self control as a general theory of crime - akers

8/11/2019 Self Control as a General Theory of Crime - Akers

1/11

Jour na l o f Q u an t i ta t i ve Cr im o logy , VoL 7, No . 2 , 1991

S e l f C o n t r o l a s a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f C r i m e I

R o n a l d L A k e r s 2

A G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f C r i m e By Michael R Gottfredson and Travis

Hirschi. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CaliL, 1990,

xvi + 297 pp.

1. INTRODUCTION

This is an important book that already has begun to have a major

impact on theoretical and methodological discourse in criminology. It should

be moved ahead of others on your to-be-read list. Even those who will take

issue with many of its assertions (I count myself among this number) must

admit to the power, scope, and persuasiveness of its argument. The team of

Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson is one of the most productive and

influential collaborations in criminology.

Genera l Theory o f Cr ime

is the

culmination of that collaboration and marks another milestone in crimino-

logical theory. It can be placed among recent books, such as Hagan and co-

workers' (1989), Braithwaite's (1989), and Katz's (1989), which have kept

the theoretical waters churning. Let's have more.

Gibbs (1989) makes a strong case that the concept of control in all

of its manifestations is the best candidate for a central and unifying notion

for all of sociology. Although they make no reference to Gibbs, Gottfredson

and Hirschi (G&H) offer a variation on this theme for all of criminology.

They propose self-control as a general concept around which all of the

known facts about crime can be organized. They argue, especially, that the

facts revolving around the

stability

of differences in the propensity to crime

and the versatility of crime committed by the same individual, can be

accounted for only by their theory of self-control.

JReview essay.

2Department of Sociology Center for Studies in Criminology and Law University of Florida

Gainsville Florida 32611.

201

0748.4518/91/0600-0201506.50/0 9 99 Plenum Publishing Corporation


2/11

202 Akers

2 O V E R V I E W O F T H E B O O K

P a r t I c o v e rs t h e n a t u r e o f c r i m e a n d d e fi ne s c r im e a s a c t s o f f o r ce

o r f r a u d u n d e r t a k e n i n p u r s u i t o f s e l f - in t e r e s t ( p . 1 5). C o n t r o l t h e o r y i s

d e s c r i b e d a s a c la s s ic a l , c h o i c e t h e o r y t h a t s t a n d s i n s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o a l l o t h e r

b i o l o g i c a l, p s y c h o l o g i c a l , o r s o c io l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s t i c t h e o r i e s o f c r i m e . I n

P a r t I I , t h e s e o t h e r t h e o r i e s a r e r e v i e w e d t o s h o w h o w t h e y a r e i n c a p a b l e

o f a c c o u n t i n g f o r e i th e r c r im e o r c r im i n a l i ty . C h a p t e r 5 , T h e N a t u r e o f

C r i m i n a l i t y : L o w S e l f - C o n t r o l , is t h e h e a r t o f t h e b o o k . I t of fe r s l o w s e lf -

c o n t r o l a s th e b e st a p p r o a c h t o e x p l a in i n g t h e i n d iv i d u a l 's p r o p e n s i t y to

c o m m i t o r r e f r a i n f r o m c r i m e s . I n P a r t I I I , t h e t h e o r y i s a p p l i e d t o a g e ,

g e n d e r , a n d r a c e v a r i a t i o n s i n c r i m e , p e e r g r o u p s , s c h o o l s , a n d t h e f a m i l y ,

c r o s s - c u l t u r a l c o m p a r i s o n s , w h i t e - c o l l a r c r i m e , a n d o r g a n i z e d c r i m e . T h e

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c r i m e , a s t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c t s in a g i v e n s it u a t i o n , a n d

t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r o p e n s i t y to c o m m i t c r im e a c r o s s s i tu a t i o n s is m a i n t a i n e d

t h r o u g h o u t . I n P a r t I V , G & H s pe ll o u t w h a t t h e y se e a s th e i m p l i c a ti o n s o f

t h e s e l f - c o n t r o l a p p r o a c h f o r r e s e a r c h . T h e m a j o r r e s e a r c h i m p l i c a t i o n i s

t h a t l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h i s n o t s u p e r i o r t o , a n d i n s o m e w a y s i s n o t a s

g o o d a s , c r o s s - s e c ti o n a l r e se a r c h . T h e r e i s n o n e w m e a s u r e o f c r i m e , c r im i -

