Given the nature of criminal behavior, individuals lacking in self-control should be risk-taking, adventurous, short-sighted, nonverbal, impulsive, and insensitive to others. Because individuals lacking in self-control are insensitive to others and are risk-taking, they are also more likely to experience problems in social relationships, such as marriage, they are more likely to use drugs and to abuse alcohol, and they are more likely not to wear a seat belt and to get into automobile accidents.
The cause of low self-control is found in parenting. Gottfredson and Hirschi maintains that parents must monitor their children, recognize bad behavior, and correct this bad behavior. If self-control has not developed by ages eight to ten, they argue, it is not likely to develop. Self-control should thus be relatively stable across the life course. Goode is the first edited volume dedicated to empirical coverage and critique of the General Theory.
It includes a series of essays covering the major propositions of the theory, as well as a broad array of research studies thus far conducted on the General Theory. Pratt and Cullen is a widely cited meta-analytic review of the empirical tests of the General Theory. According to this work, the association between low self-control and criminal behavior has gained substantial empirical support. Goode, Erich, ed. Out of control: Assessing the general theory.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. An edited volume that includes chapters on all of the major theoretical postulates. Also includes critiques of the General Theory. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. A general theory of crime. Social control theory is situated amongst other sociological theories that focus on the role of social and familial bonds as constraints on offending.
It is proposed that for young people, a key aspect of social control is found within the family, particularly through interactions with and feelings towards parents. Of the studies that have examined the impact of social control on delinquency, a large proportion has found a negative relationship between parental attachment and delinquency. As such, it has been found that the greater the attachment to parents, the lower the likelihood of involvement in delinquent behaviour.
It should be noted that out of all of the studies reviewed for this report, only one found that parental attachment had no effect on delinquency Brannigan et al. In their study on the effects of adolescent male aggression during early adolescence on later violent offending, Brendgen et al. More specifically, the authors were keenly interested in examining how parental monitoring impacted aggression leading to later violent offending.
The sample of Caucasian males from Montreal was assessed by their teachers with respect to aggressive behaviour. Self-report data were also collected from respondents approximately three and four years later, at the ages of 16 and 17, regarding the perpetration of physically violent offending.
The extent of parental supervision and caregiving exhibited were also monitored at various junctures during this study period. Brendgen et al. In contrast, adolescent partner violence was associated with reactive aggression, or aggression categorized as defensive behaviour in response to perceived aggression. The authors further found that adolescent males who experienced less monitoring by parents were more likely to demonstrate proactive aggression and violence later on in adolescence.
The authors conclude by suggesting that early intervention, in the form of differing parenting strategies, could indeed lead to the prevention of later adolescent violent offending.
The findings of this study support the notion that parenting practices and parental support can impact violent offending by youth. Attachment is a central component of social control theory, particularly as it relates to parental attachment. Amongst these studies was a research study conducted by Henrich et al.
Henrich et al. The authors found that young people who reported feeling a stronger connection with their parents were less likely to commit violent offences with a weapon Henrich et al. Similarly, Herrenkohl et al. Chapple and Hope further found that parental attachment lowered the likelihood of intimate violence in their sample of 1, students. Parental controls were further found to lower delinquency among a sample of Arkansas youth. The research findings suggest that young people who had observed violence between parents held lower levels of parental attachment and were more likely to offend violently against an intimate partner.
Further, lower levels of parental monitoring were also related to adolescent partner violence. Chapple concludes that the findings are consistent with the claim made by control theory that parental attachment and bonding reduce the likelihood of delinquency. In contrast, research has refuted the notion that parental monitoring can impact youth aggression. In their study on the effect of family structure and parenting on childhood misconduct and aggression, Brannigan et al.
Similar results were found regarding predictors of aggression, with parenting consistency not found to be a significant predictor of aggression. Such findings refute the notion that parental support necessarily impacts youth aggression.
A significant number of studies pertaining to social control theory include measures of the role of school attachment and school support in the lives of young people. A Canadian study of 1, young people from across the country found evidence demonstrating the impact of school attachment on delinquency. Sprott examined the effects of school support during childhood on later adolescent violent and non-violent offending.
Over all, Sprott found that young people who behaved violently often came from classrooms that provided little emotional support to the students. Students who were in classrooms characterized as having stronger supportive and social interactions at the ages of 10 and 11 were less likely to behave violently at the ages of 12 and In addition, it was found that young people who displayed more aggression during the first data capture period were more likely to have been violent during the second data capture period.
As such, young people may then desist from violent behaviour in order to ensure the ongoing support that they are receiving from the school.
Sprott et al. The authors found that strong attachment to school was associated with less violent offending. As a result, they conclude that the important effect of school attachment in the lives of young people should not be minimized. The impact of school attachment on violent offending was similarly found by Brookmeyer et al. Data on 6, youth from a national sample of American schools were gathered through the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The data, which consisted of both self-administered surveys of youth and interviews with parents, were collected on two occasions, in and again in Brookmeyer et al.
Further, a positive relationship was found between feeling connected to parents and feeling connected to school. The findings highlight the potential role that parents and schools can play in preventing violent offending amongst young people. Similar conclusions were found by Resnick et al. These authors similarly found that school attachment, amongst other social control factors, protected young people from violent behaviour.
Moreover, the significance of school attachment and adolescent delinquency was also stressed by Herrenkohl et al. When youth were assessed at the age of 18, the authors found that those who had been assessed as exhibiting less violent behaviour during childhood were more likely to have stronger connections with parents, more likely to be religious, and more likely to have formed an attachment to school during mid-adolescence.
