses in the present chapter
clearly suggest that part of the explanation of instances of intergenerational
parallelism implicates intergenerational stability of common antecedents.
Thus, observed intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior in varying
degrees was explained by the intergenerational stability of disposition to
deviance, being the object of negative social sanctions and interpersonal
rejection, participation in a network of deviant friends, and the common
influence of these constructs on deviant behavior in both G1 and G2.
Disposition to deviance, in turn, was explainable in large part by the
intergenerational stability in the experience of negative self-feelings,
being the object of negative social sanctions and interpersonal rejection,
participating in a deviant friendship network, and the common influence
of these constructs on negative self-feelings in both G1 and G2. Finally,
negative self-feelings was explainable, in part, in terms of the stability of
being the object of negative social sanctions and social rejection; that is,
in each instance, the degree of interpersonal parallelism in the phenome-
non of interest observed at baseline was substantially reduced when the
intergenerational stability of the explanatory factor as well as the intra-
generational influence of the explanatory factor in both G1 and G2 were
specified.
It now remains to consider the implications of the findings concerning
mediating, moderating, and common antecedent constructs as explanations
of instances of observed intergenerational parallelism within the context of
the general theory of deviant behavior that informed the analyses. This will
be the subject matter of Part IV.
Part IV
RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
In Part IV, the theoretical and methodological rationales are reviewed, as

are the substantive findings with regard to their implications for a future
research agenda. In chapter 7, Summary and Conclusions, the general
logic of procedure that informed the organization of this volume is con-
sidered as a methodological template, not only for future research on
intergenerational parallelism of deviance but also for in-depth analysis of
any essentially bivariate relationship. Additionally, the findings relating to
the moderating, mediating, and common explanatory factors are consid-
ered with regard to their complementarity and as offering validation of he
general theory of deviant behavior that informed the analyses. In the
course of the discussions, limitations of the analyses and lacunae in
the theoretical formulations and substantive literature are highlighted and
the implications of these for informing future research agendas are drawn.
193
7
Summary and Conclusions
Two tasks remain to be accomplished: to summarize the substantive find-

ings on intergenerational parallelism within the context of the general the-
ory of deviant behavior and, to highlight future elaborations that might
obviate what might be perceived as limitations of the present study.
Substantive Findings
Guided by a general theory of deviant behavior, a series of analyses

was directed to the understanding of the intergenerational parallelism of
deviant behavior. The methodology was informed by the conceptualiza-
tion of intergenerational parallelism of deviance as a bivariate relationship
between first-generation (G1) adolescent deviance and second-generation
(G2) adolescent deviance that was explained/elaborated by specifying
moderators, mediators, and intergenerationally continuous common
antecedents of the G1 deviance–G2 deviance relationship.
In addition to explaining the bivariate relationship between G1
deviant behavior and G2 deviant behavior, the analyses were directed
toward explaining the bivariate relationships between G1 and G2 disposi-
tion to deviance and between G1 and G2 negative self-feelings. This was
done (1) because on theoretical grounds, intergenerational parallelism in
the two variables is implicated in the explanation of intergenerational par-
allelism in deviant behavior and (2) to demonstrate that explanations of
the G1 deviant behavior–G2 deviant behavior relationship are themselves
195
196 Chapter 7
explainable in terms of mediating, moderating, and intergenerationally

continuous antecedent constructs.
According to the general theory, deviant behavior is motivated.
Either (1) chronic experiences of failure and rejection in conventional
membership groups lead to negative self-feelings that dispose the youth
to lose motivation to conform to conventional expectations while seeking
deviant alternatives that might assuage the negative self-feelings second-
ary to the experiences of failure and rejection or (2) the youth is moti-
vated to perform deviant acts because the person perceives these acts as
required by the (deviant) membership group, and so are performed in
order to evoke positive responses from self and others. Given the central
roles played by these constructs, the review of salient findings will
emphasize the explanatory role of intergenerational parallelism in these
constructs in accounting for the G1 deviance–G2 deviance relationship
and the explanation of the intergenerational parallelism of negative self-
feelings and disposition to deviance, although other salient findings will
be discussed as well.
Deviant Behavior
Consistent with other studies of intergenerational parallelism of

deviance, G1 adolescent deviance was associated with G2 adolescent
deviant behavior at a statistically significant but modest level (B = 0.239).
The magnitude of the intergenerational parallelism in deviance is a func-
tion of a number of theoretically indicated conditions, which relate
respectively to the G1 intragenerational stability of deviant behavior over
the life course (particularly until the child-rearing years) and to the influ-
ence of the G1 parent on the G2 youth. The conditional G1 intragenera-
tional stability of deviant behavior between early adolescence and the
parenting years is explainable in terms of intervening processes and inter-
generational continuities of common antecedents of G1 and G2 deviance.
The magnitude of intergenerational parallelism in deviance is mod-
erated by theoretically specified conditions that reflect alienation from the
conventional world and is associated with the disposition to deviance (i.e.,
the loss of motivation to conform to and the acquisition of motivation to
Summary and Conclusions 197
deviate from conventional expectations). Alienation from the conven-

tional socionormative system by G1 youths was reflected in latent con-
structs indicating rejection of conventional values or socionormative
standards, perceptions of being rejected by conventional others, and emo-
tional withdrawal from conventional others who otherwise might have
served as agents of social control over the acting out of deviant disposi-
tions by G1 youths. Under conditions such as these, the G1 youths were
expected to maintain or increase levels of deviant behavior into the par-
enting years. Deviant behavior by the G1 parents, in turn, was expected to
influence deviant behavior by G2 youths by providing an environment
that was supportive of deviant behavior whether through modeling such
behavior or by failing to effectively control association with deviant peers.
As expected, under conditions reflecting G1 alienation from con-
ventional socionormative systems (that presumably facilitated intragen-
erational continuity of deviant behavior) and G2 perceptions of a
supportive deviant social environment (that was facilitated by G1
parental deviance), intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior was
substantially greater. In support of the general theory, for G1 subjects
who scored higher on latent constructs reflecting alienation from the con-
ventional socionormative environment (disposition to deviance) com-
pared to those who scored lower on the constructs and for G2 subjects
who scored higher on a construct that reflected a supportive deviant
social environment compared to those who scored lower, the magnitude
of intergenerational parallelism of deviant behavior was substantially
greater (approximately twice as great).
Consistent with the guiding theoretical framework, observed inter-
generational parallelism of deviant behavior was partially explained in
terms of intervening processes that relate to continuity of G1 deviant
behavior between adolescence and the G1 parenting years and to the influ-
ence of the G1 parent on the G2 youth’s deviant behavior. The theoreti-
cally informed processes are said to be reflected in the G1 young adult
socioeconomic status, G1 young adult distressful emotions, and G2 per-
ceptions of the G1 parent’s religiosity. As expected, the specification of
the intervening constructs partially explained (decomposed) the observed
intergenerational parallelism of deviant behavior. The intervening con-
structs reflect the theoretical processes that informed the analyses.
198 Chapter 7
Deviant behavior by the G1 youth had the interrelated consequences of:

evoking negative social sanctions that stigmatize and deprive the G1 youth
of legitimate resources that are necessary for the youth’s need satisfaction,
alienation from the conventional world that is secondary to the experience
of stigmatization-induced distressful self-feelings, and the weakening of
social controls that might have constrained the acting out of deviant moti-
vations—all of which maintain the stability of G1 deviant behavior over
the life course into the parenting years.
These constructs reflect, also, the consequences of the parent’s
deviance for G2 youth, including deprivation of resources, experiences of
stigmatization and abusive parenting, resulting distressful self-feelings,
alienation from the conventional socionormative system, and concomitant
weakening of social controls that might have constrained the acting out of
the G2 youth’s deviant impulses.
Common Antecedents
In addition to explaining intergenerational parallelism in deviant
behavior in terms of intervening processes, intergenerational parallelism
in deviance is explainable in terms of the intergenerational parallelism of
constructs that within each generation influence deviant behavior. The
specification of intergenerational effects of each construct on deviant
behavior along with the specification of intergenerational continuity of the
construct in large measure explain the observed intergenerational paral-
lelism of deviance; that is, a consequence of these specifications is the
appreciable attenuation of the magnitude of the observed intergenerational
parallelism of deviant behavior.
Although on theoretical grounds, a number of common constructs
were specified (negative social sanctions, deviant peer associations, expe-
riences of social rejection), these are interpretable as antecedents of the
most proximate of the common antecedents, namely disposition to
deviance. A major influence on both G1 and G2 deviance is the disposi-
tion to engage in deviant behavior as is reflected in the loss of motivation
to conform to conventional normative expectations and the genesis of
motivation to engage in deviant adaptations as alternative responses to dis-
tressful experiences of failure and rejection associated with conventional
membership experiences. The deviant adaptations have their own conse-
quences (evoking negative social sanctions, associating with deviant
peers, consequent social rejection) that exacerbate alienation from the
conventional normative system and increase the disposition to engage in

deviant adaptations to life stress.
The disposition to engage in deviant adaptations in each generation,
in the presence of facilitating circumstances, is expected to increase the
probability of actually engaging in the deviant behavior. This is, in part, a
consequence of the weakening of conventional social controls that is a
consequence of the youth’s alienation from the conventional normative
system.
The hypothesized intergenerational continuity of disposition to
deviance is based on the theoretical premise that G1 youths, acting out
their deviant dispositions, would evoke negative social sanctions and con-
sequent distressful negative self-feelings and intensified feelings of alien-
ation from conventional normative systems throughout the life course.
Associated experiences of social rejection would increase interaction with
deviant others, one manifestation of which might be inappropriate
(deviant) mate selection. This circumstance along with the chronic expe-
rience of distressful self-feelings and the limited opportunity to be social-
ized in normative parenting patterns increased the likelihood of the G1
parent engaging in neglectful or abusive parenting and modeling deviant
and maladaptive coping patterns for the G2 youth. These outcomes,
together with the paucity of resources available to the G2 youth, and the
stigmatizing and otherwise distressful circumstances associated with a
conflictual and unconventional home life dispose the G2 youth to adopt
deviant coping patterns for dealing with life stress, a disposition that
increases the likelihood of the G2 youth actually engaging in deviant
behavior.
Consistent with the theoretical premises, the specification of intragen-
erational effects of disposition to deviate on deviant behavior and of inter-
generational continuity of disposition to deviance in large measure explains
(decomposes) the observed intergenerational parallelism of deviance. Given
the strong explanatory value of disposition to deviance in accounting for
intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior, the theoretical premises
underlying this expected effect are, to some degree, validated.
Intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance, which on

theoretical grounds is expected to play an important role in explaining
200 Chapter 7
intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior, according to the same

