Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Adolescent stealing: A study of the causal factors for and prevalence of stealing in New Zealand intermediate school students. A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education at Massey University Judith Elizabeth Seeto 1997 ii Abstract A self-report questionnaire was used to measure stealing behaviour, attitudes and values, family variables, attachment to school and past-times of peers of students at a New Zealand intermediate school. Incidence rates of stealing, gender differences and school class level differences in stealing behaviour were identified from the data and compared with those found by other researchers of general delinquent behaviour and more specific stealing behaviour. Causal factors believed to be related to delinquent behaviour were measured to determine whether they were also related to stealing behaviour and to each other, as proposed in a model of delinquent behaviour A very high proportion of participants reported having engaged in some form of stealing, reflecting the findings of other researchers . Marked gender differences in rates of stealing were found, with boys reporting significantly higher levels of theft than girls. Year 8 students reported significantly more stealing than Year 7 students. Being male, in Year 8 at school, associating with delinquent peers, holding delinquent values and having a low level of attachment to parents were factors found to be related to higher levels of stealing behaviour. These findings are discussed in relation to various theories of delinquent behaviour. iii Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the following people for the parts they have played in the completion of this study: Dr Jane Prochnow for her supervision, advice and assistance; Mr John Schollum for permission to carry out the research and for his professional support; Staff of the participating school for their support and cooperation. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments lll Figures and Tables v Introduction Method 27 Results 32 Discussion 44 Conclusions 61 References 68 Appendix 72 v Figures and Tables Figure 1 Thornberry' s reciprocal model of delinquent involvement at early adolescence 21 Table l Frequency of reported offences 32 Table 2 Comparison of male/female stealing behaviour 34 Table 3 Percentage of respondents reporting stealing behaviour 35 Table 4 Male/female comparison of variables 36 Table 5 Year 7 /Year 8 comparison of variables 36 Table 6 Attachment to parents/ Conventional values 37 Table 7 Attachment to parents/ Commitment to school 37 Table 8 Conventional values/ Commitment to school 38 Table 9 Attachment to parents/ Stealing (full scale) 38 Table 10 Attachment to parents/ Stealing (illegal) 39 Table 11 Attachment to parents/ Stealing (norm-violation) 39 Table 12 Commitment to school/ Association with delinquent peers 39 Table 13 Association with delinquent peers/ Stealing (full scale) 40 Table 14 Association with delinquent peers/ Stealing (illegal) 40 Table 15 Association with delinquent peers/ Stealing (norm-violation) 41 Table 16 Association with delinquent peers/ Attachment to parents 41 Table 17 Association with delinquent peers/ Delinquent values 42 Table 18 Delinquent values/ Stealing (full scale) 42 Table 19 Delinquent values/ Stealing (illegal) 43 Table 20 Delinquent values/ Stealing (norm-violation) 43 Adolescent Stealing: A Study of the Causal Factors for and Prevalence of Stealing in New Zealand Intermediate School Students Stealing is one of the most common criminal offences in our society, and is becoming an increasing problem in schools. Jackson ( 1984) believes that crimes of theft are the greatest single form of crime that any civilisation has to deal with . He defines stealing as: "taki11g something that helongs to another person or perso11s with the inle/1/ to keep ii" (p . 7) . Similarly, Renshaw ( 1977) sees stealing as a widely prevalent act, which is centuries old, recognised in all cultures, occurring in all classes and creeds, yet poorly understood. She suggests that statistics of various stealing offences show an "alarming" rate, yet reflects how little research has been done on the act of stealing itself compared with a greater amount of research looking at delinquency in general. Stealing Incidence of stealing. In the few studies specifically directed at stealing behaviour, very high rates of stealing are reported . Belson ( 1975), for example, interviewed 1425 boys in London, ranging in age from thirteen to sixteen years and found that all of his sample had already stolen. Of these, 18% had done so by age seven, and 42% by age ten years. Half of his sample stated that they had never been caught stealing by anyone. Belson (1975) gained this data by asking the boys questions about 44 categories of theft behaviour, ranging from keeping something they had found to stealing money and vehicles. Similarly, Jackson (1970) found that 99% of his sample of grade six children (aged from 11-12 years) admitted to having stolen previously, but it is not clear just what it is that they have stolen. In his 1979 study (cited in Jackson, 1984) however, he reports that 10% of his eleven year old subjects resisted all temptations to steal in the hypothetical temptation to steal dilemmas. These dilemmas consisted of seven separate Adolescent Stealing 2 situations in which the child was asked to predict what his/her behaviour would be. Each of the situations offered the opportunity for a deliberate choice of yielding to or resisting stealing behaviour without fear or coercion. Each situation involved the rights of others in some way. The dilemmas included situations such as being given too much change, peer pressure to steal sweets from a shop, finding a purse with money in it, and stealing to help a sibling out of trouble. A questionnaire and interview format was used by Malewska and Muszynski (1970) to study the stealing behaviour of 2222 Polish children aged from twelve to thirteen years. In this study, stealing was defined as taking something that did not belong to them. Of their sample, they found that 63% had already stolen, and that 34% of all thefts by children were of money. High rates of theft were also found by Dodson and Evans (1985) amongst their school-aged subjects. They found the highest rates of theft amongst eighth and tenth graders, with a uniform effect of students reporting that theft is a major problem in their schools. With incidence rates ranging from 63% (Malewska & Muszynski, 1970) to 100% (Belson, 1975), the problem of stealing is certainly an issue. The ages of students engaging in stealing in these studies is also relevant, with some obviously starting before age seven years (Belson, 1975) and almost all students likely to have stolen something by the age of eleven (Jackson, 1970) or sixteen (Belson, 1975). Gender differences in stealing. In the few studies of stealing that have been carried out, generally males have been found to steal more frequently and to take items of greater value than females. For example, Steffensmeier (1983) notes that the value of thefts by males are likely to be greater, and that females are more likely to steal on their own or as part of a small, non-permanent crime group. Jackson ( 1968, cited in Jackson, Adolescent Stealing 3 1984) also found, in a self-report study, that boys stole more frequently than girls. On the other hand, Haines, Jackson and Davidson ( 1979, cited in Jackson, 1984) found that girls yielded to stealing temptations with about the same frequency as boys. Delinquent Behaviour While little research has looked specifically at stealing behaviour, stealing is frequently used as an indicator variable for more general delinquent behaviour (Moffitt, 1993; Hagell & Newburn, 1994). Delinquency refers to acts that can place a youth at risk for adjudication (Thornberry, 1987). Such acts can range from status offences, such as running away, to more serious violent activities. According to Moffitt (1993), there are two forms of delinquency, life-course- persistent antisocial behaviour, and adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour. He believes that life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour is a continuous pattern whereby individuals exhibit changing manifestations of antisocial behaviour throughout their life. These can include biting and hitting at age four, shoplifting and truancy at age ten, selling drugs and stealing cars at age sixteen, robbery and rape at age twenty-two, fraud and child abuse at age thirty. He suggests that such antisocial behaviour is consistent across all situations. These delinquents lie at home, steal from shops, cheat at school, fight in bars and embezzle at work. On the other hand, he believes that adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour is likely to account primarily for crimes that serve to meet adolescents' lust for acknowledgment and privilege which may be caused by the maturity gap between