General Theory of Crime Research Paper

This sample General Theory of Crime Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

The self-control-crime/deviance link has been well established empirically, with over two decades of studies indicating that self-control is a robust predictor of a host of criminal and analogous behaviors under an equally wide array of methodological conditions. This pattern appears to be such a “given” that the field has largely moved on to other areas of self-control research, such as assessing the other harmful consequences of self-control, like criminal victimization, to testing the degree to which self-control is or is not stable within individuals over time, and to examining the “causes” of low self-control. This research paper takes stock of these more recent developments within the self-control tradition.

Introduction

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory has stimulated a considerable amount of research and discussion regarding the influence of low self-control on criminal and analogous behaviors. As originally formulated, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory predicts that individuals with low self-control are more predisposed to engage in a host of criminal and analogous acts. This is because those lacking self-control tend to pursue their own self-interest without consideration of the potential long-term consequences of their behavior. Criminal behavior therefore becomes attractive to those with low self-control because it can be exciting and immediately gratifying.

The self-control-crime/deviance link has been well established empirically, with over two decades of studies indicating that self-control is a robust predictor of a host of criminal and analogous behaviors under an equally wide array of methodological conditions (Pratt 2009; Pratt and Cullen 2000). To be sure, research has revealed that those with low self-control are significantly more likely to be a general offender, a versatile offender, a cheater on exams, a software pirate, and even a drunk-dialing user of profanity in public spaces (see Pratt and Cullen 2000; Reisig and Pratt 2011). These findings are sufficiently robust that criminologists have turned their attention to other areas of self-control research, such as the link between self-control and criminal victimization, the stability of self-control over time, and to the biological, familial, and contextual sources of low self-control. Each of these more recent developments is discussed here.

Self-Control And Victimization

It has been well established that, above all, individuals with low self-control are thrill seekers. In the pursuit of self-pleasure, such individuals feel the need to frequently engage in dangerous, reckless, and risky behaviors that provide them with a sense of excitement. Such individuals are unlikely to consider how their behavior may impact others nor would they be likely to spend time contemplating how engaging in such activities might put them at risk for numerous negative outcomes – one of the most serious of which may be victimization. Indeed, a large body of work has demonstrated that those who engage in deviance are more likely to be victims of crime, even when the degree of deviance is minor (e.g., Lauritsen et al. 1991; Turanovic and Pratt 2013a). Researchers have recently expanded upon these conclusions and have started to explore the relationship between self-control and victimization.

Traditionally, the study of victimization has been limited to situational approaches that emphasize the role of opportunity, such as routine activity (Cohen and Felson 1979) and lifestyle theories (Hindelang et al. 1978). Routine activity explanations suggest that individual patterns of behavior increase victimization through the space-time convergence of likely offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians, while lifestyle theory similarly puts forth that individuals may engage in daily behaviors that expose them to crime and risky circumstances. In the past decade or so, scholars have broadened the scope of this inquiry by exploring other avenues that may explain victimization risk and looked further into why certain individuals are more likely to find themselves in high-risk situations. In particular, Schreck (1999) extended and reformulated Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) conceptualization of self-control into a theory of vulnerability. Schreck argued that the processes that determine individuals’ lifestyle choices and exposure to risk could be explained by their levels of self-control. Put simply, because individuals with low self-control are shortsighted and take part in impulsive, unsafe behaviors, they may differentially place themselves in dangerous situations and might be less likely to take the precautions necessary to avoid being a victim of crime.

Specifically, Schreck suggested that each dimension of low self-control – lack of future orientation, risk taking, lack of empathy, low tolerance for frustration, lack of diligence, and preference for physical over mental activity – has the potential to increase individuals’ risks of being victimized. In short, each element of low self-control is associated with an aspect of vulnerability, increasing the attractiveness of these individuals (and their belongings) to motivated and opportunistic offenders. For example, since individuals with low self-control tend to have a low tolerance for frustration and are quick to anger, Schreck argued that these individuals may be more likely to behave in a belligerent manner that can provoke a criminal attack. And since those with low self-control prefer physical over mental tasks, these individuals may be less likely to use their cognitive skills to assess and diffuse hostility. Instead, they may be more likely to react to threat in a defensive or aggressive manner, which may make the situation worse. Having low self-control may also seriously impede a person’s ability to carefully and consistently protect his or her belongings. Due to shortsightedness and lack of diligence, such individuals may chronically fail to set alarms, lock doors, and become impatient with procedures associated with arming complex security devices.