n a l i t y , s e l f - c o n t r o l , o r o t h e r c o n c e p t s s u g g e s t e d . I n t h e l a s t c h a p t e r , G & H

o f f e r i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s e l f - c o n t r o l t h e o r y f o r p u b l i c p o l ic y . P o l ic i e s d e s i g n e d

t o d e t e r o r r e h a b i l i ta t e o f f e n d e r s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o f a il . T h e o n l y s t a te p o l i c ie s

l ik e l y t o r e d u c e c r im e a r e t h o s e w h i c h s u p p o r t a n d e n h a n c e s o c i a li z a ti o n in

t h e f a m i l y .

3 . T H E C O N C E P T A N D T H E O R Y O F L O W S E L F - C O N T R O L

S e l f - c o n t r o l is d i r e c t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t

[i]ndividualdifferences n the tendenc y o com m itcriminalac t s . . , remain reason

ably stable with change in the social location of individuals and change in their

knowledge o f the operation o f sanction systems.

Th is is the problem o f self-control,

the differential ende ncy of people to avo id crimina l acts wha tever the circum-

stances in which they find themselves. Since this difference am ong p eople has

attracted a wide variety of nam es, we begin by arguing the me rits of the concept

of self-control. (p. 87; italics in original)

T h o s e w i t h h i g h s e l f - c o n t r o l w i ll b e s u b s t a n t i a l l y l es s l i k e ly a t a l l

p e r i o d s o f l if e t o e n g a g e i n c r i m i n a l a c t s ( p . 8 9 ). L o w s e l f - c o n t r o l c a n b e

c o u n t e r a c t e d b y c i rc u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e c r im e .

C r i m e a n d a n a l o g o u s b e h a v i o r s u c h a s s m o k i n g , d r i n k i n g , d r u g u se , i ll ic it

s ex , a n d e v en a c c i d en t s a r e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f l o w s e l f- c o n t ro l a n d c o m m i t -

t e d a t a h i g h r a t e b y p e r s o n s w i t h l o w - s e l f c o n t r o l . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s g r e a t

v e r s a ti li ty in t h e t y p e s o f c r im e a n d a n a l o g o u s b e h a v i o r t h e y c o m m i t .


3/11

Se l f -Cont ro l a s a

General Theory of rime

2 0 3

Th e cause o f low se l f - con t ro l i s ine f fec t ive o r incom ple te soc ia l iza t ion ,

espec ia l ly ine f fec t ive ch i ld -r ea r ing . Pa re n t s wh o a re a t t ac hed to the i r ch i l -

d ren , superv i s e the i r ch i ld ren c lose ly , r ecogn ize l ack o f s e l f - con t ro l , and

punish deviant ac ts wi l l socia l ize chi ldren in to se l f -contro l . The expl ic i t d is -

a p p r o v a l o f p a r e n ts o r o t h e r s a b o u t w h o m o n e c a r es is t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t

nega t ive s anc t ion . T h i s pe r spec t ive i s then app l i ed to the c r imina l i ty o f pa r -

en t s , f ami ly s i ze , s ing le -pa ren t f ami l i e s , work ing mother s , and the s choo l .

Soc ia l i za t ion occur s th rou gh ou t l if e, bu t onc e fo rm ed in ch i ldhood , s elf -

c o n t r o l r e m a i n s r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e t h r o u g h o u t l i f e ( a l t h o u g h a p p a r e n t l y n o t

the ac tua l com m is s ion o f c r imes , s ince these a lways dec l ine w i th age) . Se l f-

con t ro l accoun t s fo r a l l va r i a t ions by s ex , cu l tu re , age , and c i r cums tances

and exp la ins a ll c r ime , a t a l l t imes , and , fo r tha t m a t t e r m an y fo rms o f

b e h a v i o r t h a t a r e n o t s a n c t i o n e d b y t h e s t a t e ( p. 1 1 7 ) . 3

T h i s is a v e r y l a rg e c l ai m , w h i c h G & H s u p p o r t m a i n l y b y r e v ie w i n g,

in subsequen t chap te r s , the known o f f i c i a l and unof f i c i a l d i s t r ibu t ion and

c o r r el a te s o f c r im e a n d d e l i n q u e n c y a n d i n t er p r e ti n g t h e m a s c o n s is t e n t w i t h

t h e s o c ia l c o n t r o l c o n c e p t . G & H d o a n i m p r e s s iv e j o b o f s h o w i n g h o w t h e

c o n c e p t o f l o w s e l f -c o n t ro l is c o n s is t e n t w i t h a g r e a t d e a l o f w h a t w e k n o w

ab ou t c r ime . The re i s, howev er , no g enera l o r speci fic em pi r ica l t e s t o f the

theory o f f e red .

