In Back et al article Juvenile Hackers: An Empirical Test of Self-Control Theory and Social Bonding Theory the reader is introduced to how two different social theories may explain the actions behind juvenile hacking. The two social theories we look at are social bonding theory and self-control theory. For this study we have 5 hypotheses. 1. Higher levels of low self-control will increase computer hacking. 2. Higher levels of parent attachment will decrease computer hacking. 3. Higher levels of attachment to parental supervision will decrease computer hacking. 4. Higher levels of involvement will decrease computer hacking. 5. Higher levels of school attachment will decrease computer hacking. (Back et al. 2018) The data was collected from the ISRD-2 which includes students from 8 countries. These students were presented with different statements and responded to the questions given to them. The results expressed by logistic regression analysis showed that self-control and social bonding factors were prominent. Some issues with the study would be that it is a self-reported study meaning students were able to be dishonest. This study could show how low-income families, which include families of color, could be more susceptible to this delinquency as parents are less present when they need to consistently work, this would include more Hispanic and African families as they are also heavily affected by poverty in the United States respectively. This study shows how we must study those who are subjected to this behavior as juvenile hacking can lead to more advanced cybercrimes which heavily affect private companies, nation states and private citizens as well. The more we understand people and the reasons why they are more likely to commit these crimes the more we can benefit society and continuously advance.

References Back, Sinchul: Soor, Sadhika; and LaPrade, Jennifer (2018) Juvenile Hackers: An Empirical Test of. Self-Control Theory and Social Bonding Theory, International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime: 1(1), 40-55. https://www.doi.org/10.52306/01010518VMDC9371