Schreck’s (1999) extension of self-control theory has received considerable empirical support, both in predicting violent and nonviolent victimization, especially among individuals who also engage in offending. While this area of research is still relatively new, existing studies have consistently found low self-control to be among the most important predictors of criminal victimization – a finding which has held up across a variety of contexts, even when controlling for other robust criminogenic risk factors. Specifically, empirical examinations have demonstrated that self-control increases vulnerability to personal, property, violent, and sexual victimization, as well as the likelihood of fraud and internet theft (Franklin 2011; Holtfreter et al. 2008; Schreck et al. 2006). It is important to note, however, that while self-control can strongly predict victimization in many forms, it has not been found to fully moderate the effects of routine activity/lifestyle variables on victimization. Indeed, self-control has been found to exert both direct and indirect effects on victimization. For instance, associating with deviant peers and engaging in “risky lifestyles” (such as offending, substance use, risky sexual behaviors) have also been found to increase the probability of victimization, independent of one’s level of self-control (Franklin 2011; Schreck et al. 2006; Turanovic and Pratt 2013b). What these findings have brought to light is that neither self-control nor routine activity/ lifestyle perspectives alone can fully account for victimization. As a result, scholars have been urged to integrate self-control and opportunity theories together in order to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of victimization and vulnerability (see Holtfreter et al. 2008).

While empirical findings demonstrate the importance of combining self-control and routine activity/risky lifestyle perspectives to predict victimization, there has been substantial variation in how these routine behaviors are captured – most likely because a vast array of actions can potentially be deemed as “risky.” For example, in their assessment of low self-control on disaggregated personal and property victimization, Schreck et al. (2006) conceptualized risky lifestyles as violent, property, and drug delinquency in addition to having delinquent friends, while Franklin (2011) incorporated such acts as risky sexual behaviors, illegal drug use, alcohol consumption, and pornography consumption in her assessment of self-control on violent sexual victimization. It is important for scholars to begin to systematically identify which types of risky lifestyles put those with low self-control most at risk for particular forms of victimization.

Because this area of research is still developing, relatively little is known about the effects of low self-control on types of victimization that are largely directed towards women, such as sexual assault and domestic violence. To be sure of the aforementioned studies conducted since Schreck (1999) proposed his vulnerability hypothesis, only a few controlled for gender (e.g., Holtfreter et al. 2008; Schreck et al. 2006), and less have looked at the impact of self-control on the victimization of women independent of men (e.g., Franklin 2011). While the research is in short supply, the findings of these studies are promising enough to invite further explorations into how self-control influences the unique victimization experiences of women.

Additionally, as research in this area progresses, scholars will likely devote more attention to the longitudinal consequences of self-control on victimization. Schreck et al. (2006) demonstrated that those with low self-control are more likely to experience repeated victimization, but the roles of routine activity/ lifestyle factors in this process need to be explored further. Those with low self-control may be less willing, and less able, to restructure their “risky” behavioral routines following an initial victimization incident. For some, victimization may be a mere price to pay for the pleasure of engaging in deviant activities. All told, self-control is not only paramount to the study of criminality – it is also gaining support as a vital component to the study of victimization. While findings have been largely consistent in demonstrating that self-control is a robust predictor of victimization, additional research is still needed to help strengthen and clarify the preliminary work in this area.

The Stability (Or Not) Of Self-Control

One of the more controversial propositions regarding the general theory of crime concerns the “stability thesis” specified by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). They argued that self-control is developed early in childhood, usually by around the age of 10 or so, primarily through parental socialization efforts, and is relatively stable throughout the life course. This proposition is potentially problematic, of course, because of the well-known “age-crime curve,” where individual rates of criminal behavior generally rise and peak in the late teen years and decline steeply from the early 20s and beyond. How, then, can the key “cause” of crime remain stable within individuals even though their participation in criminal behavior can vary considerably over time?