The authors found that adolescents who had been assessed by teachers as aggressive during childhood and thus, for whom violence had been predicted were less likely to indeed be violent at age 18 if they had experienced the interaction of various social protective factors such as family involvement, religiosity, and peer interactions. The authors conclude that, as previous research has found, adolescent attachment to school appears to serve a protective function against later adolescent violence.
The role of the community and neighbourhood as agents of social control has also been assessed in the social control literature. In their New England study on adolescent partner abuse, Banyard and Quartey surveyed young people in grades seven through twelve on various aspects of risk-taking behaviour.
Specifically, self-report data were collected on adolescent partner abuse, victimization, family background, and neighbourhood monitoring and support. Diminished feelings of social responsibility were also found to be related to delinquency amongst study participants.
The role of communities in fostering values and normative beliefs on violence has been examined by other researchers, including Bernburg and Thorlindsson Utilizing national survey data on 2, Icelandic adolescents, Berburg and Thorlindsson sought to assess the effects of internal and external values and perceived norms on aggressive behaviour.
The authors found a significant relationship between the neutralization of aggression within community norms and aggressive behaviour amongst both male and female respondents.
Additionally, amongst male respondents, community conduct norms were found to be a stronger predictor of aggression than the effect of conduct norms and peers. Findings such as these support the notion that community groups that adhere to violent norms will likely affect the aggressive nature of individual members. While not as widely studied as other facets of social control, the impact of religiosity on delinquency has been assessed by those seeking to understand this aspect of social control.
Johnson et al. The authors further sought to determine, if that was found to be the case, why religious adolescents did not engage in deviant behaviour to the same extent as their non-religious counterparts did. Data were obtained from the National Youth Survey, a national longitudinal study on American youth. Religiosity was based on the extent to which individuals ascribed to the beliefs of a particular religion and were dedicated to attending services of that church on a regular basis.
The authors found that religiosity had a negative effect on delinquency, which included a measure of violence. They argue that religion decreases delinquency due to the effect religion has on shaping beliefs. Further, it is suggested that religious youth may be less inclined to associate with delinquent peers. Research conducted by Benda and Turney , Herrenkohl et al. However, it should be noted that such findings are not entirely conclusive, as other research has found otherwise.
MacDonald et al. The authors had initially hypothesized that young people who were found to be more religious would be less likely, compared with young people who did not have a strong religious affiliation, to participate in delinquent acts. While perceived as an insulating factor, this was not found to be the case. The effect of religion on delinquency was further questioned by Benda and Corwyn , who found increased religiosity to be a strong predictor of violence among adolescents.
At best, the extant literature on this aspect of social control demonstrates mixed findings on the role of religion as a mechanism of social control against delinquency. Despite research that supports the tenets of social control theory, some scholars have questioned the strength of the theory. As Gibbons notes, some have questioned whether the notions of self-control as proposed by Hirschi can be used to explain more serious offending behaviour. Critics of the theory contend that the theory may be better able to explain minor offending, but does not necessarily adequately account for more serious crime Gibbons, Motivation is a situational concept.
Motivation is a necessary but not sufficient explanation of action. The moral filter is a situational concept. If the person do not see an act of crime as an action alternative in response to a particular motivator there will be no crime. Importantly, the person do not choose not to commit an act of crime. She or he simply do not see an act of crime as an action alternative and the process of choice is therefore irrelevant. Perception of action alternatives is a more fundamental factor than the process of choice in the explanation of why crime events happen.
A choice is the formation of an intention to act in one way or another. Choice is a situational concept. Whether or not a person who sees an act of crime as an action alternative in response to a particular motivator will commit an act of crime depends on the process of choice.
Depending on the circumstances, the process of choice can either be predominantly habitual or rational deliberative in nature. When people act out of habit they essentially react in a stimulus-response fashion to environmental cues.
Habitual choices are oriented towards the past as they involve drawing upon past experiences to guide current automated choices. Habits are created by repeated exposure to similar circumstances and most likely when people are in familiar circumstances with congruent rule guidance or experience high levels of emotion or stress. When people perceive more than one potent action alternative the process of choice become rationally deliberative.
Deliberations are oriented towards the future and an assessment of the best possible outcome an act of crime will be chosen if that is considered the best option.
According to SAT, the best option is typically the one considered in the circumstance to be the most viable and morally acceptable alternative to satisfy a desire, honour a commitment or respond to a friction not necessarily the one that is seen to maximise personal advantage or gain.
The level of deliberation may vary strongly depending on the perceived importance of the choice. Control is a situational concept. Controls are irrelevant as an explanation of crime events in cases in which people do not see crime as an action alternative or commit acts of crime out of habit. Only when people deliberate and there is conflicting rule-guidance do controls affect the outcome. Effective controls prevent a person from conducting an act of crime she or he otherwise would have engaged in.
Controls may be internal self-control or external deterrence in origin. Self-control and deterrence are situational concepts. A place capacity to enforce its moral norms is a place characteristic. The principles of moral correspondence and the conditional relevance of controls.
Changes in crime involvement and its nature 1. Personal changes influencing crime propensities 2. Activity field changes influencing criminogenic exposure 5. A note on the role of macro-social factors in crime causation A core argument of SAT is that the role of macro-social factors such as inequality and segregation in crime causation are best analysed as potential causes of the causes e.
Situational Mechanisms and the Explanation of Crime. Study at Cambridge Undergraduate Postgraduate International students Continuing education Executive and professional education Courses in education. About research at Cambridge.
0コメント