general theory would be expected to be contingent on specified moderating
circumstances and to be decomposed (explained) in terms of specifying
intervening processes and intergenerational continuity of common
antecedents.
Intergenerational stability in disposition to deviance is contingent on
circumstances that facilitate (1) intragenerational stability of G1 disposi-
tion to deviance between youth and the parenting years and (2) intergen-
erational influences of the G1 parents on G2 youths. The results in general
were supportive of the theoretical premises. The magnitude of intergener-
ational parallelism in disposition to deviance was several times greater
under conditions that reflected facilitation of G1 intragenerational conti-
nuity of disposition to deviance and the influence of G1 on G2 disposition
to deviance.
Deviant dispositions were expected to be continuous throughout the
life course under conditions where the youths characterized by such dis-
positions did not experience discomfort in their social relationships,
whether this is reflected in rejection by others, new expectations incum-
bent upon one, thwarted aspirations, or distress related to failure to meet
the expectations of others. Youths who were comfortable with who they
were and their current situation in life would have no need to change their
disposition to behave, nor would they be motivated to change if significant
others were perceived as comfortable with the youths and deviant dispo-
sitions. However, discomfort with oneself (i.e, negative self-evaluations)
would instigate changes in attitudes, including those related to deviant
dispositions.
Given intragenerational stability in G1 deviant dispositions between
early adolescence and adulthood, intergenerational parallelism of deviant
dispositions depends on circumstances that variously facilitate or impede
communication of the antisocial disposition from the G1 adult to the G2
youth. Thus, the G2 youth would be more likely to identify with and adopt
the parent’s antisocial attitudes if the youth held more, rather than less,
favorable attitudes toward the parent.
Congruent with the theoretical expectations, the results suggest that
intergenerational continuity in deviant dispositions is conditional on three
sets of moderators: social support for antisocial dispositions (suggested
by friendship variables reported by the G1 adults), stability in life cir-

cumstances (reflected in not being promoted at work, and not feeling
unsure of oneself when thinking about one’s social class, reported by G1
adults), and close relations with parents (reflected in G2 reports of find-
ing it easy to discuss problems with parents). Under conditions where
peer support for deviant attitudes appears to exist (suggesting a deviant
subculture), intragenerational stability in life circumstances is manifest,
and a good relationship exists between G1 parents and G2 youths, the
degree of intergenerational continuity in deviant dispositions tends to be
relatively strong. Where peer support for deviant dispositions appears to
be lacking, changing life circumstances and reference groups appears to be
likely, and parent-child relations are strained, the degree of intergenera-
tional parallelism is relatively weak.
Congruent with theoretical expectations, indexes of structural
(socioeconomic) disadvantage and familial conflict were observed to
mediate (and, so, explain in part) the observed intergenerational paral-
lelism of disposition to deviance. The expectations regarding the mediat-
ing role of socioeconomic status were based on the reasoning that the G1
youth’s deviant attitudes would evoke negative sanctions, including depri-
vation of needed resources. The experience of such deprivation and other
negative sanctions would result in alienation from the conventional socio-
normative structure. Such alienative attitudes would be reflected in loss of
motivation to conform to (among other norms) expectations regarding
positive valuation of and striving for upward social mobility. The loss of
motivation to pursue conventional values, along with the impediments to
upward social mobility that accompany or reflect negative social sanctions
increase the likelihood that the G1 youth will have a disadvantageous
position in the conventional system of stratification.
Undesirable placement in the system of stratification, in turn, has con-
sequences, including the interrelated experiences of negative self-feelings
associated with a paucity of material and interpersonal resources and con-
sequent alienative attitudes that together hinder the G2 youth’s ability to
forestall stress, gain social acceptance, and achieve success. The alienation
of the G2 youth that is congruent to these outcomes, in the absence of
learned effective conventional coping resources, is disposed to seek alterna-
tive deviant adaptations through which the G2 youth can satisfy his needs.
202 Chapter 7
The expectation that the familial conflict would mediate intergener-

ational parallelism of disposition to deviance, similarly, is predicated on a
number of theoretical linkages. G1 disposition to deviance would be
expected to eventuate in selecting deviant social networks, learning mal-
adaptive coping mechanisms, and being deprived of instruction (and moti-
vation in) conforming to conventional role definitions, including the roles
of spouse and parent. The conflictful family relations that result from
these outcomes throughout the G1 life course, in turn, affect the G2
youth’s own disposition to engage in conflictful relations. Family conflict
serves as a model for the G2 youth’s maladaptive and antisocial attitudes.
Further, the parent-child conflicts are intrinsically distressing situations
that evoke attempts to forestall or assuage the distress. Because the G2
youth has learned deviant and maladaptive coping patterns rather than
conventional and effective response patterns in the dysfunctional family,
the G2 youth will be disposed to respond to family stress with similarly
dysfunctional patterns. In general, the estimation of the models provided
results that validated the general theory that informed the models.
Common Antecedents
Intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance is expected to
be explained, in part, by the intergenerational continuity of common
antecedents of G1 and G2 disposition to deviate. On theoretical grounds,
these common antecedents are expected to encompass negative self-feel-
ings (and its antecedents, including negative social sanctions and per-
ceived social rejection) and membership in deviant friendship networks.
With regard to the latter common antecedent, whether participation
in deviant friendship networks was the outcome of (1) a deviant adapta-
tions to conventional social rejection, (2) being born into an environment
in which the “deviant” patterns were in fact normative for that group, or
(3) being the object of negative social sanctions that facilitated interaction
among deviant peers, deviant friendships, on theoretical grounds, would
be expected to dispose the youth to conform in order to secure deviant
friends’ approval, the deviant peers would provide resources and occa-
sions for engaging in deviant behavior, and the friendship network would
provide rationalizations for otherwise conventional youths to adopt
deviant responses.
The participation in a deviant network in one generation should
have consequences for the participation in a deviant network in the next
generation. These consequences include the evocation of negative social

sanctions, selection of deviant mates, exclusion from conventional social-
ization into conventional spousal and parental roles, abusive and neglect-
ful parenting, and the resultant experience of negative self-feelings and
alienation from conventional groups on the part of the G2 youths, all of
which facilitates participation in deviant memberships.
Regarding intergenerational continuity of negative self-feelings as a
common antecedent of disposition to deviance in each generation, nega-
tive self-feelings (stemming from formal and informal negative social
sanctions and in response to the early deviant adaptations to being the
object of negative sanctions), in the absence of conventional alternatives,
dispose the youth to lose motivation to conform and to seek deviant
responses as alternative modes of coping with life stress.
The experience of distressful self-feelings in any generation has
consequences that increase the likelihood of experiencing negative self-
feelings in the next generation. Distressful self-feelings experienced by
G1 youths deriving from failure and rejection in conventional member-
ship groups dispose the G1 youths to adopt deviant patterns as the only
viable alternatives to coping with life stress. Consequent social exclu-
sion, deprivation, and unconventional adaptations increase the likelihood
of forming conflictual and otherwise dysfunctional G1 family environ-
ments for the rearing of the G2 youth. The ensuing G2 experience of neg-
lectful and otherwise abusive parenting, along with the socialization into
ineffective and maladaptive coping patterns predispose the G2 youth to
experience distressful negative self-feelings. Such distressful negative
self-feelings, along with the recognition of their source alienate the G2
youth from the conventional environment and dispose the youth to adopt
deviant patterns.
Consistent with these theoretical premises, the model specifying
intragenerational effects of negative self-feelings on disposition to
deviance for both G1 and G2 youths and the intergenerational continuity
of negative self-feelings between G1 and G2 in large measure explained
the observed intergenerational parallelism of disposition to deviance.
The intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings, which,

together with its intragenerational effects, in large measure explains
204 Chapter 7
intergenerational parallelism of disposition to deviance, has its own

moderators and is explainable in terms of intervening processes and inter-
generational continuity of common antecedents.
The results of estimating several structural equation models are
congruent with the theoretical premises that informed the analyses. The
strength of the intergenerational parallelism in negative self-feelings
that is observed is contingent on circumstances that theoretically facili-
tate continuity of negative self-feelings between youth and parenthood
for the G1 subjects and that facilitate the influence of the G1 parents on
the G2 youths.
The continuity of negative self-feelings between early adoles-
cence and parenthood for the G1 subjects is facilitated by the early
performance of stress-inducing behavior and its correlates (deviant
behavior and consequent negative social sanctions), alienation from
potential sources of social support that might forestall or assuage dis-
tress (not important what parents, teachers, kids at school think of me),
consistent parental socialization in inadequate coping patterns (evi-
denced by the combination of negative self-feelings and parental
agreement on patterns of child rearing), and the experience of life
events that challenge inadequate coping patterns (evidenced by the
combination of higher levels of negative self-feelings and life events
reported in young adulthood such as marriage/cohabitation and the
death of a significant other).
The intergenerational transmission of negative self-feelings from
G1 parents to G2 youths is conditional on the G2 youth’s experiences of
rejection (by peers) and failure (no expectations of upward social mobil-
ity), absence of supportive parents who might have helped forestall stress
and mitigate stressful negative self-feelings (G2 youth does not show
affection or feel close to parents and does not receive positive reinforce-
ment), and G2 youth perceptions of G1 parental use of ineffective and
maladaptive coping mechanisms (substance use). Under each of these
conditions, the magnitude of observed intergenerational parallelism in
negative self-feelings is substantially greater than under mutually exclu-
sive conditions, thus lending support to the general theory that informed
the analyses.
The estimation of structural equation models produced results that
are compatible with the theoretical premises that informed the analyses.
The intergenerational parallelism of negative self-feelings is accounted
for, in part, by the intervening processes related to young adult stressful
emotional experiences and family conflict during the child-rearing years.
These mediating variables are said to reflect, or incur at later stages of the
life course, the experience of distressful life circumstance of failure and
rejection, the lack of effective conventional coping mechanisms, and dys-
functional role performance in several social relational contexts. These
outcomes, in turn, either constitute stressful life circumstances for the G2
youth or reflect the lack of effective conventional coping patterns that
might otherwise have functioned to forestall or assuage the negative self-
feelings associated with self-threatening life circumstances.
Common Antecedents
Intergenerational continuity in negative self-feelings, which influ-
ences disposition to deviance in each generation, in part accounts for
intergenerational parallelism in disposition to deviance and so indirectly
explains, in part, intergenerational continuity of deviant behavior.
Intergenerational continuity in negative self-feelings is itself explainable
partly in terms of intergenerational stability of constructs that have intra-
generational effects on negative self-feelings in both G1 and G2. The con-
structs in question relate to social rejection and being the object of
negative social sanctions. The results support the theoretical premises that
informed the analyses.
With regard to social rejection, in the course of normal socialization
processes youths learn to need the approval of others, particularly those
who are in a position to satisfy or frustrate basic socioemotional or instru-
mental needs. Within each generation, the inability to evoke approval and
the evocation of rejecting attitudes from significant others evoke negative
self-feelings.
The experience of social rejection by youths in one generation has
consequences that lead to the experience of social rejection by youths in
the next generation. The youth’s experience of social rejection and conse-
quent distressful self-feelings leads to alienation from the rejecting groups
and readiness to adopt deviant responses that offer greater promise than
206 Chapter 7
conventional responses of forestalling or assuaging the distress that

