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
8. In keeping with their explanation of the criminal, GH describe crime as simple and
seeking instant gratification – this vision of crime has several implications for other
criminological theories. First, GH argue that crime is simple, does not require planning or
specialized knowledge (vs. Cloward and Ohlin’s Illegitimate Opportunities Theory or
Blumstein’s conceptual view of crime as like a career). GH also include in their theory of
crime some elements of routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson 1979) – because crime
is no different than other reckless behaviors and is unplanned, people with low self-control
are sufficiently motivated and crime is controlled largely by external elements such as the
lack of easy targets and the presence of capable guardians. GH’s argument that low self-
control is largely set by age 7 or 8 also implies that the longitudinal study of crime is not
needed and that age-graded theories of crime are misguided (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1983;
Gottfredson and Hirschi 1983).
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).