4 . IS T H E T H E O R Y O F S E L F - C O N T R O L T A U T O L O G I C A L ?

At f i r s t g lance the theo ry wou ld appear to hypo thes ize tha t low se l f -

c o n t r o l is t h e c a u s e o f th e p r o p e n s i t y t o c o m m i t c r im i n a l b e h a v i o r . I t i s

t h e c a u s e o f c r i m e , b e c a u s e p e r s o n s w i t h l o w s e l f - c o n t r o l s e e k i m m e d i a t e

g ra t i f i ca t ion and have l e s s ab i l i ty than those w i th h igh s e l f - con t ro l to r e s i s t

t h e t e m p t a t i o n s o f t h e i m m e d i a t e r e w a r d s u n i v e r s a ll y d e r iv a b l e f r o m c r i m e

a n d t o b e a f fe c t ed b y t h e l o n g e r - t e rm c o s t s o f c r im e a n d b e n e f it s o f c o n f o r -

m i ty . G & H asc r ibe s t ab le ind iv idua l d i f fe rences in c r ime to low self -

c o n t r o l a n d p r o p o s e t h a t c r im e a n d o t h e r b e h a v i o r s t e m f r o m o r a r e

m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f l o w se l f- c o n tr o l. L o w s e lf - c o n tr o l e x p l ai n s b o t h t h e

s tab i l ity and the ve r sa t i li ty o f c r ime .

The t e s tab i l i ty o f th i s exp lan a t ion i s pu t in to que s t ion , how ever , by the

f a c t t h a t G & H d o n o t d e f i n e s e l f - c o n t r o l s e p a r a t e l y f r o m t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o

3 T he e l e m e n t s o f l o w s e l f -c o n t r o l a r e e l u c i d a t e d b y r ef e r e n c e t o w h a t c ri m i n a l a c t s p r o v i d e

f o r t h e o f f e n d e r - - i m m e d i a t e g r a t i f ic a t io n , e a s y g r a t if i c a ti o n , e x c it e m e n t , a n d r i s k - ta k i n g , w i t h

few l ong- t e rm bene f i t s . The e l ement s a l so i nc l ude l ow manua l and academi c sk i l l s , s e l f -cen-

t e r ed n e s s , i n d if f e r en c e t o t h e s u f f e r in g o f o t h e r s , a n d m i n i m a l t o l e r a n c e f o r f r u s t r a t i o n . G & H

a l s o d e s c r ib e f o u r g e n e r a l e l e m e n t s o f l o w s e l f - c o n t r o l - - b a s i c s t a b i li t y o f i n d i v i d u a l d i ff e r-

e n c e s, v e r s a t i li t y in c r i m i n a l a c ts , e q u i v a l e n c e o f c r i m i n a l a n d n o n c r i m i n a l a c ts , a n d i n a b i l it y

t o p red i c t t he spec i f ic fo rm of dev i ance .


4/11

2 0 4 A k e r s

commit crimes. G&H use low self-control and high self-control simply

as labels for this differential propensity to commit crime. In the past they

have attached a different label to it---vriminality. But they now reject crimi-

nality and other terms such as conscience and antisocial personality in favor

of self-control (although they continue to use criminality as synonymous

with low self-control).

Thus, it would appear to be tautological to explain the propensity to

commit crime by low self-control. They are one and the same, and such

assertions about them are true by definition. The assertion means that low

self-control causes low self-control. Similarly, since no operational definition

of self-control is given, we cannot know that a person has low self-control

(stable propensity to commit crime) unless he or she commits crimes or

analogous behavior. The statement that low self-control is a cause of crime,

then, is also tautological.

