ON THE ASSOCIATION AMONG SELF-CONTROL, CRIME, AND ANALOGOUS BEHAVIORS

In a paper previously published in Criminology (Paternoster and Brame, 1998), we used data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development to investigate the association between criminal activity and a set of so-called "analogous behaviors" (i.e., excessive drinking, smoking, gambling, involvement in accidents, etc.). Our reading of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self-control theory led us to hypothesize that both of these outcomes should depend on self-control. It seemed to us that the implication of this position is that self-control should explain any association that exists between involvement in criminal activity and involvement in analogous behaviors. Our analysis suggested that the association between criminal activity and analogous behaviors persisted even after conditioning on our measure of self-control. We drew the qualified conclusion that this result constitutes negative evidence for Gottfredson and Hirschi's self-control theory. In this paper, we reexamine the analytic framework on which we relied in our earlier work.     

Low self-control and imprudent behavior

Gottfredson and Hirschi'sA General Theory of Crime contends that individual differences in involvement in criminal and analogous behavior are due largely to individual differences in the personality trait they call low self-control. Among the various behaviors considered analogous to crime are imprudent behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and gambling. This research explores the generality of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory by examining the link between low self-control and these imprudent behaviors. The results are mixed. In support of the theory, the data reveal a modest but significant effect of a scale designed to capture the various components of low self-control on an index of imprudent behavior. A more detailed analysis, however, reveals that some of the components of low self-control, specifically those probably linked to low intelligence, detract from the scale's predictive power. In fact, one of the components, risk-seeking, is more predictive than the more inclusive scale. Furthermore, one of the imprudent acts, smoking, appears to be unaffected by low self-control. These contradictory findings suggest the need for theoretical refinements.     

THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-CONTROL: TESTING THE GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME*

Gottfredson and Hirschi's recently introduced general theory of crime has received considerable empirical support. Researchers have found that low self-control, the general theory's core concept, is related to lawbreaking and to deviant behaviors considered by Gottfredson and Hirschi to be “analogous” to crime. In this article, we extend this research by assessing the effects of low self-control on crime and analogous behaviors and by using two distinct measures of self-control, an attitudinal measure and the analogous/behavior scale. Thus, following Gottfredson and Hirschi, we use analogous imprudent behaviors as outcomes of low self-control and as indicators of low self-control's effects on crime. We also examine an important but thus far neglected part of the theory: the claim that low self-control has effects not only on crime but also on life chances, life quality, and other social consequences. Consistent with the general theory, we found that both measures of self-control, attitudinal and behavioral, have effects on crime, even when controlling for a range of social factors. Further, the analysis revealed general support for the theory's prediction of negative relationships between low self-control and social consequences other than crime—life outcomes and quality of life.     

THE EMPIRICAL STATUS OF GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHI'S GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME: A META-ANALYSIS

To determine the empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) "general theory of crime," we conducted a meta-analysis on existing empirical studies. The results indicate that, regardless of measurement differences, low self-control is an important predictor of crime and of "analogous behaviors." Also, low self-control has general effects across different types of samples. Contrary to Gottfredson and Hirschi's position, however, the effect of low self-control is weaker in longitudinal studies, and variables from social learning theory still receive support in studies that include a measure of low self-control. Finally, we argue that meta-analysis is an underutilized tool in discerning the relative empirical merits of criminological theories.     

Evaluating the effects of birth complications on low self-control in a sample of twins

Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory has generated an abundance of research examining the effects of low self-control on crime and analogous behaviors. Less research, however, has focused on the factors that contribute to the development of low self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi maintain that ineffective parents are the sole cause for the emergence of low self-control. At the same time, they disregard the possibility that low self-control has a biological or genetic component. This article extends prior research and examines the effects of birth complications and parental involvement on low self-control. Using a sample of twin children, the authors find that parental involvement is only weakly and inconsistently related to low self-control. On the other hand, although most of the birth complications had no appreciable effect on low self-control, anoxia (oxygen starvation) emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor of low self-control.     