accompanies social rejection. Further, the deviant responses evoke social
rejection and exclusion from normal opportunities to learn conventional
role behavior as a parent. This factor along with the experience of nega-
tive self-feelings eventuate in abusive and neglectful parenting behavior
and the modeling of ineffective coping mechanisms for forestalling or
assuaging life stress. The combination of learning maladaptive coping
mechanisms, stigmatizing experiences of membership in deviant family
contexts, and being the object of neglectful or abusive parenting increase
the likelihood that the G2 youth will parallel the G1 youth in being the
object of rejecting responses by conventional others and, as a conse-
quence, experiencing negative self-attitudes.
With regard to negative social sanctions, objectionable traits and
behavior evoke negative social sanctions and consequent negative self-
feelings in each generation. Being the object of negative social sanctions
evokes negative self-feelings because the youth values approving
responses and disvalues rejecting responses; being the object of negative
sanctions deprives the youth of access to valued social resources and has
other outcomes that increase the likelihood of future experiences of rejec-
tion and failure that evoke negative self-feelings.
The experience of negative social sanctions by G1 youths has con-
sequences that increase the likelihood that G2 youths, as well, will be
the object of negative social sanctions. As objects of negative social
sanctions, G1 youths experience stigmatization and deprivation of val-
ued social resources and consequent feelings of alienation from conven-
tional groups and disposition to adopt alternative deviant coping
patterns. These circumstances, continuing into the parenting years,
increase the likelihood that the G1 parent will transmit the disposition to
deviance to the G2 youth and will occasion distressful experiences that
give G2 youth occasion to perform the deviant acts. Deviant coping
response by the G2 youth, in turn, evokes negative social sanctions, thus
paralleling the experience of the G1 youths. In the second generation,
being the object of negative social sanctions, in turn, evokes negative
self-feelings, operating through the same intervening mechanisms that
were described for the G1 youths.
In sum, although many of the intervening linkages remain to be
tested, the models estimated are compatible with the general theory of
deviant behavior that informed the analyses. Future specifications
of moderating variables, intervening processes, and intergenerationally
continuous common antecedents will provide further opportunities for

validation and elaboration of the general theory of deviant behavior.
Future Elaboration
The theoretically informed empirical analyses reported in this vol-

ume derive from a research program that has a number of strengths, char-
acterized by the use of a panel design, multigeneration measurement of
successive biologically related panels at a comparable developmental
stage, specification of mediating variables and contextual continuity, and
consideration of the potential moderating influence on intergenerational
parallelism (and on intervening causal linkages) of a range of variables.
Many of these features that characterize our own studies approximate
those that are thought to be ideal for the study of intergenerational trans-
mission of, for example, parenting (Van Ijzendoorn, 1992):
These studies should now begin to incorporate designs fitted to the goal of
describing intergenerational transmission of parenting: longitudinal studies
should be carried out, measuring parenting with comparable instruments at
comparable times across the lifespan. Furthermore, contextual factors should
be taken into account because the transmission may be stronger or weaker
depending upon the influence of these contextual factors on two or three gen-
erations. (p. 97)
In addition, other design limitations (small sample sizes, use of clin-

ical samples rather than in-community samples) are obviated by the use of
a large general-population sample. Nevertheless, the conduct of the study
also implicates a number of features that, arguably, are interpretable as
limitations.
Sociodemographic Controls
It is reasonable to anticipate, given the knee-jerk tendency in the

social sciences to control certain sociodemographic variables such as
gender, race, and socioeconomic status, that these analyses would be
subject to criticism for failing to have done so. However, these variables
(review of the literature would suggest) in themselves add little to our
understanding of the mechanisms accounting for intergenerational par-
allelism whether they are treated as moderating or exogenous variables
208 Chapter 7
(although in the case of socioeconomic status, it seemed reasonable to

model it as a mediating variables). Rather, it is through the more proxi-
mal influences exercised by correlates of these “background” variables
as moderating, mediating, or common antecedents factors that insight
into the processes underlying the observation of intergenerational paral-
lelism is gained. The theoretically informed models, therefore, focus
on the correlates of the sociodemographic variables that are more prox-
imate to the mechanisms explaining instances of intergenerational
parallelism.
Bidirectional Effects
In attempting to assess the factors that intervene in intergenerational

parallelism, such as parental distress or parenting patterns, the assumption
is made that these variables are causally prior to the deviant patterns dis-
played by the G2 youths. However, these relationships do not necessarily
reflect unidirectional causal effects. It is quite plausible to assert that char-
acteristics of the child influence parental responses as it is to assert the
interpersonal influence of parents on children. Thus, for example, the con-
current measurement of psychological dysfunction in the parent and anti-
social character in the child does not permit easy separation of the causal
relationships (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986)
Parental rejection may drive children to rebel. However, it is also difficult to
love children that make one’s life miserable. Thus, parental rejection can be
both cause and consequence of children’s behavior. (p. 54).
This observation has not been obviated with the passage of time. A
decade later, it might be observed that a weakness of many intergener-
ational studies is the failure to specify what is likely an existing mutual
influence between putative intragenerational “causes” of the variable of
interest and the tendency for the variable of interest to evoke or stimu-
late the so-called causal effect. It has been argued, for example, in the
case of the relationship between antisocial behavior and discipline that
the relation should be modeled as a mutual one in which parental dis-
cipline affects antisocial behavior, and antisocial behavior evokes
parental influence (Ge et al., 1996). Ten years later, the present study
has been unable to consistently attend to the modeling of bidirectional
effects.
Meaning of Measurement Models
By testing two panels of subjects a generation apart it is possible that

the measures used for the G1 subjects are no longer valid indicators of the
latent constructs under consideration. This is a special case of the situa-
tion that exists even in studies in which data are collected at a single point
in time; that is, it is possible that subgroups of the population reflect a psy-
chosocial phenomena in different ways. Males, for example, might reflect
alienation from conventional society with different behaviors than
females. It is possible that certain behaviors that are considered deviant
for females are considered acceptable for males. Hence, these indicators
might not be appropriate measures of alienation for males, but they remain
valid indicators of alienation for females. Similarly, subcultural variation
in ethnic groups might preclude one ethnic group from expressing self-
derogation with what are face-valid indicators of self-derogation for other
groups. One ethnic group might by normative consent be precluded from
admitting to self-derogatory feelings, whereas another group might be
permitted to express such feelings when self-derogation is truly present;
or one ethnic group migh be required, as a matter of good form, to depre-
ciate their personal qualities. In such groups, the expression of self-
deprecatory feelings would not be valid indicators of self-derogation.
One must always be wary of the possibility that measurement variables
do not reflect the same underlying meanings across time and in different
gender, ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic groupings. Even where measure-
ment items cohere, the internally reliable scale might reflect different con-
structs. Therefore, all analyses should examine the internal reliability and
construct validity of measures for groups differentiated in terms of gender,
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status at different times. Where measure-
ment models over time and space vary across these sociodemographic
groupings, the decision will have to be made as to whether the functionally
equivalent but metrically dissonant measurement models reflect the same
underlying theoretical construct. If they do, the models will be estimated for
different groups using functionally equivalent but metrically different indi-
cators. This issue has been all but ignored in the literature. It is necessary to
begin thinking of how one deals with the problem of temporal and socio-
cultural differences in reflections of underlying constructs.
Among the relatively rare instances in which this issue has been con-
sidered, Baumrind (1994) observed with reference to the meaning of spe-
cific forms of punishment:
210 Chapter 7
Strict discipline and the use of corporal punishment do not per se constitute
child abuse. The high value placed on obedience and respect for authority by
African-American families that results at times in the use of corporal pun-
ishment can be traced to African tradition (Kohn, 1977; Peters, 1976; Young,
1970). African-American parents claim to use hitting as a teaching method
with young children to improve behavior, to teach respect, obedience, and
right from wrong, and to deal with children whose language is limited. Some
African-American parents use coercive tactics strategically to force the
aggressiveness and guardedness needed for African-American children to
survive in hostile environments (McLoyd, 1990; Ogbu, 1981). (p. 362)
Genetic Influences
Our study shares with many other studies of intergenerational trans-

mission of deviant outcomes a limitation that relates to the difficulty in
assessing genetic influences on intergenerational continuity. Referring to
a group of studies on intergenerational continuity and the transfer of risk,
Serbin and Stack (1998) made observations that are appropriate for our
study as well:
Conceptually, these projects were not designed for examining genetic trans-
mission of risk or for studying nature–nurture issues. All of these studies
deal with prediction of behaviors that are likely to have a complex and inter-
active set of causes, including genetic, social–experimental, cultural, and
contextual factors. However, the sample sizes in these projects and informa-
tion about family histories are typically too limited to extract genetically rel-
evant information, at least by using conventional genetic research designs.
With improvements in technology for studying genetic profiles and markers,
however, examination of parent–child similarities in genetic patterns is
likely to be added to ongoing studies in the near future. In fact, the avail-
ability of information about parents’ behavior at earlier points in time may
make it possible to use these data sets to discover valuable information
about the genetic basis of continuity in human behavior, both within and
between generations. (p. 1160)
In the present study, residual intergenerational effects, after speci-

fying mediating variables and intragenerational effects of intergenera-
tionally continuous causal variables, are often interpretable in terms of
social learning influences. However, these residual effects are also inter-
pretable in terms of genetic inheritance. Because the intergenerational
dyads are biologically related, we cannot choose between these inter-
pretations.
Parent Reports
Another limitation of our study, one that is shared by numerous other

studies of intergenerational continuity (Serbin & Stack, 1998) concerns
the assessment of intergenerational continuity using data from only one of
the G2 child’s parent’s childhood experiences. As is typical of studies of
this sort, only one of the parents provided data at the time of their youth-
ful experiences. As Serbin and Stack (1998) observed:
This may lead to an underestimation of intergenerational continuity,

because half of the equation is missing, so to speak. Solutions to this prob-
lem may be found in future inclusion of spousal and extended-family data,
as well as the inclusion of entire sibships, rather than a single child from
each family. (p. 1161)
Sociohistorical Trends
To what extent do sociohistorical trends influence the degree of inter-

generational comparability? Are 12- and 13-year-olds in 1970 equally
likely to engage in deviant acts as their counterparts in 1995? Are the
causes of deviant behavior in 1970 different from the causes of deviant
behavior in 1995? Are changes in the correlates of deviant behavior or in
the degree of deviant behavior over a 25-year period due to changes in
social conditions over that period in time? Period effects are said to
“reflect the impact of sociohistorical events as they produce change and
continuity in different social groups (i.e., social generations) at different
points in time” (Bengtson, 1987, p. 452).
Substantial social changes have occurred over the years between the
times that the first- and second-generation youths were interviewed dur-
ing their early adolescent years. To the extent that these social changes
have some impact on the circumstances in which the individuals were
reared, we would expect lesser degrees of parallelism to be observed than
in circumstances where the social context in which the youths were reared
were similar. A case in point is the changes in behaviors and attitudes
relating to working mothers. Regarding behavior change Rindfuss,
Brewster, and Kavee (1996) stated:
A substantial change has occurred in the childrearing practices of American

families with young children. They have moved from a childrearing regimen
212 Chapter 7
under which most preschool-age children were cared for in their own
homes by their mothers to a more diverse system in which the majority of
mothers of preschoolers are in the labor force and their children are cared
for in a variety of settings by assorted caregivers. While part of this shift is
the result of more children being in female-headed families, the over-
whelming portion is explained by the changing labor force behavior of
married women. (pp. 476–477)
Parallel attitudinal changes have been observed as well (Rindfuss et al.,