Scholars have examined this issue longitudinally with mixed results – where some studies indicate high levels of stability in self-control over time, at least in the short term (e.g., Beaver and Wright 2007), others have found evidence of more moderate correlations between measures of self-control taken at repeated points in time (e.g., Burt et al. 2006). Perhaps most telling is Hay and Forrest’s (2006) analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) – a nationally representative longitudinal dataset. While their analyses revealed fairly strong stability in self-control overall, there was a nontrivial portion of the sample (16 %) whose levels of self-control changed substantially between ages 7 and 15.

Of course, an argument could be made that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) were really only referring to “relative” stability in this context; that is, the relative ranking between individuals should remain fixed over time even if absolute levels of self-control can change with age. Hirschi and Gottfredson (2001: 90) later clarified this point when they stated that “the differences [in self-control] observed at ages 8 to 10 tend to persist.. .Good children remain good. Not so good children remain a source of concern to their parents, teachers, and eventually to the criminal justice system” (emphasis added). Even so, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) were never explicit about why absolute levels of self-control would increase with age or what would explain the variation between individuals concerning how much or how little self-control would be gained over time.

A more fundamental problem, however, might have to do with the conceptualization of self-control itself (see, e.g., the discussion by Pratt 2009). In particular, criminologists’ focus on individuals’ levels of self-control has caused them to miss another key component within this theoretical tradition: within-individual variability in self-control. Indeed, recent research regarding changes in self-control over time (Hay et al. 2006), the disaggregation of the desire to exercise self-control versus the ability to exercise self-control (Tittle et al. 2004), Hirschi’s (2004) own recent revision of self-control theory, and especially the recent research on the “depletion” of self-control under stressful conditions (Muravin et al. 2006) all hint at – to a greater or lesser degree – the importance of within-individual variation in self-control from one situation to the next. Since research into this question has only begun to emerge, it appears that the “stability thesis” of self-control is far from settled.

Part of the problem is that getting to this question empirically is no easy task. It requires either one of two things, the first of which would be longitudinal data with uniform indicators of self-control measured repeatedly over time, so one could assess directly changes that do or do not occur. In this scenario, it would be necessary to have a wide age range; that is, knowing how self-control changes (either absolutely or relatively) between, say, age 13 and 50, would be more empirically and theoretically important than knowing how it changes from age 13 to 15. A second approach would entail the use of experimental data where situational characteristics could be manipulated to induce self-control depletion under a variety of contextual conditions that might actually occur in “the real world” (e.g., conditions of economic deprivation and the reality of human interactions that follow from it, including the presence of, e.g., cultural values associated with the “code of the street” as identified). Neither of these approaches come cheap or easy. Nevertheless, pursuing them may be the next necessary step in self-control-crime research. And if additional research uncovers that self-control is, in fact, much more fluid and malleable over the life course than Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) originally contended, the theory itself may need to be revised.

The Causes Of Self-Control

While the link between self-control and crime/ deviance has been consistently demonstrated empirically, what is less clear at this point is how self-control is established within individuals. The primary explanation regarding the genesis of self-control in the criminological literature is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) parenting thesis. In short, Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that self-control will develop in children through effective parenting, where parents who monitor their kids’ behavior recognize deviant behavior when it happens and punish such behavior consistently will produce in their children the internal control mechanisms necessary for resisting the temptations that criminal and deviant behavior provide.

Support for this proposition is certainly present. Polakowski’s (1994) analysis of data from the Cambridge Youth Study; Feldman and Weinberger’s (1994) assessment of 81 sixthgrade boys; the student samples analyzed by Cochran et al. (1998) and by Gibbs et al. (1998); and Hay’s (2001) survey of 197 urban high school youth have all explored the dynamics of parenting and self-control. Others have followed suit as well (see, e.g., Pratt et al. 2004; Turner et al. 2005; Unnever et al. 2003), with Perrone et al. (2004) analysis of the data from the first wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (a nationally representative sample of over 13,000 youth) providing some of the most convincing evidence. Indeed, with the exception of Cochran et al. (1998) study of self-control and academic dishonesty, the research conducted thus far generally lends credence to the notion that, net of statistical controls, parental efficacy is important to the process of developing self-control in children.

