


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Gottfredson and hirschi's self-control theory argues that crime is a result of low self-control, which is similar to other reckless behaviors. This theory challenges traditional criminological theories and has implications for the nature of crime, the role of age and social factors, and the need for longitudinal studies. The theory also includes elements of routine activities theory and argues that crime is simple, seeking instant gratification, and not specialized. Self-control is believed to be set by age 7 or 8, and age-graded theories of crime are considered misguided.
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Self-Control Precis (Sara Wakefield)
Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chapters 2, 5, and 6.
Summary:
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (hereafter GH) self-control theory (1990) pairs an argument about the nature of criminals with arguments about the nature of crime. GH argue that crime is like other reckless nonlegal behaviors (such as smoking, drinking, unprotected sex) in that it brings temporary instant gratification to the individual and is the result of low self-control. GH argue that low self-control is an internal condition that is primarily set by the age of 7 or
GH’s theory also weighs in on a fundamental debate regarding age and crime raised in Sampson and Laub’s life course theory of crime discussed last week. Most undergraduate courses in criminology begins with a description of the age-crime curve and until GH’s arguments on age (1983; 1990; 1986), it was not questioned that the age-crime relation was in need of social explanation. In contrast, GH argue that the age-crime relation is so invariant across time, place, and culture that it is not in need of social explanation. GH also argue, in contrast to Sampson and Laub, that married offenders are as likely to “age out” of crime as unmarried offenders or that employed offenders are as likely to “age out” of crime as unemployed offenders. Overall, GH make essentially a spuriousness argument with respect to empirical research linking marriage or employment to desistance from crime. Because people with low self-control tend not to get or stay married and tend not to get or keep good jobs, self-control is primary causal mechanism predicting crime and most research in criminology does not control for this.
Chapter 2: The Nature of Crime
GH note that most theories of crime begin with theories of the offender. GH “wish to reverse that tendency” by beginning their discussion of the nature of crime. GH argue that crime is “trivial” resulting in “little loss and less gain.” Crime is less predicted by the characteristics of offenders than by the temporal and spatial distributions of people and situations. Most crimes require little preparation and leave few lasting consequences. Crime tends to occur late at night or early in the morning, between strangers, in the city, and be committed by young, poor, minority males who do not specialize in any particular type of crime. The main argument underlying their theory is that crime requires little preparation, training, or skill. Crime also “doesn’t pay” – most offenses yield little gain and those that do (such as auto theft) are highly likely to be unsuccessful or associated with high levels of risk (as in the case of robbery).
Using these characteristics of crime as their base, GH outline the conditions necessary for crime to occur. Drawing heavily from routine activities or opportunities theories of crime (e.g., Cohen and Felson 1979), GH show that crime is substantially predicted by features beyond the individual offender. These features apply equally to property crimes (like burglary) and violent crimes (like rape). Crime tends to occur in situations where a victim or target is present, it is unlikely to be stopped (lack of guardians), and where the rewards outweigh the risks (motivated offenders). Theories which do not attend to these features of crime tend to predict things that are inconsistent with empirical knowledge about crime. First, they predict that we need separate theories for separate crimes (we don’t). Second, they predict that committing serious criminal acts require special skills or seriousness (they don’t). Third, many theories imply that offenders will tend to specialize in the types of crimes commensurate with their skills or temperaments (versatility, not specialization is the norm). Finally, classic theory gives special significance to crimes that are completed versus those that are only attempted (this distinction is unimportant for GH).
Chapter 5: The Nature of Criminality: Low Self-Control
This chapter adds GH’s theory of offenders into their conceptualization of crime described earlier. GH begin their discussion by noting that classical theories of crime assume no special criminal propensities among criminals (note that Hirschi’s 1969 control theory made no assumptions about individual variation in “criminality”, only variation in social bonds and stakes in conformity). Classic theory explains crime in terms of social location, social bonds, or subculture membership and emphasizes the deterrents for crime as the major determinant. Classic theories of crime describe criminals as asocial creatures who are weakly bonded to the rest of society (aimless drifters in Hirschi’s original conceptualization). In contrast, GH’s theory rests on the assumption that individuals vary in their tendency to commit crime, regardless of social location. GH place the major predictor of crime in the internal concept of self-control. Its placement in their theory is directly related to their conceptualization of crime.
Elements of Low Self-Control
GH’s low self-control argument rests on the idea that crime is like any other reckless act. Those with low self-control are as likely to commit other reckless acts; in addition, because low self-control is associated with all types of crime, offenders will tend not to specialize in particular kind of crime.
Determinants of Low Self-Control:
Low self-control is not produced by socialization. In contrast, it is produced in the absence of socialization, discipline, and training. Self-control, then, must be actively pursued. GH
social control theory as an example of this. This theory links childhood antisocial behavior to adult crime through both a social causation and a social selection process. Criminal propensities are developed in childhood and operate in adulthood (social selection) but adult social bonds are not wholly determined by childhood characteristics and do predict crime (social causation).
The authors model these competing theories and offer a more direct test of their utility by observing characteristics such as low self-control in childhood. It then links these observations to antisocial behavior and social bonds in adolescence and adulthood. In order to accomplish this, the authors analyze data from birth to age 21. Self-control is measured as a construct that includes impulsivity, persistence, activity level, risk taking, and responding to conflict physically. Social bonds are measured by relationships with delinquent peers, work, marriage, and family. The dependent variables for the analysis are self-reported delinquency at age 15 and self-reported crime at age 21.
The author’s first model social selection processes, finding that low self-control is strongly correlated with weak social bonds. With respect to social causation, social bonds are strongly correlated with crime. The authors then test the extent to which social selection variables attenuate social causation effects. Social causation variables remain significant even when childhood self-control measures are included in the model (though they do reduce the effect of social causation variables by an average of 5.5%). The authors then relax the assumption that self-control remains fixed after childhood and allow it to change (recall that GH argue that self-control is a largely static internal condition). In this case, social selection has a much stronger effect on social causation variables (reducing the effect of these variables by an average of 25%), but social causation remains statistically significant. Lastly, the authors show that the correlation between delinquency at age 15 and crime at age 21 is not significantly reduced when childhood self-control is included in the model. Alternatively, social bonds significantly mediate the relationship between childhood self-control and adult crime.
Discussion Questions: