9 Ch. 9 Control/Developmental Theories

Ch. 9

Control/Developmental Theories of Crime

Introduction

This chapter will examine control theories and developmental theories of crime. A control theorist asks the question “why don’t” people commit crime? The assumption is crime is easier and is perhaps a matter of our “reptilian brains” in a biological sense, it takes control to reduce these natural “selfish” tendencies. Developmental theorists take the perspective that crime is not a “static” phenomenon but is changeable due to events that occur during the life-course of an individual. These perspectives will be examined in this chapter.

Image from pixabay.com

Control Theories of Crime

Control theories do not ask why people commit crime, but instead wonder why people don’t commit crime. Control theorists generally take positions regarding humans that isn’t very positive, that people are selfish and self-serving. In this perspective, control theorists take the following assumptions/positions.

Ask a central question: Why DON’T people become involved in crime?

Assumption we as people are selfish, self-motivated. Takes a level of self-control or imposed control (by an outside force) for us to comply.

With proper control, crime should be reduced.

From this perspective, people need to be controlled to limit their offending patterns. If proper controls are used, this should be an effective and inexpensive crime control method for society.

Early Work Regarding Control

Early work in control theory started with an examination of socialization and social sanctions, rewards, punishments etc. to enact control. Socialization would be described and viewed as an internal control, while social sanctions, rewards and punishments would be viewed as external controls Reiss (1951), Nye (1958). Socialization (internal control) is life-long social experience people get from close association with others. A good example would be socialization in families and parenting style. If parents or other close socialization agents do not teach self-control or impose control mechanisms on the individual to teach this self-control, they may be maladjusted in terms of control principles. Shame, guilt, remorse, empathy etc. are examples of internal controls that are socialized into individuals.

External controls would include parenting style as well, what limits or controls parents or other caregivers impose upon the individual. What consequences are imposed upon the individual for specific behaviors, are these consequences consistent and predictable? Included in external controls would also be the police, courts, schools, peers or any other group or agent which may influence control over the individual.

Nye (1958) in a study of young people found that attention, support, acceptance and nurturing at home tends to “insulate” the individual against outside influences. If they feel supported at home, they are less likely to seek out these needs elsewhere. Nye (1958) also found family disturbances (divorce, working mothers, parent-child conflict) may lead to diminished control. While this narrative may seem somewhat offensive in a modern age (especially single-parent households, working mothers) the perspective is these disturbances may reduce control in a household.

The assumption of control theorists is that people will not listen and conform “on their own” but need to have appropriate levels of control over their behavior. This brings up an interesting conversation piece, are people “born good” or are people “born bad.” Not that either side necessarily fits control theory perspectives, but it does lead to an interesting question. “Will people behave or conform because it is the right thing to do, or will people generally act in their own self-interest?”

Brian Fedorek

https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/chapter/4-11-control-theories/

5.11. Control Theories Copyright © 2019 by Brian Fedorek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Previously discussed theories asked why people commit crime. The methods used tried to identify the driving forces behind a criminal’s behavior. For example, biological and psychological theories sought to identify traits that determined criminality. Strain theories assumed people were good, but bad things happen, which causes many to be pushed into criminal behaviors. Learning theories demonstrated the importance of learning criminal attitudes to commit crimes. These attitudes, especially when reinforced, will prevail in social situations. Control theories differ in their approach. Instead of assuming criminals have “something” or experienced “something” that drives their criminal behavior, control theories ask why more people do not engage in illegal behavior. Control theories assume people are naturally selfish, and if left to their own devices, will commit illegal and immoral acts. Control theories try to identify what types of “controls” a person may have that stops them from becoming “uncontrollable.”

Early control theorists argued that there are multiple controls on individuals. Personal controls are exercised through reflection and following pro-social normative behavior. Social controls originate in social institutions like family, school, and religious conventions. Toby (1957) introduced the phrase “stakes in conformity,” which is how much a person has to lose if he or she engages in criminal behavior.^[1] The more stakes in conformity a person has, the less likely they would be willing to commit crime. For example, a married teacher with kids has quite a bit to lose if he or she decided to start selling drugs. If caught, he could lose his job, get divorced, and possibly lose custody of his children. However, juveniles tend not to have kids nor are they married. They may have a job, but indeed not a career. Since they have fewer stakes in conformity, they would be much more likely to commit crime compared to the teacher.