The school context as a source of self-control

Researchers investigating Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime primarily concentrated their efforts on the relationship between an individual's self-control and involvement in crime and/or analogous behaviors. Much less research examined the potential sources of an individual's self-control. In this study, an argument was developed for the importance of exploring the contribution of the school context in the development of self-control within individuals. In particular, Gottfredson and Hirschi's position on this front was theoretically elaborated by including school/teacher socialization practices in a larger model of the development of self-control. Using data extracted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, it was found that the effects of school socialization on self-control were significant net of parental socialization. In addition, the effects of school socialization varied across parenting and neighborhood contexts. The theoretical implications of this research, specifically as they relate to the development of self-control, are discussed.     

Genetic and Environmental Overlap between Low Self-Control and Delinquency

Low self-control has emerged as a consistent and strong predictor of antisocial and delinquent behaviors. Using the twin subsample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), genetic analyses were conducted to examine the genetic and environmental contributions to low self-control and offending as well as to their relationship with one another. The results revealed that low self-control and criminal behaviors are influenced by genetic and nonshared environmental factors with the effects of shared environmental factors being negligible. In addition, the co-variation between low self-control and criminal behaviors appears to be largely due to common genetic and nonshared environmental factors operating on both phenotypes. The implications of these findings on the current understanding of Gottfredson and Hirschi??s general theory of crime are discussed.     

The Gottfredson-Hirschi critiques revisited: reconciling self-control theory, criminal careers, and career criminals

Revisiting Gottfredson and Hirschi's critiques of criminal career research, the current study views low self-control as being analogous to criminal propensity and examines its predictive validity of career criminality among 723 incarcerated delinquent youths. Four key findings emerged. Compared to noncareer offenders, career criminals had significantly lower levels of self-control. Second, youths scoring one standard deviation above the mean on the Self-Control Scale had an odds ratio of 5.36 of becoming a career criminal. Third, self-control predicted career criminal membership with receiver operator characteristic-area under the curve sensitivity accuracies between 74% and 87%, suggesting that self-control is a potentially useful screening device for chronic criminality. Fourth, low self-control was overwhelmingly the strongest predictor of career criminality and far exceeded the impact of age, race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, mental illness, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and trauma experience. Further integration between self-control and criminal career research is urged.     

Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of opportunity and context in the general theory

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) propose that low self-control is a cause of criminal behavior. Several recent studies showed mixed support for the theory and called for researchers to examine proximate causes that might intercede between self-control and criminality including lifestyle and the social circumstances of criminal events. Utilizing a sample of 125 homeless male street youths, this study explored how low self-control, risky lifestyles, and street youths' reactions to situations influenced their participation in a range of violent behaviors both as offenders and victims. Results revealed that certain sub-scales of low self-control influenced the way street youth react to criminal events and the likelihood that they would become an offender or victim. Lifestyle and situational dynamics of conflicts also influenced people's propensity to become involved in violence. This suggests that learned repertoires for aggression and situational dynamics can mediate the effects of low self-control.     

Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s “low self-control” stability hypothesis: An exploratory study

In Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)A General Theory of Crime, criminal and analogous behaviors are argued to be the result of a stable individual psychological trait referred to as “low self-control.” In this article, we test the proposition that low self-control is a stable characteristic. We conduct a two-wave panel study that measures the self-reported self-control of college students at two relatively close time points. Our test of the stability hypothesis includes conducting four separate analyses of the data (t-tests, correlations, individual change scores, and HLM analyses). In general, we find that most of the dimensions of self-control, and the overall self-control construct, appear to be relatively stable across this short period of time. However, given that the measurements were taken closely together and that we do not find correlations as strong as might be expected, at points the strength of the stability is somewhat unclear. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, November 1996.     

On the relationships between gender, power control, self-control, and crime

This article bridges the gap between two theories that attempt to explain the gender - crime relationship. Power-control theory posits that power relationships of parents in the public sphere are reflected in their relationship at home. Different kinds of households are thus distinguished by degrees of patriarchy. Differential socialization generates gender differences in crime across households. Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory purports that low self-control explains all crime across all groups, yet little research explored the link between low self-control and crime both among, as well as between, genders. Linking low self-control and power-control theories, this study examined the relationships gender, power-control, self-control, and crime. Results indicated that while low self-control explained both male and female criminality, the effect of parenting on the development of low self-control was complex; males and females differentially responded to parents' control. The gender-based processes that impact the development of self-control should further be explored.     

