792482

Article

Cultural contexts of European Journal of Criminology

1–18
individualism vs. © The Author(s)
2018 Article reuse

collectivism: Exploring guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-

the relationships permissions DOI:

10.1177/1477370818792482

between family journals.sagepub.com/home/euc

bonding, supervision
and deviance

Marijana M. Kotlaja
University of Nebraska, USA

Abstract
The primary focus of this paper is to test the cross-national generalizability of the
relationship between parental attachment and delinquency. Countries were divided
on individualistic and collectivistic dimensions. Individualistic countries emphasize the
degree to which individuals are supposed to look after themselves whereas
collectivist counties emphasize group integration, usually around the family, and the
achievement of group over individual goals. Average individual- level associations
between parental attachment and crime were examined across 26 nations in an
international dataset of delinquency and victimization of 12–15-year-old students in
grades 7–9. Low levels of parental attachment and parental supervision were found to
be more strongly related to deviance in countries with individualistic as opposed to
collectivist cultural orientations. Alternative explanations for this relationship are
explored.

Keywords
Attachment, bonding, comparative, deviance, individualism vs. collectivism, international
data

Introduction
Family bonding prevents delinquency by providing a supportive environment where
adolescents spend time with family members more than with peers (Hoeve et al., 2009;
Kierkus and Baer, 2002). The family serves as an important moderator of delinquency,
reducing criminogenic factors such as unstructured socializing and susceptibility to
devi- ant peers (Crosnoe et al., 2002; Dong and Krohn, 2016; Griffin et al., 2000).
Conversely,
Corresponding author:
Marijana M. Kotlaja, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska, 6001
Dodge Street, 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE 68182-0149, USA.
Email: mkotlaja@unomaha.edu
2 European Journal of Criminology
00(0)
whereas a strong familial environment and positive parental rearing can inhibit delin-
quency, a disruptive family environment and negative parental rearing practices can
fos- ter criminogenic behavior in adolescents (Sampson and Laub, 1993).
Bonds between parents and children are important to socialize children to group
norms and values, but also to reduce victimization (Özbay and Özcan, 2006). First,
strong family bonds and positive environments promote family activities that increase
monitoring of children and provide incentives to steer clear of potentially dangerous
situ- ations such as spending time with delinquent peers and engaging in risky lifestyles
(Higgins and Albrecht, 1977). Second, strong family bonds reduce the motivation for
offending (Unnever et al., 2006). For example, families that are more cohesive provide
the individual with an increased ability to resist the temptation of crime (Hirschi, 2002;
Tilley and Sidebottom, 2017).
But the extent to which the family can function as an effective agent of socialization
depends on many factors both inside and outside of the immediate family. Such factors
include the absence of one parent (Harper and McLanahan, 2004), the socioeconomic
status of the family, and the impact of neighborhood disadvantage (Zimmerman and
Messner, 2010, 2013). Even community characteristics such as poverty, residents with
heterogeneous backgrounds, and a high degree of residential mobility (Sampson and Laub,
1993; Shaw and McKay, 1942) and a low degree of collective efficacy (Sampson and
Bean, 2006; Sampson et al., 1997) can operate to counteract even well-meaning and
otherwise effective child rear- ing (Ghazarian and Roche, 2010; Sullivan, 2006;
Wasserman et al., 2003)
Despite consistent findings about the role of family as a major source of social
control in Western cultures, little attention has been paid to how the effects of family
bonding play out in different cultural contexts. There is reason to believe family
structure and impact on child rearing may differ among cultures with different values
(Junger-Tas, 2012; Minkov and Hofstede, 2012). Some culturally diverse practices in
child rearing may appear neglectful by American standards, but in other countries they
might be con- sidered normal. For example, Asian parents place a strong emphasis on
obedience, proper behavior, meeting social obligations and group achievement, whereas
in Caucasian American culture parents are concerned with a child’s ability to gain self-
expression and individual identity (Marshall and Enzmann, 2012).
Although it is almost impossible to identify a country that does not view the family
as an important mechanism of emotional and interpersonal support, the extent to which
societies view it as essential to the social fabric of society appears to vary across
political and cultural contexts (Kohli et al., 2005; Minkov and Hofstede, 2012). For
example, Italian families have been described as close and personal, whereas families
in Spain are described as large and affectionate (Gannon and Pillai, 2010). Families in
Latin America emphasize problem solving in addition to support, whereas
Mediterranean countries have the most traditional two-parent nuclear family structure
(Qiu et al., 2013). In this way, family structure and function are shaped by the cultural
context in which they occur; the role of family in delinquency prevention must be
viewed in the political and cultural context in which it occurs. Based on these
characteristics, most cultures in the world can be placed within two basic frameworks –
individualism and collectivism – of how cul- ture drives family dynamics and informs
essential differences in child rearing (Johnson et al., 2013).
Kotlaja 3