Nevertheless, empirical evidence has emerged indicating that the processes that establish individuals’ levels of self-control are more complex than those specified by Gottfredson and Hirschi. Specifically, research has begun to emerge that examines alternative sources of low self-control. For example, research has found that indicators of biological predisposition (e.g., ADHD, indicators of neuropsychological deficits such as low birth weight and low cognitive ability) are significantly related to levels of self-control independent of measures of effective parenting (McGloin et al. 2006; Unnever et al. 2003). In addition, controls for such biological/neuropsychological factors tend to partially mediate – and in some cases fully mediate – the effect of parenting on the development of self-control (see, e.g., Wright and Beaver 2005). Taken together, this research indicates that certain biological and neuropsychological risk factors need to be considered in the formation of self-control.

Furthermore, criminologists have begun to focus on how different types of neighborhoods influence parenting behavior and, in turn, the development of self-control in children. The first study in this tradition was Pratt et al. (2004) analysis using data drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), which found that conditions of neighborhood deprivation significantly influenced measures of parental monitoring and socialization. Furthermore, such neighborhood conditions directly affected the development of self-control in children independent of measures of parental efficacy. A subsequent study by Hay et al. (2006) went a step further and found a significant interaction term between neighborhood conditions and parental efficacy on the development of self-control. As such, this work clearly indicates that community context is yet another factor that must be seriously considered by scholars with regard to the development of self-control in children.

Finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 105) suggested that “like the family, the school in theory has the authority and the means to punish lapses in self-control.” And as Denise Gottfredson (2001: 48) also observed, “schools have the potential to teach self-control and to engage informal social controls to hold youthful behavior in check.” Empirical work has recently emerged that has tested these various propositions. Turner et al. (2005) analysis of the NLSY data revealed two conclusions along these lines. First, indicators of “school socialization” (which closely resembled typical parenting measures associated with the monitoring and supervision of children) were significantly related to the development of self-control independent of parental efficacy. Second, the effects of school socialization on youths’ levels of self-control varied according to (i.e., interacted with) levels of parental efficacy, as well as conditions of neighborhood deprivation. In particular, the effect of school socialization on children’s development of self-control was strongest when parental efficacy was low and when neighborhood conditions were criminogenic. These results therefore highlight the ability of social institutions – in this case the school – to “pick up the slack” for instilling self-control in children when other mechanisms, such as parents and the community, break down. Put simply, based on the body of empirical research presented above, it is clear that the causes of how and why self-control develops within individuals are far more complex than the simple parenting thesis offered by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

Conclusions

When it comes to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime, there is a lot that we know. For example, we know that the core theoretical proposition specified by Gottfredson and Hirschi – that a wide array of criminal and deviant behaviors are the result of low self-control – is extremely well supported in the criminological literature. Yet in the process of laying out why low self-control should lead to criminal behavior, they also made a number of corollary assumptions to support the self-control-crime thesis, such as those assumptions surrounding the link between self-control and victimization, the stability thesis, and the cause of low self-control.

Accordingly, we seem to know less about these corollary assumptions. On the one hand, it is true that there is convincing evidence of a link between self-control and victimization, that self-control is somewhat stable over the life course, and that parenting “matters” when it comes to instilling self-control in children. On the other hand, there seems to be equally convincing evidence that self-control is quite fluid and flexible within individuals and that the sources of self-control are far more varied and complex than Gottfredson and Hirschi said they should be. On balance, however, they were certainly on the right track.