1996) particularly between 1970 and 1985:
Not only has there been a substantial decline in the percent of respondents
thinking that preschool children will suffer if their mother work, but this shift
occurred across all social subgroups and all ages within American society.
(pp. 478–479)
We have yet to examine secular trends over the generations that

might account for the presence or absence of intergenerational paral-
lelism. Intergenerational trends in deviant behavior, societal responses to
deviant behavior, and related phenomena might attenuate or exacerbate
intergenerational parallelism in antisocial character. In the absence of a
cohort-sequential design, it is not possible to evaluate the degree to which
the findings relating to intergenerational parallelism (or their absence) are
due to patterns of sociocultural change. During periods of social stability,
intergenerational transmission becomes a major mechanism for maintain-
ing the stability of attitudes. The mass media and contemporary peers will
tend to reinforce intergenerationally transmitted attitudes and behaviors.
In times of rapid social change, however, the inevitable intergenerational
influence will be attenuated by the transmission of the nature and accept-
ability of novel ideas in the mass media and by heterogeneous peers who
model such novel ideas and behaviors. The interpretation of our findings
must take such circumstances into account.
Range of Variables
The models that were specified and estimated in chapters 3–6 impli-
cated a large number of theoretical constructs. However, each relationship
was predicated on a number of theoretical suppositions that remain to be
tested by modeling the constructs that reflect the theoretical assumptions.
It still remains to specify what other common antecedents or intervening
processes explain the intergenerational relationship in deviant behavior
between early adolescents who ultimately will become parents of the ado-
lescents assessed in the second generation at the same developmental
stage and the G2 adolescents themselves.
With regard to common antecedents, intergenerational parallelism in
one form of deviant behavior might reflect a common circumstance to
which the members of the respective generations adapt in like fashion. A
variety of common circumstances might be summarized, for example, in
the general experience of psychological dysfunction. Continuity in psy-
chological dysfunction across the generations, whether due to common
experiences or not, might lead to common deviant adaptations.
Regarding intervening processes, understanding intergenerational
transmission requires the ever-more precise specification of mediating
mechanisms. As Velleman (1992) observed:
...in seeking to account for the intergenerational transmission of alcohol
problems, researchers have suggested an explanation couched in terms of
marital and family problems. Yet explaining the transmission of problems by
simply citing such factors as violence, parental conflict, parental loss, and
parental inconsistency is in itself no explanation, for the same question can
be re-asked about these questions: why should these factors lead to a greater
incidence of problems. (p. 382)
Further, before we approximate a fuller explanatory model account-

ing for intergenerational parallelism in deviant behavior and the mecha-
nisms that account for such continuity, we must initiate further
investigation of moderating constructs that condition the relationships
between the transgenerational characteristics and the variables that
represent common antecedents or mediating influences in the cross-
generational relationships. Indeed, we have yet to examine fully the inter-
generational parallelisms in deviant behaviors. Both on empirical and
theoretical grounds, we might expect that the degree of intergenerational
continuity and the factors that account for such continuity will vary
according to any of a number of factors. When we have satisfied ourselves
that such variables indeed moderate the processes accounting for inter-
generational parallelism, we must further seek out the true meaning of
these constructs in terms of their correlates that are more proximal
moderators of causal linkages.
These remarks apply not only to the investigation of intergenera-
tional parallelism in deviant behavior (and disposition to deviance and
negative self-feelings) but also to the mediators, moderators, and common
antecedents of these instances of intergenerational parallelism. As
214 Chapter 7
reference to Figure 1.1 will remind us, each moderator, mediator, and
intergenerationally continuous common antecedent has its own mediators,
moderators, and intergenerationally continuous common antecedents.
Inclusive Models
In examining the explanatory power of theoretically indicated medi-

ating, moderating, and intergenerationally continuous common
antecedent variables in accounting for intergenerational parallelism in
deviant behavior, disposition to deviance, and negative self-feelings, the
models were estimated seriatim. Thus, it is possible that the several mod-
erators (or mediators or intergenerationally continuous common
antecedents) were redundant indicators of a common latent construct or
were linearly related to each other. The simultaneous estimation of all of
these effects challenges the capabilities of this dataset. The specification
of inclusive models that simultaneously specify the several theoretically
informed mediating, moderating, and intergenerationally continuous com-
mon antecedents of deviant behavior and its correlates remains to be
accomplished.
Conclusion
This volume is viewed as accomplishing the following objectives.

First, it has presented an overview of the methodologies and substantive
findings of empirical studies that investigate instances of intergenerational
parallelism. Second, it has offered a template for a systematic logic of pro-
cedure for analyses of instances of intergenerational parallelism (and,
more generally, for the analysis of any bivariate relationships). The sug-
gested methodology for analyses and elaboration of the bivariate relation-
ships between G1 deviant behavior and G2 deviant behavior implicates
the systematic specification of the moderators, mediators, and intergener-
ationally continuous common antecedents of the intergenerational paral-
lelism of deviant behavior and its correlates.
Third, the volume offers a guiding theoretical framework that accom-
modates the general literature and informs the empirical findings reported
herein. Finally, the results of a series of analyses are reported that are
informed by the general theory of deviant behavior. The models that are
estimated specify the moderators, mediators, and intergenerationally con-

