Developmental Psychology

This article investigates father and offspring criminal careers by employing the semi-parametric, group-based trajectories methodology. The findings demonstrate that children of sporadic and chronic offenders have significantly more convictions than children of non-offenders. However, contrary to expectations based on taxonomic and intergenerational theories, chronic offending fathers do not have more chronic offending children than sporadic fathers. The results demonstrate strong intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour, but it is the fathers having a conviction rather than their conviction trajectory that is related to offspring convictions.

This paper investigates whether fathers who have been convicted of a violent offense transmit criminal and violent behavior more strongly than fathers who were convicted, but never for violence. First, a more traditional approach was taken where offending fathers were divided into two groups based on whether they had a violence conviction. Secondly, Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was performed to identify two classes of fathers, one of which was characterized as violent. Sons of fathers in this class had a higher risk of violent convictions compared with sons whose fathers were in the other class.

This paper explores mechanisms of intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour by investigating specifically the timing and frequency of the parents' criminal behaviour while including risk factors for criminal behaviour. The results demonstrate a dose–response relationship: parents' number of criminal convictions is positively related to offspring's conviction rate. Furthermore, children whose parents had only been convicted before the child's birth have more convictions than those whose parents had never been convicted. Children whose parents had been convicted after the child's birth have more convictions than those whose parents had only been convicted before the child's birth, but this difference can be explained partly by the observation that the latter group had fewer risk factors for crime. When parental convictions at different ages were examined, children whose parents had been convicted between their 7th and 13th birthdays exhibit more criminal behaviour than children whose parents were convicted in other periods, but none of the differences were significant. There does not appear to be a sensitive period for the impact of parental criminal behaviour. The results demonstrate support for static as well as dynamic explanations of intergenerational transmission such as the transmission of a criminogenic environment and/or mediation through risk factors.

We investigated to what extent children of convicted parents might have a higher risk of a conviction themselves because criminal justice systems, such as the police and courts, focus more attention towards certain criminal families—a concept called official bias. Bias was measured using several variables: a convicted parent, low family income, low family socio-economic status, poor housing and a father’s poor job record. A convicted parent as well as poorer social circumstances such as a father’s
poor job record, low family income and poor housing predicted an increased conviction risk while controlling for self-reported offending. The results support the official bias mechanism, but also suggest that other mechanisms are needed to explain intergenerational transmission of criminal convictions.

In this dissertation, I have investigated mechanisms that might explain why children with criminal parents have a higher risk of committing crime. Several explanations for this intergenerational transmission have been contrasted, such as social learning (imitation of behaviour), official bias against certain families, and transmission of risk factors. I have investigated this in England as well as in the Netherlands. Some of the questions answered in my dissertation are: does it matter when the parents committed crime in the child's life? Do more persistent offenders transmit crime more than sporadic offenders? Do violent offenders specifically transmit violent behaviour or general crime to their children? Might the police and courts be biased against certain families? Might continuity of a criminogenic environment explain why parents as well as children show criminal behaviour? Does parental imprisonment pose an extra risk? I find some support for social learning and strong support for the transmission of a criminogenic environment and official bias. It does not matter at what point in the offspring's youth parents commit crime; the risk of transmission is similar at different ages.

This chapter provides an overview of theories and empirical studies on the relationship between incarceration and reoffending and on the impact of parental incarceration on the criminal behavior of children. How does incarceration impact on offending behavior when an individual leaves the prison? Rigorous scientific evidence is lacking, but the available empirical evidence suggests that incarceration has a null or criminogenic effect on reoffending. How are children of those incarcerated affected by their parents’ prison sentence? Although several theoretical mechanisms have been voiced, such as social, economic and psychological strain, intergenerational transmission, and stigmatization, research into these mechanisms is scarce. The available research points to parental incarceration being a risk factor with effects partly caused by caretaker stress and weakened family bonds.

This chapter uses prospectively collected data on the male family members in 397 British nuclear families and 140 Dutch extended families to examine the concentration of sexual offending in families, as well as possible explanations for such a concentration. It also examines whether the degree of concentration differs for different types of sex offenses. In addition to the research indicating a concentration of crime within families, there is also empirical evidence of intergenerational transmission of crime, from father to son, and intragenerational transmission of crime, between siblings. The chapter examines the transmission of sex offending instead of the transmission of victimization. Because sex offenses include several types of behavior for which the intergenerational transmission might operate differently, different types of sexual crime will be analyzed. It examines differences in the degree of concentration within families for hands-off offenses, hands-on offenses, and sex offenses committed against victims aged under 16.

