A Criminological Test of Confucian Family Centrism

A. The Family

The family unit and family cohesion are central to Confucian remedies for crime. The family is the root of behavior acquisition and the nucleus of society. The type and quality of affection exhibited between family members, and the moral lessons and ritual based guidance transmitted from parents to children represent a major factor in determining the children’s future behavior—particularly in the self-control and morality required to suppress deviant behavior. This affection and guidance are to begin immediately after the child is born and continue unabated in an intense manner throughout childhood. Confucius (1971 [1893]) explains the initial phase of the parenting procedure, “It is not until a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents” (17.21, 328). This quote is emblematic of the intense dedication and supervision expected of parents throughout their children’s development. The pre-Qin Confucian book of ritual known as The Book of Rites or the Li Ki, which conveys the Confucian family centric worldview, describes how parents have the capacity to influence children, “He should be (as if he were) hearing (his parents) when there is no voice from them, and as seeing them when they are not actually there” (Legge 2016: Qu Li 1.11), and it explains how the son should behave toward his father:

In serving his father, (a son) should conceal (his faults), and not openly or strongly remonstrate with him about them; should in every possible way wait on and nourish him, without being tied to definite rules; should serve him laboriously till his death, and then complete the mourning for him for three years. (Legge 2016: Tan Gong 1.67)

Other more general examples of the extreme dedication to the family expected within Confucianism include Confucius’s observation that:

Now filial piety is the root of (all) virtue, and (the stem) out of which grows (all moral) teaching. . . . When we have established our character by the practice of the (filial) course, so as to make our name famous in the future ages, and thereby glorify our parents:—this is the end of filial piety. It commences with the service of parents; it proceeds to the service of the ruler; it is completed by the establishment of the character. (Misc. Confucian School 1879, pt. 1, 465)

B. The Center of All Things

The family and the family as a unit is valued over all else within pre-Qin Confucian philosophy—even to the extent that it supersedes the law and the state. If the father engages in serious criminal behavior, it is expected, according to both Confucius and Mencius, that the son cover-up for the crimes of the father so that the father’s crimes will not be detected by the authorities or that the father will not be apprehended by the authorities. The same holds true if the son is the criminal, wherein the father is expected to cover for the crimes of the son. Confucius (2008) explains:

The Duke of She told Master Kong [Confucius]: “In my locality there is a certain paragon, for when his father stole a sheep, he, the son, bore witness against him.’ Master Kong said: ‘In my locality those who are upright are different from this. Fathers cover up for their sons and sons cover up for their fathers. Uprightness is to be found in this.” (13.18, 51)

Mencius took this notion further, asserting that not only should a son aid in the flight of his criminal father, but that 1) he should cover for his father even if his father commits serious offenses such as murder, and 2) he should be prepared to ruin or greatly diminish his own life—even going so far as having a king abdicate his thrown to save his criminal father—in the process. Mencius (2004) explains the acceptable behavior of an emperor when the emperor’s father commits a serious criminal offence:

T’ao Ying asked [Mencius], “When Shun was Emperor and Kao Yao was the judge, if the Blind Man [Emperor Shun’s father] killed a man, what was to be done?”
“The only thing to do was to apprehend him.”
“In that case, would Shun [the Emperor] not try to stop it?”
“How could Shun [the Emperor] stop it? Kao Yao [the judge] had authority for what he did.”
“Then what would Shun have done?”
[Mencius]: “Shun looked upon casting aside the Empire as no more than discarding a worn shoe. He would have secretly carried the old man on his back and fled to the edge of the Sea and lived there happily, never giving a thought to the Empire.” (VII. A. 35, 153)

In this case, many will consider the behavior of the son or the father, when covering for the other, to be immoral and troubling, but it must be conveyed that if any behavior is expected to disrupt the unity of the family or dissolve the family it is to be rejected in favor of any action that will ensure the continuation of a united and functional family.²

The importance of the family in teaching and promoting virtuous behavior is paramount in the Confucian tradition. The lessons and examples passed down from parents to children, mainly through ritual, moral instruction, and forms of academic learning, were considered by the Confucians to be the root from which moral behavior springs. Confucius (2008) said this about the role of the family in the prevention of civil disorder:

