Gender Differences in Delinquency and Situational Action Theory: A Partial Test

This paper investigates to what extent a recent perspective in criminology, Situational Action Theory, is valid for both males and females and to what extent elements from the theory explain gender differences in delinquency. Data are used from the first (N?=?843) and second (N?=?616) wave of the Study of Peers, Activities, and Neighborhoods, which included detailed data about core elements of Situational Action Theory (morality, self-control, unsupervised peer activity and peer deviancy), proposed indirect causes (bonds with parents and school, parental monitoring) and self-reported delinquency. Cross-sectional and lagged Tobit regression analyses show that the core relations with delinquency are not significantly different between boys and girls and that the elements of Situational Action Theory are able to explain gender differences in delinquency for a substantial part. However, there is still a remaining independent effect of gender on current and lagged delinquency.     

Violent Youth Group Involvement, Self-reported Offending and Victimisation: An Empirical Assessment of an Integrated Informal Control/Lifestyle Model

The present study assesses the relationship between family and educational disadvantage on self-reported offending, victimisation and violent youth group involvement in a Belgian medium-sized city. Many studies have focused on the relationship between family disadvantage (one-parent families, immigrant background) and educational disadvantage (vocational tracking, school failure) and violent youth group involvement, offending/victimisation in surveys. The present study primarily assesses to what extent social bonds (parental monitoring and the school social bond), deviant beliefs, low self-control and lifestyle risk are stable mediators of the relationship between family and educational disadvantage and self-reported offending, victimisation and troublesome youth group involvement among young adolescents. The results indicate that the lifestyle-exposure model, which was initially used to explain individual differences in victimisation is much better capable of explaining differences in selfreported offending and violent youth group involvement than victimisation. The implications for further studies are discussed.