Chapter 10 COGNITIVE AND EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIES
113
Table 10.2. Evidence of a relationship between moral reasoning, on the one hand, and IQ scores and academic performance, on the other hand. (The shaded region shows where studies should be located in order to provide support for moral maturation theory.) (Consistency score = 95.5%) Nature of the Relationship
IQ Scores
Grade Point Average
Years of Education
Positive
ASIA India: Chiu 1990; Sharma & Kaur 1992 EUROPE England: Hanks 1985 NORTH AMERICA Canada: Perry & Krebs 1980; United States: Bull 1969; King 1971; Mahaney & Stephens 1974; Leming 1976; Gargiulo & Sulick 1978; Eisenberg-Berg 1979; Henderson et al. 1984; Walker 1986; Lindsay 1988; Chovn & Freeman 1993; Narvaez 1993 [15]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Murk & Addleman 1992 [1]
ASIA China: Chiu 1990; Ma 1988:85 NORTH AMERICA United States: Rest & Thoma 1985; CB White 1988; Finger et al. 1991 [5]
Not Sign.
NORTH AMERICA United States: Flynn 1984 (preschoolers) [1]
Negative
Table 10.3. Evidence of a relationship between moral maturation, on the one hand, and altruism, empathy, and roletaking behavior, on the other hand. (The shaded region shows where studies should be located in order to provide support for moral maturation theory.) (Overall consistency score = 100%) Nature of the Relationship Positive
Altruism
Empathy
NORTH AMERICA United States: Haan et al. 1968; Rubin & Schneider 1973; Anchor & Cross 1974; Harris et al. 1976; Krebs & Rosenwald 1977; EisenbergBerg 1979; Eisengerg-Berg & Hand 1979 EUROPE England: Emler & Rushton 1974 [8]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Leming 1976; Gibson 1990:1299 [2]
Role-Taking Behavior
NORTH AMERICA United States: Krebs & Sturrup 1974 [1]
Not Sign. Negative
Table 10.4. Evidence of a relationship between moral maturation and various measures of religiosity. (The shaded region shows where studies should be located in order to provide support for moral maturation theory.) (Overall consistency score = 11.1%) Nature of the Relationship
Type of the Religiosity Measured Extent of Religious Involvement (e.g., Church Membership), Training, or Knowledge
Conservative (vs. Liberal) or Religious Ortodoxy
Type of Religious Commitment: Intrinsic (vs. Extrinsic)
Positive
NORTH AMERICA United States: Killeen 1977; O”Gorman 1979; AT Harris 1981 PACIFIC Australia: Bouma & Dixon 1986:151 [4]
Not Sign.
NORTH AMERICA United States: Blackner 1975; Schomberg 1978 [2]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Harris 1981; Wahrman 1981 [2]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Brown & Annis 1978; Walters 1981 [2]
Negative
NORTH AMERICA United States: Miller 1979; Wolf 1980 PACIFIC Australia: Radich 1982; New Zealand: McGeorge 1976 [4]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Haan et al. 1968; Sanderson 1974; Brown & Annis 1978; Clouse 1979; Stoop 1979; Volker 1979; Cady
NORTH AMERICA United States: Ernsberger & Manaster 1981; Sapp &
114
1982 [7]
Gladding 1989:140 [2]
Table 10.5. Effects of moral reasoning enhancement programs on levels of moral reasoning, on preventing (P) crime or delinquency or reducing recidivism (R). (The shaded region shows where studies should be located in order to provide support for moral maturation theory.) (Consistency score regarding effects on criminal/delinquent behavior = 80%) Nature of the Effect
Facilitating Levels in Moral Reasoning
Effects on Criminal and Delinquent Behavior
Positive
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Seguin-Tremblay & Kiely 1979; United States: Hickey 1972; McCann & Prentice 1973; Fleetwood & Parish 1976; Rosenkoetter et al. 1980; Arbuthnot 1984; Gibbs et al. 1984; Niles 1985; Arbuthnot & Gordon 1986; Putnins 1997; Taylor & Walker 1997 [11]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Hickey & Scharf 1980(R); Arbuthnot & Gordon 1983(R); Arbuthnot & Gordon 1986(P); Little et al. 1993(R) [4]
Not Sign.
NORTH AMERICA United States: Schmidlin 1977; Wright 1977; LE Smith 1985 [3]
NORTH AMERICA United States: B Glick & Goldstein 1987(R) [1]
Negative
Table 10.6. Effects of programs designed around control theory on: enhanced bonding, enhanced self-control, reductions in crime and delinquency, and reductions in recidivism (O -- official data; S -- self-reported offending; D -- self-reported drug use). (The shaded region shows where studies should be located in order to provide support for moral maturation theory.) (Consistency score for effects on offending = 50.0%) Nature of the Effect
Control Theory Variables Bonding
Positive (Promoting)
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Tremblay et al. 1992; United States: DA Gottfredson 1986; Schweinhart et al. 1993 [3]
Effects on Offending Self-Control
Involvement in Crime and/or Delinquency
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Tremblay et al. 1992 [1]
Not Sign.