And there are, of course, a number of other corollary assumptions regarding the general theory of crime that still remain relatively unaddressed. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi also noted that self-control should predict crime and deviance equally well across various populations and subpopulations of people and that the relationship between self-control and problematic behavior should be roughly similar across racial and gender categories (known as the “invariance thesis”) and that one’s level of self-control should influence heavily the nature of one’s peer group. Aside from a small handful of recent studies, none of these propositions have been adequately addressed in the literature, so how they end up shaking out for Gottfredson and Hirschi remains to be seen. Even so, from what we do know about the nature and consequences of self-control, it appears that the empirical attention and respect that have been afforded Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory is certainly deserved.

Bibliography:

Beaver KM, Wright JP (2007) Stability of low self-control from Kindergarten through first grade. J Crime Justice 30:63–86
Burt CH, Simons RL, Simons LG (2006) A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology 44:353–396
Cochran JK, Wood PB, Sellers CS, Wilkerson W, Chamlin MB (1998) Academic dishonesty and low self-control: an empirical test of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behav 19:227–255
Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608
Feldman SS, Weinberger DA (1994) Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on boys’ delinquent behavior: a longitudinal study. Child Dev 65:195–211
Franklin CA (2011) An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol induced sexual assault victimization. Crim Justice Behav 38:263–285
Gibbs JJ, Giever D, Martin JS (1998) Parental management and self-control: an empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. J Res Crime Delinq 35:40–70
Gottfredson D (2001) Schools and delinquency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto
Hay C (2001) Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: a test of self-control theory. Criminology 39:707–736
Hay C, Forrest W (2006) The development of self-control: examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology 44:739–774
Hay C, Fortson E, Hollist D, Altheimer I, Schaible L (2006) The Impact of community disadvantage on the relationship between the family and juvenile crime. J Res Crime Delinq 43:326–356
Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, Garofalo J (1978) Victims of personal crime. Ballinger, Cambridge
Hirschi T (2004) Self-control and crime. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD (eds) Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and application. Guilford, New York Hirschi T, Gottfredson MR (2001) Self-control theory. In: Paternoster R, Bachman R (eds) Explaining criminals and crime. Roxbury, Los Angeles
Holtfreter K, Reisig MD, Pratt TC (2008) Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology 46:189–220
Lauritsen JL, Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1991) The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology 29:265–292
McGloin JM, Pratt TC, Piquero AR (2006) A life-course analysis of the criminogenic effects of maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy: a research note on the mediating impact of neuropsychological deficit. J Res Crime Delinq 43:412–426
Muravin M, Pogarsky G, Shmueli D (2006) Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. J Quant Criminol 22:263–277
Perrone D, Sullivan C, Pratt TC, Margaryan S (2004) Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquent behavior: a test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 48:298–312
Polakowski M (1994) Linking selfand social control with deviance: illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant identity. J Quant Criminol 10:41–78
Pratt TC (2009) Reconsidering Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: linking the microand macrolevel sources of self-control and criminal behavior over the life course. In: Savage J (ed) The development of persistent criminality. Oxford University Press, New York
Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2000) The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology 38:931–964
Pratt TC, Turner MG, Piquero AR (2004) Parental socialization and community context: a longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. J Res Crime Delinq 41:219–243
Reisig MD, Pratt TC (2011) Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited. Deviant Behav 32:589–625
Schreck CJ (1999) Criminal victimization and low self-control: an extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Q 16:633–654
Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Fisher B (2006) Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: a longitudinal analysis using panel data. J Quant Criminol 22:319–340
Tittle CR, Ward DA, Grasmick HG (2004) Capacity for self-control and individuals’ interest in exercising self-control. J Quant Criminol 20:143–172
Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC (2013a) The consequences of maladaptive coping: integrating general strain and self-control theories to specify a causal pathway between victimization and offending. J Quant Criminol (onlinefirst)
Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC (2013b) “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. J Quant Criminol (onlinefirst)
Turner MG, Piquero AR, Pratt TC (2005) The school context as a source of self-control. J Crim Justice 33:327–339
Unnever JD, Cullen FT, Pratt TC (2003) Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Q 20:471–500
Wright JP, Beaver KM (2005) Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A geneticallyinformed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology 43:1169–1202