biological adulthood and ascribed adulthood. Such crimes include theft, vandalism, public order and substance abuse. In their instrument for the measurement of self-reported delinquency, Moffitt and Silva (1988) used delinquency items ranging from norm-violating acts such as going to R-rated movies without parental permission and making rude telephone calls, to illegal Adolescent Stealing 4 offences, including a range of stealing offences and using a weapon in a fight. Agnew ( 1991) used six measures of delinquency in his research on the interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. These included felony assault, minor assault, robbery, felony theft, minor theft and status offences. Theft, in various forms, is inherent in all of these interpretations of delinquency. In many of them, it is amongst the more serious of the offences included. Incidence of delinquency. Using arrest data from the United States, Moffitt ( 1993) shows that the rates of delinquency are highest during adolescence, peaking at about age seventeen and then dropping away sharply for those persons who are delinquent only during adolescence. However, since the advent of alternative measurement devices, most notably self-report; researchers have found that arrest statistics reflect only the tip of the iceberg. In a self-report study, Moffitt ( 1993) predicts that less than 10% of males are likely to show extreme antisocial behaviour that begins during early childhood and is sustained throughout childhood and adolescence (life-course-persistent delinquency). However, he predicts that the majority of males will show levels of antisocial behaviour similar to the life-course-persistent delinquents, but only during adolescence (adolescence-limited delinquency). He suggests that very few teenage males abstain from all delinquent behaviour. A longitudinal study in Dunedin, New Zealand used parent, teacher and self-reports to measure the levels of antisocial behaviour of participants. Moffitt ( 1993) reports that only 5% of the boys in the sample were rated as very antisocial at each assessment (ages three, five seven, nine, eleven, thirteen and fifteen) by each reporting agent (self, parent, teacher). This five percent, according to Moffitt ( 1993) already display stable antisocial behaviour, which is likely to be life-course-persistent. Between the ages of eleven and Adolescent Stealing 5 fifteen, however, Moffitt (1993) found that about one third of the sample were beginning to show delinquent behaviours. Despite their lack of previous antisocial experience, by age fifteen these boys had caught up on their life-course-persistent antisocial peers in the variety of laws they had broken, the frequency with which they broke them and the number of times they had appeared in juvenile court. This finding raises an important point to consider in the cross sectional study of adolescence, since the two groups were indistinguishable in their delinquency at this stage, yet each group had shown different patterns leading up to this age. lt would seem then, that although only five to ten percent of males are expected to commit delinquent acts throughout their lives, at least one third of males do display delinquent behaviour during adolescence. These rates of delinquent offending show a similar pattern to that indicated by the studies of stealing behaviour, in that many adolescents are expected to commit some delinquent act. Of course, this is to be expected given that stealing is a component of delinquency, as defined by these researchers. Thus if an adolescent steals, they are also, by definition, committing a delinquent act. Gender differences in delinquency. Cloward and Piven ( 1979) report a difference in the types of delinquency carried out by females, compared with males. They state that the majority of female deviance is individualistic and self-destructive; for example, suicide, prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness and physical sickness. Steffensmeier (1983) also believes that the types of offences committed by males and females differ; with females more likely to commit sex-related crimes, petty theft and hustles, while males are likely to commit a wider range of offences. Gender differences among delinquent adolescents were also found by Rhodes and Fischer (1993) in their study of adolescents participating in a court diversion programme. They found that boys were more likely to have been referred to the programme for Adolescent Stealing 6 breaking the law, while girls were more likely to be referred for truancy and running away, and for social or personal problems. Self-reported delinquency findings, however, indicated that boys and girls were equally likely to commit these status offences (running away and truancy), but that girls were more likely to be brought to court for them. Reports of gender differences in crime rates and types of crime vary somewhat from study to study. For example, Hagell and Newburn (1994) found that boys outnumbered girls in their study of persistent young offenders. They sampled adolescents (aged ten to sixteen years) in two geographical areas, finding 16% of those arrested more than three times in one year were female in a Midlands sample, and only 5% were female in the London sample. As with the stealing data, delinquency data supports the theory that there is a gender difference in the type and frequency of offending, with males being more likely to commit more frequent and more serious delinquent acts than females . Why do people steal? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to look to theories of more general delinquency, since so little research has looked specifically at factors related to stealing. Theories of Delinquent Behaviour Traditionally, three major theories relating to delinquent behaviour have been used to explain delinquent behaviour; these being the strain theory, the social control theory and the differential association theory. These theories have a sociological basis (Agnew, 1992), that is, they all explain delinquency in terms of the individual's social relationships. Strain theory. Strain theory (Agnew, 1992) focuses explicitly on negative relationships with others. Agnew suggests that adolescents are pressured into delinquency by negative affective states, such as anger, which arise from negative .. Adolescent Stealing 7 relationships. He describes three main types of strain which he believes to contribute to delinquency. These are: 1. The failure to achieve positively valued goals; 2. The removal of positively valued stimuli from the individual (for example, loss of boyfriend/girlfriend, death or illness of a friend, moving to a new district, divorce/separation of parents, suspension from school); 3. The presentation of negative stimuli (for example, child abuse, neglect, criminal victimisation, physical punishment, negative relations with peers or parents, adverse school experiences, stressful life events). Failure to achieve positively valued goals could be the strain underlying female adolescent delinquency. Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt and Silva (1993) believe that female adolescent delinquency can be ascribed partly to the fact that adolescents currently become biologically mature approximately five to ten years before they are legally allowed to assume adult responsibilities and status. For many, the onset of puberty coincides with entry to high school, which is dominated by older peers. From the adolescent perspective, many of these older peers do not suffer the maturity gap. They are able to obtain possessions which are otherwise inaccessible to teens (for example, cars, clothes, drugs) by theft or vice. They seem to be free of family, they make their own rules and they are more confident with the opposite sex. Thus, delinquency is modelled for the younger girls, and many of its consequences are powerfully reinforced from a teen perspective. Caspi et al. ( 1993) found that girls who showed little antisocial behaviour during childhood (that is, few or no behaviour problems) became aware of peer delinquency on puberty. Girls with a record of behaviour problems in childhood, however, were familiar with delinquent peers long before reaching puberty. The two factors necessary for the initiation and maintenance of female delinquency appear to be Adolescent Stealing 8 puberty and boys. Caspi et al. ( 1993) found that girls who matured early were more likely to begin to engage in delinquent behaviour, particularly if they were enrolled in a mixed sex school. Another barrier to the achievement of positively valued goals is that youths who have displayed antisocial behaviour all their life have had a reduced chance to develop many conventional behaviours, thus limiting their options for post-secondary education, good marriages and desirable jobs, entrenching them in the antisocial path (Moffitt, 1993). In a thirteen year longitudinal study, Fergusson, Horwood and Lynsky (I 992) examined the strain of parental discord and