Complete Assignment

THEORIES OF CRIME.5
 CR 4550 Dr. Lee Blackstone

Why do people conform?

Social Bonding and Control Theories

Control Theory

Control Theory is a bit different from other kinds of criminological theory. The main focus is on WHY do people conform? Why doesn’t everyone violate the rules? Deviance is something ‘taken for granted’ – it is CONFORMITY that is of interest to control theorists.

Theodor Adorno, 1963 essay.

Control Theory

Control Theory explains conformity by arguing that it is social controls which prevent us from committing deviance and crime. Whenever controls fail or

weaken, then the result is likely to be deviance.

Quick Review: Features of Deviance

Deviance requires: 1. A norm 2. Someone who violates, or is thought to have violated, a social norm 3. A judging audience 4. A negative reaction (without a negative reaction: there is NO deviance)

Control Theory

Social controls motivate people to conform…but people do not need to be motivated to violate the law. If social controls are lacking – then law violations will occur. Hence…everyone has the same likelihood of becoming deviant, or even committing a crime.

Control Theory

So…an assumption that everyone would commit a crime, if they could get away with it. Again: why don’t we?

Travis Hirschi (1935 - )

Hirschi is one of the most important Control Theorists Viewed other theories as ‘too positivistic’ – in this sense, meaning that other theories focused on factors leading to crime, as opposed to what prevents crime (the focus of Control Theory)

HOWEVER…

Not all control theorists assume that everyone might commit crime equally…there are always exceptions.

But, there is agreement on studying the kinds of relationships that can help prevent crime and deviance.

Control Theory

The bottom line: CONFORMITY and CRIME are ‘two sides of the same coin.’ If you can explain either one of the concepts through a theory – then you can account for the other concept.

Two Parts to Social Control

Early Control Theorists

Expanded on Reiss’ ideas in 1958 ID’d three main categories of social control working to prevent delinquency:

Direct Control: punishment, and reward for conformity, supplied by parents

Indirect Control: juvenile does not commit delinquency due to disappointment that might befall parents

Internal Control: juvenile’s OWN conscience/sense of guilt prevents adolescent from taking part in delinquent acts

Albert Reiss (1922-2006) F. Ivan Nye (1918 - ?)

In 1951: Argued that delinquency occurred due to a ‘failure’ of both

‘personal’ [internalized] and ‘social’ [legal/or, informal] controls.

Nye: Emphasis on Family

The more an adolescent has needs for security, love, and new experiences met within the family, the less likely the child will seek such needs outside the family.

Hence: direct and indirect controls must be operating properly to keep kids from ‘acting out.’

Walter Reckless (1899-1988): Containment Theory

Proposed his ‘Containment Theory’ around 1958 Built on idea of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ controls – which Reckless referred to as ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ containments

Reckless’ Containment Theory

Basic idea: that the ‘pushes’ and ‘pulls’ towards delinquency will result in delinquent behavior…unless COUNTERACTED by ‘inner’ and ‘outer’

containments. If motivation is strong – but containment is weak – then crime and delinquency becomes much more likely.

Reckless’ Containment Theory

PUSHES: conditions pressuring youths towards delinquency (such as poverty; blocked opportunities) PULLS: ‘positive rewards’ towards delinquency (i.e., a sense of group belonging from joining a gang)PUSHES and PULLS are

environmental factors

Reckless’ Containment Theory

OUTER CONTAINMENT INNER CONTAINMENT

Parental and school supervision; strong sense of group belonging; strong morals

A strong conscience; a GOOD SELF- CONCEPT

Reckless’ Containment Theory

Either type of containment – ‘outer’ or ‘inner’ – can work to reduce delinquency.

If the outer containment is weak – then control must come from the inner containment (the good self-concept).

According to Reckless: the SELF-CONCEPT is KEY! – It is a person’s ‘self- concept’ that makes them less (or more) influenced by the social environment.