tinuous common antecedents of the relationship between G1 and G2
deviance (and of the intergenerational parallelism of two correlates of the
deviance). The findings collectively confirm and complement those
reported in the general literature; and by being congruent with theoretically
informed expectations, the findings lend support to the general theory.
The analyses reported in this volume are presented as flawed but
provocative contributions to a research agenda that aims at describing and
understanding intergenerational parallelism in deviant adaptations. In the
process of producing these findings, we have followed a logic of proce-
dure that systematically specifies (1) the conditions under which inter-
generational parallelism in deviant behavior (and its correlates) is
observed and (2) the intervening and intergenerationally stable common
antecedents that explain the instances of observed intergenerational paral-
lelism. The systematic adherence to this methodology and the resulting
substantive findings move us closer to understanding the extent and expla-
nation of intergenerational parallelism in deviant adaptations. However,
ultimately, greater approximation to the goal of understanding intergener-
ational parallelism in deviant behavior requires that future studies attend
to the above-specified elaborations.
References
Acock, A. C., & Bengtson, V. L. (1980). Socialization and attribution: Actual versus perceived simi-
larity among parents and youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 501–515.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30,
47–88.
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 628–640.
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1991). Consequences of parental divorce and marital unhappiness for adult
well-being. Social Forces, 69, 905–914.
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval.
Cambridge, MA: University of Harvard Press.
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations:
Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 1038–1051.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent
divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612–624.
Anderton, D., Tsuya, N. O., Bean, L. L., & Mineau, G. P. (1987). Intergenerational transmission of
relative fertility and life course patterns. Demography, 24, 467–480.
Aquilino, W. S. (1999). Two views of one relationship: Comparing parents’ and young adult chil-
dren’s reports of the quality of intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
61, 858–870.
Atkinson, L. P., & Dodder, R. A. (1990). Differences over time and generation in sexual attitudes.
International Review of Modern Sociology, 20, 193–210.
Avison, W. R. (1999). The impact of mental illness on the family. In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan
(Eds.), Handbooks of sociology and social research (pp. 495–515). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bao, W.-N., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as
a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 61, 362–74.
217
218 References
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological and
behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65,
1120–1136.
Barber, J. S. (2000). Intergenerational influences on the entry into parenthood: Mothers’ preferences
for family and nonfamily behavior. Social Forces, 79, 319–48.
Barber, J. S. (2001a). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward child-
bearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.
Barber, J. S. (2001b). The intergenerational transmission of age at first birth among married and
unmarried men and women. Social Science Research, 30, 219–247.
Barnes, G. M., & Farrel, M. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking,
delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 763–776.
Bartle, S. E., & Anderson, S. A. (1991). Similarity between parents’ and adolescents’ levels of indi-
viduation. Adolescence, 26, 913–924.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development,
37, 887–907.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary practices and social competence in children. Youth and
Society, 9, 239–296.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.
Baumrind, D. (1994). The social context of child maltreatment. Family Relations, 43, 360–368.
Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1975). Parents as “middlepersons” in political socialization. Journal
of Politics, 37, 83–107.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.
Behrman, J., & Taubmann, P. (1985). Intergenerational earnings mobility in the United States: Some
estimates and a test of Becker’s intergenerational endowments model. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 67, 144–151.
Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1988). Marital change across the transition to parenthood. Marriage and
Family Review, 12, 133–156.
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L. M., & Pensky, E. M. (1989). Childrearing history, marital quality, and
maternal affect: Intergenerational transmission in a low-risk sample. Development and
Psychopathology, 1, 291–304.
Bengtson, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological
Review, 40, 358–371.
Bengtson, V. L. (1987). Parenting, grandparenting, and intergenerational continuity. In J. B.
Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span:
Biosocial dimensions (pp. 435–457). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). The effects of family disruption on social mobility. American
Sociological Review, 58, 97–109.
Biblarz, T. J., Bengtson, V. L., & Bucur, A. (1996). Social mobility across three generations. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58, 188–200.
Biblarz, T. J., Raftery, A. E., & Bucur, A. (1997). Family structure and social mobility. Social Forces,
75, 1319–1341.
Billings, A. G., Kessler, M., Gomberg, C. A., & Weiner, S. (1979). Marital conflict resolution of alco-
holic and nonalcoholic couples during drinking and nondrinking sessions. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 40, 183–195.
Blee, F. M., & Tickameyer, A. R. (1986). Black-white differences in mother-to-daughter transmission
of sex-role attitudes. Sociological Quarterly, 28(2), 205–222.
References 219
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bond, J. B., & Harvey, C. (1991). Ethnicity and intergenerational perceptions of family solidarity.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33, 33–44.
Borjas, G. J. (1992). Ethnic capital and intergenerational mobility. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
107, 123–150.
Borjas, G. J. (1995). Ethnicity, neighborhoods, and human-capital externalities. The American
Economist, 85, 365–390.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Briar, S., & Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity.
Social Problems, 13, 35–45.
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Gordon, A. S., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial eti-
ology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 116, 111–126.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., & Zheng, L. (2002). Intergenerational transmission of risks for problem
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(1), 65–76.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1995). Adolescent parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 113–149).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, G. R., & Anderson, B. (1991). Psychiatric morbidity in adult inpatients with childhood histo-
ries of sexual and physical abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 55–61.
Brown, R. L. (1994). Efficacy of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with
missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 287–316.
Bumpass, L. L., Martin, T. C., & Sweet, J. A. (1991). The impact of family background and early mar-
ital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 22 –42.
Burgess, R. L., & Youngblade, L. M. (1988). Social incompetence and the intergenerational trans-
mission of abusive parental practices. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick, & M. A.
Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequence: New directions in research (pp. 38–60).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked
modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1292–1302.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Xie, H., Leung, M.-C., & Hearne, S. (1998). Paths across generations:
Academic competence and aggressive behaviors in young mothers and their children.
Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1162–1174.
Cairns, R. B., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Costello, E. J. (1996). Developmental science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Cairns, R. B., Gariepy, J. L., & Hood, K. E. (1990). Development, microevolution, and social behav-
ior. Psychological Review, 97, 49–65.
Caliso, J. A., & Milner, J. S. (1994). Childhood physical abuse, childhood social support, and adult
child abuse potential. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(1), 27–44.
Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female part-
ners for atrisk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175–1188.
Capaldi, D. M., Crosby, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1996). Predicting the timing of first sexual intercourse
for at-risk adolescent males. Child Development, 67, 344–359.
Card, J. J. (1981). Long-term consequences for children of teenage parents. Demography, 18, 137–156.
Carlin, A. S., Kemper, K., Ward, N. G., Sowell, H., Gustafson, B., & Stevens, N. (1994). The effects
of differences in objective and subjective definitions of childhood abuse on estimates of its preva-
lence and relationship to psychopathology. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 393–399.
Cashmore, K., & de Haas, N. (1995). Legal and social aspects of the physical punishment of children.
Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
220 References
Caspi, A., Bem, S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1989). Continuities and consequences of interactional styles
across the life course. Journal of Personality, 57, 375–406.
Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerationa construction of
problem behavior and relationships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships
within families: Mutual influences (pp. 218–240). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative
approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for
children? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chassin, L., Pillow, D. R., Curran, P. J., Molina, B. S. G., & Barrera, J. M. (1993). Relation of parental
alcoholism to early adolescent substance use: A test of three mediating mechanisms. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 102, 3–19.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Todd, M., Rose, J. S., & Sherman, S. J. (1998). Maternal socialization of
adolescent smoking: The intergenerational transmission of parenting and smoking.
Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1189–1201.
Chen, Z.-Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 17–31.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on mental
health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239–249.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Christiansen, K. O. (1977). A review of studies of criminality among twins. In S. A. Mednick & K. O.
Christiansen (Eds.), Biosocial basis of criminal behavior. New York: Gardner.
Clayton, S. (1991). Gender differences in psychosocial determinants of adolescent smoking. Journal
of School Health, 61(3), 115–120.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: The Free Press.
Cochran, M., & Brassard, J. (1979). Child development and personal social networks. Child
Development, 50, 601–616.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1965). The sociology of the deviant act: Anomie theory and beyond. American
Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A. K., & Short, J. (1966). Juvenile delinquency. In R. K. Merton & R. A. Nisbet (Eds.),
Contemporary social problems (2nd ed., pp. 47–100). New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Cohen, Y., & Tyree, A. (1986). Escape from poverty: Determinants of intergenerational mobility of
sons and daughters of the poor. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 803–813.
Cohler, D. J., Gallant, D. H., & Grunebaum, H. U. (1977). Disturbance of attention among schizo-
phrenic, depressed and well mothers and their five-year old children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 18, 115–136.
Coleman, L. M. (1986). Stigma: An enigma demystified. New York: Plenum Press.
Colletta, N. (1981). Social support and the risk of maternal rejection by adolescent mothers. Journal
of Psychology, 109, 191–197.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coer-
cive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561.
Conger, R. D., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. J. (1995). It takes 2 to replicate—A mediational model for
the impact of parents’ stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66(1), 80–97.
Corcoran, M., Gordon, R., Laren, D., & Solon, G. (1990). Effects of family and community back-
ground on economic status. The American Economic Review, 80, 362–366.
Corcoran, M., Gordon, R., Laren, D., & Solon, G. (1992). The association between men’s economic
status and their family and community origins. The Journal of Human Resources, 27, 575–601.
References 221
Curtis, A. (1991). Perceived similarity of mothers and their early adolescent daughters and relation-
ship to behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(3), 381–397.
Dalhouse, M., & Frideres, J. S. (1996). Intergenerational congruency: The role of the family in polit-
ical attitudes of youth. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 227–248.
de Beer, G. R. (1958). Embryos and ancestors (3rd ed). London: Oxford University Press.
DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez Jr., C. R. (1999). Parenting of divorced mothers as a
link between social status and boys’ academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of SES. Child
Dickei, J. R., Eshleman, A. K., Merasco, D. M., Shepard, A. M., Wilt, V., & Johnson, M. (1997).
Parent-child relationships and children’s images of God. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 36, 25–43.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of aggression
across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9(2), 157–175.
Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review.
Downs, W. R., Miller, B. A., Testa, M., & Panek, D. (1992). Long-term effects of parent-to-child vio-
lence for women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 365–382.
Dunlap, E., Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Wesley, D. (2002). Intergenerational transmission of con-
duct norms for drugs, sexual exploitation and violence: A case study. British Journal of
Criminology, 42, 1–20.
Egeland, B. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse: Implications for prediction and intervention. In
K. Browne, C. Davies, & P. Stratton (Eds.), Early prediction and prevention of child abuse
(pp. 87–99). New York: Wiley.
Egeland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing the next generation. In R.
J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 197–208).
Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child Development,
59, 1080–1088.
Eichenbaum, L., & Orbach, S. (1983). Understanding women. New York: Basic Books.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1978). Approaches to social change and the family. In J. Demos & S. Boocock
(Eds.), Turning points (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr., & Caspi, A. (1988). Human development and social change: An emerging perspec-
tive on the life course. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in
context: Developmental processes (pp. 77–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Caspi, A., & Downey, G. (1986). Problem behavior and family relationships: Life
course and intergenerational themes. In A. Sorensen, F. Weinert, & L. Sherrod (Eds.), Human
development and the life course: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 293–340). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Emery, R., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1982). Effects of marital discord on the children of schiz-
ophrenic, affectively disordered, and normal parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10,
215–228.
Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing
data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128–141.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum like-
lihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural EquationModeling,
8, 430–457.
Eron, L., & Huesmann, L. R. (1987). The control of aggressive behavior by changes in attitudes, val-
ues, and the conditions of learning. Advances in the Study of Aggression, 1, 139–171.
Eron, L. D., Walder, L. O., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1971). Learning of aggression in children. Boston:
Little, Brown.
222 References
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Farber, N. B., & Iversen, R. R. (1998). Family values about education and their transmission among
black inner-city young women. In A. Colby, J. James, & D. Hart (Eds.), Competence and char-
acter through life (pp. 141–167). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood: Key
findings from the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 36, 929–964.
Farrington, D. P. (2002). Families and crime. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public poli-
cies for crime control (pp. 129–148). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1995). Effects of marriage, separation and children on offending by
adult males. In J. Hagan (Ed.), Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle, Vol. 4.
Delinquency and disrepute in the life course (pp. 249–281). Greenwich, CT. JAI Press.
Fawzy, F. I., Coombs, R. H., & Gerber, B. (1983). Generational continuity in the use of substances:
The impact of parental substance use on adolescent substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 8,
109–114.
Feng, D., Giarrusso, R., Bengtson, V. L., & Frye, N. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of mari-
tal quality and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 451–463.
Field, T., Healy, B., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and synchrony in
mother-infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Developmental Psychology,
26, 7–14.
Filsinger, E. E., & Lamke, L. K. (1983). The lineage transmission of interpersonal competence.
Fisher, L., & Jones, J. E. (1980). Child competence and psychiatric risk: II. Areas of relationship
between child and family functioning. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 332–342.
Flax, J. (1981). The conflict between nurturance and autonomy in mother-daughter relationships and
within feminism. In E. Howell & M. Bayes (Eds.), Women and mental health (pp. 51–68). New
York: Basic Books.
Frias-Armenta, M. (2002). Long-term effects of child punishment on Mexican women: A structural
model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 371–386.
Fry, D. P. (1993). The intergenerational transmission of disciplinary practices and approaches to con-
flict. Human Organization, 52(2), 176–185.
Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. (1987). Adolescent mothers in later life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
F. F., Jr. (1976). Unplanned parenthood: The social consequences of teenage childbearing. New York:
The Free Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Levine, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1990). The children of teenage mothers:
Patterns of early childbearing in two generations. Family Planning Perspectives, 22(2), 54–61.
Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single mothers and their children: A new American
dilemma. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Ge, X, Conger, R. D., Cadoret, R. J., Neiderhiser, J. M., Yates, W., Troughton, E., et al. (1996). The
developmental interface between nature and nurture: A mutual influence model of child antiso-
cial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574–589.
Gecas, V., & Seff, M. A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980’s. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 941–958.
Gest, S. D., Neeman, J., Hubbard, J. J., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Parenting quality, adver-
sity, and conduct problems in adolescence: Testing process-oriented models of resilience.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 663–682.
References 223
Giever, D. (1995, November). An empirical assessment of the core elements of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology, Boston, MA.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families:
Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51,
685–698.
Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1987). The marriages and divorces of the children of divorce. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 49, 811–825.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates.
New York: Doubleday.
Goodman, S. H., & Brumley, H. E. (1990). Schizophrenic and depressed mothers: Relational deficits
in parenting. Developmental Psychology, 26, 31–39.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Greenstein, T. N. (1995). Gender ideology, marital disruption, and the employment of married
women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 31–42.
Greenwald, R. L., Bank, L., Reid, J. B., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). A discipline-mediated model of
excessively punitive parenting. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 259–280.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-con-
textual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1990). The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-class London,
circa 1950–1980. American Journal of Sociology, 96(2), 265–299.
Hanson, R. A., & Mullis, R. L. (1986). Intergenerational transfer of normative parental attitudes.
Psychological Reports, 59, 711–14.
Harburg, E., Davis, D. R., & Caplan, R. (1982). Parent and offspring alcohol use. Journal of Studies
in Alcohol, 43, 497–516.
Harburg, E., Gleiberman, L., DiFranceisco, W., Schork, A., & Weissfeld, L. (1990). Familial trans-
mission of alcohol use, III. Impact of imitation/nonimitation of parent alcohol use (1960) on the
sensible/problem drinking of their offspring (1977). British Journal of Addiction, 85,
1141–1155.
Hardy, J. B., Astone, N. M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Shapiro, S., & Miller, T. L. (1998). Like mother, like
child: Intergenerational patterns of age at first birth and associations with childhood and adoles-
cent characteristics and adult outcomes in the second generation. Developmental Psychology,
34(6), 1220–1232.
Hardy, J. B., Shapiro, S., Mellits, D., Skinner, E. A., Astone, N. M., Ensminger, M., et al. (1997). Self-
sufficiency at ages 27–33 years: Factors present between birth and 18 years that predict educa-
tional attainment among children born to inner-city families. Pediatrics, 99, 80–87.
Harper, C., Marcus, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Enduring poverty and the conditions of childhood: Life
course and intergenerational poverty transmissions. World Development, 31(3), 535–554.
Harvey, D. M., Curry, C. J., & Bray, J. H. (1991). Individuation and intimacy in intergenerational rela-
tionships and health: Patterns across two generations. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(2), 204–236.
Haveman, R., Wolfe, B., & Peterson, E. (1997). How do the children of early childbearers fare as
young adults? In R. Maynard (Ed.), Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences
of teen pregnancy (pp. 257–284). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Hayes, H. R., & Emshoff, J. G. (1993). Substance abuse and family violence. In R. L. Hampton, T. P.
Gullotta, G. R. Adams, E. H. Potter III, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Family violence: Prevention and
treatment, issues in children’s and families’ lives, vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Heinicke, C., Diskin, S., Ramsey-Klee, D., & Given, K. (1983). Prebirth parent characteristics and
family development in the first year of life. Child Development, 54, 194–208.
224 References
Hetherington, E. M., & Frankie, G. (1965). Effects of parental dominance, warmth, and conflict on
imitation in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 1004–1016.
Hewitt, J. P. (1970). Social stratifications and deviant behavior. New York: Random House.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hofferth, S. L., Kahn, J. R., & Baldwin, W. (1987). Premarital sexual activity among U.S. teenage
women over the past three decades. Family Planning Perspectives, 19, 46–53.
Hofferth, S. L., & Moore, K. A. (1979). Early childbearing and later economic well-being. American
Sociological Review, 44(5), 784–815.
Hogan, D. P., & Kitagawa, E. M. (1985). The impact of social status, family structure and neighbor-
hood on the fertility of black adolescents. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 825–855.
Holloway, S. D., & Machinda, S. (1991). Childrearing effectiveness of divorced mothers: Relationship
to coping strategies and social support. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 14, 179–201.
Hood, K. E., & Cairns, R. B. (1988). A developmental-genetic analysis of aggressive behavior in
mice: II. Cross-sex inheritance. Behavior Genetics, 18, 605–619.
Hooley, J. M., Richters, J. E., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1987). Psychopathology and marital dis-
tress: The positive side of positive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 27–33.
Hout, M. (1984). Status, autonomy, and training in occupational mobility. American Journal of
Sociology, 89, 1379–1409.
Hout, M, (1988). More universalism, less structural mobility: The American occupational structure in
the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1358–1400.
Huesmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening variables in the television vio-
lence-aggression relation: Evidence from two countries. Developmental Psychology, 20, 746–775.
Huesmann, R. L., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over
time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1120–1134.
Hunter, R. S., & Kilstrom, N. (1979). Breaking the cycle in abusive families. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 136, 1320–1322.
Israel, M., & Seeborg, M. (1998). The impact of youth characteristics and experiences on transitions
out of poverty. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(6), 753–776.
Jacob, T., & Krahn, G. L. (1988). Marital interactions of alcoholic couples: Comparison with
depressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
73–79.
Jacob, T., Ritchey, D., Cvitkovic, J. F., & Blane, H. T. (1981). Communication styles of alcoholic and
nonalcholic families when drinking and not drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42,
466–482.
Jankowski, M. K., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational transmission
of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex parents
vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14(3),
267–279.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and
their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, V., & Bennett, M. E. (1995). Assessing and tracking family histories of alcoholism. Journal
of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 654–660.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1994a). New features in PRELIS 2. In K.G. Joreskog & D. Sorbom,
PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide, 1996 (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1994b). New features in LISREL 8. In K.G. Joreskog & D. Sorbom,
LISREL 8: User’s reference guide, 1996 (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Kahn, J. R., & Anderson, K. E. (1992). Intergenerational patterns of teenage fertility. Demography,
29(1), 39–57.
References 225
Kahn, J. R., Rindfuss, R. R., & Guilkey, D. K. (1990). Adolescent contraceptive method choices.
Demography, 27(5), 323–335.
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 46(1), 11–19.
Kandel, D. B. (1990). Parenting styles, drug use, and children’s adjustment in families of young
adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 183–196.
Kandel, D. B., & Wu, P. (1995). The contribution of mothers and fathers to the intergenerational trans-
mission of cigarette smoking in adolescence. Journal of Research Adolescence, 5, 225–252.
Kaplan, D. S., Kaplan, H. B., & Liu, X. (2000). Family structure and parental involvement in the inter-
generational parallelism of school adversity. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4),
235–244.
Kaplan, H. B. (1972). Toward a general theory of psychosocial deviance: The case of aggressive
behavior. Social Science & Medicine, 6(5), 593.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA Goodyear.
Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Deviant behavior in defense of self. New York: Academic Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (1982). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior: New directions for theory and research.
Youth and Society, 14(2), 185–211.
Kaplan, H. B. (1983). Psychological distress in sociological context: Toward a general theory of psy-
chosocial stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp.
195–264). New York: Academic Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (1984). Patterns of juvenile delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, H. B. (1986). Social psychology of self-referent behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (1995). Drugs, crime, and other deviant adaptations. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs,
crime, and other deviant adaptations: Longitudinal studies (pp. 3–46). New York: Plenum Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (2003) “Testing an Integrative Theory of Deviant Behavior: Theory-Syntonic Findings
from a Long-Term Multi-Generational Study.” pp. 185–204 in Taking Stock of Delinquency: An
Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies, edited by T. Thornberry and
M. Krohn. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Kaplan, H. B., & Johnson, R. J. (2001). Social deviance: Testing a general theory. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kaplan, H. B., & Lin, C. (2000). Deviant identity as a moderator of the relation between negative self-
feelings and deviant behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(2), 150–177.
Kaplan, H. B., & Lin, C. (2005). Deviant identity, negative self-feelings, and decreases in deviant
behavior: The moderating influence of conventional social bonding. Psychology, Crime & Law,
11(3), 289.
Kaplan, H. B., & Liu, X. (1999). Explaining transgenerational continuity in antisocial behavior
during early adolescence. In P. Cohen, C. Slomkowski, & L. Robins (Eds.), Historical and
geographical aspects of psychopathology (pp. 163–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates.
Kaplan, H. B., & Liu, X. (2000). Social protest and self-enhancement: A conditional relationship.
Sociological Forum, 14(4), 595–616.
Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57, 186–192.
Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1993). The intergenerational transmission of abuse is overstated. In
R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 209–221).
Keith, V. M., & Finlay, B. (1988). The impact of parental divorce on children’s educational attain-
ment, marital timing, and the likelihood of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,
797–809.
Kellam, S., Ensminger, M. E., & Turner, R. (1977). Family structure and the mental health of chil-
dren. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 1012–1022.
226 References
Kiernan, K. E., & Diamond, I. (1983). The age at which childbearing starts—A longitudinal study.
Population Studies, 37, 363–380.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachments,
religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315–334.
Kitsuse, J. I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social
Problems, 9, 247–257.
Knutson, J. F., & Bower, M. E. (1994). Physically abusive parenting as an escalated aggressive
response. In M. Potegal & J. F. Knutson (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression: Biological and
social processes in dyads and groups (pp. 195–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kohn, M. (1977). Class and conformity (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kramer, L., & Baron, L. A. (1995). Intergenerational linkages: How experiences with siblings relate
to the parenting of siblings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(1), 67–87.
Krein, S. F., & Beller, A. H. (1988). Educational attainment of children from single-parent families:
Differences by exposure, gender, and race. Demography, 25, 221–234.
Kreuz, L. E., & Rose, R. M. (1972). Assessment of aggressive behaviors and plasma testosterone in
a young criminal population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 34, 321–332.
Kumpfer, K. L. (1995, November). Impact of maternal characteristics and parenting processes on
children of drug abusers. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, Boston, MA.
La Sorsa, V. A., & Fodor, I. G. (1990). Adolescent daughter/midlife mother dyad. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 14, 593–606.
Lagerspetz, K., & Lagerspetz, K. Y. H. (1974). Genetic determination of aggressive behavior. In I. H.
F. von Abeelen (Ed.), Behavioral genetics (pp. 321–346). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lee, C. M., & Gotlib, I. H. (1991). Adjustment of children of depressed mothers: A ten-month fol-
low-up. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 473–477.
Lefkowitz, M. M., Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1978). Parental punishment: A longitudinal
analysis of effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 186–191.
Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile
conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An
annual review of research, Vol. 7 (pp. 29–149). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lundberg, M., Perris, C., Schlette, P., & Adolfsson, R. (2000). Intergenerational transmission of per-
ceived parenting. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 865–877.
Luntz, B. K., & Widom, C. S. (1994). Antisocial personality disorder in abused and neglected chil-
dren grown up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 670–674.
MacEwen, K. E. (1994). Refining the intergenerational transmission hypothesis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 9(3), 350–365.
Magnusson, D., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Principles and illustrations. In R. B.
Cairns, Elder, G. H., Jr., & J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 7–30). New York:
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s representation of
her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 23, 305–319.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move
to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton, & E. Water (Eds.), Monographs of the society for
research in child development [Special issue]. Growing Points of Attachment Theory and
Research, 50(1–2), 66–104.
Malinosky-Rummell, R., & Hansen, D. J. (1993). Long term consequences of childhood physical
abuse. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 68–79.
References 227
Manlove, J. (1997). Early motherhood in an intergenerational perspective: The experiences of a