the removal of positively valued stimuli . Their findings confirmed the hypothesis that exposure to parental discord between birth and age ten leads to increased risk of early offending (between ages twelve and thirteen). However, they emphasise that while parental conflict is a significant factor in the early onset of offending, not all children exposed to parental conflict will develop offending behaviours. Malewska and Muszynski (1970) found that the presentation of negative stimuli, such as neglect and physical punishment, are strain factors related to petty theft, in a survey of school children aged twelve to thirteen years of age. They found that complete neglect of the child's financial needs by parents and severe punishment at home are significantly correlated with stealing. Jackson (1984) similarly suggests that extremes of parent behaviour, poor or disturbed parental relationships with children, and type of discipline used in the home are linked with children's stealing. Moffitt (1993) classifies delinquent behaviour into two distinct categories: one category which engages in antisocial behaviour throughout their life, and a larger group which is antisocial only during adolescence. He believes that for life-course persistent Adolescent Stealing 9 delinquents, causal factors are located early in their childhoods and are related to strain. He suggests that parents of children who are difficult to manage often lack the necessary psychological and physical resources to cope constructively with a difficult child. This may be related to a decreased level of child attachment to parents. Similarly, family attachments can break down due to the challenges of coping with a difficult child, thus evoking a chain of failed parent-child encounters. He further believes that children who are vulnerable to problems often come from adverse neighbourhoods, and homes where their parents are also vulnerable to problems. Snyder and Patterson (cited in Quay, 1987) also present data which suggests that parenting practices and family interaction are associated with the development of antisocial and delinquent behaviours. The relationship between these variables is not a clear causal one however, some unknown third variable may be implicated here. Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (cited in Quay, 1987) found that parental rejection of the child is a strong predictor of delinquency, while parent aggressiveness is a moderately strong predictor. Some weaker predictors are parent absence, parent health and socioeconomic status. Adverse school experiences and negative relations with parents are strain factors associated with a specific sub-group of delinquents (Moffitt, 1990). Using longitudinal data collected in Dunedin, New Zealand, Moffitt (1990) has identified a sub-group of delinquents who have also been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This made up only 4% of the cohort and approximately 25% of the delinquents. As a group, they began life with significant motor skills deficits and high levels of family adversity. By age five they displayed IQ deficits which remained stable throughout development. When they entered school they experienced reading failure and their behaviour deteriorated significantly over the years. The greatest increase in the antisocial behaviour of this group occurred between ages five and seven, a period which coincides with Adolescent Stealing lO school entry and early reading failure. The boys who were identified as delinquent at age thirteen, but had no history of ADD made up 12% of the cohort. Their antisocial behaviour emerged after age eleven, but by age thirteen they had reached the same level of antisocial behaviour shown by ADD and delinquent boys. Their delinquency was, however, considered to be less aggressive than that of the delinquents with ADD. Stressful life events may have been a cause of persistent offending in Hagell and Newbum's (1994) study. They found that a high proportion of female offenders (aged ten to sixteen years) were either pregnant or had a child; while half of the total sample were previously known to social services, mostly for welfare rather than criminal issues. They also found that alcohol and drug use were high amongst their subjects. The research clearly shows a number of factors supporting the strain theory of delinquency. Negative relationships with parents, failure to measure up to older peers, adverse school experiences resulting in a low commitment to school, motor skills deficits and stressful life events have all been found to be related to adolescent delinquency. When considered more specifically in relation to stealing behaviour, the strain theory explains stealing as a result of a need for food, clothing or acceptance, and sometimes also as the result of ineffective parental discipline. Social control theory. Social control theory focuses on the absence of significant relationships with conventional others. According to social control theory, delinquency is most likely when the adolescent is not attached to parents, school or any other conventional institution. In social control theory, then, an absence of relationships and attachments is the key, as opposed to the external strains and stresses inherent in the strain theory. In a longitudinal study of delinquency and drug use among American youth, Elliott, Huizinga and Ageton (1985) proposed that strain, inadequate socialisation and social Adolescent Stealing 11 disorganisation are the primary causes of weak bonding to conventional groups, activities and norms. They measured the conventional bonding variable by adding the amount of time spent with family to the amount of time spent on academic work at school. A measure of commitment to conventional social norms at home and at school was also included. Results showed that the social-psychological constructs of strain and conventional bonding have weak and indirect effects on delinquent behaviour and drug use. However, low conventional bonding, when combined with high bonding to delinquent peers, was found to lead to a substantially higher frequency of delinquent behaviour. Elliott et al ( 1985) also suggest that weak conventional bonding and/or high levels of strain lead some youths to seek out and become bonded to delinquent peer groups. They found that bonding to delinquent peer groups and delinquent behaviour are mutually reinforcing variables with approximately equal influence on each other. Another conclusion drawn by Elliott et al (1985) was that bonding to delinquent peers is the best predictor of delinquent behaviour. In a study examining the relationship between juvenile delinquency and ties to conventional institutions, Liska and Reed (1985) found that parents, not school are the major institutional sources of delinquency control. For most adolescents in high school, the good opinion of teachers and school administrators may be considerably less important than that of their parents. Jackson (1979) looked at how parental behaviour affected children's likelihood to steal, as measured by the hypothetical "temptation to steal" test, where children read seven moral dilemmas and then finish the stories according to what they themselves would do in that situation. Parent behaviour was measured by examining the children's perceptions of their parents' behaviour. This was done by using multiple choice questions relating to what children believed their parents would do in a number of Adolescent Stealing 12 situations. He found that there was a strong difference in the way that parents were perceived to treat their children dependent on the sex of the child. Girls were more likely to be reasoned with and boys were more likely to be shouted at and/or smacked. Interestingly, children who perceived their parents as being less cross were less likely to yield to the temptation to steal. Children whose parents modelled insights into the consequences of stealing also tended to have lower stealing scores. Similarly, Krohn, Stern, Thornberry and Jang ( 1992) found that the affective bonds between parents and children appear to be effective deterrents to the development of delinquency. ln a study examining the effect of family variables on delinquency, they found that low attachment to parents was the most consistent predictor of both self- reported and official delinquency. Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (cited in Quay, 1987) found that poor parental supervision is a strong predictor of delinquency. Lack of family discipline and lack of involvement were slightly less powerful predictors, while parent absence was found to be a weaker predictor. Greenwood ( 1992) also believes that high risk youth are likely to have inadequate or inconsistent supervision at home. According to children in Jackson's ( 1970) study, lack of parental surveillance and perceived expectations of parents were among the reasons given for stealing. Negative feelings about school were a common factor for many of the young offenders studied by Hagell and Newburn ( 1994 ). They studied a large sample of ten to sixteen year olds, all of whom had been arrested at least three times in one year for a variety of offences, including stealing and traffic offences. They found an absence of any significant relationship with the school. In fact, many of their subjects had already left school. Adolescent Stealing 13 Moffitt ( 1993) also acknowledges the effect that the school environment can exert on behaviour patterns. He suggests that deviant behaviour patterns later in life may reflect early individual differences that were perpetuated or exacerbated by interactions with the social environment, first at home and later at school. Greenwood ( 1992) also highlights the effects of negative feelings about school in his statement that high risk youth are best identified by poor school attendance and behavioural problems. Similarly, Samson and Laub ( 1990) describe a link between educational failure and childhood delinquency. In a study looking specifically at the effect of school variables on adolescent offending, LeBlanc, Vallieres and McDuff ( 1992) concluded that an important amount of the variance of adolescent offending can be explained by a developmental and interactional school social control theory. They found that offending is the indirect consequence of a weak bond to school, and that an interdependent relationship exists between the adolescent's bond to school and his/her academic performance. On the basis of these findings, they suggest that an adolescent's level of offending will be higher if his/her school misbehaviours are frequent and if the school authorities' disciplinary actions are regular. Such misbehaviours will be amplified by the presence of a weak bond to school, low performance, and gender (specifically, being male). Another conventional institution credited by Belson (1975) as working against the continuance of delinquency is the church. He found that frequent church attendance, being of Jewish denomination and having a grandparent in the house were all factors working against the continuation of stealing. The presence of a grandparent would perhaps work to prevent delinquency by providing increased supervision and greater opportunity to form attachments. Adolescent Stealing 14 Moffitt ( 1993) believes that those who take up delinquency for the first time during adolescence have already had ample time to develop a repertoire of pro-social behaviours and basic academic skills which could be considered to be conventional, and to which they can return later in life. He believes therefore, that the adolescent-limited delinquents simply lack consistency in their antisocial behaviour across situations. For example, they might shoplift and use drugs with friends, but continue to obey the rules at school. He suggests that they maintain control over their antisocial responses, engaging in delinquent acts when it seems profitable to do so, but abandoning antisocial behaviour when pro-social styles are more rewarding. It would seem then, that the attachments to parents, school and other conventional institutions inherent in social control theory are present, but that they are forgotten from time to time during adolescence, when other forces take over. Sampson and Laub ( 1990) found that the conventional values of job stability and strong marital attachment in adulthood work to inhibit adult criminal and deviant behaviour. On the other hand, communities characterised by sparse friendship networks, unsupervised teenage peer groups and low organisational participation have disproportionately high rates of crime and delinquency (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Renshaw ( 1977) suggests that many children steal on immediate impulse and often want to undo the act by returning the object. She believes that guilt and shame are powerful inhibitors of unacceptable behaviour such as stealing. She suggests that easy, successful and undetected stealing may be providing the thief with a sense of power at outwitting authority, thus prolonging and continuing the habit. On the other hand, if a thief is caught the first time and made to suffer full consequences and shame, she sees this as a critical learning factor in preventing the habit re-occurring. Similarly, Belson (1975) found that an expectation that one would not be caught was related to stealing Adolescent Stealing 15 behaviour. On the other hand, getting caught or knowing about mates being caught (by police) seemed to work against the continuance of stealing. Social control theory presents three main conventional groups which can contribute to the prevention and control of adolescent delinquency. Parental factors such as weak affective bonding to parents, inadequate parental supervision and inconsistent discipline at home have been found to be related to delinquency. School is another institution which has some control over adolescent behaviour. Research in this area shows that negative feelings about school, poor attendance, behavioural problems and poor academic performance are all related to delinquent behaviour. Church attendance has also been shown to be a factor in controlling adolescent delinquency, perhaps by reinforcing conventional values and instilling feelings of guilt and shame for delinquent activities. According to social control theory, then, stealing might occur because children do not have adequate role models in the home, school or church settings, or they do not (for various reasons) sufficiently respect the role models they do have. Similarly, ineffective discipline and supervision in these settings can lead to increased chances of stealing occurring. Differential association theory. Differential association theory (also referred to as social learning theory) focuses on positive relationships with deviant others. According to differential association theory, delinquency results from association with others who model and reinforce delinquent behaviour, and who transmit delinquent values. The main influences for transmitting deviant behaviours under this theory are likely to be parents, peers and other social groups such as gangs. Given that criminalistic influences exist, Tittle ( 1983) explains differential association as the different levels of exposure experienced by different people to these criminalistic influences. He states that those with the most frequent, intense and enduring exposure to these influences have the Adolescent Stealing 16 greatest probability of displaying criminal behaviour. Similarly, Greenwood ( 1992) suggests that those most likely to exhibit problem behaviour in the future are those who have exhibited it in the past, or who associate with others who have. According to Jackson ( 1984), parents with lenient attitudes towards stealing and parents who steal themselves influence children's stealing. Loeber and Stouthamer- Loeber (cited in Quay, 1987) similarly found that parent criminality and parent aggressiveness were moderately strong predictors of delinquency, thus reiterating the link between association with deviants and the opportunity for modelling deviant behaviour. Association with delinquent peers has been found by a number of researchers to have links with delinquency. Agnew ( 1991) gives three reasons why delinquent peers may cause adolescents to engage in delinquent behaviour. He suggests that: I . Association with delinquent peers may lead the adolescent to internalise definitions favourable to delinquency; 2. Such peers may reinforce delinquency in certain settings; 3. Such peers may model delinquent behaviour, which is then imitated by the adolescent. Belson ( 197 5) investigated a large number of hypotheses about causal factors in the development of juvenile stealing. He found that truancy was related to stealing behaviour, perhaps because it gave the adolescent greater chance to associate with deviant peers. Belson (1975) also found that association with thieves was related to stealing behaviour, yet getting caught or knowing about mates being caught (by police) seemed to work against the continuance of stealing. According to Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt and Silva (1993), mixed-sex educational settings seem to offer more favourable conditions for girls' deviant behaviours to be reinforced and continued. They believe Adolescent Stealing 17 that deviant behaviours need peer group support, not only for initiation, but also for maintenance. Moffitt ( 1993) states that antisocial individuals appear to be likely to affiliate selectively with antisocial others, even when selecting a mate. It is not clear, however, whether such an association is the cause of the antisocial behaviour, or whether it merely reinforces and maintains it. What Moffitt (1993) does make clear is that as the life- course-persistent delinquent travels further down the track, their options for conventional behaviour are narrowed. Even residential treatment programmes become another chance to associate with delinquent