P1: GMX

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2003 (°
C 2003)

School Bonding in Children and Adolescents:

Conceptualization, Assessment, and Associated Variables

Samuel J. Maddox1,2 and Ronald J. Prinz1

School bonding refers to the “connections” that youth have with their schools and various
aspects of their academic lives. School bonding may be an important concept in prevention
because it has been linked to various developmental and adjustment outcomes. This paper
reviews conceptualizations, measurements, and theories of school bonding. Also considered
are empirical studies that have linked school bonding to a variety of outcomes (substance
use, delinquency, antisocial behavior, self-esteem). The review includes examination of how
school bonding serves as a mediator in these relations and, in turn, is moderated by other
variables. Despite inconsistencies in conceptualization and measurement, it is concluded that
school bonding is an important construct and an appropriate target for intervention. Recom-
mendations are offered regarding future research on school bonding, especially with respect
to positive developmental outcomes and examination of variables that might moderate school
bonding.
KEY WORDS: school bonding; children; adolescents; social development model; delinquency; substance
use.

This paper reviews theoretical and empirical
work on school bonding. Generally, school bond-
ing refers to the connection a student has with
their school, the school personnel, and the aca-
demic ideals espoused by the school. School bond-
ing may be important in prevention for two signifi-
cant reasons. First, theory and research have linked
poor school bonding to a variety of life outcomes.
Specifically, research has shown that students with
poor school bonding have higher rates of delin-
quency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Farnworth,
Schweinhart, & Beurueta-Clement, 1985; Figueira-
McDonough, 1987; Free, 1994; Hirschi, 1969; Liska &
Reed, 1985; O’Donnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995;
Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999;
Wiatrowski & Anderson, 1987; Wiatrowski, Hansell,
Massey, & Wilson, 1982; Zhang & Messner, 1996),
substance use (Eggert, Thompson, Herting, Nicholas,
& Dicker, 1994; Free, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1997;
1 University
of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
2 Address all correspondence to Samuel Maddox, Department
of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina 29208; e-mail: samjmaddox@aol.com.
Kleinman, Wish, Deren, & Rainone, 1986; Kumpfer
& Turner, 1990–1991; Mcgee, 1992; Murguia, Chen, &
Kaplan, 1998; O’Donnell et al., 1995; Pilgrim, Abbey,
Hendrickson, & Lorenz, 1998; Simons-Morton et al.,
1999; Valentine, Gottlieb, Keel, Griffith, & Ruthazer,
1998), school dropout (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992;
Crusto, 2000; Eggert et al., 1994; Keith, 1999), and teen
pregnancy (Danziger, 1995).
A second consideration is that school bonding
is a potentially malleable target for intervention. Re-
search has shown that school environment and ex-
periences are important factors in promoting or in-
hibiting school bonding (Eggert et al., 1994; Pilgrim
et al., 1998). Programs that modify the school en-
vironment may influence levels of school bonding
(Eggert & Kumpfer, 1997). Through modification of
the school environment, the promotion of school
bonding has the potential to impact multiple prob-
lem areas for an entire school population. Ide-
ally school bonding can be enhanced at a univer-
sal level via school-wide programming (Berryhill &
Prinz, in press). Based on these reasons, a clear
understanding of the concept of school bonding,
its links to other behaviors, and ways in which

31
1096-4037/03/0300-0031/0 °
C 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
32
it is influenced can contribute to the field of
prevention.
WAYS SCHOOL BONDING IS DEFINED
Hirschi’s social control theory was one of the first
comprehensive conceptualizations of school bond-
ing (Hirschi, 1996). In the book entitled Causes of
Delinquency, Hirschi (1969) discussed the different
types of social bonds that individuals have with so-
ciety including the family, peers, and school. He ini-
tially outlined four elements of social bonds: attach-
ment, commitment, involvement, and belief (Hirschi,
1969). This framework has been revised by others
(e.g., Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Wiatrowski &
Anderson, 1987) over time to fit theoretical paradigms
and to increase construct validity.
One change supported in the school bonding
literature is the separation of attachment into two
unique dimensions (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992;
Murray & Greenberg, 2000, 2001), one focusing on
general school experiences and the other focusing on
experiences with people in the school. Murray and
Greenberg (2000, 2001) conducted principal compo-
nent analyses and found that items referring to posi-
tive school experiences loaded separately from items
referring to the teacher–student relationship. Sim-
ilarly, Cernkovich and Giordano (1992) conducted
factor analyses on their school bonding scale, which
produced two unique attachment dimensions: attach-
ment to school and attachment to teachers. These pa-
pers provide empirical evidence that Hirschi’s orig-
inal dimension of attachment actually contains two
unique dimensions. Accordingly, this review focuses
on the dimensions attachment to school, attachment
to personnel, school commitment, and school involve-
ment. The construct of school belief is subsumed un-
der school commitment because of low empirical sup-
port as an independent dimension (Cernkovich &
Giordano, 1992; Williams, 1994).
Attachment to School
One of the dimensions of school bonding is at-
tachment to school, which refers to feelings about the
school and the degree to which youth care about it
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992). This dimension ap-
plies only to a youth’s feelings about the actual insti-
tution itself and not to feelings about the educators,
staff, or administrators, at the school. Feelings in this
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
dimension include a sense of belonging, feeling pride
in the institution, and feeling safe and comfortable at
the institution.
Attachment to Personnel
Another dimension is attachment to personnel,
which refers to the interpersonal connections experi-
enced by youth as reflected in their respect, regard,
and admiration for the educators, staff, and adminis-
tration (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992). This dimen-
sion encompasses the positive relationships students
have at the institution. Cernkovich and Giordano
(1992) referred to this concept as attachment to teach-
ers but it is expanded here to include administra-
tors, coaches, counselors, custodians, mentors, and
other school personnel. Peers are not included be-
cause they represent a qualitatively different social
bond (Hirschi, 1969). Examples of attachment to per-
sonnel include caring about school personnel, feel-
ing supported by school personnel, and feeling un-
derstood by school personnel.
School Commitment
School commitment refers to personal invest-
ment in school activities and the priority the school
holds for youth. Highly committed students accept the
goals, norms, and morals of the school (Cernkovich
& Giordano, 1992; Free, 1994; Hirschi, 1969; Mcgee,
1992; Simons-Morton et al., 1999; Wiatrowski &
Anderson, 1987). This dimension is a combination of
beliefs (Hirschi, 1969) and behaviors: beliefs about
future achievement and getting good grades, and be-
haviors such as homework completion and studying
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992).
School Involvement
School involvement is defined by behavioral
participation in school activities, which is usually
represented in terms of behavioral frequencies (e.g.,
number of football games attended, or number of
hours in extracurricular activities) and endorsement
of involvement (e.g., club membership). It repre-
sents a temporal component of school attachment
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992). Although attach-
ment refers to the affective connection a student
has to the institution, school involvement refers
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
to a behavioral or demonstrable connection to the
institution.
Differentiation From Related Constructs
Related to school bonding are several concepts,
such as achievement motivation, motivation to learn
and attitude toward school. Achievement motivation
is defined as an individual’s desire to excel (Balk,
1995; Grotevant & Thorbecke, 1982; Santrock, 1996;
Woolfolk, 1995). It can be broken down into four
components (Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000;
Grotevant & Thorbecke, 1982). First is mastery, which
is a preference for difficult and challenging tasks. Sec-
ond is competitiveness, which is the desire to prevail
over others. Third is work, which refers to the desire
to exert effort to achieve. Finally, personal unconcern
is the lack of concern about the approval of others.
Although the last component might seem negative, it
is important because it reduces fear of failure or em-
barrassment, which means that the individual takes
more risks and has more opportunities to achieve.
Although there are some similarities between
the concepts of school bonding and achievement mo-
tivation, they are distinct. School bonding is more
comprehensive focusing on the student’s affect (at-
tachment), cognition (commitment), and behavior
(involvement), whereas achievement motivation fo-
cuses mainly on preferences and desires. The settings
for the school bonding versus achievement motivation
are also different. Although achievement motivation
can apply to many different settings (i.e., work, school,
sports, etc.), school bonding applies only to the school
itself. Thus, in regards to focus and settings, school
bonding and achievement motivation can be viewed
as distinct constructs.
Another related concept is student motivation
to learn. This can be defined as a tendency to find
academic activities worthwhile and a desire to gain
knowledge from them (Brophy, 1988). Motivation to
learn includes components such as planning, focus-
ing, identifying the knowledge desired, active search
for new information, pride in achievement, clear per-
ceptions of feedback, and an absence of fear of failure
(Brophy, 1988). Motivation to learn is related perhaps
to school commitment, but it does not adequately in-
corporate the other components of school bonding
such as attachment to school and personnel and school
involvement. The inclusion of these other dimen-
sions sets school bonding apart from motivation to
learn.