Image from pixabay.com

Travis Hirschi is most associated with control theories. In 1969, he argued that all humans have the propensity to commit crime, but those who have strong bonds and attachment to social groups like family and school are less likely to commit crime. ^[2]Often known as social bond theory or social control theory, Hirschi presented four elements of a social bond – attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment refers to affection we have towards others. If we have strong bonds, we are more likely to care about their opinions, expectations, and support. Attachment involves an emotional connectedness to others, especially parents, who provide indirect control.

Social Bond (Travis Hirschi, 1969)

Attachment – Being attached to prosocial people, activities etc. If you are attached to your family and care what they think about you, there is a better chance you will conform.

Commitment – The more you are committed to prosocial goals etc., the better the chance you will conform. Being married and having children tends to reduce criminal behavior in people, especially if they are committed to their spouse and children.

Involvement – Being involved in prosocial activities (sports, school, jobs, positive peer groups) tends to reduce crime. If people are busy doing prosocial activities, there is less time for antisocial activities.

Belief – The belief structure of the individual is important regarding choices and behavior. For example if a teenager feels drinking underage should be legal and is no big deal, there is a better chance they break that law.

Picture sourced from pixabay.com

From Author Jeff Bry:

“The social bond is a very well-supported theoretical perspective in criminology. Being properly bonded to important others (parents, spouse, peers) is crucial, especially pro-social people and situations. If you are bonded to antisocial people or behavior, this tends to increase the probability of antisocial behavior. Think about enterprises such as the Mafia, Youth gangs, etc. where membership in these groups tends to come with the expectations of criminal activity. If you are bonded to people and groups that are involved in crime, this tends to increase the probability you will also be involved in crime.

Parenting Exericse

Parenting can be a challenging responsibility. Parents are supposed to teach children how to behave. Ideally, parents have control over their children in many ways.

What are ways parents have “direct” control over their children?

What are ways parents have “indirect” control over their children?

Commitment refers to the rational component of the social bond. If we are committed to conformity, our actions and decisions will mirror our commitment. People invest time, energy, and money into expected behavior like school, sports, career development, or playing a musical instrument. These are examples of Toby’s “stakes in conformity.” If people started committing a crime, they would risk losing these investments. Involvement and commitment are related. Since our time and energy are limited, Hirschi thought people who were involved in socially accepted activities would have little time to commit a crime. The observational phrase “idle hands are the devil’s worship” fits this component. Belief was the final component of the social bond. Hirschi claimed some juveniles are less likely to obey the law. Although some control theorists believed juveniles are tied to the conventional moral order and “drift” in and out of delinquency by neutralizing controls (Matza, 1964), Hirschi disagreed.^[3] He believed people vary in their beliefs about the rules of society. The essential element of the bond is an attachment. Eventually, Hirschi moved away from his social bond theory into the general theory of crime.

Hirschi Exercise

Hirschi believed strong social bonds made people less likely to commit a crime. The components of a social bond include attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Please describe each of the components of the social bond and explain how each applies to your educational journey. How can you be attached, committed, involved, and believe in higher education?

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claimed their theory could explain all crime by all people (as a master trait or characteristic). They argued the lack of self-control was the primary cause of criminal behaviors. They claim most ordinary crimes require few skills to commit and have an immediate payoff.^[4] There is not any long-term planning or goal; crimes are committed for immediate pleasure. Moreover, they claim, people who commit these ordinary crimes tend to be impulsive, insensitive to the suffering of others, short-sighted, and adventuresome. If true, these traits (low self-control) were established before the person started committing crimes and will continue to manifest throughout a person’s life. The root cause of low self-control is ineffective parenting. If parents are not attached to their child, supervise their child, recognize the child’s deviant behaviors, or discipline their child, the child will develop low self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi claim self-control, or the lack thereof, is established by eight years old.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) viewpoint of low self-control is very similar to psychopathy in many ways. As crime is an act of fraud or self-interest, the individual will see situations only as they benefit them. Those with low self-control are selfish, risk-takers, impulsive and very short-cited in their goals. They have a difficult time thinking about the future, they tend to live in the moment. People with self-control will work towards a goal, saving money to make a substantial purchase or benefit from an investment. People with low self-control seek immediate gratification, they would rather act on a situation than wait for a desired outcome. This approach to life increases the probability they will commit crime, as crime is easier and more immediate than working a job. People with low self-control also engage in more risky behaviors, such as unprotected sex, excessive alcohol and illicit drug use. As they are self-centered and selfish, they generally have a difficult time maintaining relationships and jobs. They may be superficially charming and fun to be around, but the more time you spend with them the higher the chance they victimize you in some manner. They have a great amount of difficulty maintaining friendships, romantic relationships and jobs for this reason.