peers, to learn new delinquent behaviours and to further reinforce and be reinforced by others. Knight and West ( 1975, cited in Moffitt, 1993) however, believe that only the adolescence-limited delinquents need peer support for crime, while the life-course-persistent offenders are willing to offend alone. In Jackson's (1970) study, reasons given by the children who yielded in temptation to steal situations included factors relating to their associations with others, such as owing a favour, revenge and social (peer) pressure. Further reasons given by Jackson (1984) include perceived expectations of others, lack of detection and magnitude of the theft (that is, small is O.K.). Hagell and Newburn (1994) found that many of the persistent young offenders they studied committed their offences with others. Greenwood (1992) also believes that high risk youth are likely to associate with high risk peers. Similarly, Moffitt (1993) considers one predictor of short term offending to be time spent with delinquent peers, creating an awareness of peer delinquency. Matsueda ( 1988) considers that at least at an individual level, criminal behaviour is learned in association with other people. Along with deviant parents and peers, gangs may also provide reinforcement for delinquent behaviour. In a study examining the role of gangs in delinquency, Adolescent Stealing 18 Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte and Chard-Wierschem (1993) concluded that gang members are more likely than non-gang members to commit more offences, especially violent and serious offences. Their results showed that when boys were active members of a gang, they exhibited higher rates of delinquency than before or after gang membership. These rates were substantially higher than delinquency rates for non-gang members. Three main forces appear to be behind the modelling and reinforcement of delinquent behaviour represented by differential association theory. Research shows that parents with lenient attitudes towards delinquency, who are aggressive, or who have committed criminal acts themselves frequently have children who exhibit delinquent behaviours. Similarly, adolescents who regularly associate with delinquent peers are likely to commit delinquent acts. A third force shown to contribute to delinquent behaviour is gang membership. According to differential association theory, then, stealing is likely to occur because adolescents have seen peers, parents or others doing it undetected to obtain items they were otherwise unable to afford . lnteractional theories. There is, however, a fourth school of thought, which, unlike the previous theories of delinquency, does not view delinquency as simply an outcome or consequence of a social process. Alternatively, interactional theories see delinquent behaviour as an active part of a developmental process, which interacts with a variety of social factors over a period of time to determine a person's ultimate behavioural repertoire. Elliott, Huizinga and Ageton ( 1985) proposed an integrated model of delinquent behaviour. They suggested that bonding with delinquent groups combined with weak bonding to conventional groups and norms, leads to a high probability of involvement in delinquent behaviour. From a longitudinal study of adolescents, they concluded that prior delinquency and involvement in delinquent peer groups are the main factors Adolescent Stealing 19 influencing delinquency. They believe that strain and strong bonding to parents and/or school can affect the level of involvement with delinquent peers, thus indirectly affecting delinquent behaviour. Warr ( 1993) believes that the differential association and social control theories work together to determine whether or not an adolescent will engage in delinquent behaviour. He analysed data from the National Youth Survey to conclude that the amount of time spent with family can reduce and even eliminate peer influence. However, he suggests that attachment to parents (as measured by adolescents' perceptions of the importance of family life and their relationship with their parents) has no such positive elTect, but can influence delinquency indirectly by inhibiting the formation of delinquent friendships. A more comprehensive theory of delinquency is proposed by Thornberry (1987). He presents an interactional model, which focuses on the interrelationships among the following six concepts which are also important in the other theories of delinquency: Attachment to parents, Commitment to school, Belief in conventional values, Associations with delinquent peers, Adopting delinquent values, Engaging in delinquent behaviour. The link with the strain theory of delinquency can be found in the attachment to parents and commitment to school concepts of Thomberry's (1987) model, when these components have negative or low values. According to Agnew ( 1992), strain factors can include negative relationships with parents, physical punishment, parental conflict and adverse school experiences. Thornberry (1987) believes that the family is the most Adolescent Stealing 20 salient arena for social interaction and involvement during early adolescence, and therefore attachment to parents has a stronger influence on other aspects of the youth's life at this stage than in later developmental stages. The social control theory is evident in the model when the attachment to parents, commitment to school and belief in conventional values components are positively involved. When these links to conformity are attenuated, Thornberry (I 987) believes that the potential for delinquent behaviour is substantially increased. The social control effects seem to be the key to identifying why some youth and not others will be pulled into this spiral of increasing delinquency. As Thornberry ( 1987) notes, it is when the bonds to the conventional world are substantially weakened that the individual is freed from moral constraints, and is at risk for a wide range of deviant activities. The main mechanisms that bind adolescents to the conventional world are their attachment to parents, commitment to school and belief in conventional values, which are three of the variables in Thornberry' s (1987) model. The differential association theory of delinquency is recognised in Thornberry' s ( 1987) model by the inclusion of associations with delinquent peers and delinquent values. These two variables are interactive and form a mutually reinforcing causal loop, along with delinquent behaviour itself, leading towards ever increasing delinquency over a period of time. Interactional theories of delinquency typically combine the three previously mentioned theories; these being strain, social control and differential association, to create a more complete picture of the factors influencing delinquency. The relationships between these factors are shown clearly in Thornberry' s (1987) model of delinquent involvement. Adolescent Stealing 21 Thornberry's Reciprocal Model of Delinquent Involvement at Early Adolescence Thornberry's (1987) reciprocal model of delinquent behaviour at early adolescence is shown in Figure l . This model refers specifically to the period of early adolescence (that is, ages eleven to thirteen years) when delinquent careers are beginning (Thornberry, 1987; Moffitt, 1990). The fact that the model is specific to adolescence perhaps reflects Moffitt's ( 1993) assertions that the rate of delinquency becomes artificially high during this period due to the emerging importance of peer associations. • Solid lines repr=nt stronger effects; dashed lines represent weaker effects. Figure l : l710mbeny 's (198 7) Reciprocal Model of Deli11que11t !11volvement at Early Adolescence. The model shows the relationships between the six concepts mentioned previously. A strong negative reciprocal relationship between delinquent behaviour and commitment to school is shown, and similarly between delinquent behaviour and attachment to parents. Delinquent behaviour and association with delinquent peers show a strong positive reciprocal relationship. Delinquent behaviour is also shown to be positively related to delinquent values, but the reciprocal relationship is not as strong. Variables in Thornberry's model. Attachment to Parents. Attachment to parents involves the affective relationship between parent and child, communication patterns, parenting skills including monitoring and discipline, conflict and so on. According to Thornberry' s model, attachment to Adolescent Stealing 22 parents affects four other variables, these being commitment to school, conventional values, association with delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour. The rationale for these relationships rests on the premise that parents who have a strong affective bond with their children, who communicate with them and exercise appropriate parenting skills are likely to lead their children towards conventional actions and beliefs and away from delinquent friends and actions. Attachment to parents is