James D. Unnever

Bullying, Self-Control, and Adhd

We investigated the influence of low self-control and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on bullying and bully victimization in a sample of 1,315 middle school students using a school survey. Students who reported taking medication for ADHD were at increased risk for bullying as well as victimization by bullies. The correlation between ADHD status and bullying could be explained by low self-control, a construct theorized by Gottfredson and Hirschi to be the most important determinant of criminality. In contrast, the correlation between ADHD status and bullying victimization was independent of self-control. Subsequent analyses found that self-control influenced bullying victimization through interactions with student gender and measures of physical size and strength. These findings identify low self-control and ADHD as potential risk factors for bullying and victimization and have implications for research on self-control in young adolescents.

Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory

A core proposition of Gottfredson and Hirschis general theory of crime is that ineffective parenting fosters low self-control in children, which leads to delinquent conduct. Using a sample of 2,472 students, we examined the impact of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on self-control and delinquency. The analysis revealed three main findings. First, low self-control was a strong predictor of both self-reported delinquency and self-reported arrests. Second, parental monitoring not only increased self-control, but had direct effects on both measures of delinquency. Third, the effects of ADHD on delinquency were largely through low self-control.

The Racial Divide in Support for the Death Penalty: Does White Racism Matter?

Using data from the 2000 National Election Study, this research investigates the sources of the racial divide in support for capital punishment with a specific focus on white racism. After delineating a measure of white racism, we explore whether it can account for why a majority of African Americans oppose the death penalty while most whites support it. The results indicate that one-third of the racial divide in support for the death penalty can be attributed to the influence of our measure of white racism. The analyses also revealed that when other factors are controlled, support for capital punishment among nonracist whites is similar to that of African Americans. We examine the implications of these findings for using public opinion to justify the death penalty.

Reassessing the Racial Divide in Support for Capital Punishment: The Continuing Significance of Race

This project investigates the racial divide in support for capital punishment. The authors examine whether race has a direct effect on support for capital punishment and test whether the influence of race varies across class, being a native southerner, confidence in government officials, political orientation, and religious affiliation. Using data drawn from the General Social Survey, they find a substantial racial divide, with African Americans much less likely to support the death penalty. Furthermore, the analysis revealed little support for the “spurious/social convergence” hypothesis; shared factors that might be expected to bring African Americans and Whites together—class, confidence in government, conservative politics, regional location, and religious fundamentalism—either did not narrow African American-White punishment attitudes or, at best, had only modest effects. The Results suggest that the racial divide in support for capital punishment is likely to remain a point of symbolic contention in African American-White conceptions of criminal injustice in the United States.

The Culture of Bullying in Middle School

Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the nature and extent of student attitudes toward bullying. We investigated the consistency and prevalence of student attitudes across gender, race, socioeco-nomic status, and grade level. We also assessed whether students with positive attitudes toward peer aggression and students with higher trait anger were especially prone to support a normative structure that encourages bullying. Based on a data set including 6 middle schools and over 2,400 students, our results indicate that a culture of bullying is a pervasive phenomenon among middle school students and should be an important consideration in bullying prevention efforts.

Why is “Bad” Parenting Criminogenic? Implications From Rival Theories

This article tests two rival theories: low self-control and differential association and social learning and their competing accounts of why bad parenting matters. The analysis revealed that several dimensions of parenting (including monitoring and caring and parental reinforcement of aggression) affected both low self-control and aggressive attitudes. Both low self-control and aggressive attitudes predicted delinquent involvement and were found to partially mediate the effect of parenting measures on delinquency. The influence of self-control on delinquent involvement was found to vary across levels of aggressive attitudes—adolescents who had aggressive attitudes and little self-control were especially likely to engage in criminal behavior. The results indicate that ineffective parenting is likely to produce low self-control and aggressive attitudes through not only direct control (e.g., monitoring and punishment) but also through modeling. Thus, the findings question the claim by Gottfredson and Hirschi and Akers that they have set forth truly general theories of crime.

