Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending

This paper builds on work by Nagin and Paternoster in which they contend that two recent developments in criminological theory, self-control and rational choice, have been explored separately rather than in conjunction with one another. In their analysis, Nagin and Paternoster found direct effects for variables from each of these theories and called for more research into simultaneous examination of the two. We build on their work by delineating a more highly specified model of rational offending, in which we observe that the research thus far has not examined the indirect effects of low self-control. We believe that this area is grossly underdeveloped and that such an examination is necessary for a more complete understanding of criminal offending. We advance three hypotheses concerning the integration of low self-control into a rational choice framework: (1) that low self-control will have both direct and indirect effects via situational characteristics on intentions to shoplift and drive drunk; (2) that situational characteristics will have direct effects on intentions to deviate, as well as effects on other situational factors; and (3) that a model uniting the effects of low self-control and situational characteristics will provide a good fit to the data. We find support for all these hypotheses and suggest that future theoretical developments will be improved by the integration of low self-control with situational characteristics in a more general model of offending.     

The Effect of Attachment and Self-Control on Status Offending among Puerto Rican High School Students

This study tests the cross-cultural applicability of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime and self-control theory by examining self-reported status offenses among a sample of Puerto Rican adolescents. Data come from a 2005 sample of 298 youth ages 14–19, representing both the public and private school systems in Puerto Rico. Using a series of multivariate regressions, three hypotheses were tested. First, low attachment to parents, schools, peers, and church will positively and significantly predict status offenses among both public and private students. Second, low self-control will positively and significantly increase status offenses among each group. Finally, the effects of attachment on offending will be mediated by self-control. Results show support for both social control theory (via institutional attachment) and general theory of crime (via self-control). Both the measures of attachment and self-control contribute to explaining status offenses. Self-control partially mediates the effects of attachment on status offenses.     

Low self-control,gender, race,and offending in late life

Self-control theory has been one of the most scrutinized general frameworks of crime for over 20 years. A majority of evidence pertaining to the theory, however, is derived from samples of teenagers and young adults. Relatively little information exists regarding whether self-control explains offending among people in late adulthood. As such, the generality of the framework has yet to be fully examined. This study uses a representative sample of people aged 60 years and older from interviews conducted in Arizona and Florida. The current study tests two key propositions regarding the generality of the theory: (1) the extent to which self-control accounts for the relationship between demographic variables and criminal offending, and (2) the invariance thesis which stipulates that self-control will have a uniform effect on offending across social groups. The analyses reveal two findings regarding theoretical generality: (1) low self-control explains late-life criminal behavior but does not account for the relationship between offending and gender, and (2) low self-control has an invariant effect on offending across gender and race when measured behaviorally. Taken together, the analyses address important elements of the supposed generality of self-control theory and extend the framework's scope to the explanation of offending in late life.     

Are Behavioral Measures of Self-Control and the Grasmick Self-Control Scale Measuring the Same Construct? A Meta-Analysis

The Grasmick attitudinal scale of self-control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29, 1993) is one of the more commonly used measures in research on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control concept. What has yet to be determined is whether the Grasmick scale correlates as well with crime and delinquency as behavioral measures of self-control and whether the Grasmick scale correlates better with these behavioral measures than it does with crime and delinquency. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 samples obtained from published research where the Grasmick scale, a behavioral or consequences measure of self-control, and an estimate of crime or delinquency were all administered to participants. All analyses were computed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, Version 2 (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) software. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the Grasmick scale and behavioral/consequences measures of self-control achieved comparable correlations with concurrent measures of crime and delinquency but correlated no higher with each other than they did with crime and delinquency. Four possible interpretations of these results are considered: (1) the self-control concept advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi is a tautology; (2) the attitudinal and behavioral/consequences measures of self-control are measuring different constructs; (3) self-control is a multidimensional construct; (4) self-report measures of behavioral self-control are inadequate for assessing low self-control.     

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 STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY OF PROCESSES GENERATING CRIMINAL AND ANALOGOUS BEHAVIORS*

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.     

Beyond parenting: An examination of the etiology of self-control

While prior research testing Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) theory of low self-control had demonstrated a significant relationship between parenting and self-control, it had also recognized significant effects of other social factors, suggesting the etiology of self-control may be more complex than the theory specifies. In an effort to better understand this process, the current study examined first whether social factors other than parenting predicted self-control using both contemporaneous and lagged effects models, and second, whether the effect of parenting on self-control varied according to these social factors. Findings offered partial support for self-control theory. In implicit support of the theory, this study found that the effect of parenting on self-control was not conditioned by the competing social factors examined. Contrary to the theory, however, was the finding that self-control was predicted by both peer pressure and school social factors contemporaneously, even after controlling for parental monitoring.     

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.     