Marriage is one of most straightforward examples available in understanding the dif-

ference between collectivist and individualist countries. In countries such as India,
China, and Israel, arranged marriage is still prevalent and parental influence on mate
choice is very impactful (Marshall and Enzmann, 2012). Alternatively, in the United
States, a Western individualistic country, mate decision is left up to individual prefer-
ence, with minimal parental influence. People in individualist cultures place more
emphasis on emotions of love as a basis for marriage than do people in collectivist
coun- tries (Levine et al., 1995).
The concept of individualism/collectivism refers to the connectedness among indi-
viduals (Oyserman et al., 2002). Individualistic cultures emphasize independence, indi-
vidual rights, and self-sufficiency, whereas collectivist cultures stress interdependence,
obligations of others, and relying on the group (Brewer and Venaik, 2011; Hofstede,
2011; Oyserman et al., 2002). People in individualistic cultures tend to be more inde-
pendent in part because of the rewards given for independent behavior and the high pri-
ority placed on personal and professional growth (McCarty and Shrum, 2001). Here,
individuals are hired and move up the social and economic ladder based more on indi-
vidual rather than group achievements. Within collectivist countries, on the other hand,
the goals of individuals are subordinate to group goals and personal achievements
(Oyserman et al., 2002). Specifically, the notion of collectivism stands for a society in
which people from birth are integrated into a strong, cohesive in-group, which through-
out their life protects them in exchange for loyalty to the group (Hofstede, 2011).
Individual identity is determined more by the collective view of the larger group. For
these reasons, it might be expected that collectivist cultures might be more effective in
fostering social controls or restraints against deviant behavior than individualistic
cultures.
In this regard, it is well established that there are cross-cultural differences in parent-
ing styles, not surprisingly, most being exemplified between collectivist and individual-
ist cultures (Kelley and Tseng, 1992; Yaman et al., 2010). Parents from individualistic
cultures tend to raise children under more authoritative styles with a focus on
negotiation and responsiveness to the child’s input (Kelley and Tseng, 1992; Rudy and
Grusec, 2006). The goal of the parenting style within individualist cultures (for
example, the USA and Germany) is to promote autonomy, self-interest, and self-
reliance in the sociali- zation process (Rudy and Grusec, 2006). In collectivist
household, in contrast, parents promote values such as conformity, adherence to social
convention, and interdependence within groups in the process of socialization
(Greenfield et al., 2006). The demand for obedience and respect for adults is typically
normative within collectivist cultures; thus parents are more likely to employ strict
practices because this fits their model of good parenting (Ispa et al., 2004).
Within the USA there is great variability in endorsement and use of parental control
based on one’s culture (Ispa et al., 2004; Yaman et al., 2010). Bradley and colleagues
(2002) found that African Americans were more likely to exhibit strict or intrusive chil-
drearing practices as compared with European and American mothers. Latino mothers
tended to favor obedience and politeness more than European American mothers
(Bradley and Corwyn, 2002). Due to these cultural differences only within the USA,
there is a greater likelihood similar relationships could be exhibited cross-nationally,
4 European Journal of Criminology
00(0)
specifically within a classification of cultural contexts of collectivist and individualist
nations. Thus, there is a strong need to assess the mechanisms by which culture may
influence familial attachments’ effect on deviance across a sample of diverse cultures.
Research that has examined cultural differences in values between individualism
and collectivism shows that parents values, beliefs, and socialization goals are impacted
by cultural context (Tamminen, 2006). Parenting style has been defined as a group of
atti- tudes towards a child or adolescent that creates an emotional condition for the
expression of parental behavior (Musitu and García, 2004). Numerous studies have
found that, in collectivist cultures, parenting style is often defined by higher levels of
control over children, obedience, and more restraining during social play and feeding
than those that emphasize independence (Chao, 1994; Rudy and Grusec, 2006; Sinha,
1981). Grusec, Rudy, and Martini (1997) argued that, in collectivist cultures, children
are thought to attend to the needs of the in-group and limit the expression of their own
wants. Parents often promote authoritarian parenting in order to promote the
development of these qual- ities. Thus, in collectivist cultures, authoritarian parenting
may be appropriate, since it is valued as an appropriate mechanism of socialization.
In more individualistic cultures, however, parents’ pursuit of authoritarian parenting
might go against the cultural norms of socialization (Rudy and Grusec, 2006). But, in
more collectivist cultures, Kağitçibaşi (1996) argued children may see parental control
as normal, whereas in individualistic countries authoritarian parenting might be seen as
hostile or a rejection of the child. More authoritarian parenting in cultures emphasizing
interdependence might be positive evidence of efforts by parents to raise well-behaved,
respectful children (Hardwood et al., 2002). This type of parental control, when com-
bined with a warm and responsive parent–child relationship, appears to be associated
with positive child outcomes among collectivist cultural groups (Smith and Krohn,
1995; Stephan et al., 1998).
A number of studies have shown that adolescents who have a less secure attachment
to their parents become more likely to compensate for their emotional disturbances by
engaging in antisocial and/or deviant behavior (Hoeve et al., 2012; Overbeek et al.,
2005). Most importantly, those who have been exposed to poor parental attachment,
unstable family structures, and limited supervision are more likely to participate in anti-
social and deviant behavior (Crosnoe et al., 2002). Effective parenting and strong
attach- ment during the first six to eight years of life have been shown to produce self-
control (Burt et al., 2006). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), a central part
in parent- ing practices is the development of self-control, which has an inverse
relationship to the propensity to engage in crime. For these reasons, it is important to
assess whether indi- vidualism and collectivism play a role in the complex relationship
between parental attachment and deviant behavior.
There is no doubt that cultural differences exist across countries and forming a
frame- work to understand those differences is vital to appreciating behavioral
differences cross-culturally. One of the most widely studied cultural frameworks on
individualism– collectivism (I–C) is that proposed by (Hofstede, 1980, 2011).
Hofstede’s dimension of I–C is a framework for cross cultural communication.
Therefore, we utilized the I–C component of Hofstede’s framework in analyzing the
relationship between family attach- ment/bonding and deviance.
 Kotlaja 5

42.