Turning the Other Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology

Religion has long been recognized as an underlying aspect of correctional policies. Researchers, however, have only recently begun to move beyond considerations of how fundamentalist Christian affiliations might shape preferences for punitive correctional policies. The present study broadens the extant research by examining multiple aspects of religious beliefs and how they affect support for capital punishment and harsher local courts. Analyses of General Social Survey data show that religion has divergent effects. Beyond a mere fundamentalist or conservative religious view, those who have a rigid and moralistic approach to religion and who imagine God as a dispassionate, powerful figure who dispenses justice are more likely to harbor punitive sentiments toward offenders. In contrast, those who have a gracious or loving image of God and who are compassionate toward others—that is, those who take seriously the admonition to “turn the other cheek”—are less supportive of “get tough” policies. In the end, not only is religion a multi‐dimensional phenomenon but also its features likely coalesce to divide believers into opposite camps—with one set of attributes fostering harsh sentiments toward offenders and another set of attributes tempering punitiveness and justifying interventions aimed at helping the criminally wayward.

Christian Fundamentalism and Support for Capital Punishment

Few public policy issues have inflamed passions as consistently and as strongly as the debate over capital punishment. Religious denominations have been deeply involved on both sides of the issue, drawing both on teachings and traditions of justice and on those that emphasize the dignity of human life. Scholarly researchers have investigated the role that religious beliefs play in shaping sentiments toward crime control policies, with a particular focus on the relationship between belonging to a Christian fundamentalist denomination and support for the death penalty. Researchers have reasoned that Christian fundamentalists should be more likely to support capital punishment than other more moderate denominations because they hold conservative religious beliefs that justify the use of the death penalty. Using 1998 data from the General Social Survey, the authors initially show that contrary to common views, Christian fundamentalist affiliation is unrelated to support for capital punishment. Subsequent analyses reveal, however, that this null relationship is not straightforward but complex: fundamentalists embrace certain religious beliefs and involvement that both increase and decrease punitiveness. The study thus suggests that understanding the impact of religion on crime control attitudes potentially requires disentangling countervailing effects of different features of religiosity.

Never too late Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation

Policy decisions with respect to juvenile offenders oscillate between rehabilitation and punishment, and the effectiveness of these two approaches, including which one for which type of offender, has yet to be realized. Less studied is the extent to which the public favors one approach or the other generally, and whether the public believes that there is an age at which it may be too late to help a juvenile offender turn away from a life of crime. In this study, we explore whether optimism about juvenile rehabilitation is a near universal, shared belief, or whether there exist important variations across socio-demographic groups about whether juveniles can be rehabilitated (and if so at what age). Studying this issue is important because public attitudes have the potential to shape policy. In the domain of juvenile justice, the challenge is whether public opinion will breed unfettered punitiveness or, as we anticipate, will serve as an impetus for a richer and more progressive response to juvenile offenders. Using data from a random sample of Pennsylvania residents, our results point not toward a division over the beliefs about ‘saving children,’ but instead demonstrate a consensus — that optimism about juvenile rehabilitation is not something citizens argue over. Implications for public policies regarding juvenile offenders are addressed.

The Prediction of Racial/Ethnic Sentencing Disparities: An Expectation States Approach:

For the most part, prior research on discrimination in sentencing has not been theoretically informed by a context-based theory of decision making. In this article we introduce one of the theories of status characteristics and expectation states, Hembroffs (1982) version, to predict when racial/ethnic sentencing disparities are most likely to occur. The theory predicts that when the case-related attributes (i.e., a performance characteristic set) are consistent—all point to incarceration or all point to probation—sentencing disparities are not likely to occur based on defendants race/ethnicity (i.e., diffuse status characteristics). The theory also predicts that as case-related attributes become increasingly inconsistent—some point to incarceration while others point to probation—there is an increasing likelihood that racial/ethnic sentencing disparities will occur. We evaluate the utility of this theoretical model by analyzing data on the sentences of 313 male drug offenders in Miami, Florida. The results support Hembroffs version of status characteristics theory.