Part VI. Sociological explanations of crime have been dominated by three main traditions ◦ Anomie/strain theory (Robert Merton) ◦ Differential association/social

Varieties of Control Theory

Part VI

Sociological explanations of crime have been dominated by three main traditions

◦ Anomie/strain theory (Robert Merton)

◦ Differential association/social learning theory (Edwin Sutherland and Ronald Akers)

◦ Control theory (Travis Hirschi)

Focus of this chapter is on control theory

Main Explanations of Crime

Unlike strain and cultural deviance theories, control theories do not see humans as “blank slates” onto which society writes its script

Control theories argue it is human nature for people to “naturally” break the law◦ Like other animals, humans seek gratification; crime

is often an easy means to secure gratification Gives ample motivation to commit crime

◦ Since all humans have motivation, theories that seek to explain motivation (e.g., strain and cultural deviance theories/social learning) are not needed

Control Theories

Instead of asking, “Why do they do it?” criminologists need to ask, “Why don’t they do it?”◦ What prevents them from acting out on their

impulses

Control theorists argue that the control society exerts over individuals is why people do not commit crime

Control theories assume that delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken

Variation in control, not variation in motivation, explains why some people break the law more than others

Control Theories

Early control theories

◦ Shaw and McKay (1942, 1972) tied delinquency to the attenuation of control in inner-city areas

◦ Reiss (1951) discussed personal and social controls

◦ Nye (1958) emphasized internal, direct, and indirect controls

◦ Sykes and Matza (1957) focused on the neutralization of restraints

◦ Reckless (1961) developed containment theory

Control Theories

Both embraces and departs from the differential association perspective ◦ Provides insights on the specific definitions or beliefs

that might encourage offending

◦ Argues learned beliefs and definitions lead to crime but do not see society wracked by culture conflict

There is a dominant normative system in which everyone is socialized

Controls are present over most of us most of the time

◦ Techniques of neutralization permit law-breaking to take place

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”

Many delinquents do feel guilt and shame after engaging in criminal behavior and seek the approval of law-abiding people (e.g., parents, church leaders, etc.)

Delinquents often draw a line between those who can and cannot be victimized◦ Certain groups are off limits (e.g., friends, kin, etc.)

Thus, delinquents have not fully embraced a delinquent value system


Argue against subcultural theories that state youths become so enmeshed in a criminal value system that they ignore prosocial standards

◦ Rather, most youth internalize the dominant normative system, and when they violate those norms, they feel guilt and shame


People are able to commit crime by neutralizing these controls

◦ The techniques of neutralization are a set of beliefs that justify criminal behavior in certain circumstances

◦ The individual remains committed to the dominant normative system and qualifies his/her violations as acceptable

◦ Deviance is seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large

◦ Groups these crime-justifying beliefs into five categories


1. Denial of responsibility◦ Function is to deflect blame attached to

violations of social norms and to establish the violation as independent of a particular personality structure

◦ Extends further than saying the act was an “accident”

◦ Can be asserted that the delinquent act was outside the individual and beyond his control

Sees self as hopelessly propelled into the situation


2. Denial of injury◦ Centers on the harm involved in the delinquent

act

◦ Whether anyone has clearly been hurt by his/her deviance

Delinquent feels that his/her behavior does not really cause any great harm despite the fact that it runs counter to law


3. Denial of victim

◦ Argues injury is not wrong in light of the circumstances

◦ Not really an injury, rather a rightful retaliation or punishment

◦ Sees self as an avenger and the victim as a wrong-doer


4. Condemnation of the condemners

◦ A rejection of the rejectors

◦ The deviant shifts the focus of attention from his/her own deviant acts to the motives and behavior of those who disapprove of his/her violations

◦ The deviant argues his/her condemners are hypocrites, deviants, etc.

◦ Can harden into bitter cynicism


5. Appeal to higher loyalties

◦ Sacrificing the demands of the larger society for the demands of smaller social groups to which the delinquent belongs (e.g., peer groups, gangs, cliques)

◦ Sees self caught up in a dilemma that must be resolved at the cost of violating the law

◦ Other norms are held to be more pressing or involving a higher loyalty


Empirical support◦ Scattered and fragmentary research◦ Some support found

Offenders commonly justify crimes using neutralizations True of rapists, white-collar criminals, and others

Individuals differ in the extent to which they accept neutralizations If accept more neutralizations, engage in more crime Neutralizations more likely to lead to crime among

individuals who associate with delinquent peers Do not cause crime, but make it easier for motivated

individuals to engage in crime


Identified two categories of theories that were popular in his day:◦ “Push” theories: argued forces pushed/propelled

people into criminal behavior

Example: strain theories

◦ “Pull” theories: argued people could be pulled/lured into criminal behavior by antisocial models and companions

Example: differential association/social learning theories

Reckless’s Containment Theory

Believed an exclusive focus on “pushes” or “pulls” was incomplete

◦ Argued social disorganization was an important source of deviant behavior

◦ Asked how there were “good boys” in “bad areas”

How did they resist criminal influences?