Control theories are vastly different from other criminological theories. They assume people are selfish and would commit crimes if left to their own devices. However, socialization and effective child-rearing can establish direct, indirect, personal, and social controls on people. These are all types of informal controls.

---

Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48, 12-17. ↵

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ↵

Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York, NY: John Wiley. ↵

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ↵

Developmental/Life-Course Theories of Crime

Crime over the life-course tends to be somewhat predictable, most people “age out” of offending by their early to mid-twenties. The age crime curve suggests criminal behavior to be more substantial from ages 16-24, where risk of crime (and victimization) increases substantially around the age of 16 and dissipates substantially around the age of 24.

When discussing issues in a developmental manner, there are numerous correlates of criminal and antisocial behavior. Examples could include prenatal issues or complications which may affect intellectual outcomes for the individual. Birth complications may also create issues, as may poor prenatal care and nutrition. These issues contribute to various outcomes for individuals and lead to discussions and contributions from the life-course perspective of crime.

The life-course perspective takes the position that various factors and situations may put us on a different “path” or life-course which may greatly affect our outcomes and choices. Individuals born with any variety of birth defects, complications or other issues/difficulties start out in the world behind their peers. If provided services and assistance, many of these early issues can be mitigated. If the individual does not receive interventions or assistance, these developmental issues may greatly affect their ability to learn and contribute in society. This may sound judgmental, but services and interventions afforded a poor family will look quite different than those afforded a wealthy family. If a child begins life with developmental issues, which are also coupled with (potentially) a poor family, poor neighborhood and less well-funded school, all of these issues put the child on a specific “path” which may be difficult to overcome.

From this perspective, the life course perspective assumes that there are strong correlations between life events and deviant behaviors and therefore crime. Being born to a poor family may limit opportunities, but being born to a poor family while having developmental delays or issues may more distinctly limit opportunities for the individual.

The life course perspective views life events via a perspective known as life stages, turning points in one’s life and pathways. These issues are all maintained and supported by social institutions (Elder, 1985). The life course perspective assumes people’s lives are determined by certain life events that occur (Benson, 2001). These life events may significantly effect the path of their life, enhancing or limiting their opportunities. The life course perspective can be viewed through viewpoints of trajectories and transitions.

Trajectories are pathways over the life course, involving long-term patterns such as jobs, family history, etc. Transitions are short-term patterns or events, or turning points that may greatly affect life and life changes, such as graduation, marriage, divorce, or being a parent (Thornberry, 1997). Transitions play an important role in the manner in which future trajectories will develop (Sampson and Laub, 1990). Experiences as a child will affect life events in adolescence and adulthood, just as experiences in adolescence and adulthood may affect future trajectories. From this perspective, transitions or any life event may have significant impacts on various outcomes during the life course.

For example, quitting school in the 10^th grade will have significant consequences for employment options for the individual. This may be viewed as an inappropriate transition, as having a 10^th grade education will severely limit a person in our society. Other examples of early transitions could include early pregnancy, early law violating behavior, early chemical use/abuse, etc. Any positive or negative choice will have a consequence, such as a 10^th grade education may greatly limit opportunities for a high paying job. More appropriate choices (and transitions) such as getting a high school diploma, a college degree, or waiting to have children until you are financially stable, may greatly affect future outcomes.