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
33
Attitude toward school is another construct that
is similar to school bonding. Meier and McDaniel
(1974) developed a measure of attitude toward
school and divided the construct into attitude to-
ward schoolwork, attitude toward teachers, and at-
titude toward school in general. Similarly, the Be-
havior Assessment System for Children (Reynolds
& Kamphaus, 1998) contains two scales within its
school maladjustment factors that are reflective of
attitude toward school. The scales are called “at-
titude toward school” and “attitude toward teach-
ers.” The “attitude toward school” scale measures
the youth’s opinion about the utility of school and
his/her comfort with school matters (Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 1998). The “attitude toward teachers”
scale indicates the youth’s level of regard for teachers
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998). Based on both con-
ceptualizations of the construct (Meier & McDaniel,
1974; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998), there are sig-
nificant points of overlap between school bonding
and attitude toward school. Attitude toward school
contains similar elements as attachment to school,
school commitment, and attachment to personnel,
but it lacks a behavioral component such as school
involvement.
THEORIES OF SCHOOL BONDING
Control Theory
Social control theory or social bonding theory
was originally proposed by Hirschi (1969) to explain
the causes of delinquency. The prevailing crimino-
logical theories at that time focused on what moti-
vated individuals to violate laws. Social control the-
ory took an opposite approach by focusing on what
prevented individuals from violating laws. The first
approach assumes that individuals are moral beings
that are pushed into deviant acts, whereas the latter
asserts that individuals are inherently immoral beings
that are restrained from deviant acts by some method
of control. Hirschi (1969) conceptualized this method
of control as bonds to conventional society. He ar-
gued that the only reason people go against their in-
herent immoral nature and conform to the rules of
society is because of bonds they have with either a
person or an institution that promotes conformity.
When people are poorly bonded or bonded to per-
sons or institutions (gangs) that do not support con-
formity then they will act upon their inherent immoral
tendencies.
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
34
Conceptualization of School Bonding
As noted earlier, school bonding as conceptual-
ized by Hirschi (1969) contained the dimensions of
attachment, commitment, beliefs, and involvement.
More than in other theories, school bonding plays
a central role in control theory. First, control theory
offered the first comprehensive conceptualization of
school bonding. Secondly, control theory identified
the lack of school bonding as a major cause for de-
viant behavior.
Revision of Social Control Theory
Control theory has been expanded over the years
and has enjoyed successful integrations with other
theories making it more inclusive and theoretically
heuristic (Akers & Cochran, 1985; Sommers, Fagan,
& Baskin, 1994). One major revision was the inclusion
of self-control as a restraining force (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990; Taylor, 2001). In this version of control
theory, called self-control theory, poor school bonding
is not seen as a causal factor for delinquency, but as an
outcome of low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi,
1990). Specifically, self-control theory asserts that low
self-control, characterized by impulsivity, a lack of
sensitivity to others, risk-seeking, and poor decision-
making skills, causes an individual to engage in de-
viant behavior. In addition, Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) suggest that such individuals are unable to form
strong social bonds due to low self-control. There-
fore, a student with low self-control will not only ex-
hibit deviant behavior but also have difficulty bond-
ing to school (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nagin &
Paternoster, 1993; Taylor, 2001). Therefore, the rela-
tion between poor school bonding and deviant behav-
ior is said to be spurious—both are manifestations of
low self-control. (Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, &
Benson, 1997; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nagin &
Paternoster, 1993; Paternoster & Brame, 2000; Pratt
& Cullen, 2000; Taylor, 2001).
Difference in School Bonding
The two versions of control theory differ consid-
erably in their conceptualization of the role school
bonding plays in deviant behavior. Social control the-
ory asserts that poor school bonding contributes to de-
viant behavior whereas self-control theory asserts that
poor school bonding is a manifestation of poor self-
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
control (Evans et al., 1997; Gottfredson & Hirschi,
1990). This difference has clear implications for pre-
vention (Junger & Tremblay, 1999; Zhang, Welte, &
Wieczorek, 2002). Social control theory suggests that
interventions promoting social bonds are appropriate
for the prevention of deviant behavior (Hirschi, 1969).
In contrast, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), based on
their general theory of crime, recommend preventive
interventions that promote self-control or remove the
appeal of deviant behavior that easily tempts individ-
uals with low self-control.
Reconciliation of Hirschi’s Two Theories
Although Hirschi abandoned his original social
control theory in favor of a general theory of crime
also referred to as self-control theory (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990), the two theories are not completely in-
compatible (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Taylor, 2001). Even
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) recognized that direct
social control (attachments to parents, teachers, etc.)
can promote self-control through monitoring, rein-
forcement, and punishment (Pratt & Cullen, 2000).
Based on this reasoning external and internal con-
trols interact to promote or prevent deviant behavior
(Taylor, 2001).
Empirical Support for Control Theory
There has been widespread empirical support
for social control theory. Cernkovich and Giordano
(1992) examined how school bonding affected delin-
quent behaviors of African American and Caucasian
youth in schools with different racial composition.
Their results were generally supportive of control
theory and suggest that it is invariant across racial
boundaries. Wade and Brannigan (1998) tested con-
trol theory constructs on adolescent risk-taking be-
haviors and found support for the inhibitory effect of
prosocial bonds. High levels of bonding to prosocial
others led to decreases in risk-taking behavior.
Integration With Other Theories
Some studies have supported an integration of
control theory variables with variables from social
learning theory. According to social learning the-
ory, deviant behavior is learned and maintained be-
cause it is reinforced through rewards from the
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
social environment (Williams, 1994). This process is
referred to as socialization. Sommers et al. (1994)
tested an integrated model of Puerto Rican delin-
quency that included the tenets of control theory
(i.e., social bonding), social learning theory (social-
ization), and the sociocultural variables acculturation
and familism. Their control theory variables consisted
of family attachment, school commitment, and con-
ventional beliefs. Association with delinquent peers
was their social learning theory variable. Their sam-
ple consisted of 1,077 Puerto Rican males between
the ages of 11 and 19 (mean = 15.6 years) residing
in the South Bronx. They found significant effects
on reports of delinquency for both control theory
and social learning theory variables. Specifically fam-
ily attachment, school commitment, and conventional
beliefs were negatively associated with delinquency,
whereas delinquent peer association had a positive re-
lationship to delinquency. Sommers et al. (1994) con-
cluded that control and social learning theories were
complementary.
Akers and Cochran (1985) also supported this
view in their study comparing social learning theory,
control theory, and strain theory. Strain theory as-
serts that delinquency occurs when youth are unable
to achieve their goals through legitimate channels.
Akers and Cochran (1985) chose dependent variables
for each theory and modeled them for adolescent mar-
ijuana use. Their results showed moderate support for
control theory as an independent model (explaining
30% of variance). The unique variance of control the-
ory disappeared, however, when combined with the
social learning model. They suggested that the sim-
ilarities between the constructs in control and social
learning theories might explain these results. Minimal
support was found for strain theory.
Developmental Considerations
Control theory in its original conceptualization
was most applicable to understanding adolescent de-
viant behavior. It lacked developmental considera-
tions about how bonds progressed from childhood
through adolescence. These considerations were later
addressed by another prominent theory.
Social Development Model
The social development model is an extension of
control theory that also asserts that bonds to proso-
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
35
cial others inhibit delinquency and problem behav-
iors. It goes beyond social control theory by identi-
fying three factors that are essential in establishing
social bonds: opportunities for involvement, skills for
involvement, and reinforcement for the involvement
(Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Hawkins et al., 1992;
Hawkins & Lishner, 1987; O’Donnell et al., 1995).
Opportunities for involvement refers to the youth’s
potential to interact with others through the avenue
of activities, clubs, etc. Skills for involvement refers
to social skills that allow the youth to establish and
maintain social relationships. Finally, reinforcement
for involvement refers to rewards and incentives pre-
sented to the youth for initiating and maintaining
involvement in a particular social unit (Hawkins &
Lishner, 1987). The assumption in the social develop-
ment model is that involvement is the key dimension
that influences bonding. In the model, involvement is
a prerequisite for establishing social bonds. Without
a sufficient level of involvement, the individual will
not be able to establish a bond within that social unit
(Hawkins & Lishner, 1987).
In addition to identifying factors necessary for es-
tablishing bonds, the social development model also
extends control theory by attempting to explain sub-
stance use and other antisocial behaviors (Catalano
& Hawkins, 1996; Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins,
Newcomb, & Abbott, 1996; Hawkins et al., 1992,
1997; Hawkins & Lishner, 1987). The model also
offers a clear developmental perspective identifying
unique processes for preschool, elementary, middle,
and high school youth (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
These unique processes are discussed in a later sec-
tion. Finally, the social development model exam-
ines protective as well as risk factors (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996). These differences allow the social
development model to emerge as an integrated the-
ory that captures essential elements of past theories
in criminology (especially control and social learning
theories).