According to Reckless, the self-concept – whether you perceive yourself as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ child’ – is formed by age 12. The self-concept ‘insulates’ a child from bad influences. Hence: if a youth becomes delinquent, then that youth must have a poor self-concept that has left her/him vulnerable to the environment.

Reckless’ Containment Theory

Reckless’ Containment Theory

So – there is a bit of a tautology in Reckless’ Containment Theory: that ‘delinquent behavior’ will be related to ‘delinquent behavior.’

Reckless assumed that if a neighborhood has a high rate of delinquency – then their must be strong motivations leading people to participate in that delinquent behavior.

When Reckless tried to measure the ‘self concept,’ he looked at it in terms of whether a person was currently delinquent, or had a troubled history – hence – it was not much different from ‘being deviant.’

‘Techniques of Neutralization’: 1957

Gresham Sykes (1922-2010) David Matza (1930 - )

‘Techniques of Neutralization’ = justifications and excuses for behavior

Sykes and Matza (1957)

‘Techniques of Neutralization’ are ‘inappropriate’ distortions of rationalizations found elsewhere in the culture.

Sykes and Matza believed that juveniles DO NOT totally reject the values of their society: they just have ‘SUBTERRANEAN VALUES’ which ‘go around’ the kinds of rationales that mainstream society would accept.

Sykes and Matza (1957)

The ‘techniques of neutralization’ are essentially definitions that are ‘favorable’ to crime and delinquency – hence, Sykes and Matza were building on Sutherland’s ideas. The definitions ‘free up’ control imposed on youth… so this is regarded as a control theory.

Sykes and Matza (1957)

Techniques of Neutralization

Sykes and Matza (1957)

Why do delinquents utilize these techniques?

(Sykes and Matza 1057:665)

David Matza: ‘Drift Theory’ of Delinquency

Matza would take the ideas about neutralization, and propose that the techniques ‘release’ juveniles – temporarily – from ordinary moral restraints. As a result: the teen ‘drifts’ between conformity, and delinquency.

‘Conventional’ beliefs can control delinquency; ‘neutralizing’ them is a

weakening of social control -- ** OR, a weakening of ‘inner

containment’ (Reckless).

Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory (1969)

The early control theories were considered to be made obsolete by Travis Hirschi’s social bonding theory. One of THE most tested theories in all of criminology.

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

One of the main principles of the theory: “delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak

or broken” (Hirschi 1969: 251)

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

Four elements comprise the ‘social bond.’

The greater the bonding with parents, peers, school teachers, and other authorities, the more likely the person will be steered towards conformity.

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

The weaker the bonds: the more likely a person may act in a deviant or criminal fashion.

All the different elements are connected together – a weakening of one part means the weakening of another.

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

ATTACHMENT: to OTHERS – the admiration and affection felt towards another; an identification with a person.

Attachment = SENSITIVITY. If you are insensitive to others – this might ‘free up’ your behavior (similar to Matza’s idea)

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

Hirschi preferred ‘attachment’ to ‘self- control’; he felt that ‘attachment’ covered the concept of self-control.

Hirschi argued that attachment to one’s peers can control delinquency.

According to Hirschi…it didn’t matter to whom you become attached; the character of a person does not matter (in this theory). Hence: having delinquent friends does not mean you will become delinquent.

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

COMMITMENT: How much of a ‘stake in conformity’ do you have? What might be lost by engaging in crime or deviance? (Hence: a sense of rational choice here…do you, or do you not, violate the law?)

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

INVOLVEMENT: How many ‘conventional’/conformist activities are you engaged in (i.e.: studying, religious groups, being with your family)…The notion of ‘keeping busy’ [“idle hands

do the devil’s work”].

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

BELIEF: Endorsing ‘general conventional values and norms’ (especial ly the idea that you should obey the law)… Hence: much like ‘definitions in favor of the law’ (Sutherland )

For Hirschi – what needs to be explained is why people would violate rules which they strongly believe. Perhaps a person’s belief in the ‘justness’ of norms and laws has been weakened.

Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

Social Bonding Theory: Empirical Validity

Hirschi found that delinquency was strongly related to associating with delinquent friends (an obvious point which Hirschi somehow did not expect in the original theory). Parental deviance was also found to provide youth with a deviant model, and undermined social control within the family. (We have seen this in social learning theory.) Inadequate discipline from parents is a good predictor of delinquency.

Social Bonding Theory: Empirical Validity

Hirschi did not include religious beliefs in his original theory – but religion is tied to conventional, conformist values. Following religions showed: involvement in conventional activity; attachment to others; a commitment to conformity. Religion can strengthen aspects of the social bond, and therefore support social bonding theory.

Gottfredson and Hirschi: 
 Self-Control Theory (1990): GTC

Michael Gottfredson Travis Hirschi

Gottfredson and Hirschi: 
 Self-Control Theory (1990): GTC

Self-control Theory is meant to explain ALL crime and deviance, under any circumstance. Defined self-control as:

“the differential tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves.” (p. 87)

Self-Control Theory/GTC

Gottfredson and Hirschi predict that:

1.Individuals with high self-control are less likely to enter into criminal behavior 2.Individuals with low self-control are more likely to commit crime

Low self-control also depends on the CIRCUMSTANCES in which a person finds herself/himself.

Therefore: the situation/opportunity must be ‘right’ before an individual’s lack of self-control will result in criminal behavior.

Self-Control Theory/GTC

WHERE DOES LOW SELF-CONTROL COME FROM?

Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that low self-control is a result of incomplete or poor socialization; hence, the burden of instilling self-control is on the parents of

children.

Self-Control Theory/GTC

The FAMILY is the most important institution for socialization; peer groups are not initially as important. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi: the amount of self- control a person has remains stable, once it is formed in childhood.

Self-Control Theory/GTC

Self-Control Theory/GTC

Low self-control can also explain ‘analogous behavior’ – ‘risky’ behavior including smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and

dangerous driving. Gottfredson and Hirschi view all of these activities as manifestations of low self-control.

Problems with Self-Control Theory

Gottfredson and Hirschi do not provide evidence for their theory, despite wanting to explain ‘all crime.’ Tautology: the capability to commit crime, and low-self control, appear to be the same. Hence: low self-control…causes low self-control.

Problems with Self-Control Theory

The GTC proposes that the amount of self-control that a person has remains stable over one’s life. Is this true? What if life circumstances change? Sampson and Laub found that some childhood behavior might be related to adult crime…But, changes in behavior later in life were related to changes in family, and employment.

Robert Sampson & John Laub

Problems with Self-Control Theory

Most anti-social children DO NOT become anti-social adults.

What do we like about Self-Control Theory?

Logically consistent Wide scope Parsimonious: ‘low self- control’ is THE explanation.

Control Theory: Policy Implications

If the problem lies with ‘loosened’ or ‘weakened’ social bonds – then emphasis should be placed on programs that increase attachments and commitments, and learning prosocial behaviors (in school, or in the family). Discipline and reinforcement should be

provided to children.

Gottfredson and Hirschi: Policy Implications of Self- Control Theory (1990): GTC

Michael Gottfredson Travis Hirschi

Policy Implications of Self-Control Theory/GTC

Low self-control is not focused on the ‘long term’ Hence…those with low self-control will have little patience for the time to improve job skills, improve their communities, or reduce social/economic inequalities.

Policy Implications of Self-Control Theory/GTC

Controversial: the idea that improving the community/providing job skills/etc. – WILL NOT WORK to reduce crime and deviance Gottfredson and Hirschi would also argue that punishment and rehabilitation efforts will have little effect.

Policy Implications of Self-Control Theory/GTC

Because of the emphasis on family (and good parenting) as the source of self-control – only policies targeting children will have an effect Gottfredson and Hirschi: Parents need to be trained in how to properly socialize their children – and how to discipline children when they act out of low self- control Is this practical? How would you go about changing child-rearing practices in our society?