not, however, impervious to the effects of other variables. For example, associating with delinquent peers, not being committed to school and engaging m delinquent behaviour are so contradictory to normal parental expectations that they are likely to decrease the level of attachment between parent and child. Co111111it111e11t to School. Commitment to school reflects such factors as success in school, perceived importance of education, attachment to teachers and involvement in school activities. Thornberry's model (1987) shows that commitment to school is involved in reciprocal loops with both of the other bonding variables, these being attachment to parents and belief in conventional values. Children who are attached to their parents are likely to be corrunitted to and succeed in school, and that success is likely to reinforce the close ties with their parents. Similarly, youths who believe in conventional values are likely to be committed to school, where they are expected to act in accordance with those values; therefore success at school is likely to ensue and further reinforce conventional beliefs. Commitment to school also directly affects two of the delinquency variables. Students who are committed to succeeding at school are unlikely to associate with delinquents or to engage in serious delinquent behaviour. Low commitment to school is not however, believed to lead directly to the formation of delinquent values, but may influence them indirectly through allowing greater association with delinquent peers and more time for delinquent activity. Commitment to school is, Adolescent Stealing 23 however, affected by each of the three delinquency variables. Youths who accept delinquent values, associate with delinquents and engage in delinquent behaviour are unlikely to maintain an active commitment to school and the conventional world that school represents. Belief in Co11ve11tio11al Values. Thornberry ( 1987) defines belief in conventional values as the representation of middle class European-based cultural values, such as education, personal industry and financial success. This concept is involved in two causal loops, strongly affecting and being affected by commitment to school. Effectively, this constitutes a loop parallel to that of delinquent values and delinquent behaviour. A weaker relationship exists between belief in conventional values and association with delinquent peers. In other words, youths who do not hold conventional values are more likely to associate with delinquent peers with similar views. Such friendships are likely to further weaken their belief in conventional values. A weak conceptual link exists between belief in conventional values and delinquency. Belief in conventional values is apparently not affected by delinquent behaviour. An apparent anomaly occurs with respect to the relationship between belief in delinquent values and belief in conventional values. Thornberry ( 1987) sees conventional values as being unrelated to delinquent values. However it seems unlikely that an individual could hold strong conventional values and also strong delinquent values, therefore a negative correlation between conventional and delinquent values might be expected. Association with Deli11que11t Peers. Thornberry (1987) sees association with delinquent peers as including the level of attachment to peers, delinquent behaviour and values of peers, and peer reinforcement of the adolescent's own behaviour. A reciprocal relationship exists between the three delinquency variables (association with delinquent peers, delinquent values and delinquent behaviour) such that each reinforces the others Adolescent Stealing 24 over a period of time. In a conventional setting people often take on the behaviours of their associates, yet, at the same time, often seek out associates who share their behavioural interests. There is no reason to assume that deviant activities such as delinquency should differ substantially in this regard. Delinquent Values. Delinquent values are the legitimate acceptance of delinquent activities and a general willingness to violate the law to achieve other ends (Thornberry, 1987). The link between delinquent values and delinquent behaviour can also be compared with conventional values and behaviour. Does behaviour lead to attitude formation, or do attitudes form behaviour patterns? Most theorists would agree that a reciprocal relationship exists between these variables, both in normal and deviant situations. Deli11q11e11t Behaviour. Delinquent behaviour is the primary outcome variable in Thornberry' s ( 1987) model, and refers to acts that place the youth at risk for adjudication. These acts range in seriousness from status offences to serious violent activities. The three delinquency variables of association with delinquent peers, adoption of delinquent values and delinquent behaviour are embedded in a causal loop, with each reinforcing the others over time. In other words, no matter where an individual enters the loop, delinquency will increase associations with delinquents, and delinquent values; the adoption of delinquent values will increase delinquent behaviour and associations with delinquents; and associations with delinquents will increase delinquent behaviour and delinquent values. Rationale for the Current Study Research has shown that a number of factors interact, particularly during adolescence, to precipitate delinquent behaviour. Perhaps the most comprehensive model of such interactions is that proposed by Thornberry (1987). While stealing is Adolescent Stealing 25 almost universally recognised to be a component of delinquent behaviour, little research has focused purely on this facet, despite the fact that it appears to be one of the most commonly occurring components of delinquent behaviour. The current study aims to investigate the relationships between the variables m Thornberry' s ( 1987) reciprocal model of delinquent involvement at early adolescence specifically in relation to stealing behaviour. Students of the same age group as that represented in Thornberry's model (eleven to thirteen years) will be surveyed to determine which variables are most strongly related to stealing behaviour. The study also aims to compare incidence rates of stealing with those found by previous researchers, and to investigate gender differences and school class level differences in stealing behaviour. Hypotheses Hypotheses for the present study are as follows: I . Between eighty and one hundred percent of students will report having stolen something at some time. 2. Serious patterns of stealing, will be shown by five to ten percent of students. 3. Male students will report more frequent stealing behaviour than female students. 4 . Year 8 students will report more frequent stealing behaviour than Year 7 students. 5. The relationships inherent in Thornberry's (1987) reciprocal model of delinquent involvement at early adolescence will be found in relation to stealing behaviour. More specifically, the following relationships will exist: (a) Attachment to parents will be positively related to a belief in conventional values~ Adolescent Stealing 26 (b) Attachment to parents and commitment to school will show a positive relationship; ( c) Belief in conventional values and commitment to school will show a positive relationship; ( d) Attachment to parents and stealing behaviour will show a negative relationship; (e) Commitment to school and association with delinquent peers will show a negative relationship; (f) Association with delinquent peers and stealing behaviour will show a positive relationship; (g) Attachment to parents will be negatively related to association with delinquent peers; (h) Association with delinquent peers will be positively related to delinquent values; (i) Stealing behaviour will be positively related to delinquent values. Method Adolescent Stealing 27 Stealing is a covert behaviour and is, by nature, difficult to observe. Some sort of reporting is necessary to measure its occurrence. Parental and/or teacher reporting has a high potential for inaccuracy. Self-report was chosen for this study for its potential to be the most accurate and revealing method of collecting such data when anonymity is carefully protected. Therefore a self-report questionnaire was constructed, as detailed below. lt was administered under the following circumstances in order to guarantee anonymity of participants. Questionnaire Construction A ,four part questionnaire (see Appendix) was designed to gather data about subjects as follows : Section A: Classification data, peers pastimes, attachment to school. Section B: Family variables. Section C: Attitudes and values regarding stealing. Section D: Self-report of stealing behaviour. Measures of Variables Attachment to Parents. Section B, items 5, 6 and 7 relate to the importance of family togetherness and communication. These items were used by Warr (1993) to measure parent attachment. items 8 and 9 deal with parental knowledge of the whereabouts