Conceptualization of School Bonding
Because of its linkages to control theory, school
bonding also plays a major role in the social develop-
ment model, however, the conceptualization is differ-
ent from Hirschi (1969). In control theory, the social
bond consists of attachment, commitment, involve-
ment, and belief. In the social development model,
involvement is no longer conceptualized as part of the
social bond but is seen as a mechanism for establishing
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
36
social bonds. As a result, involvement is not viewed as
a dimension of school bonding; rather, it is viewed as a
precursor. Thus, the school bond only includes attach-
ment, commitment, and belief (Catalano & Hawkins,
1996). An additional distinction between control the-
ory and the social development model is that control
theory only focused on adolescent behavior whereas
the social development model provides a framework
from preschool through adolescence.
Empirical Support for the Social Development Model
Like control theory, there is widespread support
for the social development model. Catalano et al.
(1996) examined the utility of the social development
model constructs measured at age 13–14 to predict
17–18-year-old substance use. Results confirmed the
hypothesized relationship between prosocial bond-
ing and 17–18-year-old substance use. The analyses
suggested that prosocial bonds might change slowly
through experiences of opportunities, involvement,
and rewards (Catalano et al., 1996). These results sup-
port the validity of social development model con-
structs in substance use. Similarly, Ayers et al. (1999)
evaluated the social development model constructs
and found that they were significantly associated with
changes in delinquency and, O’Donnell et al. (1995)
tested constructs from the social development model
on delinquency and substance use and confirmed its
utility in explaining both. Overall, there is strong sup-
port emerging for the social development model as
an explanation of deviant behavior superior even to
control theory (Williams, Ayer, Abbot, Hawkins, &
Catalano, 1999).
Developmental Considerations
Although control theory is unclear about de-
velopmental issues, the social development model
explicitly states its developmental considerations.
The model asserts that each developmental period
provides different opportunities for social involve-
ment (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Hawkins & Lish-
ner, 1987). Because of developmental limitations,
preschool children have fewer opportunities to be in-
volved in school and peer social units (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996). During the preschool years, the fam-
ily unit is the most important socializing force and
allows children to develop the skills necessary for in-
teraction in other social units.
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
As the children enter school (elementary school
period), both the family and the school are impor-
tant socializing forces that teach the youth skills nec-
essary for his/her next major social unit, peers. It is
during the middle school period where the peer social
unit greatly increases. During this stage, several forces
(family, school, and peers) are exerting influences on
the youth (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Although the
influence of one social unit will impact the others (e.g.,
prosocial family bonds could lead to prosocial school
bonds, which could both lead to prosocial peer bonds),
this relationship is not invariant.
Middle school is a major social transition in which
opportunities for both prosocial and antisocial in-
volvement increases. There is a possibility that family,
school, and peer bonds can conflict with each other.
A middle school student with prosocial family and
school bonds could still have antisocial peer bonds
due to the increased opportunities for interactions
with antisocial peers. This suggests that relying upon
strong family and school bonds during earlier peri-
ods to lay the foundation to prevent later antisocial
behavior without maintaining them through later de-
velopmental periods is not sufficient. The importance
of family, school, and now, peer bonds continue to re-
main important throughout high school (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996).
During the high school period, peers and com-
munity exert their strongest influence as a socializ-
ing force. Opportunities for interaction with peers
and community members increase significantly due
to increased independence during high school. High
school students date, have access to cars, have a later
curfew, and receive less supervision than they do in
earlier stages of development, which all have the po-
tential to increase their exposure to and interaction
with antisocial peers and adults. However, family and
school bonds continue to serve as socializing forces
and it is important to promote them throughout high
school (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
Other Theories and Perspectives
Other theories recognizing the importance of
school bonding have emerged in the literature.
Kumpfer and Turner (1990–91) developed the social
ecology model to explain adolescent substance abuse.
This model extends the social development model by
including environmental factors such as family cli-
mate and school climate and individual factors such
as self-esteem and self-efficacy (Kumpfer & Turner,
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
1990–1991). Fraser (1996) outlined an ecological-
developmental perspective that is similar to the
social development model, but emphasizes the recip-
rocal nature of social interaction skills and opportuni-
ties for involvement. Fraser (1996) argued that social
skills are not only affected by external exogenous fac-
tors, hypothesized in the social development model,
but are also affected by opportunities for prosocial
involvement (Fraser, 1996). For example, elementary
school students who are aggressive may not be al-
lowed to play with certain peers, may be suspended
from school, and may be excluded from activities
with nonimmediate family members (e.g., not allowed
to stay overnight at a relative’s house). These youth
will then lose opportunities to develop social skills
through their interactions with prosocial peers, teach-
ers, and relatives. Based on this perspective, the posi-
tive, socializing forces available to these youths have
been removed because of their antisocial behavior
(Fraser, 1996).
MEASUREMENT OF SCHOOL BONDING
Scales and Procedures
Hirschi (1969) originally conceptualized school
bonding as a multidimensional construct. Cernkovich
and Giordano (1992) operationalize school bond-
ing as a combination of attachment, performance,
involvement, and commitment; however, many re-
searchers only use one or two variables to rep-
resent the construct. This practice creates a prob-
lem in school bonding research because inadequate
measurement can lead to erroneous, if not null
findings.
A number of measurement methods have
been used for school bonding including self-report
(Murray & Greenberg, 2000, 2001), teacher report
(Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), and structured interviews
(Danziger, 1995). Self-report is the most often used
method in the assessment of school bonding. More
common self-report measures include the Effective
School Battery (Gottfrdson, 1984), the What About
You scales (Gottfredson & Gottfedson, 1999), an
adaptation of the People In My life Scale (Murray
& Greenberg, 2000, 2001), and the Psychological
Sense of School Membership Scale (Goodenow,
1993). Discussion of the scales will focus on the di-
mensions assessed and the depth and complexity of
assessment.
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
37
Effective School Battery
Gottfredson (1984) developed two standardized
scales that assess school bonding, the Effective School
Battery and What About You scales. The Effective
School Battery (ESB; Gottfredson, 1984) is a 118-item
measure of school climate and its outcomes. The scales
of the ESB fall into two categories: measures of psy-
chosocial climate and measures of population char-
acteristics. There is a separate inventory for teach-
ers and students. The scales of the ESB that contain
school bonding related items are located within the
student inventory and include Educational Expecta-
tion, Social Integration, Attachment to School, Belief
in Rules, and School Effort. Attachment to School and
Social Integration capture the affective dimensions of
school bonding. Educational Expectation and Belief
in Rules capture the commitment dimension. School
Effort captures both school involvement and commit-
ment. Thus, the ESB captures, at some level, all four
dimensions of school bonding.
The 1-year retest reliabilities of the ESB are
modest. Educational Expectation had reliabilities of
.48 and .41 for males and females, respectively. The
retest reliabilities for Social Integration were some-
what lower: .33 for males and .39 for females. Attach-
ment to School had a retest reliability of .53 for males
and .46 for females. The retest reliabilities for Belief
in Conventional Rules were .38 and .40 for males and
females, respectively. Finally School Effort produced
a retest reliability of .46 for males and .40 for females
(Gottfredson, 1984).
What About You Scales
The What About You (WAY) scales
(Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1999) measures
risk and protective factors for problem behavior,
substance use, and general well-being via student
report. The scales that capture school bonding
dimensions are Attachment to School, Commit-
ment to Education, Belief in Rules, Educational
Self-efficacy Expectations, and Social Integration.
The WAY scales sufficiently assess attachment to
school and personnel and commitment to educa-
tion, but they do not adequately capture school
involvement. Although school involvement is not
assessed, the WAY scales seem to do well in cap-
turing the richness and complexity of other school
bonding dimensions. The WAY scales have shown
adequate internal consistency (see Gottfredson &
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
38
Gottfredson, 1999). Based on the conceptualization
and psychometric properties, the ESB and WAY
scales have potential as a measure of school bonding;
however, this is not the major aim of these scales.
Adapted People In My Life Scale
Murray and Greenberg (2000, 2001) adapted
the existing People In My Life scale (PIML; Cook,
Greenberg, & Kusche, 1995) to assess school bond-
ing in fifth and sixth grade students. Their adapta-
tion of the measure produced four factors: Affiliation
with Teachers (α = .88), Dissatisfaction with Teacher
(α = .66), Bonds with School (α = .80), and School
Dangerousness (α = .60). Their studies found that
the adapted measure had significant correlations with
outcomes hypothesized to be related to school bond-
ing (i.e., antisocial behavior and delinquency). These
relationships suggest good construct validity for the
adapted PIML.
Based on its psychometric properties the adapted
PIML (Murray & Greenberg, 2000, 2001) is a poten-
tially good measure of school bonding, however, there
is some concern about how it taps the full construct
of school bonding. The four factors that emerged dur-
ing the analyses of the scale only reflect the attach-
ment dimensions of school bonding. The involvement
and commitment dimensions, which have received
both theoretical and empirical support (Cernkovich
& Giordano, 1992), are not included. The absence of
these dimensions reduces enthusiasm for the PIML
as a comprehensive measure of school bonding.
The Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale
The final measure reviewed here is the Psycho-
logical Sense of School Membership scale (PSSM;
Goodenow, 1993). The measure was created out of
the concern about the lack of psychometrically sound
measures of school belonging. School belonging is
defined as the degree to which a student feels ac-
cepted and included within the school (Goodenow,
1993). Goodenow (1993) piloted the PSSM on a sam-
ple of suburban middle school students. In a second
phase, she administered the measure to two urban
junior high schools. Based on analyses from these
two phases the PSSM was reduced to 18 items re-
flecting perceived liking, personal acceptance, inclu-
sion, and teacher and peer responses. Reliabilities
of the PSSM ranged from .77 to .88 across samples.
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
Goodenow (1993) found significant effects for rat-
ings of social standing on the PSSM, which offers
some support for the construct validity of the mea-
sure. Like the adapted PIML measure, the PSSM lacks
items reflecting involvement and commitment. Be-
cause her purpose was to only measure belongingness,
Goodenow (1993) did not include such items. There-
fore, the psychometric properties of the PSSM suggest
that it is a reliable and valid measure of school belong-
ing but its absence of key dimensions (involvement
and commitment) limits its potential as a measure of
school bonding.
Improving the Measurement of School Bonding
Wide variations in measurement of school bond-
ing make it difficult to evaluate the research. A large
part of these differences arises from the fact that there
are few measures devoted exclusively to school bond-
ing. Its measurement is usually derived from items
that are part of a larger measure. Consequently, the
focus has been on assessing an aspect of school bond-
ing as part of a larger matrix of constructs rather than
on fully assessing school bonding per se.
A major improvement would be the creation and
validation of a measure devoted primarily to school
bonding. Although this task is large and most re-
searchers would rather use part of an existing mea-
sure, the creation of a reliable and valid school bond-
ing measure would potentially improve the quality of
research in this area through more comprehensive as-
sessment.
Another way to improve school-bonding mea-
surement would be to develop age-related measures.
Presumably, preadolescent facets of school bonding
differ developmentally from school bonding in ado-
lescents. Ideally, measures would be robust across age
groups, but it is more likely that separate measures
are needed to capture developmental/contextual dif-
ferences.
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES OF SCHOOL
BONDING
Substance Use
School bonding, or lack thereof, may have a re-
lation to youth substance use (e.g., alcohol use, smok-
ing, marijuana, LSD, cocaine). Based on control the-
ory and the social development model, high levels
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
of school bonding are expected to delay the initi-
ation and reduce the likelihood of substance use.
Throughout the literature, there is consistent support
for this notion (Catalano et al., 1996; Eggert et al.,
1994; Eggert & Kumpfer, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1997;
O’Donnell et al., 1995). School bonding has even been
the focus of some drug prevention programs.
A study by Eggert et al. (1994) confirmed
the hypothesized relation between school bonding
and substance use. They attempted to prevent sub-
stance use and school dropout through an intensive
school based program with 259 subjects from four
urban Northwest High Schools. The experimental
group (n = 101) completed a one-semester personal
growth program that promoted social network sup-
port and school bonding. Data collected from students
at preintervention, 5-month postintervention, and a
10-month follow-up showed that school bonding
steadily increased in the experimental group. Results
also showed a reduction in drug use and a significant
decrease in drug control problems and consequences.
Such findings support the hypothesized relation be-
tween school bonding and substance use (Eggert
et al., 1994). Further support for the relation of school
bonding to substance use comes from Murguia et al.
(1998) who found that perception of teacher’s accep-
tance had a significant, negative correlation with prior
drug involvement, drug using peers, and recent drug
involvement for non-Hispanic Whites.
Evaluation of the social development model has
also produced support for a relation between school
bonding and substance use (Catalano et al., 1996;
Hawkins et al., 1997; O’Donnell et al., 1995; Williams
et al., 1999). Williams et al. (1999) found that school
bonding had an indirect effect on substance use
through academic and social skills. Catalano et al.
(1996) and Hawkins et al. (1997) confirmed a rela-
tionship between school bonding and substance use at
age 17–18. O’Donnell et al. (1995) found that a higher
level of school bonding was associated with lack of
involvement in substance use. Other support for the
importance of school bonding in substance use comes
from the social ecology model (Kumpfer & Turner,
1990–1991), the Family In Action program (Pilgrim
et al., 1998), and Monitoring the Future data (Bryant,
Schulenberg, Bachman, O’Malley, & Johnston, 2000).
Delinquency
Since the relation of school bonding to delin-
quency was first specified (Hirschi, 1969), there have
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
39
been many studies that have continued to test this as-
sociation. Cernkovich and Giordano (1992) examined
how school bonding affected delinquent behaviors
of African American youth in schools with different
racial composition. The authors used a neighborhood
sample because students in school are more likely to
have higher levels of school bonding than those who
do not attend school regularly, have dropped out, or
who are in institutions. Based on a sample of 942 youth
ages 12–19 (51% female, 45% White) it was found that
school commitment, school involvement, and attach-
ment to school were significant predictors of delin-
quency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992).
Farnworth et al. (1985) examined data from the
Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project (PPP) that was de-
signed to reduce putative risk factors (e.g., academic
failure, lack of school bonds, etc.) for African Amer-
ican children ages 3 and 4. The purpose of the study
was to test the assumption by Hirschi (1969) that low
ability decreases school success and, in turn, school
bonding, which subsequently results in delinquency.
IQ was assessed prior to entry in the preschool inter-
vention. School experiences (academic achievement
and school bonding variables) were assessed through-
out elementary school. Delinquency, assessed when
participants were 15, was combined into four factors:
dishonesty, escape, aggression, and group/gang activ-
ity. The results of the study revealed that attachment
to school had its strongest relation to escape behavior
whereas school commitment was related to dishon-
est and aggressive delinquency. Contrary to Hirschi’s
hypothesis (Hirschi, 1969), this relationship was inde-
pendent of academic failure (Farnworth et al., 1985).
In addition, Farnworth et al. (1985) found that higher
preschool IQ was related to higher levels of delin-
quency at age 15. These results suggest that school
bonding is important in explaining delinquency inde-
pendent of IQ.
Beyond substance abuse, the Seattle Social De-
velopment Project also produced support for the
relation between school bonding and delinquency
(Ayers et al., 1999; O’Donnell et al., 1995). Ayers
et al. (1999) found that school bonding was signifi-
cantly associated with changes in delinquency regard-
less of gender. Their study consisted of 566 partici-
pants (male = 52%) including White (48%), African
American (23%), Asian American (18%), and other
ethnic groups (9%). Data collected at ages 12–13 and
14–15 showed that participants who desisted in crime
from Time 1 to Time 2 were more strongly bonded in
regards to attachment and commitment. O’Donnell,
et al. (1995) found, as with substance use, higher
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
40
levels of school bonding were associated with a lack
of involvement in delinquent behavior. Support for
this relation has been found in other studies as well
(Figueira-McDonough, 1983; Sommers et al., 1994;
Zhang & Messner, 1996).
In contrast to the substance abuse literature, the
delinquency literature has more conflicting findings.
Hoffmann and Miller (1998) collected data via the
Family Health Study with 795 youth, ages 11–17,
examining negative life events, family attachments,
school performance, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and
delinquency (property and violent offenses). Signif-
icant paths between school bonding and delinquency
did not emerge, nor did their exclusion change the
parameters of the model challenging the hypothesis
that school bonding has a significant negative relation
with delinquency (Hoffmann & Miller, 1998).
Data from the Youth in Transition study also
challenge the expected relation. The Youth in Tran-
sition study is a nationally representative stratified
sample of high school males. Initial data (Time 1)
was collected on 2,213 White and Black males en-
tering 10th grade. Four subsequent waves of inter-
views were conducted at 11th grade (Time 2), prior
to graduation (Time 3), 1-year postgraduation (Time
4), and 5 years after graduation (Time 5; Wiatrowski
et al., 1982). Data collected included academic and
ability tests, reports of delinquent behavior, measures
of school experiences, self-perception, values, expec-
tations, and demographic information.
Using data from the first four waves of the study,
Wiatrowski et al. (1982) examined the effect of cur-
riculum tracking on delinquency. In their model self-
esteem, academic achievement, expectations, and at-
tachment to school at Time 1 were predicted to affect
curriculum placement at Time 2. Curriculum place-
ment at Time 2 should affect academic achievement,
self-esteem, and attachment to school at Time 3, which
should in turn affect Delinquency at Time 3 and Time
4. Their results only marginally supported the rela-
tion between attachment to school and delinquency.
One possible explanation offered is that many of the
observed variables may have had their effect before
Time 1 or 10th grade (Wiatrowski et al., 1982). There-
fore, the significant but modest relations that were
obtained might have been stronger if assessed earlier
or perhaps with a cross-sequential design.
Wiatrowski and Anderson (1987) attempted to
model social bonds and adolescent delinquency using
data from only the first wave of the Youth in Transition
study (Time 1; 2,213 males), but school bonding was
again found to be minimally useful in predicting delin-
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
quency. Liska and Reed (1985) also examined the
Youth in Transition study (Time 1 and Time 2) using a
sample of 1,886 respondents (White = 82%, African
American = 12%). They found that, for Caucasians,
parental attachment affected delinquency more than
school bonding. Thus for Caucasians, school bonding
appeared to be more of an outcome of delinquency
than a predictor. For African Americans in the sam-
ple, delinquency was an outcome of school bonding
and parental attachment.