Reckless argued that a “good self-concept” insulated these boys from the “bad neighborhoods”


His theory included external and internal sources of control

1. “Outer containment”: opposite of social disorganization

Occurs when individuals are enmeshed in “effective family life and an effective supporting structure in the neighborhood and larger society”

Often weak and not strong enough to control the pushes and pulls of crime


His theory included external and internal sources of control

2. “Inner containment”: good self-control, ego strength, well-developed sugerego (conscience), good self-concept, high resistance to diversions, high frustration tolerance

This was the insulator between the individual and a bad environment


Travis Hirschi (1969) set forth in Causes of Delinquency his social bond theory

Divided criminological theories into three main perspectives:

1. Control

2. Strain

3. Cultural deviance (differential association/social learning)

Argued the three perspectives are incompatible and should be seen as rivals and tested empirically against one another

Used survey research to obtain theoretical concepts and self-reported delinquency to test theories

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”

Presented data showing the merits of his perspective and the comparative weaknesses of strain and cultural deviance perspectives

Focused on how an individual’s bonds to society influence decisions to break the law

Controls originate and are sustained by the person’s bonds to society


Discussed four elements of the bond

1. Attachment

Sensitivity to the opinion of others

Cares about the wishes and expectations of others

The internalization of norms (the conscience) lies in the attachment of individuals to others

Involves an emotional connection Relationships with parents most crucial

Involves indirect control Psychologically present although not physically present


Discussed four elements of the bond2. Commitment

Rational component—an assessment of the costs and benefits of crime

Committed to conformity

Fear of consequences

People invest time, money, energy, etc. into conventional behavior and must take into account the costs of deviant behavior

Runs the risk of losing the investment in conventional behavior

If uncommitted, have nothing to lose by committing crime



3. Involvement

Time and energy are limited

“Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”

Engrossment in conventional activities keeps a person too busy to find time to engage in deviant behavior



4. Belief

Variation in the extent to which people believe they should obey the rules of society

The less a person believes s/he should obey the rules, the more likely he/she is to violate them

When a person’s beliefs in the moral validity of norms are weakened, the likelihood of crime increases

Argues there is a common value system


Overall, there is fairly consistent support for the general thesis that weak social bonds increase the risk of being involved in criminal behavior

◦ However, Hirschi’s claim that other theories are not empirically viable is incorrect

◦ Also, Hirschi does not examine how macro-social changes in society affect the strength of social bonds for people in different sectors


In 1990, Hirschi partnered with Michael Gottfredson and wrote A General Theory of Crime

Argue that the lack of “self-control” is the chief source of criminal behavior◦ Self-control is the source of resistance against

criminal temptations

Gottfredson and Hirschi: A General Theory of Crime

This was a marked departure from Hirschi’s social bond theory

◦ Social bond theory located control in a person’s relation to society, while self-control theory located control inside the individual

◦ Social bond theory argues experiences beyond childhood can affect a person’s ties to society; self-control theory argues criminal propensities are established in childhood

◦ Self-control theory argues any relationship between social bonds and crime is spurious


Argue crime is rooted in individual differences

Embrace the view that criminal behavior is gratifying

◦ Easy source of immediate short-term pleasure

◦ Requires few skills

◦ Similar to early control theories


Self-control is an enduring propensity or individual difference that has general effects in a person’s life

◦ Explains stability across the life course

◦ Explains why offenders engage in many noncriminal deviant behaviors


Differentiate between “criminality” and “crime”◦ Criminality: the propensity to offend◦ Crime: an actual event in which a law is broken

◦ Gottfredson and Hirschi use the concept of self-control and not criminality because criminality connotes causation

Propensity cannot be acted on unless the opportunity to do so exists◦ See opportunity as ubiquitous