The Glueck Research

Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck conducted longitudinal research of 500 delinquent and 500 nondelinquent boys (1940’s) in south Boston. In this study, the Glueck’s researched a variety of developmental and life course aspects of crime, including early onset of offending. Other areas of research included socio-economic factors of the families, number of children in the family, body type and intelligence of the boys, and personality and physical attributes. The Glueck’s found early onset of antisocial behavior was strongly correlated with offending behavior in adulthood. They also found poor family relations were a important predictor in persistent offending. They found that those boys with lower IQ’s, powerful body builds, and mental illness had higher rates of crime.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia.org

Sampson and Laub (1993)

Completed follow up work of the Glueck research. Sampson and Laub (1993) “discovered” the original Glueck research in the library of Harvard University. This research was found intact, including access to the names and information of each participant. Sampson and Laub (1993) continued the research where the Glueck’s had left off, finding interesting correlations from a developmental and life course perspective. Some of the findings include a small percentage of the delinquent boys in the Glueck study committed crimes throughout the life course. These boys were in and out of the criminal justice system, they committed crime at least to some extent throughout their lives.

Sampson and Laub (1993) also found that parenting style was an important predictor of criminal behavior, as were school performance and poverty. They found that a majority of the boys stopped committing crime by their early to mid-20’s. Transitions such as marriage, military service, high-school and college graduation, and full-time employment led to “desistance” from crime and criminal behavior. As these boys grew and aged, the ones that made appropriate transitions (jobs, marriage, families) were at a lower likelihood of offending. Later research by Sampson and Laub (2004) found some of the delinquent boys kept offending into their older adult years. Their offending patterns were not as prolific or substantial as when they were younger, but they would still commit crimes if given the opportunity.

Life Course Trajectories Moffit (1993)

Terrie E. Moffit (1993) completed research into the life course trajectories of people and the correlation to criminal behavior. Moffit (1993) examined transitions and life course trajectories of antisocial youth. Moffit found a “dual taxonomy of Life-Course Persistent and Adolescent Limited offenders in her research.

Life-Course Persistent Offenders are people that start offending early in life, starting at a young age and continuing throughout their life course. These individuals have many developmental issues to contend with; neurological problems, birth complications, prenatal exposure to tobacco and alcohol, also a negative home environment. As many of these individuals have negative home environments, their issues and needs are not addressed. They have a troubled upbringing and may have a variety of developmental issues that affect their ability to learn. School is difficult for these children, they generally begin school academically behind their peers and become more frustrated with each passing grade.

As a response to these issues and difficulty with school, the life-course persistent offenders begin acting out in school. They cannot compete academically with their peers, they also generally receive very little assistance or nurturing from home. As school and academics are painful for them, they begin to act out and lash out against teachers, peers and the school itself.

Adolescent Limited Offenders are generally fairly well adjusted, rule following children. They generally try their best to follow the rules, they also generally try their best at school. Moffit (1993) argues these children see the life-course persistent children as being troubled, but also potentially humorous and capable of doing and saying things (to teachers, authority figures, etc.) they would not do and say. As these adolescent limited children grow and begin to enter adolescence, Moffit (1993) argues something changes for many of them. Moffit (1993) argues they see the life-course persistent children breaking rules and being contrarian, they think that is “cool” and would like to emulate them. She argues they look up to the life-course persistent children, seeing them as defiant and not “taking any crap” from people around them.

Image from pixabay.com

While the adolescent limited children may make some bad choices and become somewhat belligerent, they are also socialized and grounded to have life expectations and life goals. They also generally respect authority (parents, law enforcement, teachers) and there are limits to what they will do in terms of behavior. Moffit (1993) argues these children “outgrow” this behavior, mainly because they have stable households and families, they also have goals and aspirations they would like to achieve.

Moffit (1993) also contends the adolescent limited children begin to see the life-course persistent children as negative and begin to label them as such by later adolescence. The adolescent limited children want to participate in sports and other activities, attend school functions and eventually go to college and gain stable employment. Also as the adolescent limited children gain more freedom (later curfew, driver’s license, etc.), they begin to organically gain more freedom and control over their lives.

One other factor is the life-course persistent children may not be around by high school, they may drop out or be “kicked out” of school. They may also be involved in the juvenile justice system and institutionalized, so they may not be as accessible to the adolescent limited children.

Transitions are important in Moffit’s (1993) research as well. As children grow and experience life, some of these transitions may positively or negatively affect their life course. For example, adolescent limited children who experience trauma (abuse, neglect, sexual assault, etc.) may respond to this trauma in a negative manner including negative choices. Or life events such as divorce of their parents, death of a parent, death of a close friend etc. may also put these children on a different trajectory than they were originally on.