Despite the conflicting findings, the hypothesis
about the importance of school bonding in delin-
quency might remain tenable for a few reasons.
First, the studies were not comparable in the way
school bonding was conceptualized or measured,
which might have accounted for inconsistent patterns.
Second, although sometimes modest, a relationship
between school bonding and delinquency appears to
be present. Third, the measures used to assess school
bonding, often relying on a small number of items,
may have insufficiently captured the breadth of school
bonding. A continued focus on the relation between
delinquency and school bonding with careful atten-
tion to measurement and conceptualization is recom-
mended.
Academic Performance
Academic performance is an important outcome
to consider because of its predictive relations with
other life outcomes (Farnworth et al., 1985; Figueira-
McDonough, 1983; Fraser, 1996). Hirschi (1969) hy-
pothesized that school bonding has a direct effect on
achievement. Testing of a substance use model by
Williams et al. (1999) revealed that school bonding
was directly related to academic skills. Wiatrowski
et al. (1982) supported this hypothesis in their re-
search examining the effect of curriculum tracking in
the Youth in Transition study. They tested a structural
model of curriculum influences on achievement using
a variety of interview and survey instruments. School
bonding and academic performance (grades) were as-
sessed in 10th grade and again in 12th grade. School
bonding in 10th grade was significantly related to aca-
demic performance in 12th grade, which supports a
predictive relation between school bonding and aca-
demic performance.
Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg (2001)
found that teacher responsiveness, teacher control,
and school responsiveness were related to aca-
demic competence, motivation, and achievement. The
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
variables teacher responsiveness and teacher control
contained items that were reflective of the teacher–
student relationship (i.e., attachment to teacher).
School responsiveness referred to the student’s per-
ception of their school as a nurturing environment.
Their path model revealed that teacher responsive-
ness had direct effects on academic competence
and perceived motivation and an indirect effect
on achievement through competence and motiva-
tion. School responsiveness had an indirect effect on
achievement through motivation. Teacher control had
no direct or indirect effects in their model (Marchant,
Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001).
Overall, the research suggests that there is a re-
lation between school bonding and academic per-
formance (Learner & Kruger, 1997; Lopez, Ehly,
& Garcia-Vazquez, 2002; Marchant et al., 2001;
Wiatrowski et al., 1982; Williams et al., 1999). This re-
lation is important for intervention efforts. Academic
performance presumably could be increased through
the promotion of school bonding. A drug prevention
program by Eggert et al. (1994), which strengthened
school bonding, also increased GPA and perceptions
of school performance and reduced absenteeism.
Antisocial Behaviors
Control theory originally conceptualized delin-
quency as the primary adverse outcome of low bond-
ing. The social development model focused on the
broader category, antisocial behaviors, as an outcome
variable (Catalano et al., 1996; Hawkins et al., 1992;
O’Donnell et al., 1995; Williams et al., 1999). Anti-
social behaviors can be described as those behaviors
that have the potential to negatively affect the so-
cial unit (e.g., aggression, noncompliance, disruptive-
ness). Although delinquency is logically subsumed
under antisocial behavior, there are studies that ex-
amine antisocial behavior apart from delinquency
(Blankmeyer, Flannery, & Vazsonyi, 2002; Demaray
& Malecki, 2002; Malecki & Demaray, 2002; Murray
& Greenberg, 2000, 2001; Welsh, Greene, & Jenkins,
1999).
Theories have hypothesized that antisocial be-
havior is an outcome of poor school bonding; how-
ever, there are other studies that show that antisocial
behavior can be a precursor to poor school bonding
(Blankmeyer et al., 2002; Bryant et al., 2000). Bryant
et al. (2000) used two national panel samples from
the Monitoring the Future project (n = 3,2056) to ex-
amine school bonding, antisocial behavior at school,
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
41
academic performance, and cigarette use in 8th–12th
grade. Monitoring the Future is a nationally repre-
sentative survey project that has collected data on
12th grade students since 1975. In the early 1990s the
project expanded to collect data from 8th and 10th
grade students as well (Bryant et al., 2000).
Bryant et al. (2000) found that antisocial behav-
ior in eighth grade was the most significant predic-
tor leading to decreased school bonding and aca-
demic performance, and increased cigarette use in
later grades. Similarly Blankmeyer et al. (2002),
found that poor school adjustment was associated
with more negative attachment to school personnel.
These findings question the temporal relationship be-
tween school bonding and antisocial behavior. Al-
though poor school bonding should be a precursor
to antisocial behavior, the social development model
(Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Fraser, 1996) has also
acknowledged that this relation is reciprocal. Specif-
ically, poor school bonding could lead to antisocial
behavior, which could then lead to decreased school
bonding in later grades. Malecki and Demaray (2002)
and Demaray and Malecki (2002) support this propo-
sition in their findings of an inverse relationship be-
tween social support (including school bonding) and
antisocial behaviors. Overall there seems to be sup-
port for a relation between school bonding and anti-
social behavior (Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Malecki
& Demaray, 2002) but the direction of this relation is
not always clear (Bryant et al., 2000).
Welsh et al. (1999) also reported controversial
findings regarding school bonding and antisocial be-
havior. They used the ESB (Gottfredson, 1984) to as-
sess the effect of individual and community factors
on school disorder (i.e., student antisocial behavior).
They evaluated positive peer associations, school re-
ward, and school involvement and commitment di-
mensions in 11 middle schools in Philadelphia. All in-
dividual factors except school rewards were related to
school misconduct across all 11 middle schools and ex-
plained a significant portion of the variance in student
misconduct. Involvement and commitment were the
strongest predictors of antisocial behavior. Ironically,
higher levels of involvement were associated with
higher misconduct (Welsh et al., 1999). Cernkovich
and Giordano (1992) also found this relation. The so-
cial development model offers an explanation.
Based on the social development model, strong
bonds are not always positive ones. In contrast,
bonds can be prosocial or antisocial depending upon
the social unit. Involvement in school activities not
only increases opportunities for association with
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
42
prosocial peers, but also creates opportunities for
associations with antisocial peers (Hawdon, 1999).
Therefore, the more involvement, the more exposure
one would have to antisocial models who have the
potential to promote antisocial behaviors in the youth
(Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). These results sug-
gest that greater specification of school involvement is
necessary to distinguish between antisocial and proso-
cial involvement.
Risky Behavior
Antisocial behaviors are behaviors that nega-
tively affect the social unit whereas risky behaviors
negatively affect the youth (i.e., produce psychologi-
cal, emotional, or physical harm) including substance
use, unsafe sexual practices, and teen pregnancy. High
levels of school bonding are hypothesized to be re-
lated to fewer risky behaviors. As with antisocial be-
havior, most studies focus upon one or two behav-
iors instead of examining risky behaviors as a whole.
Wade and Brannigan (1998) conducted a major study
with 1,075 seventh, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth grade
students in Ontario, Canada. The variables studied
were demographic variables, family structure, fam-
ily financial situation, family attachment, peer at-
tachment, school bonding, and risk taking behavior.
The results yielded a model in which school bond-
ing had a significant independent effect on risk tak-
ing behavior. Students with low family attachment
but high school bonding were less likely to engage
in risk taking behaviors than students with both
low family and school bonding (Wade & Brannigan,
1998).
Relatively little research has examined the di-
rect effects of school bonding on teen sexual be-
havior and teen pregnancy. Theoretically youth who
have a well-developed sense of hope for their future
should avoid behaviors that might jeopardize that fu-
ture (e.g., unsafe sex and pregnancy). The reverse
can also be inferred in which adolescents who have
little hope for future success may turn to sex and
pregnancy as an attempt to achieve status (Black,
1998). School bonding might provide a pathway for
a more hopeful future, which could reduce the like-
lihood of early pregnancy and parenthood. Danziger
(1995) supported this proposition in her study con-
ducting life history interviews with 80 African Amer-
ican women ages 15–20. The 39 respondents who were
not mothers were more likely to have a positive sense
of themselves as a student and family encourage-
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
ment in school whereas 22 out of the 41 teen mothers
dropped out of school. This suggests that nonmothers
had higher levels of school bonding and that moth-
erhood negatively affects school bonding (Danziger,
1995).
More studies are needed to examine the effect
that strong school bonding has on sexual initiation,
frequency of sexual contact, number of sexual part-
ners, and contraceptive use. Studies of this nature
should examine the hypothesis that strong school
bonding will lead to delayed sexual initiation, lower
frequency of sexual contact and number of sexual
partners. The relation between school bonding and
higher contraceptive use should be more complex be-
cause there should be lower sexual activity among
strongly bonded youth but a higher rate of contracep-
tive use proportionate to their sexual activity.
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem and self-efficacy refer to the ways
youth conceptualize themselves and their abilities.