◦ People with low self-control act upon these numerous opportunities for crime


Argue differences in self-control remain relatively stable over the life course with changes in the social location of individuals and changes in their knowledge of the operation of sanction systems explaining changes in criminal behavior


Elements of self-control◦ “Here and now” orientation—very impulsive

◦ Lack of diligence, tenacity, or persistence

◦ Adventuresome, active, and physical

◦ Unstable relationships and employment

◦ Lack manual skills that requiring training

◦ Self-centered, indifferent, insensitive to suffering, unkind, antisocial

◦ Tend to pursue noncriminal immediate pleasures

◦ Minimal tolerance for frustration

◦ Little ability to respond to conflict through verbal rather than physical means

◦ Short-sighted


Manifestations of low self-control◦ Since both crime and analogous (noncriminal) behavior

stem from low self-control, they will all be engaged in at a relatively high rate by people with low self-control

◦ No evidence of specialization in behavior—rather, much versatility with crime and analogous behaviors

Commit a wide range of criminal acts Very difficult to predict the specific form of deviance the person

is going to engage in

More likely to use drugs, drink, skip school, be involved in accidents (e.g., fires, crashes, unwanted pregnancies)


Argue the root causes of crime lie in the first years of life

◦ Search for causes of crime in childhood◦ Causes of low self-control are negative, not

positive Absence of effort to create it

No social group purposely attempts to lower the self-control of its members


The critical social milieu in childhood is the family

◦Experiences in childhood are shaped by our parents

Self-control is not caused by biological predispositions

◦Rather, it is caused by ineffective parenting Direct control is the key to effective parenting


In order to instill self-control in children, four factors must be present

1. Attachment of the parent to the child

Parents must have concern for the welfare and behavior of the child

Invest in the child

Care for the child



2. Parental supervision

Prevents criminal and analogous acts while training the child to avoid them

Parents must monitor their children

Those children who are less monitored are more likely to commit crime



3. Recognition of deviant acts

In order for supervision to have an impact on self-control, the supervisor must perceive deviant behavior when it occurs

Must see the deviant behavior as something wrong



4. Punishment of deviant acts

If the child engages in deviant acts, he/she must be punished

Punishment does not need to be legal or corporal

Rather, disapproval by people one cares about is one of the most powerful sanctions

Do not be too harsh or too lenient

Harsh: undermines the attachment between the parent and child

Lenient: does not teach the child the behavior is wrong


When parents themselves lack self-control and are criminal, they do not socialize their children well◦ West and Farrington (1977) showed delinquency

is seen across generations

◦ These parents do not encourage crime in their children, but often do not become attached to their children and do not supervise their children They also do not recognize and punish deviant

behavior


Empirical support

◦ In general, there is fairly consistent support

◦ Pratt and Cullen (2000) found in a meta-analysis of the existing research that low self-control had an effect size exceeding .20

◦ However, low self-control does not fully explain away the effects of other sociological factors (e.g., differential association/social learning variables), which is counter to the theory


Social bonds across the life course

◦ Robert Sampson and John Laub revitalized Hirschi’s original social bond theory

Argue there is both continuity and change in criminal behavior across the life course

Continuity: people are usually on trajectories that result in the continuity of behavior

Change: people experience turning points that evoke behavioral change

Establishing social bonds through employment or marriage can redirect people out of a life of crime

Recent Developments of Control Theories—Sampson and Laub

There are some major differences between Sampson and Laub’s age-graded social bond theory and Hirschi’s social bond theory

◦ Hirschi focused on the juvenile years, while Sampson and Laub focused on the entire life course

◦ Sampson and Laub developed an integrated theoretical perspective accepting that individual differences and social bonds combine to explain the onset and desistance of criminal behavior

◦ Sampson and Laub look at the quality of the bond Different bonds affect individuals at different stages

of life (e.g., bonds to parents in childhood, bonds to school/peers in adolescence, bonds to work and spouse in adulthood)

Sampson and Laub vs. Hirschi

Unlike the other sociological theories, control theories ask why people do not commit crime

Argue crime is easy and provides immediate gratification and thus people must be restrained/controlled in order to not commit crime

Some theories place the locus of control outside the individual (social bond theory, age-graded social bond theory), while others place the locus of control inside the individual (self-control theory)

The research shows control theories have considerable support

Summary

Documents

Part VI. Sociological explanations of crime have been dominated by three main traditions ◦ Anomie/strain theory (Robert Merton) ◦ Differential association/social