Few indeed are those who are naturally filial towards their parents and dutiful towards their elder brothers but are fond of opposing their superiors; and it never happens that those who do not like opposing their superiors are fond of creating civil disorder. The gentleman concerns himself with the root; and if the root is firmly planted, the Way grows. Filial piety and fraternal duty—surely, they are the roots of humaneness. (1.2, p. 3)

The root of humaneness is the family, particularly in the actions of the parents in the upbringing of children and in the filial piety reciprocated to the parents later in life. Who we become as human beings is a direct result of the type of family environment from which we emerge. Those who acquire the proper moral lessons and behavioral patterns will likely go on to be dutiful towards their parents, family, community, superiors, country, and ruler. Those children who engage in productive behaviors and interactions with their parents will engage in a continuation of these behaviors and interactions with other inhabitants within their communities and within society—which generates a harmonious society generally unburdened by civil misconduct and deviance.

C. Family Centrism and Authentic Love

Family centric gradations of love exhibited within society is, per the Confucians, evidence that the family is of most importance in the development and wellbeing of people. When authentic love and affection is strong, as it often is within an immediate family (relative to the love and affection shared between nonrelatives or strangers), people take it upon themselves to authentically nurture and provide for each other.

Among family members there is a greater unconscious drive to show love and sacrifice for one another when compared to other nonrelated members of society. Mencius (2004) explains:

Presumably there must have been cases in ancient times of people not burying their parents. When the parents died, they were thrown in the gullies. Then one day the sons passed the place and there lay the bodies, eaten by foxes and sucked by flies. A sweat broke out on their brows, and they could not bear to look. The sweating was not put on for others to see. It was as outward expression of their innermost heart. They went home for baskets and spades. If it was truly right for them to bury the remains of their parents, then it must also be right for all dutiful sons and benevolent men to do likewise. (III. A. 5, 63)

This sweating and instinctive turning away from the gruesome scene of parental decomposition represents a deep affection for close relatives. As a correlate, Mencius (2004) was once asked if people love one another equally, regardless of blood affiliation, and he responded, “Does Yi Tzu [the questioner] truly believe that a man loves his brother’s son no more than his neighbor’s newborn baby?” (III.A.5, 62-63). Mencius is conveying that a man will love a close blood relative more than a nonrelated person in the community. It is from this love that a dedication to the well-being of one’s children is generated. It is from this dedication to the children that, through moral and ritual based instruction, the children develop self-control and a working morality.

D. Education within the Family

Within the Confucian tradition, parents are expected to instruct their children on matters pertaining to morality, ritual, and general knowledge. This education is to be long-term, rigorous, and constant. The prominent pre-Qin Confucian text The Great Learning explains parental expectations, “What is meant by ‘In order rightly to govern the State, it is necessary first to regulate the family,’ is this:—It is not possible for one to teach others, while he cannot teach his own family” (Confucius [1893] 1971: The Great Learning IX.I, 370). Though this advice is directed toward the ruling classes in this instance, it speaks to two important elements within the family-education equation. The first, though it may seem rather obvious, is that parents must instruct their children. The second is that once parents have mastered the task of instruction within the home, they can then be considered capable of providing advice for others. Stated differently, if one is incapable, through poor instruction, incompetence, or other circumstances, of producing morally sound and competent children, their ability to instruct others and provide advice for community members may be seriously questioned.

Of high importance are the rituals that are expected to be taught and practiced within the family. It is within this ritual based framework of social behavior and social hierarchies that children are expected to learn and practice many forms of self-control, filial piety, and hierarchy recognition, all of which is anticipated to result in greater personal control and diminished expressions of deviance and criminality.

Lastly, and importantly, Confucius, in his capacity as Minister of Crime, was confronted with a domestic dispute between a father and son. Confucius was prompted by a superior to execute the son for his being unfilial towards his father. Confucius refused this request, claiming the father had failed to properly educate his son on filial piety. From this episode, the importance Confucius placed on a father educating his son is clear. This event, interpreted and described by James Legge, transpired thusly:

A father having brought some charge against his son, Confucius kept them both in prison for three months, without making any difference in favour of the father, and then wished to dismiss them both. The head of the Chi was dissatisfied, and said, ‘You are playing with me, Sir Minister of Crime. Formerly you told me that in a State or a family filial duty was the first thing to be insisted on. What hinders you now from putting to death this unfilial son as an example to all the people?’ Confucius with a sigh replied, ‘When superiors fail in their duty, and yet go to put their inferiors to death, it is not right. This father has not taught his son to be filial [emphasis added];—to listen to his charge would be to slay the guiltless. (Confucius[1893] 1971, 74)

Per Confucius, if parents fail to control and regulate their children through ritual, moral instruction, and in other scholastic education, their children will have a greater likelihood of exhibiting criminal behavior.