Based on theories such as the social ecology model
(Kumpfer & Turner, 1990–1991), high levels of school
bonding should be closely related to high levels of
self-esteem and self-efficacy. The findings of Eggert
et al. (1994) support this relation. Their drug pre-
vention program, which increased school bonding,
produced a steady increase in self-esteem scores.
Williams and Mcgee (1991) had similar findings
when they examined self-perception of strengths in
960, 15-year-old males and females from the gen-
eral population of New Zealand. Based on their re-
sults, school involvement was one of the most im-
portant factors related to self-perception of strengths
for boys but not for girls (Williams & McGee,
1991).
Hunt and Hunt (1977) performed secondary
analysis on existing data (Rosenberg & Simmons,
1971) examining self-attitudes (efficacy and esteem),
specific self-description, and attachment to school
and found an association between school attachment
and self-image. These results generally showed a
relation between school bonding and self-esteem—
however, contextual factors that affected this re-
lationship will be considered in detail at a later
point. Malecki and Demaray (2002) found mod-
erate relations between total social support (in-
cluding school bonding) and self-concept but the
unique contribution of school bonding was not
clear.
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
MEDIATING AND MODERATING EFFECTS
RELATED TO SCHOOL BONDING
Parental Influences Mediated by School Bonding
Control theory, the social development model,
and the social ecology model all allude to the possibil-
ity that school bonding might serve as a mediator be-
tween family influences and life outcomes (Catalano
& Hawkins, 1996; Hirschi, 1969; Kumpfer & Turner,
1990–1991). The social ecology model (Kumpfer &
Turner, 1990–1991) revealed that family climate had
an effect on substance use indirectly through its ef-
fect on school bonding/self-efficacy and peer effects.
Williams et al. (1999) also found that family rela-
tionships had both a direct effect on substance use
and an indirect effect through the mediators, school
bonding and academic and social skills. There were
similar results for the role of school bonding as a
mediating factor for familial bonds in risky behavior
(Wade & Brannigan, 1998) and delinquency research
(Sommers et al., 1994). Although there is some evi-
dence that contradicts school bonding as mediator of
parental influences (Liska & Reed, 1985), the stud-
ies that support the relationship provides prevention
workers with a potential alternative to family inter-
vention as a means to offset the adverse impact of
family influences.
Gender as a Moderator of School Bonding
There are gender differences in the way school
bonding affects life outcomes, which is expected be-
cause there are gender differences in life outcomes
in general (e.g., delinquency, substance use). Because
males are more likely to engage in certain forms of
delinquency (violent forms such as assault and homi-
cide) and engage in polysubstance use (Bachman
& Peralta, 2002; Hickman & Piquero, 2001; Ludwig
& Pittman, 1999; Mazerolle, Brame, Paternoster,
Piquero, & Dean, 2000), differences in the impact
of school bonding on these variables are suspected.
Cernkovich and Giordano (1992) revealed both gen-
der and racial differences. African American females
reported higher levels of attachment to school, com-
mitment, and perceived risk of arrest than males and
White females. African American males reported the
highest level of school involvement, with White males
second and African American females third.
Regarding the relations between school bond-
ing and delinquency, school commitment was the only
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
43
significant variable in predicting delinquency among
White males (β = −.213, p < .05). Perceived risk of
arrest, which was included in the study’s definition
of school bonding, and age were significant predic-
tors of delinquency for White females (β = −.239,
p < .001 and β = .162, p < .05, respectively). School
commitment, attachment, and involvement were sig-
nificant correlates with delinquency in African Amer-
ican males (β = −.211, p < .05; β = −.196, p < .05;
and β = .152, p < .05, respectively). School bond-
ing factors were not significant predictors for African
American females (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992).
These results suggest that the impact of school bond-
ing on delinquency is not as effective for females but
caution should be taken because females had signifi-
cantly lower rates of reported delinquency.
Eggert et al. (1994) found gender differences in
that females receiving intervention decreased in de-
viant peer bonding but there was no shift for treated
males even though school bonding steadily increased
for both sexes. Williams and Mcgee (1991) found
that high levels of school involvement was one of the
most important factors related to greater perception
of strength for boys but that it was not as important
for girls. However, they only used school involvement
items as an indicator of school bonding, which could
explain the lack of significance for school bonding in
females. Based on these studies it seems as if the ef-
fect of school bonding dimensions are moderated by
gender with involvement being most important for
males.
SES as a Moderator of School Bonding
McGee (1992) used data from the Monitoring the
Future study to examine interactive effects of social
class, parental influence, and delinquent peers on ado-
lescent drug use. The sample consisted of 16,502 high
school seniors in 115 public and 17 private schools.
The variables in the study were substance use, SES,
parental attachment, religious attachment, beliefs in
societal laws, and peer influence. School bonding vari-
ables were attachment to school and school commit-
ment that both had a weak negative effect on overall
drug use. Interactions with social class variables re-
vealed that attachment to school had an effect only on
substance use in participants from the middle-income
background whereas commitment had a significant
effect on substance use only on participants in the
lower-income background. Neither had an effect on
upper class substance use, which suggests that SES
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
44
moderates the effect school bonding, has on substance
use (Mcgee, 1992).
Culture as a Moderator of School Bonding
Expectations of culture as a moderator are
prevalent throughout the school bonding literature
(Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Liska & Reed, 1985;
Lopez et al., 2002; Morrison, Robertson, & Harding,
1998; Murguia et al., 1998). Although Hirschi (1969)
argued that his theory should explain delinquency
across racial groups, the racial differences in life out-
comes suggest that these variables might produce dif-
ferential effects across cultures. Liska and Reed’s re-
sults produced two separate causal models for White
and African American respondents (Liska & Reed,
1985). Parental attachment affected school attach-
ment, which then affected delinquency for African
Americans, but school attachment affected parental
attachment that then affected delinquency for Whites.
This suggests that school attachment effects differ
across culture but because the sample of African
Americans was so small, the authors urge against
drawing premature conclusions. However, the results
do suggest possible differences in processes by which
parental attachment, school attachment and delin-
quency are related.
Murguia et al. (1998) also found cultural dif-
ferences in the effect of attachment to parents and
schools on deviant peers and illicit drug use. The sam-
ple included 1,807 Whites and 236 Mexican Amer-
icans who participated in all three waves of a lon-
gitudinal intervention. Path analyses revealed two
different models for non-Hispanic Whites and Mex-
ican Americans. For non-Hispanic Whites positive
school experiences, the school bonding related vari-
able, had both a direct effect on drug involvement
and an indirect effect mediated by drug using peers.
Positive school experiences only had a direct effect
on drug involvement for Mexican Americans. These
models suggests that school bonding may not have
as strong as an effect on drug using peers for Mexi-
can Americans as it did for non-Hispanic Whites. As
with Liska and Reed (1985), the sample sizes were
small.
Hunt and Hunt (1977) found racial differences
in their study of 690 male students in elementary
(245), junior (259), and senior (186) high school.
Their results showed that African Americans with
lower attachment to school had higher self-esteem
and self-efficacy. This was true for Whites in elemen-
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
tary school but the trend was reversed by senior high
where low attachment to school produced negative
self-attitudes. These racial differences could be the
result of a process identified as “the burden of acting
white.” Theory and research (Fordham, 1985) have
suggested that minority youth often shy away from
academic achievement because it is perceived as “act-
ing white.” According to the theory, it can be assumed
that African American youth who are less attached to
their school (thereby reducing the “burden of acting
white”) will have higher self-esteem.
Research by Zhang and Messner (1996) with 143
(delinquent = 57) 15–18-year-olds in the People’s Re-
public of China suggests that school bonding operates
the same in China as in Western countries. Their re-
sults for school bonding and delinquency were consis-
tent with research in the United States. The similari-
ties between attitudes toward education in China and
the United States might account for the similarities in
results. Overall, however, there is evidence that cul-
ture moderates the effects of school bonding on life
outcomes (Liska & Reed, 1985; see also Cernkovich
& Giordano, 1992; Hunt & Hunt, 1977; Murguia
et al., 1998). Examination of cultural context will be
important when trying to use school bonding as part
of an intervention.
School Context as a Moderator of School Bonding
In theory, school context should moderate the
effects of school bonding. Cernkovich and Giordano
(1992) revealed an effect of school context on school
bonding’s association with delinquency. Although dif-
ferences according to school context were not signif-
icant, they suggest that school bonding may not be
consistent across contexts. In contrast, Welsh et al.
(1999) examined 11 middle schools and did not find
any significant differences in school bonding across
school context.
Age Group as a Moderator of School Bonding
Most school bonding studies examined life out-
comes such as delinquency and substance use so their
focus has been on adolescents due to the high fre-
quency in this group. This leaves little empirical in-
formation about how school bonding might affect
life outcomes differently due to stage of develop-
ment. Simons-Morton et al. (1999) studied 4,263 stu-
dents in Grades 6–8 and found differences in levels of
school bonding across grades, but they did not report
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
differential effects of school bonding for these grades.