British cohort. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 263–279.
Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental behaviors,
and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25,
183–191.
Mark, V., & Ervin, F. (1970). Violence and the brain. New York: Harper and Row.
Markowitz, F. E. (2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and cultural theo-
ries. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 205–218.
McCloskey, L. A., & Bailey, J. A. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of risk for child sexual
abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(10), 1019–1035.
McCord, J. (1988). Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry, 51, 14–23.
McCord, J. (1991). The cycle of crime and socialization practices. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminality, 82, 211–228.
McLanahan, S. S., & Bumpass, L. L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption.
American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 130–152.
McLeod, J. D. (1991). Childhood parental loss and adult depression. Journal of Helath and Social
Behavior, 32, 205–220.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61,
311–346.
Mead, G. H. (1918). The psychology of punitive justice. American Journal of Sociology, 23, 577–602.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Michael, R. T., & Tuma, N. B. (1985). Entry into marriage and parenthood by young men and women:
The influence of family background. Demography, 22(4), 515–544.
Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Miller, L., Kramer, R., Warner, V., Wickramaratne, P., & Weissman, M. (1997). Intergenerational
transmission of parental bonding among women. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(8), 1134–1139.
Miller, R. B., & Glass, J. (1989). Parent-child attitude similarity across the life course. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 51, 991–997.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of
Social Issues, 14, 5–19.
Moen, P., Erickson, M. A., & Demptser-McClain, D. (1997). Their mothers’ daughters? The inter-
generational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage
Moore, K. (2001). Frameworks for understanding the intergenerational transmission of poverty and
well-being in developing countries (CPRC working paper No. 8). Manchester, UK: IDPM,
University of Manchester.
Moore, K. A., & Burt, M. R. (1982). Private crisis, public cost: Policy perspectives on teenage child-
bearing. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Moore, K. A., Hofferth, S. L., & Wertheimer, R. F. (1981). Teenage childbearing: Consequences for
women, families, and government welfare expenditures. In K. G. Scott, T. Field, & E. G.
Robertson (Eds.), Teenage parents and their offspring (pp. 35–54). New York: Grune and Stratton.
Muller, R. T., Fitzgerald, H. E., Sullivan, L. A., & Zucker, R. A. (1994). Social support and stress fac-
tors in child maltreatment among alcoholic families. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
26, 438–461.
Muller, R. T., Hunter, J. E., & Stollak, G. (1995). The intergenerational transmission of corporal pun-
ishment: A comparison of social learning and temperament models. Child Abuse and Neglect,
19(11), 1323–1335.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angles: Muthen & Muthen.
228 References
Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Technical aspects of Muthen’s LISCOMP approach to estima-
tion of latent variable relations with a comprehensive measurement model. Psychometrika, 60,
489–503.
Narang, D. S., & Contreras, J. M. (2000). Dissociation as a mediator between child abuse history and
adult abuse potential. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(5), 653–665.
Newcomer, S. F., & Udry, J. R. (1984). Mothers’ influence on the sexual behavior of their teenage
children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 477–485.
Newson, J., Newson, E., & Adams, M. (1993). The social origins of delinquency. Criminal Behavior
and Mental Health, 3, 19–29.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Noller, P., Seth-Smith, M., Bouma, R., & Schweitzer, R. (1992). Parent and adolescent perceptions of
family functioning: A comparison of clinic and non-clinic families. Journal of Adolescence, 15,
101–114.
Offer, D., Kaiz, M., Ostrov, E., & Albert, D. B. (2003). Continuity in family constellation. Adolescent
and Family Health, 3(1), 3–8.
Ogbu, J. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child
Oliver, J. E. (1993). Intergenerational transmission of child abuse: Rates, research, and clinical impli-
cations. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(9), 1315–1324.
Offord, D. R., Allen, N., & Abrams, N. (1978). Parental psychiatric illness, broken homes and delin-
quency. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiarty, 17, 224–238.
Orford, J., & Velleman, R. (1991). The environmental intergenerational transmission of alcohol prob-
lems: A comparison of two hypotheses. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 189–200.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1997). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In
W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and per-
sonality development (5th ed., pp. 463–552). New York: Wiley.
Patterson, G. (1998). Continuities: A search for causal mechanisms. Developmental Psychology, 34,
1263–1268.
Patterson, G., De Baryshe, B., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial
behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). Multilevel process models: Traits, interactions, and rela-
tionships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp.
283–310). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices
and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299–1307.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia
Publishing.
Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two-generational
prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1439–1461.
Perry, B. D. (1997). Incubated in terror: Neurodevelopmental factors in the “cycle of violence.” In
J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children in a violent society (pp. 124–149). New York: Guilford Press.
Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1979). The social learning theory of sex differences: Imitation is alive and
well. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1699–1712.
Peters, E. H. (1992). Patterns of intergenerational mobility in income and earnings. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 74, 456–466.
Peters, M. F. (1976). Nine black families: A study of household management and childrearing in black
families with working mothers. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
Peterson, P. L., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1994). Disentangling the effects of
parental drinking, family management, and parental alcohol norms on current drinking by black
and white adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(2), 203–227.
References 229
Petit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peer-rejected
status: The role of child behavior, parenting and family ecology. Merill Palmer Quarterly, 42,
267–294.
Phalet, K., & Schönpflug, U. (2000). Intergenerational transmission in Turkish immigrant families:
Parental collectivism, achievement values, and gender differences. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 32(4), 489–504.
Philips, R. (1991). Untying the knot: A short history of divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Plass, P. S., & Hotaling, G. T. (1995). The intergenerational transmission of running away: Childhood
experiences of the parents of runaways. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 335–348.
Polk, F., & Halferty, D. (1966). Adolescence, commitment, and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 4, 82–96.
Putallaz, M., Costanzo, P. R., Grimes, C. L., & Lipton, D. (1998). Intergenerational continuities and
their influences on children’s social development. Social Development, 7, 389–427.
Quinton, D., & Rutter, M. (1984). Parents with children in care: I. Intergenerational continuities.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 231–250.
Raajimakers, Q. (1999). Beliefs on politics and society. In W. Meeus & H. ‘t Hart (Eds.), Youth in the
Netherlands (pp. 106–132). Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Academische Uitgeverij Amersfoort.
Rada, R. T., Kellner, R., & Winslow, W. W. (1976). Plasma testosterone and aggressive behavior.
Psychosomatics, 16, 138–142.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Campbell, J. D., & Burton R. V. (1968). Child rearing: An inquiry in research and
methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rand, D. (1992). Intergenerational continuity of parental rejection and depressed affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1036–1045.
Reckless, W. (1967). The crime problem (4th ed). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Reckless, W., Dinitz, S., & Murray, E. (1956). Self concept as an insulator against delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 21, 744–746.
Rickard, K. M., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C., Griest, D. L., & McMahon, R. J. (1981). Factors in the
referral of children for behavioral treatment: A comparison of mothers of clinic-referred deviant,
clinic-referred non-deviant, and non-clinic children. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 19,
201–205.
Ricks, M. (1985). The social transmission of parental behavior: Attachment across generations. In I.
Bretherton, & E. Water (Eds.), Monographs of the society for research in child development
[Special issue]. Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research, 50(1–2), 211–227.
Rindfuss, R. R., Brewster, K. L., & Kavee, A. L. (1996). Women, work, and children: Behavioral and
attitudinal change in the United States. Population and Development Review, 22(3), 457–482.
Rohan, M. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Values transmission in families. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson,
& M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium, Volume 8 (pp.
253–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roosa, M. W., Tien, J., Groppenbacher, N., Michaels, M., & Dumka, L. (1993). Mothers’ parenting
behavior and child mental health in families with a problem drinking parent. Journal of Marriage
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Parental divorce, life-course disruption, and adult depression.
Rossi, A. (1980). Aging and parenthood in the middle years. In P. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life-span
development and behavior (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592
Ruscher, S. M., & Gotlib, I. H. (1988). Marital interaction patterns of couples with and without a
depressed partner. Behavior Therapy, 19, 455–470.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331.
230 References
Rutter, M. (1998). Some research considerations on intergenerational continuities and discontinuities:

