Control Theories
Informal Social Control
Assumptions about human nature
• Humans are hedonistic, self-serving beings
• We are “inclined” towards deviance from birth
– “natural motivation”
– no “positive” motivation required
– “variation in motivations toward deviance”
• Is this different from Differential Association/Social Learning?
– Sutherland: All crime is learned, not invented
If we are inclined toward deviance...
• Key Question: Why aren’t most of us deviant?
– Hirschi: “There is much evidence that we would be if we dared.”
• Answer: Informal Social Control
Are control theories “different?”
• Akers
– They don’t try to explain “non-crime” or conformity
– Different sides of the same coin
• Control Theorists
– Completely different assumptions about human nature and
“motivation” towards crime
Ivan Nye (1958)
• Identified 3 types of informal control
1. Direct Controls
2. Indirect Controls
3. Internal Controls
Walter Reckless: Containment Theory
Enter Travis Hirschi
Social Bond Theory
Social Bond Theory
• Causes of Delinquency (1969)
– Was an attack on other theories as much as a statement of his theory
– Self-report data (CA high schools)
– Measures from “competing theories”
• This book was the first of its kind!
Hirschi’s Criticisms of Past Theory
1. A “pure” control theory needs no or external “motivation” to explain
crime.
– Exclude “pushes and pulls” from control theory
– Other theories present an “over-socialized” human
2. Internal control is too “subjective” and nearly impossible to measure.
– Exclude “conscience, self-concept, or self-control”
– Subsumed under “Attachment”
Social Bond Theory
• “Bond” indicates “Indirect Control”
– Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less important because delinquency
occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence).
•
•
•
•
Attachment
Commitment
Involvement
Belief
(Elements of the social bond
are all related to each other)
Attachment
• The “emotional bond”
• Sensitivity towards others (especially parents)
– Measured as
• Identification with and emulation of parents
• Concern with teacher’s opinion of oneself
Commitment
• The “rational bond”
– One’s “stake in conformity”
– Social Capital
– Measures:
•
•
•
•
academic achievement
grades
test scores
educational aspirations
Involvement
• “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”
• Involvement in conventional activity
– Simply less time for deviance
– Measures:
• time playing basketball, baby-sitting, doing homework….
Belief
• Belief in the validity of the law
– Hold values consistent with the law
– Measures
• Neutralizations (from Sykes/Matza)
• Belief in the value of education
• Respect for police and the law
How can “neutralizations” support both social learning
theory and control theory?
Neutralizations as a “Pirate” variable
1. Sutherland/Akers: “definitions” that motivate delinquency
2. Hirschi: indicator of weak moral beliefs
3. Bandura: disengagement of cognitive self-evaluation (can be negative
reinforcement)
Research on Bonds
• Hirschi’s own research supportive
– But, couldn’t explain delinquent peers
• So, “birds of a feather” explanation
• Subsequent research
– Attachment, commitment, beliefs are related
• Relationships are moderate to weak
• Causal ordering?
Delinquent Peers and Parents
• Hirschi: Any bonding insulates a person from delinquency
– Even if the person you bond to is delinquent
• Akers: Bonding to delinquent persons increases delinquency
• Who’s right? AKERS