A firmer conclusion was made by Hunt and Hunt
(1977). They found that Whites with low attach-
ment in elementary school had higher self-esteem,
but that this trend reversed by the time they were
in senior high. By senior high, when the awareness
of the link between academic and economic success
was higher, White youth with high levels of school
bonding tended to feel better about themselves and
their future. Differences in school bonding effects
for elementary versus middle or high schools have
been suggested by other researchers (Liska & Reed,
1985).
CONCLUSIONS
Major Findings
School bonding is a multidimensional concept
that has been linked to a variety of outcomes and be-
haviors. Unfortunately, many studies do not capture
the breadth of this construct in their assessment. De-
spite the lack of consistency in assessment, some con-
sistent findings about school bonding are apparent.
In control theory, school bonding was initially con-
ceptualized as a constraining force against delinquent
behaviors (Hirschi, 1969). More comprehensive the-
ories such as the social development model have es-
tablished school bonding as a protective factor that
inhibits negative and promotes positive life outcomes
through its effects on opportunities for prosocial in-
teractions.
Among the outcomes that have been shown to be
affected by school bonding are substance use, delin-
quency, antisocial behavior, academic performance,
and self-esteem/self-efficacy. Higher levels of school
bonding are associated with higher self-esteem and
academic performance, but lower levels of antiso-
cial behavior, substance use, and delinquency. De-
spite this pattern of direct effects, construed relations
with school bonding are not always straightforward or
simple. Research has shown that the school bonding
dimensions can have differential effects on life out-
comes moderated by gender, culture, and SES. For ex-
ample, school involvement seems to be more strongly
implicated in self-esteem for males than for females.
In addition, school involvement has the potential
to both inhibit and promote negative life outcomes
depending upon the type of involvement (Hawdon,
1999). When examining school bonding relations, it is
important to consider other factors that could have
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
45
differential effects on the relationship such as gender,
culture, and SES.
Model of School Bonding
The social development model offers a good
conceptualization of the association between school
bonding and various behavioral outcomes for the
youth (see Fig. 1). Based on the model, external
constraints (e.g., family practices, classroom manage-
ment, school policies), demographic factors (e.g., SES,
race, age, gender), and individual factors (e.g., level of
self-control) directly affect the youth’s opportunities
and skills for involvement. Once there are sufficient
opportunities for involvement, skills for involvement
directly affect the amount of reinforcement the youth
receives for being involved in that particular social
unit. This reinforcement promotes continued involve-
ment, which subsequently is hypothesized to lead to
attachment and commitment to people within that so-
cial unit. This commitment and attachment socializes
the youth’s belief system, which has a direct effect on
subsequent behavior.
Policy and Intervention
The social development model suggests that
school bonding might be a significant target for in-
tervention as a way of reducing negative life out-
comes and promoting positive outcomes. Interven-
tions can be designed that promote both the op-
portunities and skills for school involvement, which
should increase school attachment, teacher attach-
ment, and school commitment. However, a couple of
factors must be considered when attempting to mod-
ify school bonding. First, a defensible and consistent
definition of school bonding is important to assess
how well the program is reaching its goal. Hirschi’s
original dimensions (Hirschi, 1969) have been re-
vised through the years because of differential em-
pirical and theoretical support (Elliott, Huizinga, &
Ageton, 1985; Krohn & Massey, 1980) so his orig-
inal conceptualization does not offer much help.
The Cernkovich and Giordano (1992) study offers
some suggestions for an operational definition. Their
study was relatively well controlled and sophisti-
cated. Based on their results the conceptualization
of school bonding should include the dimensions of
attachment to school, school commitment,and school
involvement because these dimensions have had
 P1: GMX

46
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP)
pp747-ccfp-460115
January 29, 2003
15:14
Style file version Nov. 07, 2000

Fig. 1. The social developmental model of antisocial behavior: general model. [Reprinted from Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of
antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press.]
Maddox and Prinz
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
empirical support and are theoretically valid (Cata-
lano et al., 1996; Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992;
Fraser, 1996; Simons-Morton et al., 1999; Wiatrowski
& Anderson, 1987). The dimension attachment to
teachers was not significant in the Cernkovich and
Giordano (1992) study but was significant in other
studies (Murray & Greenberg, 2000, 2001) and has
high theoretical value as a dimension of school bond-
ing. Thus, attachment to teachers should also be in-
cluded in the conceptualization of school bonding.
To make this dimension more sensitive to the attach-
ments students can form with persons in the school
system it is suggested that this dimension be expanded
to include guidance counselors, coaches, school nurse,
etc. The resulting dimension will be more accurately
referred to as attachment to school personnel to re-
flect the inclusion of these other adults. In conclu-
sion, an accurate conceptualization of school bond-
ing should include the domains attachment to school,
attachment to personnel, school commitment, and
school involvement. This conceptualization is useful
to the prevention scientist in that it captures the mul-
tidimensional nature of school bonding by including
dimensions that have been supported throughout the
literature (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Murray &
Greenberg, 2000, 2001).
Once a defensible conceptualization is achieved,
the next step is the consideration of contextual moder-
ators and predictors. As the social development model
suggests, demographic and family factors have a di-
rect effect on the youth’s opportunities and skills for
involvement. Although school bonding might com-
pensate for low familial bonds (Wade & Brannigan,
1998), the influence of family factors should be ex-
amined with any intervention targeting school bond-
ing. Likewise, programs may need to be altered to
better accommodate gender, cultural, SES, and de-
velopmental effects to avoid the assumption that a
singular or narrow approach would enhance school
bonding. With these considerations included, a well-
designed prevention program has the opportunity to
affect school wide changes and promote positive life
outcomes.
Directions for Future Research
Although a fairly consistent pattern emerged for
most of the expected relations in school bonding, the
research in this area can be further strengthened. The
first major area is in the conceptualization of school
bonding. It is not suggested that there be a uniform
concept of school bonding, but that certain criteria
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
47
are established for conceptualization and measure-
ment. Criteria should involve the inclusion of mul-
tiple dimensions and depth of dimension assessment.
The development of a standardized measure of school
bonding will be helpful in establishing and enforcing
these criteria.
The lack of empirical studies that focus specif-
ically on positive outcomes is another area for im-
provement. Despite the tendency of research to fo-
cus on negative life outcomes for prevention efforts,
more studies looking at the ability of school bonding
to promote and strengthen positive life outcomes are
needed. Outcomes such as academic excellence, social
competence, and resilience should arguably be associ-
ated with school bonding. As with negative outcomes,
there are factors (e.g., development, culture, and gen-
der) that will moderate the effect of school bonding.
This line of research could offer new opportunities for
prevention.
Finally, more information regarding develop-
mental moderators of school bonding is clearly
needed. Although there are good theoretical argu-
ments, empirical studies comparing school bonding
across developmental stages would add to the knowl-
edge base. Improving what is known about the de-
velopmental variables associated with increases, de-
creases, and stability in school bonding is likely to
provide clues about how to enhance quality of life for
youth.
REFERENCES
Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. B. (2000). An
investigation of perfectionism, mental health, achievement,
and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the
Schools, 37, 535–545.
Akers, R. L., & Cochran, J. K. (1985). Adolescent marijuana use: A
test of three theories of deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior,
6, 323–346.
Ayers, C. D., Williams, J. H., Hawkins, J. D., Peterson, P. L.,
Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (1999). Assessing correlates
of onset, escalation, deescalation, and desistance of delinquent
behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 277–307.
Bachman, R., & Peralta, R. (2002). The relationship between drink-
ing and violence in an adolescent population: Does gender
matter. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 1–
19.
Balk, D. E. (1995). Adolescent development: Early through late ado-
lescence. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Berryhill, J. C., & Prinz, R. J. (in press). Environmental interven-
tions to enhance student adjustment: Implication for preven-
tion. Prevention Science.
Black, S. (1998). Facts of life. American School Board Journal, 185,
33–36.
Blankmeyer, M., Flannery, D. J., & Vazsonyi, A. (2002). The role of
aggression and social competence in children’s perceptions of
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115 January 29, 2003
48
the child–teacher relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 39,
293–304.
Brophy, J. E. (1988). On motivating students. In D. Berliner & B.
Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). New York:
Random House.
Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., &
Johnston, L. D. (2000). Acting out and lighting up: Understand-
ing the links among school misbehavior, academic achievement,
and cigarette use Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No.
46). Ann Arbor, MI : The University of Michigan Institute for
Social Research.
Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development
model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins
(Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Catalano, R., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., &
Abbott, R. D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent sub-
stance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of
Drug Issues, 26, 429–455.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School bonding, race,
and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 261–291.
Cook, E. T., Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (1995). People in my
life: Attachment relationships in middle childhood. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Crusto, C. (2000, June 1–4). Developing successful strategies to
prevent dropping out of school: Linking correlates and devel-
opmental processes to interventions. Paper presented at the
Society for Prevention Reseaerch, Montreal, Canada.
Danziger, S. K. (1995). Family life and teenage pregnancy in the
inner-city: Experiences of African-American youth. Children
and Youth Services Review, 17, 183–202.