Comment on the special section. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1269–1273.
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people. Cambridge, MA:
Rutter, M., & Madge, N. (1976). Cycles of disadvantage: A review of research. London: Heinemann.
Rutter, M., Quinton, D., & Liddle, C. (1983). Parenting in two generations: Looking backwards and
looking forwards. In N. Madge (Ed.), Families at risk (pp. 60–98). London: Heinemann.
Rutter, M., Quinton, D., & Yule, B. (1976). Family pathology and disorder in the children. Chichester:
Wiley.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., & Zax, M. (1982). Early development of children at risk for emotional dis-
order. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(7).
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sandefur, G. D., & Wells, T. (1999). Does family structure really influence educational attainment.
Social Science Research, 28, 331–371.
Sansbury, L. E., & Wahler, R. G. (1992). Pathways to maladaptive parenting with mothers and their
conduct disordered children. Behavior Modification, 16(4), 574–592.
Scheff, T. (1966). Being mentally ill: A sociological theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Schwartz, M., & Tangri, S. S. (1965). A note on self-concept as an insulator against delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 30, 922–926.
Serbin, L. A. (1996, November). Girls’ childhood aggression as a predictor of adult family function-
ing and behavior problems in offspring: A prospective study over 20 years and two generations.
Paper presented at the Séminaire L’Aggression Chez Les Filles, Montreal, Canada.
Serbin, L. A., Cooperman, J. M., Peters, P. L., Lehoux, P. M., Stack, D. M., & Schwartzman, A. E.
(1998). Intergenerational transfer of psychosocial risk in women with childhood histories of aggres-
sion, withdrawal, or aggression and withdrawal. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1246–1262.
Serbin, L. A., Moskowitz, D. S., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1991). Aggressive, with-
drawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children in adolescence: Into the next generation. In D.
J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp.
55–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Serbin, L. A., & Stack, D. M. (1998). Introduction to the special section: Studying intergenerational
continuity and the transfer of risk. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1159–1161.
Sher, K. J. (1991). Children of alcoholics: A critical appraisal of theory and research. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Sheridan, M. J. (1995). A proposed intergenerational model of substance abuse, family functioning,
and abuse/neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 519–530.
Shlonsky, H. R. (1984). Continuity in poverty along family lines: A reexamination of the intergener-
ational cycle of poverty. Human Relations, 37(6), 455–472.
Silverman, A. B., Reinherz, H. Z., & Giaconia, R. M. (1996). The long-term sequelae of child and
adolescent abuse: A longitudinal community study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 709–723.
Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W. (1992). Gender differences in the intergenera-
tional transmission of parenting beliefs. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 823–836.
Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W. (1993). Childhood experience, conceptions of
parenting, and attitudes of spouse as determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Marriage
Simons, R. L., Wu, C. I., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1995). A test of various perspectives on the
intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. Criminology, 33(1), 141–171.
Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of
parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 56, 591–607.
References 231
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of
harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159–171.
Small, S. A. (1988). Parental self-esteem and its relationship to child-rearing practices, parent-ado-
lescent interaction and adolescent behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,
1063–1072.
Smith, C. A., & Farrington, D. P. (2004), Continuities in antisocial behavior and parenting across three
generations. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry. 45(2), 230–247.
Smith, M. D., & Self, G. (1980). The congruence between mothers’ and daughters’ sex-role attitudes:
A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 105–109.
Smyth, N. J., Miller, B. A., Janicki, P. I., & Mudar, P. (1995, November). Mothers’ protectiveness
and child abuse: The impact of her history of childhood sexual abuse and alcohol diagnosis.
Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology,
Boston, MA.
Solon, G. (1992). Intergenerational income mobility in the United States. The American Economic
Review, 82, 393–408.
Solon, G., Corcoran, M., Gordon, R., & Laren, D. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of sibling correla-
tions in economic status. The Journal of Human Resources, 26, 509–534.
South, S. J. (1995). Do you need to shop around? Age at marriage, spousal alternatives, and marital
dissolution. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 432–449.
Stafleu, A., Van Staveren, W. A., De Graaf, C., Burema, J., Joseph, G. A., & Hautvast, J. (1995).
Family resemblance in beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards consumption of 20 foods: A
study among three generations of women. Appetite, 25(3), 201–216.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors, Spring
Meeting of the Psychometric Society. Iowa City.
Steiger, H., Stotland, S., Trottier, J., & Ghadirian, A. M. (1996). Familial eating concerns and psy-
chopathological traits: Causal implications of transgenerational effects. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 19(2), 147–157.
Steinberg, L. (2000). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relations in retrospect and prospect.
Journal of Reserch on Adolescence, 10, 83–110.
Stern, S. B., & Smith, C. A. (1995). Family processes and delinquency in an ecological context. Social
Service Review, 69, 705–731.
Stern, S. B., & Smith, C. A. (1999). Urban families and adolescent mental health. Social Work
Research, 23, 15–17.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K. C., & Russell P. (2000).
The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 62, 640–654.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975
to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
465–479.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the
National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, J. T. Finkelhor, D.
Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in
research (pp. 14–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American
family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor
in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating.
Adolescence, 29(115), 543–561.
Styron, T., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1997). Childhood attachment and abuse: Long-term effects on adult
attachment, depression and conflict resolution. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 1015–1023.
232 References
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Kippincott.
Tallman, I., Gray, L. N., Kullberg, V., & Henderson, D. (1999). The intergenerational transmission of
marital conflict: Testing a process model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3), 219–239.
Tapscott, M., Frick, P. J., Wooton, J., & Kruh, I. (1996). The intergenerational link to antisocial behav-
ior: Effects of paternal contact. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(2), 229–240.
Taris, T. W. (2000). Quality of mother-child interaction and the intergenerational transmission of sex-
ual values: A panel study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161(2), 169–181.
Taris, T. W., Semin, G. R., & Bok, I. A. (1998). The effect of quality of family interaction and inter-
generational transmission of values on sexual permissiveness. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 159(2), 237–250.
Tarter, R. E., Blackson, T., Martin, C., Loeber, R., & Moss, H. B. (1993). Characteristics and corre-
lates of child discipline practices in substance abuse and normal families. American Journal on
Addictions, 2(1), 18–25.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Thompson, K. M., & Wilsnack, R. W. (1984). Drinking and drinking problems among female ado-
lescents: Patterns and influences. In S. C. Wilsnack & L. J. Beckman (Eds.), Alcohol problems
in women (pp. 37–65). New York: Guilford.
Thompson, L., Clark, K., & Gunn, W., Jr. (1985). Developmental stage and perceptions of intergen-
erational continuity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(4), 913–920.
Thornton, A., (1991). Influence of the marital history of parents on the marital and cohabitational
experiences of children. American Journal of Sociology, 96(4), 868.
Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1987). The influence of the family on premarital sexual attitudes and
behavior. Demography, 24, 323–240.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in
nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76–99.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant
attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment interview.
Velleman, R. (1992). Intergenerational effects—A review of environmentally oriented studies con-
cerning the relationship between parental alcohol problems and family disharmony in the gene-
sis of alcohol nad other problems. II: The intergenerational effects of family disharmony.
International Journal of the Addictions, 27(4), 367–389.
Velleman, R., & Orford, J. (1990). Adult offspring of parents with drinking problems: Recollection
of parent’s drinking and its immediate effects. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29,
297–317.
Vollebergh, W. A., Iedema, J., & Raaijmakers, Q. (1999). The intergenerational transmission of cul-
tural and economic conservatism. In H. De Witte & P. Scheepers (Eds.), Ideology in the low
countries: Trends, models and lacunae (pp. 51–69). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Vollebergh, W. A., Iedema, J., & Raaijmakers, Q. (2001). Intergenerational transmission and the for-
mation of cultural orientations in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 63, 1185–1198.
Voss, H. (1969). Differential association and containment theory: A theoretical convergence. Social
Forces, 47, 381–391.
Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Freeman, S. R. (1983). Generation differences in beliefs: A cohort study of
stability and change in religious beliefs. The British Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 416–437.
Wells, L. E. (1978). Theories of deviance and the self-concept. Social Psychology, 41, 189–204.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
References 233
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adult-
hood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
West, D., & Farrington, D. (1977). The delinquent way of life. London: Heinemann Educational.
West, O. M., & Prinz, R. J. (1987). Parental alcoholism and childhood psychopathology.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., et al.
(1992). Intergenerational continuity of parental rejection and depressed affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1036–1045.
Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999). The intergenerational
transmission of health-risk behaviors: Adolescent lifestyles and gender moderating effects.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 258–272.
Willerman, L., & Cohen, D. B. (1990). Psychopathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, M. (1989). Child development in the context of the black extended family. American
Psychologist, 44, 380–383.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wolfinger, N. H. (1999). Trends in the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Demography, 36(3),
415–420.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997). Ineffective parenting and child-
hood conduct problems: The moderating role of callous-unemotional traits. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 301–308.
Wu, L. (1996). Effects of family instability, income, and income instability on the risk of premarital
birth. American Sociological Review, 61, 386–406.
Wu, L., & Martinson, B. C. (1993). Family structure and the risk of a premarital birth. American
Young, V. (1970). Family and childhood in a southern Negro community. American Anthropologist,
72, 269–288.
Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1990). Social and emotional consequences of child maltreatment. In
R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Children at risk: An evaluation of factors contributing to
child abuse and neglect (pp. 109–140). New York: Plenum Press.
Zaidi, L. Y., Knutson, J. F., & Mehm, J. (1989). Transgenerational patterns of abusive parenting:
Analog and clinical tests. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 137–152.
Zuravin, S., McMillen, C., DePanfilis, D., & Risley-Curtiss C. (1996). The intergenerational cycle of
child maltreatment: Continuity versus discontinuity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3),
315–334.
Index
A deviant friends, 175