E. The Role of the Father

Of all the relationships that exist within the social hierarchy, the Confucians believed that the father-son relationship is the most vital. When this relationship is destroyed or severely disrupted—because of father absenteeism, the father lacking in morals or cultivation, and so on—the future behavioral outlook of the son is not expected to be promising. Because of the father’s failure to cultivate himself or understand his role within the upbringing of his children, the son will be unable to acquire the moral framework—a moral framework that is derived from instruction in ritual and morality—necessary to prevent deviance and wrongdoing. Thus, the father’s position within the Confucian family system is vitally important and a major determining factor in the future behavior (criminal or otherwise) of his children.

It is, the Confucians argued, the responsibility of the father to teach his children and regulate his family. If the father is immoral, uneducated, and uncultivated, his ability to produce a vibrant and productive family will be greatly diminished. Mencius illustrates this point, “If you do not practice the Way yourself, you will not have your way even with your own wife and children” (Mencius 2004, VII. B.9). Confucius spoke of the importance of the father within family regulation when he said:

It is said in the Book of Poetry, “Happy union with wife and children, is like the music of lutes and harps. When there is concord among brethren, the harmony is delightful and enduring. Thus, may you regulate your family, and enjoy the pleasures of your wife and children.” (Legge 1893: Doctrine of the Mean XV.V.2, 396)

Society comes secondary to, and functions as a product of, the operation and quality of the family system. Mencius explains the hierarchal nature of Confucian society in these general terms, “There is a common expression, “The Empire, the state, the family.” The Empire has its basis in the state, the state in the family, and the family in one’s own self” (Mencius IV.A.5, 79)

A. Kin Selection

The inherent need to provide greater love to close family members, as espoused in Confucian family centrism, can be tied to evolutionary theory and Darwinian natural selection, particularly as it relates to an adaptive strategy within natural selection known as kin selection. Kin selection is an evolutionarily theory developed by William Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, and later advanced and popularized by Robert Trivers in conjunction with his work on reciprocal altruism. Kin selection is a form of natural selection operating at the level of the family, or genetically related groups of organisms, instead of explicitly at the level of the individual. It is a method for gene replication or gene propagation utilized by some species, and it explains why people have evolved to behave altruistically to those who are genetically joined with them.

Genetic material maintains its continued existence through two main strategies, individual mating and kin selection. The first strategy, individual mating, is the survival and reproduction of the gene directly from within the body in which it is contained. This is accomplished when one gains access to a mate, and, through reproductive processes with one’s mate, directly propagates one’s genes into the next generation. It is the case of one person individually spreading one’s own genes through reproduction with another individual. The second method, kin selection, is the survival and propagation of one’s genetic information by enhancing the reproductive success of those who carry similar genetic information (genetically related family members or kin). This is typically achieved by one member of a family sacrificing some or all genetic fitness (reproductive and survival capacity) to improve the genetic fitness of another member of the family or several other members of the family.

This type of sacrificial or fitness reducing behavior is acceptable from a gene-level perspective because in the game of gene propagation all that matters is that the gene is passed to the next generation, it does not matter which body the gene is in—and genetically related family members carry significant amounts of each other’s genetic information. Those family members closely related to you likely carry greater amounts of your genes, while those more distant in family relation likely carry fewer of your genes, and nonrelatives carry fewer still. To put this in a proportional perspective, one-half of your genes are shared with your children, yet only around one-eighth of your genes mirror those of your cousin, thus, the odds that you would be willing to sacrifice fitness for your children (or be altruistic toward your children), as opposed to your cousin, are greater.