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between
percieved social support and maladjustment for students at
risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 305–316.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions
harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychol-
ogist, 54, 755–764.
Eggert, L., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1997). Drug abuse prevention for
at-risk individuals. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Eggert, L. L., Thompson, E. A., Herting, J. R., Nicholas, L. J., &
Dicker, B. G. (1994). Preventing adolescent drug abuse and
high school dropout through an intensive school-based social
network development program. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 8, 202–215.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delin-
quency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Jr., Dunaway, R. G., &
Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control:
Testing the genreal theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–
501.
Farnworth, M., Schweinhart, L. J., & Beurueta-Clement, J. R.
(1985). Preschool intervention, school success and delinquency
in a high-risk sample of youth. American Educational Research
Journal, 22, 445–464.
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1983). On the usefulness of Merton’s
Anomie Theory: Academic failure and deviance among high
school students. Youth and Society, 14, 259–279.
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1987). Discrimination or sex differences?
Criteria for evaluating the juvenile justice system’s han-
dling of minor offenses. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 403–
424.
Fordham, S. (1985). Black students’ school success: Coping with
the “burden of ‘acting white’.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
Fraser, M. W. (1996). Aggressive behavior in childhood and
early adolescence: An ecological-developmental perspective
on youth violence. Social Work, 41, 347–361.
15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
Maddox and Prinz
Free, M. D., Jr. (1994). Religiosity, religious conservatism, bonds
to school, and juvenile delinquency among three categories of
drug users. Deviant Behavior, 15, 151–170.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school member-
ship among adolescents: Scale development and educational
correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79–90.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1984). The effective school battery. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfedson, D. C. (1999). Technical manual
for research editions of What About You (WAY). Ellicott City,
MD: Gottfredson Associates.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grotevant, H. D., & Thorbecke, W. L. (1982). Sex differences in
styles of occupational identity formation in late adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 396–405.
Hawdon, J. E. (1999). Daily routines and crime: Using routine activ-
ities as measures of Hirschi’s involvement. Youth and Society,
30, 395–415.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D. M., O’Donnell, J.,
Abbott, R. D., & Day, L. E. (1992). The Seattle social de-
velopment project: Effects of the first four years on protec-
tive factors and problem behaviors. In J. McCord & R. E.
Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions
from birth through adolescence (pp. 139–206). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Hawkins, J. D., Graham, J. W., Maguin, E., Abbott, R., Hill, K. G., &
Catalano, R. (1997). Exploring the effects of age of alcohol use
initiation and psychosocial risk factors on subsequent alcohol
misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 280–290.
Hawkins, J. D., & Lishner, D. (1987). Etiology and prevention of an-
tisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In D. H. Crowell,
I. M. Evans, & C. R. O’Donnell (Eds.), Childhood aggres-
sion and violence: Sources of influence, prevention and control
(pp. 263–282). New York: Plenum.
Hickman, M., & Piquero, A. (2001). Exploring the relationship
between gender, control balance, and deviance. Deviant Be-
havior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 323–351.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Hoffmann, J. P., & Miller, A. S. (1998). A latent variable analysis
of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
14, 83–110.
Hunt, J. G., & Hunt, L. L. (1977). Racial inequality and self-image:
Identity maintenance as identity diffusion. Sociology and So-
cial Research, 61, 539–559.
Junger, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Self-control, accidents, and
crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 485–501.
Keith, P. (1999). Parental involvement and attendance. Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, College of Liberal Arts, De-
partment of Psychology.
Kleinman, P. H., Wish, E. D., Deren, S., & Rainone, G. A. (1986).
Multiple drug use: A symptomatic behavior. Journal of Psy-
choactive Drugs, 18, 77–86.
Krohn, M., & Massey, J. (1980). Social control and delinquent be-
havior: An examination of the elements of the social bond.
The Sociological Quarterly, 21, 529–543.
Kumpfer, K. L., & Turner, C. W. (1990–1991). The social ecology
model of adolescent substance abuse: Implications for pre-
vention. The International Journal of the Addictions, 25(4A),
435–463.
Learner, D. G., & Kruger, L. J. (1997). Attachment, self-concept,
and academic motivation in high-school students. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 485–492.
Liska, A., & Reed, M. D. (1985, August). Ties to conventional insti-
tutions and delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 50, 547–560.
Lopez, E. J., Ehly, S., & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2002). Ac-
culturation, social support and academic achievement of
P1: GMX
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (CCFP) pp747-ccfp-460115
School Bonding in Children
Mexican and Mexican American high school students: An
exploratory study. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 245–
257.
Ludwig, K. B., & Pittman, J. F. (1999). Adolescent prosocial val-
ues and self-efficacy in relation to delinquency, risky sex-
ual behavior, and substance use. Youth and Society, 30, 461–
482.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring percieved
social support: Development of the child and adolescent so-
cial support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39, 1–
18.
Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations
of middle school students perceptions of famliy and school con-
text with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 38,
505–519.
Mazerolle, P., Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A., & Dean,
C. (2000). Onset age, persistence, and offending versatility:
Comparisons across gender. Criminology, 38, 1143–1172.
Mcgee, Z. T. (1992). Social class differences in the parental and
peer influence on adolescent drug use. Deviant Behavior, 13,
349–372.
Meier, R., & McDaniel, E. (1974). A measure of attitude toward
school. Educational and Psychological Measurment, 34, 997–
998.
Morrison, G. M., Robertson, L., & Harding, M. (1998). Resilience
factors that support the classroom functioning of acting out
and aggressive students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 217–
227.
Murguia, E., Chen, Z.-Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (1998). A compari-
son of causal factors in drug use among Mexican Americans
and non-Hispanic Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 341–
360.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2000). Children’s relationship with
teachers and bonds with school: An investigation of patterns
and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 38, 423–445.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2001). Relationships with teachers
and bonds with school: Social emotional adjustment correlates
for children with and without disabilities. Psychology in the
Schools, 38, 25–41.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differ-
ences and rationale choice theories of crime. Law and Scoiety
Review, 27, 467–496.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995). Predict-
ing serious delinquency and substance use among aggressive
boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 529–
537.
Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (2000). On the association among
self-control, crime, and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 38,
971–982.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships
and the process of adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.),
Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives
(Vol. 57, pp. 61–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pilgrim, C., Abbey, A., Hendrickson, P., & Lorenz, S. (1998). Im-
plementation and impact of a family-based substance abuse
January 29, 2003 15:14 Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
49
prevention program in rural communities. The Journal of Pri-
mary Prevention, 18, 341–361.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-
analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1998). BASC; Behavior As-
sessment System for Children manual. Circle Pines, MN: Amer-
ican Guidance Service.
Rosenberg, M., & Simmons, R. G. (1971). Functions of children’s
perception of the stratification system. American Sociological
Review, 36, 235–249.
Santrock, J. W. (1996). Adolescence (6th ed.). Madison: Brown &
Benchmark.
Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor,
K. E. (1999). Student–school bonding and adolescent prob-
lem behavior. Health Education Research, 14, 99–107.
Sommers, I., Fagan, J., & Baskin, D. (1994). The influence of ac-
culturation and familism on Puerto Rican delinquency. Justice
Quarterly, 11, 207–228.
Taylor, C. (2001). The relationship between social and self-control:
Tracing Hirschi’s criminological career. Theoretical Criminol-
ogy, 5, 369–388.
Valentine, J., Gottlieb, B., Keel, S., Griffith, J., & Ruthazer, R.
(1998). Measuring the effectiveness of the urban youth con-
nection: The case for dose-response modeling to demonstrate
the impact of an adolescent substance abuse prevention pro-
gram. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 363–387.
Wade, T. J., & Brannigan, A. (1998). The genesis of adolescent risk-
taking: Pathways through family, school, and peers. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 23, 1–19.
Welsh, W. N., Greene, J. R., & Jenkins, P. H. (1999). School disor-
der: The influence of individual, institutional and community
factors. Criminology, 37, 73–115.
Wiatrowski, M., & Anderson, K. L. (1987). The dimensionality of
the social bond. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 65–81.
Wiatrowski, M. D., Hansell, S., Massey, C. R., & Wilson, D. L.
(1982). Curriculum tracking and delinquency. American So-
ciological Review, 47, 151–160.
Williams, J. H. (1994). Understanding substance use, delinquency
involvement, and juvenile justice system involvement among
African American and European American adolescents. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Williams, J. H., Ayer, C. D., Abbot, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., &
Catalano, R. F. (1999). Racial differences in risk factors for
delinquency and substance use among adolescents. Social
Work Research, 23, 241–256.
Williams, S., & McGee, R. (1991). Adolescent’s self-perceptions of
their strengths. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 325–337.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (1996). School attachment and official
delinquency status in the People’s Republic of China. Socio-
logical Forum, 11, 285–303.
Zhang, L., Welte, J. W., & Wieczorek, W. F. (2002). Underlying
common factors of adolescent problem behaviors. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 29, 161–182.