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Tremblay et al. 1992 (O); United States: DA Gottfredson 1986 (S); Hawkins et al. 1992 (D); Schweinhart et al. 1993 (S) [4]
Negative (Inhibiting)
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Tremblay et al. 1992 (S); Hawkins et al. 1992 (S); United States: Lally et al. 1988 (O); Schweinhart et al. 1993 (O) [4]
Codes: O--official delinquency or crime; S--self-reported delinquency; SD--self-reported drug use.
115
Recidivism
Table 10.7. Relationships between crime probabilities and the probabilities of arrest and severe sanctions. (The shaded regions indicate cell where findings should be to support hypotheses derived from deterrence aspects of rational choice theory.) (Overall consistency score = 65.6%) Relationship to Crime
Arrest or Conviction Probability Arrest or Clearance Rates
Violent Crime
Imprisonment Probability, Sentence Length, or Time Served Conviction Rates
Imprisonment Rates
Sentence Length or Harshness*
NORTH AMERICA United States: Gibbs 1968(S); Gray & Martin 1969(S); Bean & Cushing 1971:289(S) [3]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Gray & Martin 1969(S); Bean & Cushing 1971:289(S); Bailey et al. 1974(S); Danziger & Wheeler 1975:126(C); Ehrlich 1975(T)*; Mathur 1978(S); Vandaele 1978(S) [6]
Negative
NORTH AMERICA United States: JP Gibbs 1968(S); Sampson 1985:58(C) [2]
Not Sign. or Ambiguous
NORTH AMERICA United States: Danziger & Wheller 1975:126(C); Parker & Smith 1979(C); Phillips 1997:549(C) [3]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Sutherland 1924(T)*; Vold 1932(T)*; Schuessler 1952(T)*; Savitz 1958(T)*; Sellin 1959(T)*; Schwartz 1968(T); Patrick 1970(T)* [7]
Negative
NORTH AMERICA United States: Danziger & Wheeler 1975:126(C) [1]
EUROPE England: Wolpin 1978(T); Finland: Wahlroos 1981(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: Sjoquist 1973(S); Mathur 1978(S); Vandaele 1978(S); Bartel 1979(S) [6]
Not Sign. or Ambiguous
NORTH AMERICA United States: JQ Wilson & Boland 1978(T) [1]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Gibbs 1968(S); Votey & Phillips 1974(S); Fox 1982:124(S) [4]
Positive Property Crime
NORTH AMERICA United States: Danziger & Wheeler 1975:126(C) [1]
EUROPE Sweden: Stack 1982:506(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: Fox 1982:124(C) [2]
NORTH AMERICA United States: DA Smith & Gartin 1989(I) [1]
EUROPE England: HL Ross et al. 1970(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: LS Robertson 1976(T) [3]
Not Sign. or Ambiguous
EUROPE England: HL Ross 1975(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: Robertson et al. 1973(T) [2]
Positive General or Two or More Felony Offenses of Any Type
Negative
EUROPE England: Carr-Hill & Stern 1972(C) NORTH AMERICA United States: Leibowitz 1965(S); Kuykendall 1969(S);Tittle & Rowe 1974(C); Wellford 1974(S); Mathur 1978(C); Votey & Phillips 1986(T) [7]
ASIA Taiwan: Danq et al. 1994(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: Logan 1972(S) [1] EUROPE England: Wolpin 1978(T) NORTH AMERICA United States: Leibowitz 1965(S); Ehrlich 1973(S); Wellford 1974(S); Holtmann & Yap 1978(S) [6]
Not Sign. or Ambiguous
NORTH AMERICA United States: Logan 1975(S); Decker & Kohfeld 1985(T) [2]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Kuykendall 1969(S) [1]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Babst et al. 1976(I); Nagin 1978(S) [2]
Positive Units of Analyses: C – cities or counties; S – states or provences; T – time series; I – individuals tracked after arrest or prison release * Execution (all other studies of punishment severity simply pertain to varying sentence lengths).
Table 10.8. Relationships between self-assessed probability of violating an criminal or delinquency statute and 116
hypothetical increases/decreases in apprehension or penalties. (The shaded regions indicate cell where findings should be to support hypotheses derived from deterrence aspects of rational choice theory.) (Overall consistency score = 80.0%) Probability of Committing the Offense
Type of Criminal Justice Action Increasing Identification/Apprehension
Increasing Penalties
Reduced
NORTH AMERICA Canada: Teevan 1977; United States: Piliavin et al. 1969; Schaps & Sanders 1970; Grupp 1974; Bailey & Lott 1976; Pilivian et al. 1986 [6]
EUROPE Sweden: Bondeson 1975; Kuhlhorn 1975 NORTH AMERICA Canada: Teeven 1976; United States: Schwartz & Orleans 1967; Burkett & Jensen 1975 [6]
Not Sign. or Ambiguous
PACIFIC Australia: Kraus 1974 [1]
NORTH AMERICA United States: Waldo & Chiricos 1972; Pilivian et al. 1986 [2]