of their adolescent offspring, and aspirations to be like their parents are covered by items 10 and 11. Items 8 to 11 are the same as those which Hagan and Kay ( 1990) asked their adolescent respondents, in order to measure parental control. Answers to questions 5 to 11 in section B were numerically coded 0, 1 or 2, with 0 showing a low attachment level, 1 medium and 2 high. The measure of attachment to parents was the sum of scores on these items, with a possible range from 0 to 14. Adolescent Stealing 28 Commitment to School. To determine their commitment to school, subjects were asked to rate, on a three point scale, how much they enjoy going to school, how important school is to them, and how well they get on with their teachers (Section A, items 7, 8, 9). These items were modelled on the format used by Warr (1993) to determine parental attachment. Answers to items 7 to 9 in section A were numerically coded from 0 to 2. The measure of commitment to school was reached by adding the scores on these three items, thus giving a possible range from 0 to 6. Conventional Values. According to Thornberry ( 198 7), conventional values represent the "granting of legitimacy" to middle class values such as education and personal industry. Thus item 8 in Section A, referring to the importance of school and item 5 in Section B, relating to the importance of family togetherness are included in the measure of conventional values. The conventional values measure, similar to that used by Thornberry (1987), was reached by adding scores on item 8 (section A) and item 5 (section B); with possible scores of 0 to 2 on each item this gave a range of responses from 0 to 4 for this measure. Association with Delinquent Peers. Two questions are related to peers' behaviour; one being a three point scale to determine students' impressions of the degree of trouble their peers got into, the other asking them to indicate which activities their friends were involved in from a list including three delinquent activities (Section A, items 5 and 6). Scores on these two items were added to reach a measure of peer delinquency, the range being from 0 to 4. Delinquent Values. Section C includes a list of 20 items for subjects to state whether or not each constitutes stealing. Three of these statements (items 5, 14, 17) are definitely not stealing, these being included in the questionnaire to ensure that participants did not simply tick every box the same way. These items were not used in Adolescent Stealing 29 the analysis of data. Three items regarding breach of copyright (items 1, 3, 9) were taken from Hagan and Kay ( 1990), while the remainder come from examples of stealing on a discussion sheet included in the Stealing Kit prepared by the New Zealand Police for use in schools. These include relatively minor stealing incidents; such as taking clothing from a lost property box, copying a friends work, taking a sandwich from someone's lunch. Elliott et al ( 1985) used a similar method to measure participants' attitudes towards delinquency. They asked participants how wrong it is to commit certain acts, and suggested that a high score on this scale reflected a conventional, pro-social orientation towards behaviour, while a low score will indicate delinquent values. A delinquent values measure, similar to that used by Elliott et al ( 1985) was reached by adding scores on all items in section C, except those mentioned above. Items identified as stealing scored 1, those identified as not stealing scored 0. A low score was considered to reflect delinquent values, since respondents were apparently unable to recognise many of these acts as stealing. The range of possible values on this scale was from 0 to 17. Stealing Behaviour. In Section D, subjects are asked to indicate how often they have done each of the 27 items, using a three point scale (never, sometimes, often). The items all constitute a form of stealing, ranging in seriousness from "I have kept something I have found" (item 1), to "I have stolen a car or a truck or a van" (item 25). All of these items were used by Belson (1975), although Belson also had other items which were not included here. Items 7, 15, 16 were used also by Moffitt and Silva (1988b) as norm-violation offences, while items 4, 14, 23, 25, 26, 27 are referred to by Moffitt and Silva (l 988b) as illegal offences. Three measures of stealing behaviour were evaluated; one being sum of scores on the entire scale (never= 0, sometimes= 1, often= 2), giving a range from 0 to 54; one including only norm-violation offences (from Moffitt Adolescent Stealing 30 & Silva, l 988b ), with a range from 0 to 6; and the third including only illegal offences (from Moffitt & Silva, l 988b ), with a range from 0 to 12. Other Measures. Classification data was gathered, which included school class level, gender, ethnic identification and age. Other family variables were gathered, including who lives in the family home and the amount of time spent at home. The items dealing with time spent at home (Section B, items 2, 3, 4) are directly derived from the questionnaire used by Warr (1993). This data was collected in order to compare general rates of stealing with those obtained by previous research, and also to investigate gender and school class level differences in stealing behaviour. Participants The participants comprised the entire population of adolescents enrolled at an intermediate (Years 7 and 8) school in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. This included approximately 329 adolescents aged from 11 to 13 years. This age group was chosen because it is the age at which delinquent careers are beginning (Thornberry, 1987; Moffitt, 1993). Of these adolescents, data was obtained from 278 students, the remainder of students were either absent from school on the day the questionnaire was administered (48 students), or did not consent to complete the questionnaire (3 students) . The sample of278 students included 142 boys and 136 girls. Procedure Prior to administration of the questionnaire, parents of participants were informed about the survey, through a regular school newsletter. They were invited to view the questionnaire at the school office, and if they wished, withdraw their child from participating. No parents took up either of these options. The questionnaire was presented to all students present at school on a class by class basis. Before beginning the questionnaire, students desks were moved apart so that they could not see each others' Adolescent Stealing 31 answers. On being read the details about the survey at the top of the questionnaire form, students were asked to indicate on the form whether or not they were willing to complete the questionnaire. Those who opted not to were asked not to complete any further questions. Students were then asked to answer the questions as they were read aloud; the author read each question and the possible answers in full, as worded on the questionnaire, for every class. This was considered desirable to reduce the problem suggested by Moffitt and Silva (I 988b), that the population who are regularly participating in delinquent behaviour are likely to have poor reading skills. When all questions had been completed the author collected all questionnaires. Administration time was about 20 minutes per class. Reliability Test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by correlation of the data from two administrations, separated by one week, for 21 subjects. An average of 88% test-retest agreement was reached between the two tests. The Pearson correlation obtained was r=0.94, supporting the retest reliability of the instrument. Results Adolescent Stealing 32 Table I shows the percentage who reported stealing in each of the categories in section D of the questionnaire. This shows that apart from keeping something they had found, which 87.4% of respondents had done at least once; the next most common offence was stealing money, with 34.2% of respondents reporting having done this at least once. Having something they knew to be stolen was also quite common, with 3 I . 6% reporting to have done this, while almost 25% of respondents reported cheating someone out of money, and 23.4% having pinched sweets. Table I : Frequency of reported offences OFFENCE NEVER SOMETIMES OITEN I have kept something l have found. 35 (12.6%) 201 (72.3%) 42 (15 .1%) I have stolen something iust for fun . 212 (76.3%) 61 (21 .9%) 5 (l.8%) I have taken something for a dare. 232 (83 .5%) 42 (15 .1%) 3 (l.1%) I have stolen something from a shop. 221 (79.5%) 50 (18%) 7 (2.5%) I have pinched something from my family or 198 (7 l.2%) 74 (26.6%) 6 (2.2%) relations. I have pinched something when I was in someone 258 (92.8%) 17 (6.1 %) 3 (l.1%) else's home. I have got away without paving the bus fare . 256 (92.1%) 18 (6.5%) 4 (1.4%) I have taken things belonging to children. 240 (86.3%) 32 (11.5%) 6 (2.2%) I have got something by threatening others. 246 (88.5%) 29 (10.4%) 3 (1.1%) I have pinched sweets. 