Self-Control and Crime/Deviance: Cognitive vs. Behavioral Measures

Using survey data, various measures of self-control, based respectively on cognitive and behavioral indicators, are compared in their ability to predict eight measures of crime/deviance. The results show that either type of measure produces supportive evidence for the theory, and the behavioral measures provide no better prediction than do the cognitive measures. Unlike cognitive type indicators, and contrary to the implications of the theory, different types of crime-analogous, imprudent behaviors are not highly interrelated, making it difficult to develop reliable behavioral measures. These results suggest that general support for self-control theory would likely not be any greater if all researchers had used behaviorally based measures, as recommended by the authors of the theory. Improving the level of prediction to the point where self-control could claim to be the master variable, as envisioned by its proponents, does not seem to rest on a shift to behaviorally based measures. Instead, improvements in the theory itself, particularly the incorporation of contingencies, appears to offer more promise.     

Instittutional attachments and self-control: Understanding deviance among Hispanic adolescents

This study tested the ability of the general theory of crime and social control theory to account for self-reported deviance among a sample of 298 Puerto Rican high school students. The following hypotheses were examined: (1) Low attachment levels (to parents, religion, school, and friends) will positively and significantly predict deviance, (2) Individual with low levels of self-control will be more likely to report involvement in deviance, and (3) Low self-control will mediate the relationship between attachments (parents, religion, school, and friends) and deviance. Results indicated support for social control theory and did not support the general theory of crime. Self-control was not significantly predictive of deviance whereas many of the institutional attachment variables were important predictors of deviance among Hispanic high school students (attachment to parents, school, and friends). Theoretical and policy implications of the findings supportive of social control theory are discussed.     

The Good,the Bad,and the Klutzy: Criminal Negligence and Moral Concern

One proposed way of preserving the link between criminal negligence and blameworthiness is to define criminal negligence in moral terms. On this view, a person can be held criminally responsible for a negligent act if her negligence reflects a deficit of moral concern. Some theorists are convinced that this definition restores the link between negligence and blameworthiness, while others insist that criminal negligence remains suspect. This article contributes to the discussion by applying the work of ethicist Nomy Arpaly to criminal negligence. Although not interested in legal issues herself, Arpaly has a well-developed theory of moral agency that explains moral concern in terms of responsiveness to moral reasons. Introducing her work to the ongoing scholarly debate will be helpful for two reasons. First, while a definition of negligence in terms of moral concern is recognized as one proposed solution to the negligence–blameworthiness problem, authors promoting it have yet to give a systematic account of moral concern and its relation to blame. Borrowing Arpaly's account will help clarify the idea of moral concern so that both proponents and critics of a concern approach to negligence can have a better-defined debate. Second, her theory of blameworthiness is especially suited to defending the blameworthiness of negligent actions, because it does not have recourse to a special quality of choice or self-control that must be active to render conduct blameworthy. To make this second advantage clear, the article argues that reliance on choice or self-control problematizes blameworthiness for negligence. Those who wish to defend blameworthiness for negligent acts should base their work on an account of moral agency that does not rely on either choice or self-control to explain when an action is blameworthy.     

Genetic influences on the stability of low self-control: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins

Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory contained two propositions that have been the source of an emerging line of empirical scrutiny. First, according to the general theory of crime, levels of self-control are largely determined by parental management techniques and not by biogenic factors. Second, Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that low self-control should remain relatively stable over the life course. Data from twins drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health were used to test these two hypotheses. The results of univariate model-fitting techniques revealed that genetic factors accounted for between 52 and 64 percent of the variance in low self-control, with the remaining variance attributable to the nonshared environment. Further, low self-control was stable over a two-year time period (r = .64). Bivariate Cholesky decomposition models indicated that the stability of self-control was determined almost exclusively by genetic factors, and that genetic factors also explained a moderate amount of change in self-control.     

Self-Control Theory and Nonlinear Effects on Offending

Objectives

This paper examines Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1990) self-control theory and develops theoretical arguments for why self-control may have a differential effect on offending depending on the level of self-control.

Methods

We test the argument that the association between self-control and violent offending (n = 5,681) and non-violent offending (5,672) is nonlinear by using generalized propensity score analyses of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Results

The results indicate that self-control and offending are nonlinearly related in a manner that involves two thresholds. Specifically, among individuals at the high end of the self-control spectrum, there was little evidence of an association between variation in self-control and offending. However, among individuals in the middle part of the self-control spectrum, a positive association obtained—that is, the greater the level of low self-control, the greater the likelihood of offending. Finally, among individuals at the low end of the self-control spectrum, there was, once again, little evidence of an association.

Conclusions

A nonlinear association between self-control and offending may exist and have implications for self-control theory and tests of it. Studies are needed to investigate further the possibility of a nonlinear association and to test empirically the mechanisms that give rise to it.     