At the end of the day, as long as one’s genes continue on into the future, then, from a genetic standpoint, success has been achieved. One body can sacrifice itself or lose a significant amount of fitness for another body, and this is perfectly acceptable from a gene-level perspective if that other body contains a substantial portion of the same genetic information as the sacrificial body. As Gottschalk writes, “If a gene in my body can find a way to assist any copies of itself that reside in another body, that gene will spread” (2002, 268-269). From a kin selection perspective, we can understand why parents stick around to raise their offspring: it is simply one genetic entity working to ensure the fitness of another genetic entity that shares its genes. One can see evidence of kin selection by examining the cellular relationships operating within a single body. Gottschalk explains:

The gene’s-eye view can play hell with our common-sense ideas about an individual and a social group. But, it also allows you to see the “altruistic” sacrifice that your white blood cells make on behalf of all the other cells that are you. . . . Your body is like an ant colony wherein every “ant” (i.e. cell) is perfectly related to every other “ant.” Thus, every cell in you submerges its interests to the good of the group. . . . The idea is to see through the organism to the replicating entities themselves. Even the altruism that occurs between organisms that are not genetically identical, is working in the interests of the genes that are shared. It is still the copies of genes that are benefiting. (Gottschalk 2002, 276)

Kin selection, through the general processes of natural selection, has effectively engrained within humans a predisposition to altruistically provide greater material goods for, and engage in a greater emotional connection with, those who share the same genetic information—with little or no expectation for reciprocity. This kind of relational behavior exists because it has been highly effective in the past in ensuring the continued existence of one’s genetic information. People who possessed genes that predisposed them to behave altruistically (to show love) to others who shared their DNA (children, siblings, cousins, and so on) have historically passed on greater amounts of their genetic information, genetic information which contained these same altruistic genes, to future generations. As Gottschalk states regarding altruistic genes replicating altruistic genes, “The solution . . . is to think in terms of genes and to get altruistic genes to benefit themselves by benefiting other bodies which contain copies of the altruistic gene” (Gottschalk 2002, 270).

Viewed from a different direction, those humans (kin selection has not been selected for by many other species, but it has been selected for among humans) that possessed genes for, say, abandoning their offspring to fend for themselves after birth, were out reproduced by those who were endowed with genes that promoted altruistic behavior toward their offspring after birth. Thus, kin selection amongst humans has generally been a more effective reproductive strategy than, say, abandonment selection or universal love selection. Ultimately, because this behavior is so effective, it essentially became the norm amongst humans. It should be noted that kin selection is simply an effective means to propagate genes into the future, and it does not hold moral superiority over, say, utilitarian theory advocated by Peter Singer (1981) and Joshua Greene (2013), which asserts that people, families, and societies be more inclusive in the care of others.

The genes that generate these neurocognitive mechanisms that promote this behavior exist because these genes are highly effective in propelling genes (themselves) into the future (Dawkins 1976). From a Darwinian perspective, it could be argued, to love someone is to invest altruistically in their genetic success/reproductive success—invest one’s time, emotional energy, resources, and fitness—to engage in Confucian family centrism—so that another person, almost always another blood relative,³ can survive, become more reproductively fit, and pass on genetic information.

B. The Cinderella Effect

The “Cinderella effect” explains that the likelihood of a child being abused or killed by a parent is far higher when that parent is a not genetically or biologically related. Rates of child abuse in stepparent families far exceed that of biologically intact families (Daly and Wilson 1988; Schnitzer and Ewigman 2008; Stiffman et al. 2002). Stiffman et al. estimates that children “were eight times more likely to die” (2002, 615) at the hands of a non-genetically related adult living in their household when compared to a household that consisted of an intact, two biological parent arrangement.

Evolutionarily speaking, when a parent abuses their biologically related child, the chances for that child to be successful in the propagation or continuation of the abusive parent’s genes later in life is reduced (consider the reproductive implications of severe brain trauma from physical abuse or severe emotional and psychological abuse; the significance of this abuse extends to the death of the child, in that, if the child is killed his/her reproductive capacity is reduced to zero). Because the child, under these adverse conditions, has a reduced chance of propagating his/her genes, the genetic predisposition for this abusive behavior from a biological parent is greatly diminished—the genes that promote abusive behavior from parents to their biological children are more likely not to survive into future generations.

