| Abstract: | It is possible to distinguish between broad-domain theories that offer an explanation for all phenomena of interest to a discipline and narrow-domain theories that attempt to explain a subset of those phenomena. In criminology, this distinction has prompted theorists and researchers to confront the question of whether the same etiological process can explain variation in all types of criminal offending behavior or whether it will be necessary to adopt different theories to explain variation in different kinds of criminal behavior. One broad-domain theory, advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), contends that a variable called “self-control” can account for variation in all kinds of criminal conduct as well as variation in many acts that are “analogous” to crime in some ways but are not actually criminal. Analogous behaviors include, among other things, smoking, drinking, involvement in accidents, gambling, and loitering. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (N = 369 males), we attempt to define operationally the concept of self-control with a set of variables measured at ages 8–9. We then examine the empirical association between this self-control measure and self-reported involvement in a variety of criminal and analogous acts during adolescence. In support of Gottfredson and Hirschi's position, our results indicate that self-control is associated with both outcomes and that the strength of the association is approximately equal. Contrary to the expectations of their theory, however, was our finding that the covariance between criminal and analogous behaviors could not be explained entirely by variations in self-control. This finding suggests that factors other than time-stable differences in criminal propensity do matter for criminal and legal, but, risky behaviors. |