SELF-CONTROL AND INTIMATE VIOLENCE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE SCOPE AND SPECIFICATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME*

Ambiguities in Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime have generated doubts about the explanatory scope of the theory and inconsistencies in the specification of models attempting to test it. In particular, the theory has been criticized for its inability to explain intimate violence; however, an empirical test of this criticism cannot be conducted appropriately unless the theoretical model has been adequately specified. This study tests four models of self-control theory for their ability to explain one form of intimate violence: courtship aggression. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the ability of measures of low self-control, opportunity, and perceptions of reward to predict the probability of courtship violence in a sample of 985 students currently involved in a dating relationship. The results indicate that while the main effects of low self-control, opportunity, and perception of immediate gratification are significant predictors of the probability of using violence in a dating relationship, it is less clear whether the functional form of the theoretical model accommodates the interaction between low self-control and either opportunity or perceived rewards.     

Dealing with Wayward Desire

The exercise of synchronic self-control is the way in which an actor can attempt to bring a desire into alignment with his better judgement at the moment and during the interval of time over which, but for the exercise of such self-control, the desire would become the actor’s preponderant desire, which the actor would then translate into an act contrary to his better judgment. The moral psychology of an actor who fails to achieve such self-control can be analyzed in two ways. One way is meant to be consistent with compatibilist metaphysics; the other with libertarian metaphysics. The implications of these analyses for the criminal law are complicated, but perhaps the most important is this: the criminal law should in principle recognize a partial excuse for an actor who exercises synchronic self-control but who gives up his effort because he believes that he can no longer continue to resist. His effort to achieve self-control thus fails, and he ends up translating into action the very desire he set out to control.

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.     

How Do They ‘End Up Together’? A Social Network Analysis of Self-Control,Homophily, and Adolescent Relationships

Self-control theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) argues that individuals with similar attributes tend to ‘end up together’ (i.e., homophily) because of the tendency to select friends based on self-control. Studies documenting homophily in peer groups interpret the correlation between self-control, peer delinquency, and self-reported delinquency as evidence that self-control is an influential factor in friendship formation. However, past studies are limited because they do not directly test the hypothesis that self-control influences friendship selection, nor do they account for other mechanisms that may influence decisions. As a result, it is unclear whether the correlation between individual and peer behavior is the result of selection based on self-control or alternative mechanisms. To address this gap in the literature this study employs exponential random graph modeling to test hypotheses derived from self-control theory using approximately 63,000 respondents from 59 schools from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health). In contrast to the predictions made by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), and the conclusions drawn from prior research, there is little evidence that self-control influences friendship selection. The findings are embedded in past work on the relationship between self-control and peer relationships, and implications for future research are discussed.     

Self-control, gender, and deviance among Turkish university students

The link between self-control theory and deviance in relation to gender was tested on a sample of university students (n = 974) in Turkey. The primary findings indicated support for the theory net of the impacts of strain, deterrence, differential association, and social bonding theories: the greater the low self-control, the greater the deviance. Among the dimensions of self-control, risk seeking had the greatest impact on deviance. Self-control was not the cause of deviant behavior. While self-control theory played a similar role for both male and female youths, this was not the case with strain and social bonding theories.     

Does victimization reduce self-control? A longitudinal analysis

Purpose

To examine the effect of victimization on self-control.

Method

Five waves of data from the GREAT survey are analyzed; the effect of prior victimization on subsequent self-control is estimated using the dynamic panel generalized-method of moments.

Results

Victimization reduces subsequent self-control in the near term.

Conclusions

The findings point to another source of low self-control, help to explain why prior victimization is linked to subsequent victimization, and provide support for general strain theory - which predicts that strains such as victimization will reduce self-control.     

Measuring Low Self-Control and Reactive Criminal Thinking in the NLSY–Child Sample: One Construct or Two?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a behavioral rating measure of low self-control and an attitudinal measure of low self-control can be viewed as measuring the same construct. It was hypothesized that the externalizing scale of the Behavior Problems Index (BPI-Ext), which served as a behavioral rating measure of low self-control in the current study, would display greater similarity to a 6-item self-report of antisocial, but not necessarily delinquent, behavior (SR-AB) measure than it would a 6-item attitudinal self-report measure of low self-control, labeled the reactive criminal thinking (SR-RCT) scale. This study was conducted on a sample of 6280 children (3144 boys, 3136 girls) from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child (NLSY-C). A pair of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the BPI-Ext and SR-RCT scales appeared to form two distinct constructs. In addition, the BPI-Ext correlated significantly better with the SR-AB than with the SR-RCT and the BPI-Ext and SR-AB achieved moderate negative correlations with measures of attention, concentration, achievement, and general aptitude, whereas the SR-RCT achieved small positive correlations. These results indicate that behavioral and attitudinal measures of low self-control are measuring different constructs, the former impulsive behavior and the latter reactive criminal thinking.