On the other hand, when a non-biologically related parent (usually the stepfather) abuses a stepchild, that behavior will often not affect the continuation of his abusive genes, and, thus, it will not affect the continuation of this type of abusive behavior. Gottschalk and Ellis (2010, 66) explain, “From an evolutionary perspective, individuals who harm close genetic relatives are less likely to pass genes on to future generations than are individuals who harm distant relatives or nonrelatives.” In one of nature’s sad twists, the stepparent’s abusive behavior may help in the propagation of his abusive genes. By abusing his non-genetically related child, he is, in effect, forcing that child away from him, away from the home he shares with the child’s biological mother, and, most importantly, away from his resources, so that he can begin to propagate his own genes with the child’s mother and share his resources with his biological children.

This same type of behavior is witnessed repeatedly in the animal kingdom, usually on a more vicious level. When an alpha male lion gets old or shows vulnerability, another male lion will emerge, kill or drive away the alpha, take over the pride, and then usually proceed to kill all the previous alpha’s cubs and begin to mate with the lionesses—starting the process of passing on his genetic information. Killing all the previous alpha’s cubs also precipitates a renewed sexual receptivity amongst lionesses.

Therefore, when parents raise their own biological children (showing love in the Confucian sense), the likelihood for child abuse is much lower than if the mother were to take a member of the outside community into the home to interact with and raise her children (Daly and Wilson 1988). The propensity for a relative to show love to a genetically related child, and, at the same time, not abuse the child, is significantly higher than a non-genetically related person. This is because the genetically related pair share a great proportion of the same genetic information and that genetically related relative wants that genetic information to prosper and propagate. The propensity for a non-genetically related person to show love to the child, and not abuse them, is reduced because they do not carry the same genetic information and, thus, this person is likely to be less concerned about the child’s future reproductive success. This all likely operates on a subconscious level. Daly and Wilson summarize this reduction in affection due to genetic differences, “One implication is that substitute parents will often care less profoundly for “their” children than will genetic parents” (1988, 520).

The Cinderella effect is an indication of how difficult it is to overcome the inherent disposition to favor our own kin over others, wherein seemingly good and well-meaning genetically unrelated parents may become twisted due to unconscious evolutionary mechanisms and neglect, mistreat, and even abuse their unrelated children. Given this difficulty, accepting and improving on the Confucian family centric disposition may be of benefit. The Cinderella effect is also evidence of how the implementation of Confucian family centrism—wherein fathers remain with their families to raise, monitor, punish, and educate their own children, rather than have outsiders into their former homes to engage in this behavior—may produce more favorable outcomes for their children and for society. A united and engaged biologically related parenting framework (which is foundational to Confucian family centrism) is seemingly optimal for children, as kin selection and the Cinderella effect show, thus, likely making it easier to implement within society.

A. The Residential Fathers Parenting Style

Four parenting styles were examined in the residential fathers parenting style question: authoritative, permissive, uninvolved, and authoritarian. The authoritative parenting style is most closely aligned with Confucian family centrism, as it provides a clear and firm father-son hierarchy with educational development.

Hypothesis 1: Authoritative parenting possesses clear Confucian family centric elements; thus, it will produce the lowest probabilities for a) delinquency, b) substance use, c) behavioral/emotional problems, and d) ever steal anything greater than $50 including cars.

Hypothesis 2: Uninvolved and authoritarian parenting do not possess clear Confucian family centric elements; thus, they will produce higher probabilities for a) delinquency, b) substance use, c) behavioral/emotional problems, and d) ever steal anything greater than $50 including cars.

B. The Degree of Monitoring by the Residential Father

Confucian family centrism closely and effectively monitors the conduct of boys for purposes of control, discipline, punishment, and education.

Hypothesis 3: Monitoring scores NLSY97 range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater parental monitoring. Monitoring behavior in the 10 to 15 range is best representative of Confucian family centrism; a score in the 16 range will be overly variable, possibly because of unhealthy parenting pressure, the “child effect” rather than the “parent effect,” or other issues found in scores on extreme ends of extended Likert scales. Thus, scores in the 10 to 15 range will produce the lowest probabilities for a) delinquency, b) substance use, c) behavioral/emotional problems, and d) ever steal anything greater than $50 including cars.

Table 1.

Hypotheses of the Current Study

A. Independent Measures: The Fathers Parenting Practices

The following are the two NLSY97 parenting variables that provide different methods of parenting:

The “parenting style” question was presented to the participants thusly: “Residential Father’s Parenting Style. 1 = Uninvolved, 2 = Permissive, 3 = Authoritarian, and 4 = Authoritative.”