G&H explicitly exclude the overt commission of criminal acts in the

definition of low self-control. They argue that crimes are circumscribed

events under a set of necessary conditions and that criminal acts are, at

best, imperfect measures of self-control (p. 137). Crime can change while

self-control does not and low self-control can exist wi thout crime. Thus, it

is possible that some independent indicator of low self-control could be

devised and related to separate measures of criminal behavior including

separate indicators of criminal propensity. This resolution of the tautology

problem is short-circuited, however, by the contradictory assertion by G&H

that the offenses themselves, indeed, can be taken as the measures of self-

control, with the proviso that offenses vary in their validity as measures of

self-control (p. 90). Throughout the chapters on application of the theory,

although not directly offered as empirical measures of self-control, both

stability and versatility of crime are discussed as if they can be taken, them-

selves, as indicators of low self-control.

To avoid the tautology problem, independent indicators of self-control

are needed. But nowhere do G&H tell the reader in clear, unequivocal terms

how to measure self-control separately from crimes or the propensity to

commit crime. 4 The only clue as to how to measure criminal tendencies

independent of opportunity to commit criminal acts is to assess the tenden-

cies before crime is possible (p. 220). Measures of some preadolescent

noncriminal misbehavior can be used as predictor variables for subsequent

delinquent and criminal behavior, thereby demonstrating the stability of

low self-control from early childhood. This does not resolve the tautology,

4 M o r e o v e r t h e y se e m a t o n e p o i n t t o cl o s e t h e d o o r o n a n i n d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e b e c a u s e t h e y

e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e

on y

c o n s i s t e n t d i f f er e n c e t h a t c a n b e f o u n d a m o n g i n d i v i d u a ls w h o d i ff e r

i n t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o c o m m i t c r i m e i s th a t s e l f- s a m e d if f e re n c e i n c r i m i n a l p r o p e n s i t y .


5/11


6/11

2 6 A kers

is p reven ted because o f the cos t s as soc ia ted w i th losing inves tments in con-

f o r mi t y , bu t t he s oc i a l bond i ng t heo r y a s s t a t ed by H i r s ch i con t a i n s no

sys temat ic ana lys i s o f cos t /benef i t consequences of ac t ions . Thi s cont ras t s

w i t h A General Theory o f Crime w hich is fi lled wi th expl icit referen ces to

the con sequen ces of ac ts inc lud ing imm edia te g ra t i fi ca t ion an d legal, m ora l ,

and po l i t i ca l s anc t ions . The cur ren t theory shares soc ia l bonding ' s ear l i e r

focus on th e f am i ly 's d i sc ip linary and superv i sion s ty le bu t goes bey on d tha t

t o g ive a cen t r a l p l ace t o pu n i s hm en t f o r dev i an t ac ts by pa r en t s ( and , by

i mp l ica t ion , r ew a r d f o r con f o r mi t y ) .

I a m es pec ia l ly i n t e re s t ed in t h i s m ove m en t o f con t r o l t he o r y t o i nco r po -

r a t e cons equences o f behav i o r and ex t e r na l s anc t i ons s uch a s t hos e u s ed

wi th in the f am i ly , because I hav e prev ious ly a rgued (Akers , 1985 , 1989) tha t

th is i s one o f the d i r ec t ions soc ia l bon ding theo ry should t ake . H i r sch i s aw

par en t a l s upe r v i s i on and f ami l y r e l a t i ons h i ps a s i nd i ca t i ve o f a t t achmen t

and com m i t me n t i n soc ia l bond i ng , bu t I s uggest ed t ha t t he y m ay a ls o be

seen as ind ica t ive of the ex ten t to wh ich the f ami ly group i s ab le to sanc t ion

the ind iv idua l be havior e f fec t ive ly in the d i r ec t ion o f conform i ty . Thus , the

d i r ec t r o l e o f s anc t i ons i n t he s oc i a l i za t i on p r oces s - - t he mo l d i ng o f t he

i n di v id u a l's c o m m i t m e n t to c o n f o r m i t y a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f self-control--

cou ld be m ad e a pa r t o f con t ro l theo ry (Akers , 1985 , p . 35 ; i ta l ics add ed) .

G & H m ake no r e f e rence t o t h i s s ugges ti on, bu t I am none t he l e ss p l ea sed t o

see tha t they h ave fo l lowed it .