Abusive parenting, 65 (dis)continuity of, 24
disposition to deviance, 170
B distressful emotions, 144
Barbarians or subhumans, 8 family conflict, 134
Bidirectional effects, 208 integrative and other theories, 29–35
Bivariate relationship of interest, 2 integrative theory of, 18
intervening processes, 197
D intragenerational causes of, 157
Deviance, 2 moderating variables, 196
defining of, 6 motivation to engage in acts of, 18
disposition to, 9 negative social sanctions, 173
first-generation, 2 parental religiosity, 146
motivated, 8 parenting patterns, 160, 162–163, 165
nature of, 6–10 psychological distress, 135
second-generation, 2 social rejection, 177
unmotivated, 9 socioeconomic status, 139–140, 165
Deviant behavior, 5, 68, 86, 90, 125, 133, Deviant behavior, correlates of, 78
140, 169, 196; see also Deviance abusive parenting or experiences of
acting out deviant dispositions, 22 abuse, 131
adult deviant behavior, 134 divorce, 130
alienation from conventional early childbearing, 129
others, 91 Deviant behavior, integrative and other
child-rearing patterns, 137 theories
common antecedents, 198 labeling theory, 35
continuation or escalation of, 25 social control/bonding theory, 33
correlates of, 78, see Deviant behavior, strain-related theories, 31
correlates of subcultural/social learning theories, 32
235
236 Index
Deviant behavior, parenting patterns Integrative theory and other deviance

intervening processes, 163 theories, 29–31
intragenerational effects, 162 labeling theory, 35–37
moderating variables, 162 social control/bonding theory, 33–35
social modeling, 165 strain-related theories, 31–32
Deviant patterns subcultural/social learning theories,
deviance in social role performance, 63 32–33
psychiatric disorders, 62 Integrative theory of deviant behavior,
socially devalued behaviors, 62 18–29
Disposition to deviance, 9, 70, 98, 148, acting out deviant dispositions, 22–24
179, 199 continuation or escalation of deviant
common antecedents, 202 behavior, 25–29
deviant friends, 183 (dis)continuity of deviant behavior, 24
familial relations, 150 motivation to engage in acts defined as
intergenerational influences, 106 deviant, 18–19
intervening processes, 201 motivation to engage in acts that are
intragenerational stability, 98 deviant by the standards of one’s
moderating variables, 200 membership group(s), 19–22
negative self-feelings, 180 Intergenerational continuities, 11–13
negative social sanctions, 182 in poverty, 81
social rejection, 185 Intergenerational correlation, 1
structural disadvantage, 149 Intergenerational (dis)continuities, 73
decomposition of, 125
E in religious beliefs, 80
Etiology of deviance, 1 Intergenerational influence, 1
Intergenerational parallelism, 11–14
F conditional nature of, 57
Future elaborations, of intergenerational decomposing, 125
parallelism in deviance of deviance, see Intergenerational
bidirectional effects, 208 parallelism, of deviance
genetic influences, 210 deviance of, 1
inclusive models, 214 in deviant behavior, 57
measurement models, meaning of, 209 in disposition to deviance, 57
parent reports, 211 in divorce, 79
range of variables, 212 estimates of, 66
sociodemographic controls, 207 moderators of, 73–124
sociohistorical trends, 211 in negative self-feeling, 57
theoretical framework, 15–40
G Intergenerational parallelism, literature on
Genetic influences, 210 correlates of deviant behavior, 59
deviant patterns, 61
I Intergenerational parallelism, moderators
Inclusive models, 214 of, 89
Integrative theory, 29 deviant behavior, 90
application, 37 disposition to deviance, 98
applying an, 37–40 methodological, 75
Index 237
negative self-feelings, 107 Motivated deviance, 8

research literature on, 74, 77 Multigeneration prospective study,
substantive, 75 51–56
Intergenerational parallelism, of data collection, 51
deviance, 169 missing data, 52
retrospect and prospect, 193 multigroup analysis, 56
substantive findings, 195 statistical methods and latent variable
summary and conclusion, 195 model estimation, 55
Intergenerational parallelism in variable construction, 53
deviance, 59–72 variable nonnormality, 54
Intergenerational parallelism in deviant
behavior, 10 N
parental diagnosis and child Negative self-feelings, 70, 107, 152, 203
functioning, 10 common antecedents, 205
Intergenerational parallelism of deviance family conflict, 154
comparable developmental stages in G1 young adult stressful emotions, 152
studies of, 42–44 intervening processes, 205
independent sources of data on, 47–50 moderating variables, 204
mediators, common antecedents, moderators of intragenerational conti-
moderators, 45–47 nuity, 108
methodological limitations in research moderators of transgenerational conti-
on, 41–42 nuity, 115
a multigeneration prospective study negative social sanctions, 189
on, 50–55 social rejection, 187
prospective longitudinal studies of,
44–45 P
understanding of, 5–40 Parent reports, 211
Intergenerational replication, 1 Psychosocial phenomena, 1
Intergenerational transmission, 12–13
of abuse, 85 R
crude rates of, 73 Range of variables, 212
of divorce, 79
Intervening processes, 127 S
literature on, 128 Shared normative expectations, 7
Intragenerational causes, intergenerational Sociodemographic controls, 207
continuities of literature on, 158 Sociohistorical trends, 211
Socionormative systems, 1
M Structural equation modeling, 3
Measurement models, 209 Structural equation models, 140
Methodological limitations to intergener- Supportive G2 social context, 95
ational parallelism of deviance, 41
comparable developmental stages, 42 T
independent sources of data, 47 Transgenerational parallelism, 65
mediators, common antecedents,
moderators, 45 U
prospective longitudinal studies, 44 Unmotivated deviance, 9

The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH IN THE

THE ADDICTION-PRONE PERSONALITY

THE CYCLE OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

DRUG USE AND ETHNICITY IN EARLY ADOLESCENCE

DRUGS, CRIME, AND OTHER DEVIANT ADAPTATIONS

FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD IN THE VIETNAM ERA

PREMARITAL PREDICTION OF MARITAL QUALITY OR BREAKUP

RESILIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

IN SYNC WITH ADOLESCENCE

TAKING STOCK OF DELINQUENCY

The Cycle of Deviant Behavior

Library of Congress Control Number: 2006923502

ISBN-10: 0-387-32643-X e-ISBN 0-387-0-387-32644-8

Printed on acid-free paper.

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Printed in the United States of America. (SPI/SBA)

the next generation,

and the one after that,

To my wife, April, my family, and friends

This volume is about understanding the relationship between deviance

decreased (i.e., circumstances that express or increase dissimilar life expe-

between first- and second-generation deviance is conditional on a number

Part I Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Study

Part II The Conditional Nature of Intergenerational

Part III Decomposing Intergenerational Parallelism 125

Part IV Retrospect and Prospect 193

Part I introduces the intersection between two salient interests of social

be accounted for in terms of contextual continuities that have like out-

deviance in each generation. The models will be estimated employing

In broad terms, the purpose of this study is to contribute to an under-

the nature of the relationship between deviant behavior by a population of

Defining Deviance and Intergenerational Parallelism

The terms deviance and intergenerational parallelism are rife with

The Nature of Deviance

another group from whose perspective the judgment of deviance is made.

In some cases, individuals whose behaviors or attributes appear to

rather than habitual) stems from the need to conform to internalized

behavior might be stronger for first-generation stigmatized groups that

In summary, the studies reviewed examining the functioning of the offspring

For present purposes, a more general construct of deviant behavior is

The degree to which one generation reproduces or is reproduced by

The longstanding concern over generational conflict and continuity may be

Others have observed as well that the generations are continually

Parents invest prodigious amounts of time, energy, and material resources in

Thus, we observe a good deal of intergenerational continuity manifest in

...there is the process of generational turnover and replacement. This implies

The significance of events at any time and in any place is measured

is employed in order to avoid prejudging the nature of the mechanisms

This latter phenomenon reflects intergenerational continuities.

our purpose here is to examine the conditions under which intergenera-

Nevertheless, our purpose here is to examine the conditions under which

The 23% rate of intergenerational transmission found in this study is compa-

The remainder of this volume is devoted to describing, elaborating, and

Guiding Theoretical Framework

Several different theoretical frameworks have been employed to

Diversity of Explanatory Frameworks

Explanations of intergenerational parallelism of deviance or its cor-

Socialization is one important mechanism that may produce an association

Social control theories have also been implicated in explanations of

The relevance of social stress-related variables are frequently noted

Two consequences of early childbearing produce undesirable family circum-

While attenuating social controls, a disposition to spend more time away

...modern formulations of labeling theory are oddly silent on...the occurrence