The “degree of parental monitoring of the residential father” question was presented to the participants thusly: “Degree of parental monitoring of the residential father. Scores range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater parental monitoring.”

B. Dependent Measures: Boys Moral and Behavioral Variables

The following are the four NLSY97 variables that were used to measure boys moral and behavioral outcomes:

The question of “delinquency” was presented to the participants thusly: “Delinquency score index. Scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores indicate more incidents of delinquency.”

The question of “substance use” was presented to the participants thusly: “Substance use index. Scores range from 0 to 3; higher scores indicate more instances of substance use.”

The question of “behavioral/emotional problems” was presented to the participants thusly: “Behavioral and emotional problems scale for boys. Scores range from 0 to 8; higher scores indicate more frequent and/or numerous behavior problems.”

The question of “ever stealing anything greater than $50 including cars” was presented to participants thusly: “Have you ever stolen something from a store, person or house, or something that did not belong to you worth 50 dollars or more including stealing a car?” Scores were coded: 1 = yes, 0 = no.

A. Parenting Style on Delinquency, Substance Use, Behavioral/Emotional Problems, and Stealing

A statistically significant multivariate test was obtained from parenting style, Pillais’ Trace = .046, F (12, 3015) = 3.93, p < .001, η²_p = .02.

Table 2.

Adjusted Mean, Std. Error, and 95% Confidence Interval for Residential Father’s Parenting Style (Youth Report)

1. Delinquency Score and Parenting Style

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the four parenting styles (uninvolved, permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian) on delinquency scores (delinquency scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores indicate greater incidents of delinquency), F (3, 1006) = 3.33, p = .019, η²_p = .01. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test indicated significant differences between two groups of parenting styles, wherein authoritative (M = 1.27), permissive (M = 1.26), and uninvolved (M = 1.34) parenting had significantly lower delinquency scores compared to authoritarian (M = 1.88) parenting.

As shown in figure 1, uninvolved, permissive, and authoritative parenting produced the lowest probability for delinquency and were significantly different from authoritarian parenting.

Figure 1.

The Effect of Parenting Style on Boy’s Delinquency Scores* Delinquency scores range from 0 to 10.** Higher scores indicate greater incidents of delinquency.

3. Boys Behavioral/Emotional Problems Scale (Youth Report) and Parenting Style

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the four parenting styles (uninvolved, permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian) on the behavioral/emotional problems scale (scores range from 0 to 8; higher scores indicate more frequent and/or numerous behavior/emotional problems), F (3, 1006) = 8.02, p < .001, η²_p = .02. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two groups of parenting styles on boys behavioral/emotional problems, wherein authoritative (M = 1.96) and permissive (M = 1.99) parenting had significantly lower behavioral/emotional problems compared to authoritarian (M = 2.78) and uninvolved (M = 2.60) parenting.

As shown in figure 2, authoritative and permissive parenting, though not different from each other, were significantly different from authoritarian and uninvolved parenting for behavioral/emotional problems. Uninvolved and authoritarian parenting produced the greatest probability for behavioral/emotional problems, and they were not significantly different from one another.

Figure 2.

The Effect of Parenting Style on Boy’s Behavioral/Emotional Problems* Behavioral/emotional scores range from 0 to 8.**Higher scores indicate more frequent and/or numerous behavior/emotional problems

4. Ever Steal Anything Greater than $50 Including Cars and Parenting Style

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the four parenting styles (uninvolved, permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian) on stealing (yes = 1, no = 0), F (3, 1006) = 8.02, p = .002, η²_p = .01. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two groups of parenting styles, wherein authoritative (M = .04) parenting had significantly lower stealing scores compared to uninvolved (M = .13) and permissive (M = .08) parenting.

As shown in figure 3, authoritative parenting produced the lowest probability for stealing and was significantly different from uninvolved and permissive parenting.

Figure 3.

The Effect of Parenting Style on Stealing* Stealing scores range from 0 to 1.** Higher scores indicate greater incidents of stealing.