6. T H E O P P O S I T I O N A L S T R A T E G Y IN T H E O R E T I C A L

A N A L Y S I S

G & H c l a im t o be f r i end l y t o a l l o t he r t heo r ie s and t o have begun w i t h

t he a s s umPt i on t ha t t he i r t heo r y C ou l d be combi ned w i t h t he bes t o f t he

pos i t ivis t ic theor ies (pp. 86, 87) . They conclude that this assumption was

mi s t aken , and t he f r i end l y a t t it ude i s qu i ck l y d r opped . I n nea r l y eve r y chap -

te r a t l eas t as much ef for t i s expended in po in t ing ou t the shor tcoming ,

f o ib l e s, and m i s t aken a s s um pt i ons o f o t he r pe r s pect ives a s is expended o n

expl ica t ing se l f -cont ro l theory . Th ere i s mu ch to agree w i th in the i r c r it iques

o f o t he r t heo ri e s. T hey a r e m os t on t a r ge t in po i n t i ng ou t t ha t o t he r t heo r ie s

have no t pa i d much a t t en t i on t o t he s t ab i l i t y o f t he p r opens i t y t o commi t

c r i me acr os s s it ua ti ons and t h r ou gh t i me and t ha t m os t o t he r t heo ri e s have

no t done a g ood j ob o f accoun t i ng fo r t h is s t ab il it y . I d is ag r ee w i t h G & H

t ha t a ll o t he r t heo ri e s a r e i ncapab l e o f accoun t i ng f o r i t, bu t t hey ce r t a in l y

have been re la t ive ly qu ie t abou t i t.

Th ose c r iminologi s t s w ho are skep t i ca l o f the c la ims of b io log ica l pos i-

t iv ism will f ind Ch apte r 3 espec ia lly en l igh ten ing . G& H poin t to som e very

c r it ic a l p r ob l ems w i t h t he m e t hodo l ogy , meas u r e s , and s ampl es o f the m os t


7/11

Self Con trol as a General Theory of Crime 207

f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d s t u d ie s o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l tr a n s m i s s io n o f c r i m i n a li ty f r o m

f a t h e r t o s o n . T h e y c o n c l u d e t h a t e v e n th e s t r o n g e s t h e r e d i ta r y l i nk b e t w e e n

f a t h e r ' s a n d s o n ' s c r im i n a l i ty w o u l d p r o d u c e a m i n is c u le c o r r e l a ti o n . B i o l o gi -

ca l theo r i s t s w i l l be l e s s ena m ored o f the ana lysi s .

T h e r e i s a l s o m u c h t o d i s s e n t f r o m i n G & H ' s s t r o n g c r it iq u e s o f p s y c h o -

log ica l , economic , and soc io log ica l theo r ies . Fo r in s tance , they a re qu i t e

inaccu ra te in the i r dep ic t ion o f a l l o the r theo r ies a s hav ing an a ver s ion to

genera l theo ry , p red ic t ing c r im e spec ia l iza t ion , pos i t ing tha t d i f fe ren t exp la -

n a t i o n s a r e n e e d e d f o r d i ff e re n t cr im e s , a n d b e i n g e m b a r r a s s e d b y t h e v e r s a -

t il it y o f o f fe n d e r b e h a v i o r . M o s t w i l l a l s o fi n d u n c o n v i n c i n g G & H ' s c l a i m

tha t they ha ve a de f in i tion o f c r ime ( f r aud o r fo rc e in the s e rv ice o f s elf -

in te res t ) tha t i s super io r to de f in i t ions in o the r theo r ies , wh ich they c la im

are s tuck w i th a s t r ic t ly lega l de f in i tion o f c r ime . G & H inc lude acc iden t s

i n

t h e ir d e f i n it io n o f a n a l o g o u s b e h a v i o r , t o w h i c h m o s t t h e o r i e s o f d e v ia n c e

p a y n o a t t e n t io n . B u t v i r tu a l l y e v e ry t h i n g e ls e t h a t G & H i n c lu d e a s c ri m e

a n d a n a l o g o u s b e h a v i o r w o u l d a l s o b e i n c l u d e d b y o t h e r s ' d e f i n i t i o n s o f

c r i m e a n d d e v i a n c e . I n d e e d , G & H ' s d e f i n i t i o n l e a d s t o t h e r a t h e r a w k w a r d

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a n y l a w v i o l a t i o n , i n c lu d i n g l e g a ll y d e f in e d m u r d e r , r o b b e r y ,

o r p roper ty c r ime , tha t i s done fo r r easons o the r than s e l f - in te res t i s no t

c r i m e a n d c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e i r t h e o r y