Evaluating the Dimensionality and Invariance of ”Low Self-Control”

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) A General Theory ofCrime, all illegal activity is the manifestation of a single underlyingcause. The authors argue that inadequate child-rearing causes individualsto develop a similar type of propensity for criminal and analogousbehavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi label this characteristiclow self-control. Six dimensions, which can be identified intheir theory, are suggested to comprise a final low self-controltrait. Further, low self-control is proposed to be an invariantcharacteristic (i.e., its form does not change with the age of theindividual or context in which the person resides). In this research, weevaluate these two propositions. First, the six dimensions are measured andused to determine if a multidimensional model can explain another commonfactor—low self-control—in two samples of individuals (fromdifferent locales) with dissimilar mean ages. Second, low self-control inboth samples is tested for invariance. We test the proposed invariance oflow self-control by examining if the parameter values in a model, which isreflective of Gottfredson and Hirschi's conceptualization of thecharacteristic, differ across the two samples of individuals. The resultssupport both of Gottfredson and Hirschi's propositions. Lowself-control does appear to be a multidimensional characteristic whosedimensions represent another common factor. Low self-control also appears tobe an invariant latent trait that members of these two samplespossess. These tests help to clarify Gottfredson and Hirschi'sconceptualization of low self-control.     

General Theory and Global Criminology: Childhood Environments,Problem Behaviors,and a Focus on Prevention

General theories of crime and delinquency are tested in part by their ability to explain the empirical findings of cross-national research. Systematic research using comparable survey methods provides a rich body of data from many countries and settings that inform such tests. There are several aspects of the general theory proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) that facilitate the idea of global criminology which, coupled with this growing research literature, support the idea of general theories of crime. These include use of a “crime-free” definition for dependent variables, disciplinary-free assumptions about human nature, appreciating the distinction between propensities and events in crime theory, incorporating the burgeoning empirical literature from many disciplines stressing the importance of childhood environments and self-control, and focusing on recent successful prevention efforts. A set of research needs stimulated by modern global criminology are also proposed.     

CRIMINAL ACHIEVEMENT, OFFENDER NETWORKS AND THE BENEFITS OF LOW SELF-CONTROL

This study follows recent research on criminal earnings and examines the impact of underlying traits (low self-control) and personal organization features (nonredundant networking) on the criminal earnings of a sample of incarcerated offenders previously involved in market and predatory crimes. Controlling for various background factors (age, noncriminal income, lambda and costs of doing crime), both low self-control and nonredundant networking independently explain why some offenders are more successful than others in achieving higher monetary standards through crime. Although efficient, brokerage-like networking enhances market offenders' earnings, low self-control emerges as an asset for predatory offenders: the lower their self-control, the higher their criminal earnings. For market offenders, however, low self-control has no direct effect, but it does mitigate the impact of effective networking on criminal earnings. The results emerging from this study have implications for Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime and the advent of a criminal network perspective. Extensions are also made toward the conventional/criminal embeddedness framework and deterrence research.     

Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity

The present paper operationalizes and empirically tests the most recent theoretical speculations of Hirschi and Gottfredson regarding an individual level characteristic of self-control and its relation to earlier specifications of control theory as well as the literature on personality. Linkages are drawn between their broad delineation of self-control and personal disorders of hyperactivity, impulsivity, attention deficits, and minor conduct problems. Psychologists disagree about whether such disorders represent single or multiple traits and whether both behavioral and cognitive measures can appropriately depict personality characteristics. Employing structural equation techniques, support for several propositions derived from Gottfredson and Hirschi's thesis is found: Self-control subsumes several personality disorders and is significantly comprised by early behavioral indicators of aggression and fighting, is inversely related to other elements of the social bond, is moderately stable over a short period of time, and significantly predicts criminal convictions. However, questions remain regarding the ubiquity of self-control, the magnitude and meaning of stability, and the power of this perspective to explain all forms of self-reported delinquency.     

A Critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) general theory of crime is appealing because of its versatility and simplicity: in the general theory, criminal behavior is a function of low or absent individual self-control. However, the theory does not adequately account for distinctive features of male violence committed against women nor does it adequately consider the implications for women of taking primary responsibility for caregiving and socialization, those aspects of parenting that are most critical to the development of self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi's inattention to gendered power differences and inequalities results in a theory of crime that does not challenge social relations and institutions, creates a false gender-neutrality when gender specificity is appropriate, and implicitly blames woman-dominated child-care for contemporary criminal behavior.     

Exploring theoretical linkages between self-control theory and criminal justice system processing

Using Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self-control construct for theoretical leverage, this conceptual article offers a preliminary framework for examining discretion, criminal justice decision-making, and criminal justice system behavior. Low self-control likely facilitates negative interactions between defendants, police, judicial officers, and correctional staff, potentially affecting discretionary outcomes. Research questions are provided for future investigators to begin empirical assessment of the relationships between self-control and criminal justice processing. As a global construct, self-control could be incorporated into criminal justice models as a potentially robust correlate of discretion, decision-making, recidivism, and offender noncompliance with the criminal justice system.     

MULTIPLE ROUTES TO DELINQUENCY? A TEST OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND GENERAL THEORIES OF CRIME

General and developmental theories take very different approaches to the study of crime. General theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's recent theory of self-control, assume that crime can be explained with reference to a single or very limited set of explanatory factors. In addition, some general theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's, adopt a very static approach to causality. They presume that prior offending has no causal effect on current offending once time-stable criminal propensity is controlled, and they assume that the relationship between changes in life events and changes in offending are spurious. Recent developmental theories, like those proposed by Moffitt and Patterson, stand in stark contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory. These developmental theories are far more complex because they relax the assumption of general causality and adopt a more dynamic position about the relationship between changes in life circumstances and changes in crime. In this article we examine whether the added complexity of a developmental theory of crime is preferable to the more parsimonious general/static theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi. We find that the evidence is not faithful to either a pure static/general model or a pure developmental model of crime. Our findings appeal to a theoretical middle ground that assumes that pathways to crime are more similar than different and that allows for a causal effect of past offending and life experiences on future criminality. When viewed in the context of previous studies that have assessed offending over the life course, our results suggest that further theoretical development can profit from studying issues of measurement and sample composition.     

DO PARENTS MATTER IN CREATING SELF‐CONTROL IN THEIR CHILDREN? A GENETICALLY INFORMED TEST OF GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHI'S THEORY OF LOW SELF‐CONTROL*

Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime (1990) has generated an abundance of research testing the proposition that low self‐control is the main cause of crime and analogous behaviors. Less empirical work, however, has examined the factors that give rise to low self‐control. Gottfredson and Hirschi suggest that parents are the sole contributors for either fostering or thwarting low self‐control in their children, explicitly discounting the possibility that genetics may play a key role. Yet genetic research has shown that ADHD and other deficits in the frontostriatal system are highly heritable. Our research thus tests whether “parents matter” in creating low self‐control once genetic influences are taken into account. Using a sample of twin children we find that parenting measures have a weak and inconsistent effect. We address the conceptual and methodological issues associated with the failure to address genetic influences in parenting studies.     

AGE,PEERS, AND DELINQUENCY*

Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990) have argued that the age distribution of crime cannot be explained by any known variables. and they point specifically to the failure of sociological theories to explain this phenomenon. This paper examines a quintessentially sociological theory of crime—differential association—and evaluates its ability to explain the age distribution of crime. Analysis of data from the National Youth Survey on persons aged 11–21 reveals that peer relations (exposure to delinquent peers, time spent with peers, loyalty to peers) change dramatically over this age span, following much the same pattern as crime itself When measures of peer influence are controlled, the effects of age on self-reported delinquency are largely rendered insignificant. Additional analyses show that delinquent friends tend to be “sticky” friends (once acquired, they are not quickly lost) and that Sutherland's arguments concerning the duration and priority of delinquent associations are only partially correct.