Varieties of Control Theory - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Varieties of Control Theory

Part VISlide2

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 CrimeSlide3

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 TheoriesSlide4

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 crimeControl 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 TheoriesSlide5

Early control theories

Shaw and McKay (1942, 1972) tied delinquency to the attenuation of control in inner-city areasReiss (1951) discussed personal and social controls

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

Sykes and Matza (1957) focused on the neutralization of restraintsReckless (1961) developed containment theory

Control TheoriesSlide6

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”Slide7

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide8

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide9

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 largeGroups these crime-justifying beliefs into five categories

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide10

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide11

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide12

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide13

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide14

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

Sykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide15

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 crimeSykes and Matza: “Techniques of Neutralization”Slide16

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 TheorySlide17

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”

Reckless’s Containment TheorySlide18

His theory included external and internal sources of control

“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

Reckless’s Containment TheorySlide19

His theory included external and internal sources of control

“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

Reckless’s Containment TheorySlide20

Travis Hirschi (1969) set forth in

Causes of Delinquency his social bond theory

Divided criminological theories into three main perspectives:

Control

Strain

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”Slide21

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

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide22

Discussed four elements of the bond

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

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide23

Discussed four elements of the bond

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 behaviorIf uncommitted, have nothing to lose by committing crime

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide24

Discussed four elements of the bond

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

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide25

Discussed four elements of the bond

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 systemHirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide26

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

Hirschi: “Social Bond Theory”Slide27

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 CrimeSlide28

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide29

Argue crime is rooted in individual differences

Embrace the view that criminal behavior is gratifying

Easy source of

immediate short-term pleasureRequires few skillsSimilar to early control theories

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide30

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide31

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide32

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide33

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 trainingSelf-centered, indifferent, insensitive to suffering, unkind, antisocial

Tend to pursue noncriminal immediate pleasures

Minimal tolerance for frustrationLittle ability to respond to conflict through verbal rather than physical meansShort-sighted

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide34

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)

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide35

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

Search for causes of crime in childhoodCauses 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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide36

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide37

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

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi: A General Theory of CrimeSlide38

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

Parental supervision

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

Parents must monitor their childrenThose children who are less monitored

are more likely to commit crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide39

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

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide40

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

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 wrongGottfredson and Hirschi: A General Theory of CrimeSlide41

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

Gottfredson and Hirschi:

A General Theory of CrimeSlide42

Empirical support

In general, there is fairly consistent supportPratt 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

Gottfredson and Hirschi: A General Theory of CrimeSlide43

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 courseContinuity: 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 crimeRecent Developments of Control Theories—Sampson and LaubSlide44

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 bondDifferent 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. HirschiSlide45

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