There i s va lue in th i s c r i t i ca l s t r a tegy . I t dea r ly d raws the l ines and

m a k e s t h e t h e o r i e s c o n f r o n t t h e c e n t r a l f a c t s a b o u t c r i m e ; i t p r e v e n t s t h e

p a p e r i n g o v e r o f re a l d if fe re n c es . T h e d a n g e r o f u n re m i t t i n g a t t a c k o n o t h e r

per spec t ives is tha t i t som et imes l eads to ex aggera t ion o f d if f e rences and

cov er ing up o f s imilari ties . Th is i s ref lec ted m os t c lear ly in the tend enc y for

G & H t o p l a c e c o n t r o l t h e o r y i n o n e c a m p a n d l u m p v i r t u a l l y a l l o t h e r

theor ies toge the r in to one "pos i t iv i s t i c" camp.

7 . I S T H E D I S T I N C T I O N B E T W E E N C O N T R O L T H E O R Y A N D

P O S I T I V IS T I C T H E O R I E S V A L I D?

G & H d o n o t d e fi ne e x ac t ly w h a t t h e y m e a n b y t h e l a b el o f " p o s i t i v i s ti c , "

bu t i t app ear s th a t th ey a re r e fe r r ing p r im ar i ly to theo r ies wh ich they charac -

t e ri ze a s p r o p o s i n g o n e o r m o r e " p o s i t i v e " c a u s e s o f c r im i n a l b e h a v i o r ,

w h i l e s e l f- c o n t ro l th e o r y p r o p o s e s " n e g a t i v e " c a u s es . G & H r e p e a t H i r s c h i 's

(1969) , long-he ld conv ic t ion tha t con t ro l theo ry asks a d i f f e ren t ques t ion

t h a n o t h e r t h e o r i e s - - n o t w h y p e o p le c o m m i t cr im e b u t , r at h er , w h y th e y

d o n ' t . C o n t r o l t h e o r i e s a r e s u p p o s e d t o t a k e v a r i a t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y a s

p r o b l e m a t i c , w h e r e a s p o s i t iv i st ic t h e o r ie s a r e s u p p o s e d t o t a k e v a r i a t io n i n

d e v i a n c e a s p r o b l e m a t i c .

G iv en the de f in i t ion o f low se l f - con t ro l (p ropen s i ty to c r ime) as the

absen ce o f h igh s e l f - con t ro l (p . 95 ) , th is con t ra s t w i th o th e r theo r ies has


8/11

2 8 ker s

some va l id i ty . However , I be l i eve tha t i t i s a f l awed d i s t inc t ion wh ich does

no t have r ea l consequences fo r quan t i t a t ive ana lys i s , empi r i ca l t e s t ing , and

com par i so n o f theo r ies . The re is g rea t va r i a t ion am ong the d i f fe ren t theo r ies

d r o p p e d i n t o t h e s a m e p o s i t i v i s t i c c a t e g o r y i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y

hypo thes ize f ac i l it a t ive an d inh ib i ting causes o f c r ime , an d soc ial l ea rn ing

theor ies in pa r t i cu la r s t ake ou t c l a ims to inc lude bo th pos i t ive and nega t ive

s a n c t i o n s a n d t o a c c o u n t f o r b o t h c o n f o r m i n g a n d d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r .

A l th ou gh G & H spec if i ca l ly d i s a l low any po s i t ive lea rn ing in low se l f - con t ro l,

t h e y d o a l l o w f o r p o s it iv e m o t i v a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e r e w a r d s o f c r im e ( a l b e it

m ore in the na tu re o f a neces sa ry r a the r than suf fi cient c ond i t ion fo r c r ime)

and fo r pos i t ive l ea rn ing in the acqu i s i t ion o f h igh s e l f -con t ro l. Thus , the re

is no c lea r - cu t qua l i t a t ive d i s t inc t ion tha t ca n be d raw n b e tw een s e l f- con t ro l

theo ry and a l l o the r theo r ies in the i r cho ice o f exp lan a to ry va r i ab les .

M u c h t h e s a m e c a n b e s a i d a b o u t t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . W h a t e v e r

the i r o th e r d i f f e rences , al l theo r ies o f c r ime , inc lud ing c on t ro l th eo ry , u l ti -

m a t e l y a s k t h e s a m e q u e s ti o n : w h y s o m e d o a n d s o m e d o n o t c o m m i t cr im e .

S e l f - c o n t r o l i s p r o p o s e d a s a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f crime no t a genera l theo ry

o f c o n f o r m i t y , a l t ru i sm , m e r i t o r io u s a c h i ev e m e n t , o r p r o s o c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s

to the w e l f a re o f soc ie ty . A l thou gh the i r nom ina l de f in i tion o f c r ime is

d i f fe ren t f rom o the r s , in non e o f the i r em pi r ica l ana lyses in supp or t o f s elf -

c o n t r o l t h e o r y d o G & H u s e a u n i q u e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f in i ti o n o f c r im e o r

c o n f o r m i t y . T h e y u s e t h e s a m e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r e d i n e x a c tl y t h e

same way w i th o f f i c i a l and s e l f - r epor t measu res tha t eve ryone e l s e uses . I f

t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e i s t h e s a m e , w h a t d i f f e r e n c e d o e s i t m a k e w h a t o n e

a s s u m e s c o n c e r n i n g w h a t is r e a l l y t h e p r o b l e m a t i c b e h a v i o r to b e

e x p l ai n e d? E m p i r ic a ll y , c r i m e i s m e a s u r e d b y t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f s o m e a c t ( s ) ,

and con fo rm i ty is m easu red b y the absence , o r low level , o f c r ime . Th us ,

confo rmi ty and c r ime a re exac t r ec ip roca l s . I t makes no mean ingfu l d i f f e r -

e n c e w h i c h t h e t h e o r y c l ai m s t o a c c o u n t f o r , b e c a u s e to a c c o u n t f o r v a r i a ti o n

in one i s to accoun t fo r va r i a t ion in the o the r .

The l abe l o f pos it iv is t ic a l so impl ies tha t a pe r spec t ive focuses on the

charac te r i st i c s o f the o f f ender r a the r than the o f f ense . Pos i t iv i sm is suppo sed

to be de te rmin i s ti c , a s sum ing tha t h um an beh av io r i s (w i th in l imi t s ) p red ic t -

able . I t i s quant i ta t ively or iented , emphas izes measurabi l i ty , u t i l izes s ta t i s t i -

ca l ana lys i s , and m easures va r i ab les w i th ob jec t ive , emp i r ica l ind ica to rs . By

these s t andards , a s well , G& H 's s e l f - con t ro l theo ry i s a s pos it iv is t ic a s m os t

pe r spec t ives in c r imino logy today and i s more pos i t iv i s t i c than o the r s , such

as in te rp re ta t ive , qua l i t a t ive , o r phenomeno log ica l theo r ies .

8

S E L F - C O N T R O L A N D S O C I A L L E A R N I N G T H E O R Y

This t endency to exaggera te d i f f e rences and downplay s imi la r i t i e s to

o the r theo r ies , some t imes lead ing to mis rep resen ta t ions o f a lt e rna t ive


9/11


10/11

210 ker s

G & H a t t e m p t i n C h a p t e r 7 t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i n

c r im i n o l o g i ca l r e s e a r c h o f t h e s t r o n g r e l a t io n s h i p o f o n e ' s o w n b e h a v i o r t o

peer behav io r . They t end to d i smis s r a the r than exp la in the r e la t ionsh ip .

Th ey de ny any causa l s ign if icance to s imi la r ity o f pee r s ' be hav io r f ir s t by

d i sm i s s in g r e p o r t s o f p e e r s ' b e h a v i o r a s s im p l y a n o t h e r m e a s u r e o f o n e ' s

o w n d e v i a n c e . T h e y d e n y t h a t a n y d e v i a n c e - r e l e v e n t l e a r n i n g , o t h e r t h a n

add i t iona l f a i lu res o f soc ia l iza t ion , t akes p lace in pee r g roups . Then , they

r e p e a t t h e c lic h6 f a v o r e d b y t h e G l u e c k s ( 1 9 5 0 ) t h a t b i r d s o f a f e a t h e r f l o c k

toge th e r ( in th i s case b i rds w i th low se l f -con t ro l ) and m isund er s tand the ro le

tha t p ee r g roups p lay in soc ia l l ea rn ing the o ry . G & H b e l ieve tha t soc ia l

l e a rn i n g t h e o r y p o s i t s t h a t t h e o n l y l e a r n in g t h a t t a k e s p l a c e i n p e e r g r o u p s