Coercive parent-child interaction models posit that an escalating cycle of negative, bidirectional interchanges influences the development of boys’ externalizing problems and caregivers’ maladaptive parenting over time. However, longitudinal studies examining this hypothesis have been unable to rule out the possibility that between-individual factors account for bidirectional associations between child externalizing problems and maladaptive parenting. Using a longitudinal sample of boys (N=503) repeatedly assessed eight times across 6-month intervals in childhood (in a range between 6-13 years), the current study is the first to use novel within-individual change (fixed effects) models to examine whether parents tend to increase their use of maladaptive parenting strategies following an increase in their son’s externalizing problems, or vice versa. These bidirectional associations were examined using multiple facets of externalizing problems (i.e., interpersonal callousness, conduct and oppositional defiant problems, hyperactivity/impulsivity) and parenting behaviors (i.e., physical punishment, involvement, parent-child communication). Analyses failed to support the notion that when boys increase their typical level of problem behaviors, their parents show an increase in their typical level of maladaptive parenting across the subsequent 6 month period, and vice versa. Instead, across 6-month intervals, within parent-son dyads, changes in maladaptive parenting and child externalizing problems waxed and waned in concert. Fixed effects models to address the topic of bidirectional relations between parent and child behavior are severely underrepresented. We recommend that other researchers who have found significant bidirectional parent-child associations using rank-order change models reexamine their data to determine whether these findings hold when examining changes within parent-child dyads.

Labeling theory suggests that criminal justice interventions amplify offending behavior. Theories of intergenerational transmission suggest why children of convicted parents have a higher risk of offending. This paper combines these two perspectives and investigates whether labeling effects might be stronger for children of convicted parents. We first investigated labeling effects within the individual: we examined the impact of a conviction between ages 19–26 on self-reported offending behavior between 27–32 while controlling for self-reported behavior between 15–18. Our results show that a conviction predicted someone's later self-reported offending behavior, even when previous offending behavior was taken into account. Second, we investigated whether having a convicted parent influenced this association. When we added this interaction to the analysis, a labeling effect was only visible among people with convicted parents. This supports the idea of cumulative disadvantage: Labeling seems stronger for people who are already in a disadvantaged situation having a convicted parent.

Children whose parents exhibit criminal behavior (CB) appear to have an increased risk of displaying CB themselves. We conducted a systematic review and pooled results from 23 samples in 25 publications (including 3,423,483 children) in this meta-analysis of intergenerational transmission of CB. On average, children with criminal parents were at significantly higher risk for CB compared with children without criminal parents (pooled OR = 2.4). Studies taking into account covariates also showed increased risk for CB (pooled OR = 1.8). Transmission was strongest from mothers to daughters, followed by mothers to sons, fathers to daughters, and fathers to sons. Moreover, transmission appeared stronger for cohorts born after 1981. When we examined methodological quality and other characteristics of studies, response rates, sample size, or use of official records vs. self-or other-reports of parental CB did not moderate outcomes. However, we found stronger transmission for samples that used convenience or case-control sampling, and in studies in which parental CB clearly preceded offspring CB. We discuss mechanisms underlying intergenerational transmission, including social learning, criminogenic environments, biological proneness, and criminal justice bias. Finally, we consider limitations and directions for future research as well as policy implications for breaking the cycle of intergenerational crime.

Anxiety disorders in adolescence are common and disruptive, pointing to a need for effective treatments for this age group. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is one of the most popular interventions for adolescent anxiety, and there is empirical support for its application. However, a significant proportion of adolescent clients continue to report anxiety symptoms post-treatment. This paper underscores the need to attend to the unique developmental characteristics of the adolescent period when designing and delivering treatment, in an effort to enhance treatment effectiveness. Informed by the literature from developmental psychology, developmental psychopathology, and clinical child and adolescent psychology, we review the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of developmentally appropriate CBT for anxious adolescents. ‘Why’ it is important to consider developmental factors in designing and delivering CBT for anxious adolescents is addressed by examining the age-related findings of treatment outcome studies and exploring the influence of developmental factors, including cognitive capacities, on engagement in CBT. ‘How’ clinicians can developmentally tailor CBT for anxious adolescents in six key domains of treatment design and delivery is illustrated with suggestions drawn from both clinically and research-oriented literature. Finally, recommendations are made for research into developmentally appropriate CBT for anxious adolescents.

his article extends previous research on the development and evaluation of a fear survey schedule for T children. It was predicted that children diagnosed with an anxiety or other intemalising disorder would report fewer fears, a lower intensity of fear and different fear content following treatment, whereas the same changes would not be observed in a control group. A total of 34 children, aged 5 to 15 years, who presented with school-refusal behaviour, were randomly allocated to cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or waiting-list control (WLC). Self-reported fear was assessed at pre-and post-test for both groups using the Fear Survey Schedule for Children -II (FSSC-11).