This project examines why some adolescents are more likely to break rules than others. Specifically, it tests an expanded version of legal socialization theory to help us better understand why some teenagers use drugs, bully their peers, act violently, and/or steal. Traditionally, legal socialization theory has hypothesized that moral reasoning, legal reasoning, and legal attitudes affect rule-breaking. More specifically, how people think about moral and legal matters shapes their legal attitudes, which, in turn, influence their rule-breaking behaviors. In general, positive views about the law affect rule violation directly, but the effects of moral/legal reasoning on rule violation are indirect (via legal attitudes). What the traditional model does not consider is how adolescents' views about the legitimacy of rule-makers (e.g., police, parents, and teachers) might also affect rule-breaking processes.
Using longitudinal data from two adolescent cohorts, the present study will examine, first, if perceived legitimacy affects rule-breaking independent of other legal attitudes. Then, it will assess the degree to which moral and/or legal reasoning influences rule-violation via its effect on teenagers' perceptions about the legitimacy of police, parents, and teachers. This study builds on prior research on 6th grade and 9th grade students who were followed over a four-year period (2006-2009). Data from the original study participants will be collected annually for an additional three years.
The current study is the first longitudinal study to consider the importance of various legal attitudes and the legitimacy of authority figures as predictors of rule-violating behavior, and to examine how they influence the relation between moral/legal reasoning and rule-breaking. Ultimately, the findings will provide important information for school-based intervention design and policies aimed at reducing behaviors like bullying and substance use.