is pos i t ive soc ia l r eward o f dev iance an d th a t pee r g rou ps soc ia l ize the ado les -

c e n t i n t o a s e t o f d e v i a n t v a l u e s w h i c h r e q u i r e o r c o m p e l d e v i an c e . T h i s

ignores the f ac t tha t the theo ry s t r esses

d i f f e r e n t i l

as soc ia t ion and r e in fo rce -

m e n t w i t h in a n d b e t w e e n p e e r g r o u p s , f am i l y , a n d o t h e r g r o u p s a n d t h a t n o

se t o f spec if ica l ly p rod e l inq uen t va lues i s neces sa ry . I t a l so ignores m y s tr es s-

i n g t h a t m o s t o f th e p e e r i n fl u en c e is i n a c o n f o r m i n g d i r e c ti o n a n d m y

re fe rences to the e f f ec t o f dev ian t beh av io r on cho ice o f f r iends (Aker s , 1985 ,

pp . 60 , 116-117) . Soc ia l lea rn ing adm i t s tha t b i rds o f a f ea the r do f lock

toge the r , b u t i t a l so adm i t s tha t i f the b i rds a re hum ans , they a l so w il l

i n fl u e nc e o n e a n o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r , i n b o t h c o n f o r m i n g a n d d e v i a n t d i re c t io n s .

9 . C O N C L U S I O N

Low se l f - con t ro l theo ry w i l l have an impac t on c r imino log ica l theo ry .

G & H ' s a r g u m e n t s a r e t o o f o r c e f u l ly a n d i n t e ll ig e n tl y m a d e t o b e i g n o r ed . I

an t i c ipa te th a t the th eo ry w i ll in sp ir e a g rea t dea l o f a t t en t io n and r esea rch

( a n d m u c h o f i t m a y b e i n an a t t e m p t t o p r o v e th e m w r o n g ) . T h e v a l u e o f

s e lf -c o n tr o l th e o r y w o u l d b e a d v a n c e d e v e n m o r e , h o w e v e r , if G & H w o u l d

g r a p p l e w i t h t h e t a u t o l o g y p r o b l e m , a t t e n d t o t h e o r e t ic a l l i n k a g es w i t h p r i o r

c o n t r o l t h e o r y , a n d e a s e o f f a b i t f r o m t h e o p p o s i t i o n a l s t r a t e g y i n c o m p a r i n g

the i r theo ry w i th o the r theo r ies .

R E F E R E N E S

Ak ers, R. L . (1985). Deviant Behavior. A Social Learning Approach, W a d s wo r th , Be lm o n t , CA.

Akers , R. L . (1989) . A soc ia l behav io r i s t s pe rspec tive on in teg ra t ion o f theor ies o f c r ime and

deviance. In Messner , S . F . , Krohn, M. D., and Liska, A. E. (eds.) ,

Theoretical Integration

in the Study of Deviance and Crime, SUNY Press , Albany , NY, pp . 22 -36 .

Brai thwaite , J . (1989). Crime, Shame, and Reintegration, Cam br idge Unive rs i ty P ress , Ca m-

bridge.

Gibbs, J. (1989). Control: Sociology's Central Notion, Univers i ty o f I l l ino is Press, Urba na .


11/11

S e r f C o n t r o l a s a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f C r i m e 2 1 1

Gluec k, S. , an d Glueck, E. 1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency Harv ard Univers i ty Press,

C a m b r i d g e , M A .

Ha gan , J . , in col lab orat ion with Alb one t t i , C. , Alwin , D. , Gil lis, A. R . , H ewit t , J. , Pal loni , A. ,

Park er , P ., Peterson, R. , an d Simpso n, J . 1989).

Structural Criminology

R u t g e rs U n i v e r -

sity Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Hirschi, T. 1969). The Causes of Delinquency Un ivers i ty of C al i fornia Press , Berkeley.

K atz, J. 1988 ). Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions of Doing Evil Basic Books,

N e w Y o r k .

Ny e, F. I . 1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior W iley , New York .

Reckless, W ., Dini tz , S . , an d M urra y, E. 1956). Self -concept as an insulato r against

de l inquency . Am. Sociol. Rev. 21 : 744 -746.

Riess , A. J . 1951). D el inqu enc y as the fa i lure of persona l an d social control .

Am. Sociol. Rev.

16: 135-149.

self control as a general theory of crime - akers

Documents