213 (76.6%) 52 (18.7%) 13 (4.7%) I have stolen cigarettes. 262 (94.2%) 10 (3 .6%) 6 (2.2%) I have stolen something from a changing room or 263 (94.6%) 9 (3.2%) 5 ( l.8%) cloakroom. I have stolen fruit or some other kind of food. 212 (76.3%) 64 (23%) 2 (0.7%) I have got into a place and stolen something. 258 (92.8%) 16 (5.8%) 4 (1.4%) I have stolen something belonging to a school. 227 (81.7%) 45 (16.2%) 6 (2.2%) I have stolen something belonging to someone at 222 (80%) 51 (18.3%) 5 (1.8%) school. I have stolen from a park or a playground. 253 (91%) 23 (8.3%) 1 (0.4%) I have stolen milk. 262 (94.2%) 14 (5%) 1 (0.4%) I have stolen a letter or a parcel. 257 (92.4%) 21 (7.6%) 0 (0%) I have cheated someone out of monev. 209 (75.2%) 56 (20.1%) 12 (4.3%) I have had something that I knew was stolen. 190 (68.3%) 79 (28.4%) 9 (3.2%) I have stolen something out of a garden or out of the 211 (75.9%) 60 (21.6%) 5 (1.8%) yard of a house. I have stolen a bike or a motorbike. 269 (96.8%) 4 (1.4%) 4 0.4%) I have stolen something from a bike or a motorbike. 265 (95.3%) 10 (3.6%) 3 (l.l%) I have stolen a car or a truck or a van. 271 (97.5%) 4 (1.4%) 2 (0.7%) I have stolen something from a car or a truck or a 252 (90.6%) 21 (7.6%) 4 (1.4%) van. I have stolen monev. 182 (65.5%) 78 (28.1%) 17 (6.1%) Adolescent Stealing :n Stealing from their family or relations was reported by 28.8% of respondents, while 23 . 7% had stolen something just for fun . Except for minor offences, such as keeping something they had found , and taking sweets, frequent stealing was very limited. Table 2 further breaks down these results into male and female frequencies for each stealing behaviour. Percentages of the total male and female participants are recorded in brackets. It is apparent that a larger percentage of males reported performing almost all of the stealing offences listed. However, more females reported having sometimes kept something they had found (77. 9% of females, 6 7. 6% of males), although a larger percentage of males reported having done this often (22 .5% of males, 7.4% of females) Similarly, a larger percentage of females reported having stolen cigarettes sometimes (3. 7% of females, 2.8% of males), but again more males reported having committed this offence often (3 .5% of males, 0.7% of females). A greater percentage of females also reported having sometimes stolen something out of a garden or out of the yard of a house (23 . 5% of females, 19% of males), although once again, more males reported having done this often (4.2% of males, 0% of females) . The most common offences reported by male respondents were keeping something they had found, which 90.1 % of male respondents reported having done at least once, stealing money (42.3%) and having something they knew was stolen (37.3%). For female respondents, the most common offences reported were having kept something they had found (85.3%), stealing money (24.2%), stealing something out of a garden or out of the yard of a house (23 .5%) and pinching something from family or relations (22.8%). These results support Hypothesis 3, which states that male students will report more frequent stealing behaviour than female students. Table 2: Comparison of Male/Female Stealing Behaviour Off ENCE SEX NEVER I have kept something I have found . M 14 (9 .9°0) F 20 (14 .7%) I have stolen sorncthinl!. iust for ti111 . M 100 (70.4"•> F 114 (!l.U%) I have taken something for a dare. M 109 {76.8%) F 121 (89.0%) I have stolen something from a shop. M IClJ (72 .5°ol F 118 (86.8°0) I haYc pinched somethi ng from mY fomi lv or relations. M 95 (66 .9"• > F I 05 (77 .2°o) I have pinched something when I was in someone else's home. M 128 (90.1°•> F 130 (95.6"o) I have got away without payin11. the bus fore . M 125 (88 .0°0) F Ul (963"o) I have taken things belonging to children. M 116 (81.7%) F 124 (91.2°0) I ha \·c got something by threateni ng ot hers . M 118 (83 .1°0) F 121 (93.4"•> I have pinched sweets. M I 00 (70.4%) r: I 13 (83 . l°Ol I have stolen cigarettes. M 133 (93 .7"·•l r: uo (95 .6%) I have stolen something from a changing room or cloakroom. M 130 (91.5%) r: 135 (99.3%) I haYe stolen fruit or some other kind nf food . M 100 (70.4%) r: 111 (81.6%) I have got into a place and stolen something. M 124 (87.3%) F 135 (99.3%) I have stolen something belonging to a school. M 106 (74.6%) F 121 (89.0%) I have stolen something belonging to someone at school. M 100 (70.4%) F 123 (90.4%) I have stolen from a park or a playground . M 128 (90.1%) F 126 (92.6%) I have stolen milk. M 129 (90.8%) F 133 {97.8%) I have stolen a letter or a parcel. M 128 (90 .1%) F 129 (94.9%) I have cheated someone out of money. M 92 (64.8%) F I 18 (86.8%) I have had something that I knew was stolen. M 87 (61.3%) F 107 (78.7%) I have stolen something out of a garden or out of the yard of a M 107 (75.4%) house. F 103 (75.7%) I have stolen a bike or a motorbike. M 133 (93 .7%) F 136 (100%) I have stolen something from a bike or a motorbike. M 130 (91.5%) F 135 (99.3%) I have stolen a car or a truck or a van. M 136 (95 .8%) F 135 (99.3%) I have stolen something from a car or a truck or a van. M 122 (85 .9%) F 130 (95.6%) I have stolen money. M 79 (55 .6%) F 100 (73 .5%) Adolescent Stealing 34 SOMETIMES OITEN 96 (67.6%) 32 (22 .5°0) 106 (77.9°0) IO (7.4°0) .17 (26.1%) S ( .~ . S 0 o) 22 { 16.2%) 0 (0°o) 21 (19.0°oJ 3 (2 .1 "o) IS (11.0°0) 0 (0°o) 32 (22.5%) 7 (4 .9°0) 18 (13 .2%) 0 (0°o) 41 {28.9°0) 6 (4 .2°n) .H (22.8°0) 0 (0"••) 11 (7.7°ol 3 (2.1°o) 6 (4 .4%) 0 (0°o) 13 (9.2%) 4 (2 .8°0) 5 (3.7%) 0 (0°o) 20 (14.l°'o) 6 (4 .2°0) 12 (8.80.0) 0 (0°o) 19 (13.4°0) 4 (2 .811 11) 9 (6.6% ) 0 (0°u) 3 I (21.8°0) 11 (7.7" 0) 21 () S.4°·o) 2 (1.5°0) 4 (2 .8%) 5 (3.5°0) s (3.7%) I (0 .7° 0) 8 (S.6% ) 3 (2 .1° 0) I (0.7%) 0 (0°o) 39 (27.5%) 2 (l.4°o) 25 (18 .4%) 0 (0°o) 14 (9.9%) 4 c2.s••> I (0.7%) 0 (0°o) 30 (21.1%) 6 (4 .2°0) IS (I I.0°o) 0 (0° o) 37 (26.1%) S (3 .S0o) 13 (9 .6%) 0 (0°o) 13 (9.2%) I (0.7°0) 10 (7.4%) 0 (0°ol 12 (8.5%) 0 (0° 0) 2 (1.5%) I (0 .7°0) 14 (9.9%) 0 (0°o) 7 (5 .1%) 0 (0°o) 39 (27.5%) 9 (6.3"0) IS (I 1.0%) 3 (2.2°oJ 46 (32.4%) 7 (4.9"•l 27 (19.9%) 2 (l.5°o) 27 (19.0%) 6 (4 .2°0) 32 (23 .5%) O (0°o) 4 {2.8%) 4 (2 .8"•> 0 {0%) 0 (0'\o) 9 {6.3%) 3 c2 .1° ;. i I {0.7%) 0 {0%) 3 (2.1 %) 2 o .4°ol I (0.7%) 0 (0°ol 15 {10.6%) 4 (2.8°0) 6 (4.4%) 0 (0°o) 47 (33.1 %) 13 (9 .2"oJ 29 (21.3%) 4 (2.9"•l Table 3 shows the percentage of male and female respondents who reported stealing at least one item once, on each of the three stealing scales used. Percentages of those scoring three or greater, and those scoring six or greater on the illegal scale are also Adolescent Stealing 35 included. In total, 92.5% of the students surveyed reported having committed at least one of the stealing offences in section D of the questionnaire, this being well within the range predicted in Hypothesis 1. Norm-violation offences, as defined by Moffitt and Silva ( l 988b) were recorded by 32.4% of respondents, and 42 .1 % of students admitted to illegal offences. Only 2.9% of students recorded scores of six or more (from a possible twelve) on the illegal offence scale, however, 10. I% of respondents scored three, four or five on this scale. Over 50% of all male respondents reported having committed at least one illegal offence, compared with almost a third of femal e respondents. Substantially more male respondents than females recorded scores of three or more on the illegal offences scale, and no female respondents recorded a score greater than five on this scale. Hypothesis 2, which states that five to ten percent of student s will show serious patterns of stealing, is rejected; since only 2. 9% of respondents scored greater than five on the illegal stealing scale. However 5.6% of male respondents showed serious patterns of stealing using this criteria. Table 3: Percentage of Respondents Reporting Stealing Behaviour SCORE MALE FEMALE TOTAL Full Scale >O 95.1% 90.4% 92 .5% Norm-violation >O 43 .0% 21.3% 32.-l% Illegal Offences >O 52.8% 30.9% 42. 1% >2 16.9% 2.9% 10.1% >5 5.6% 0% 2.9% A comparison between male and female students on each of the variables is shown in Table 4. One-tailed t-tests indicate significant male/female differences on all variables except delinquent values. The male rate of stealing is significantly higher than that of the female respondents on all three measures of stealing behaviour, further supporting Hypothesis 3. Table 4: Male/Female Comparison of Variables VARIABLE SEX MEAN Association with delinquent peers M l.1099 F 0.8204 Commitment to school M 4.0561 F 4.5037 Attachment lo parents M I0.9014 F 11.4307 Conventional values M 3.2958 F 3.4453 Delinquent values M 11.4718 F 11.7737 Stealing behaviour (entire scale) M 7.0704 F 3.5328 Stealing behaviour (nonn-violalion) M 0.7746 F 0.2409 Stea ling behaviour (illegal) M 1.2887 F 0.4599 S.D. 0.6963 0.7105 1.2591 1.0787 2.4734 2.4609 0.8059 0. 7852 2.7488 2.7440 7.3751 3.5873 1.1070 0.4930 2.0955 0.8045 Adolescent Stealing 36 TOTAL T-VALUE 157.6 o.oocn 112.4 57(, (l.()008 617 1548 O.