Transitions may be important for life-course persistent children as well. Some of these children may have positive experiences that change or alter their trajectory, including positive adult role models, a pro-social friend group, or someone in their life that pushes them in the right direction. Or perhaps they receive treatment and assistance for their developmental issues, which pushes them into a different trajectory. Military service has been demonstrated as being a “life altering” experience for many people. There is evidence (as a transition) that military service may change the trajectory of life-course persistent offenders Sampson and Laub (1993). The rigor, discipline and accountability of military service (and boot camp) may be life changing for these individuals.

Image from pixabay.com

Farrington’s Theory of Delinquent Development (1995)

David Farrington completed a longitudinal study of the criminal careers of 411 persistent offending delinquent boys born in 1954. Farrington’s (1995) research attempted to isolate factors that may predict a lifelong continuity of criminal behavior in these offenders. Key aspects of Farrington’s study include:

Antisocial Potential (AP):

Short-Term AP: Refers to the immediate potential to engage in antisocial behavior, influenced by situational factors such as peer pressure, alcohol consumption, and immediate rewards.

Long-Term AP: Refers to the enduring potential to engage in antisocial behavior, influenced by long-term factors such as personality traits, family background, and social environment.

Cognitive Processes:

Farrington’s theory emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in the translation of antisocial potential into actual behavior. This includes decision-making processes, moral reasoning, and the individual’s perception of potential rewards and punishments.

Developmental Pathways:

Farrington identifies different developmental pathways to delinquency, suggesting that individuals may follow various routes based on their experiences and life circumstances. Early risk factors, such as poor parenting, low intelligence, and association with delinquent peers, play a significant role in setting individuals on these pathways.

Life-Course Perspective:

The theory incorporates a life-course perspective, recognizing that the likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior changes over time. Key life events, such as marriage, employment, and military service, can serve as turning points that increase or decrease antisocial potential.

Interaction of Risk and Protective Factors:

Farrington highlights the importance of the interaction between risk factors (e.g., poverty, family criminality) and protective factors (e.g., strong social bonds, positive influence of parents especially mothers, positive school experiences) in shaping delinquent behavior.

Farrington (1995) found early onset of offending to be an important correlate of chronic offending. He argues that the traits of chronic persistent offenders to be found by the age of 8. Farrington also identified poor, large families as being more criminogenic, especially if one or both parents have a criminal record. Other key correlates include poor parental supervision, harsh or erratic punishment, impulsivity, hyperactivity and poor achievement (and attendance) in school. Some other protective factors include shyness, very few friends at age 8, noncriminal families, being highly regarded by their mothers.

Farrington’s (1996) work Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime examines various correlates of youth crime, including developmental aspects. Farrington highlights the importance of early intervention in terms of addressing issues as quickly as possible. Farrington (1996) discusses individual traits and characteristics coupled with situational and environmental cues which may propel young people towards delinquency. Addressing environmental and developmental issues early may reduce the affects of these indicators, which may also reduce the affects of the transitions.

Summary

This chapter identifies and addresses issues of control (inappropriate levels of control and bonding, low self-control) as well as developmental and life course perspectives of offending patterns. In terms of bonding and low self-control, early intervention and proper socialization is crucial to produce positive outcomes regarding social bonds and personal levels of control. If an individual is not properly bonded or have low self-control, there is an increased probability of offending behavior.

From a developmental and life course perspective, a variety of developmental issues (especially if not addressed) may increase the probability of life course related offending patterns. Certainly, transitions may occur at any stage of the life course which may increase or decrease criminal behavior. Untreated or diagnosed developmental issues are problematic, but inappropriate early transitions (dropping out of school, getting pregnant, early chemical use) may increase the probability of crime. In a similar manner things like marriage, a full-time job and military service may act as “insulators” against criminal behavior.

References

Farrington, David P. “The Development of Offending and Antisocial Behavior from Childhood: Key Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 36, no. 6, 1995, pp. 929-964.

Farrington, David P. Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Harvard University Press, 1950.

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Delinquents and Nondelinquents in Perspective. Harvard University Press, 1968.

Moffitt, Terrie E. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review, vol. 100, no. 4, 1993, pp. 674-701.

Nye, F. Ivan. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. Wiley, 1958.

Reiss, Albert J. “Delinquency as the Failure of Personal and Social Controls.” American Sociological Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1951, pp. 196-207.

Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard University Press, 1993.