B. Degree of Parental Monitoring by the Residential Father on Delinquency, Substance Use, Behavioral/Emotional Problems, and Stealing

A statistically significant multivariate test was obtained from degree of parental monitoring by the residential father, Pillais’ Trace = .15, F (64, 4024) = 2.12, p < .001, η²_p = .04.

Table 3.

Adjusted Means, Std. Error, and 95% Confidence Interval for Degree of Parental Monitoring by Residential Father (Youth Report)

1. Delinquency Score and Parental Monitoring

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the degree of father monitoring on delinquency scores (delinquency scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores indicate greater incidents of delinquency), F (16, 1006) = 4.29, p < .001, η²_p = .06. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two subsets of father monitoring, wherein monitoring levels of 0 (M = 2.33) through 3 (M = 2.50) had significantly higher delinquency compared to levels 8 (M = 1.23) through 15 (M = .96).

As shown in figure 4, monitoring behavior in the 8 to 15 range had the lowest probability for delinquency from boys. Monitoring behavior in the 0 through 3 range had the greatest probability for delinquency. A monitoring score in the 4 to 7 range produced a probability for delinquency that fell between these two groups.

Figure 4.

The Effect of Parental Monitoring by the Residential Father on Boy’s Delinquency Scores* Fathers monitoring scores range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater monitoring.** Delinquency scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores indicate increased incidents of delinquency.

2. Substance Use and Parental Monitoring

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the degree of father monitoring on substance use (substance use scores range from 0 to 3; higher scores indicate greater substance use), F (16, 1006) = 3.61, p < .001, η²_p = .05. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two subsets of father monitoring, wherein monitoring levels of 1 (M = 1.63), 3 (M = 1.34), and 4 (M = 1.11) had significantly higher substance use compared to levels 8 (M = .61) through 12 (M = .41).

As shown in figure 5, monitoring behavior in the 8 through 12 range had the lowest probability of boys engaged in substance use. Monitoring behavior in the 1, 3, and 4 range had the greatest probability for substance use. A monitoring score in the 5 to 7 range produced a probability for substance use that fell between these two groups.

Figure 5.

The Effect of Parental Monitoring by the Residential Father on Boy’s Substance Use* Fathers monitoring scores range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater monitoring.** Substance use scores range from 0 to 3; higher scores indicate increased substance use.

3. Boys Behavioral/Emotional Problems Scale (Youth Report) and Parental Monitoring

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the degree of father monitoring on boys behavioral/emotional problems (behavioral/emotional scores range from 0 to 8; higher scores indicate more frequent and/or numerous behavior/emotional problems), F (16, 1006) = 2.51, p = .001, η²_p = .04. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two groups of father monitoring, wherein monitoring levels 0 (M = 2.79) through 6 (M = 2.48) had significantly higher behavioral/emotional problems compared to levels 11 (M = 1.69), 12 (M = 1.61), and 15 (M = 1.59).

As shown in figure 6, monitoring behavior in the 11, 12, and 15 range had the lowest probability for behavioral/emotional problems from boys. Monitoring behavior in the 0 through 6 range had the greatest probability for behavioral/emotional problems. A monitoring score in the 7 to 10 range produced a probability for behavioral/emotional problems that fell between these two groups.

Figure 6.

The Effect of Parental Monitoring by the Residential Father on Boy’s Behavioral/Emotional Problems* Fathers monitoring scores range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater monitoring.** Behavioral/emotional scores range from 0 to 8; higher scores indicate more frequent and/or numerous behavior/emotional problems.

4. Ever Steal Anything Greater than $50 Including Cars and Parental Monitoring

Univariate testing indicated that there was a significant difference among the degree of father monitoring on stealing, F (16, 1006) = 3.51, p < .001, η²_p = .05. Post hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD test indicated significant differences between two groups of father monitoring, wherein monitoring levels 1 (M = .28) and 3 (M = .187) had significantly higher stealing compared to levels 7 (M = .08) through 12 (M = -.002).

As shown in figure 7, monitoring behavior in the 7 to 12 range had the lowest probability for stealing among boys. Monitoring behavior in the 1 and 3 range had the greatest probability for stealing.

Figure 7.

The The Effect of Parental Monitoring by the Residential Father on Stealing* Fathers monitoring scores range from 0 to 16; higher scores indicate greater monitoring.** Stealing scores range from 0 to 1; higher scores indicate more stealing.