Upload
mighst00
View
3.760
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
criminology, travis hirschi
Citation preview
Social Control and Self-Control 1
Running head: SOCIAL CONTROL AND SELF-CONTROL
Social Control and Self-Control
Scott Hale
Criminological Theory 421
December 6, 2006
Social Control and Self-Control 2
Social Control and Self-Control
Travis Hirschi’s theories of social control and self-control have led him to be the most quoted
criminologist in the twentieth century (Hirschi, 2002). During Hirschi’s graduate years at the
University of Utah, he read Durkheim’s Suicide, which was the first building block of his career
and the beginning of his interest of control theory. Hirschi’s research of control theory would
have to wait until after his service in the army was finished. After the army Hirschi went to
school to attain his PhD. in sociology at the University of California at Berkeley. In Hirschi’s
attempt to gain Charles Y. Glock as his dissertation advisor, Glock accepted and connected
Hirschi with Alan B. Wilson who was the director of the Richmond Youth Project. Hirschi was
later influenced by Matza’s work, Delinquency and Drift, in 1964 and viewed Matza as a control
theorist. Hirschi was also puzzled why control theories were not gaining any attention. Hirschi
commented that one of the most special attributes of the Richmond Youth Project was self-
reports that measured attachment between juveniles and their parents and other peers and
commitment to conventional goals (Hirschi, 2002).
In Travis Hirschi’s Causes of Delinquency, he attempts to explain why people conform and
do not violate rules (Hirschi, 1969). Hirschi suggests that delinquency takes place when a
person’s bond to society is either weak or broken. A major focus is put on the family structure.
John H. Laub comments in Hirschi’s Craft of Criminology (2002) that Hirschi is prone to decline
the term “social bonding” over “social control”. Hirschi was responsible for bringing importance
of delinquency back onto the topic of family and family relationships in Cause of Delinquency
(Hirschi, 2002).
In Hirschi’s A General Theory of Crime, Hirschi and his associate and friend Michael
Gottfredson attempt to explain all types of crime at all times (Hirschi, 2002; Gottfredson and
Social Control and Self-Control 3
Hirschi, 1990). Hirschi suggests that all human conduct can be interrupted as a self-interested
search for gratification and the evasion of pain (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Social Control
“Control theory assumes that the bond of affection for conventional persons is a major
deterrent to crime” (Hirschi, 1969, p.83). In Hirschi’s 1969 Cause of Delinquency, he tries to
explain why people conform to society. Hirschi’s social control theory revolves around 4 major
elements: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. For purposes of this paper,
attachment to the family will be the primary discussion. The age in which Hirschi directs social
control is ages 6 to 8 years old. Throughout most, if not all, researches concerning Hirschi’s
social control theory, researchers are primarily focused on the attachment to the family (Hirschi,
1969; Wiatrowski, Griswold, Roberts, 1981; Taylor, 2001). One of the best documented
findings among delinquency research is the fact that delinquents are less likely than
nondelinquents to be closely tied to their parents (Nye, 1958; Hirschi, 1969). Delinquency is
seen as a discovery of which is thought to produce punishment to the person involved in the acts
by agents of the larger community. “For most cases the relative weakness of personal and social
controls should account for delinquent behavior” (Reiss, 1951). Wiatrowski et al., (1981) view
the family relationships as the source of attachment because children view them as role models
and learn what is acceptable in society (Reiss, 1951). This gives way to children unattached to
their parents and they are more likely to be open to delinquent acts.
One of Hirschi’s views and expectations of parents is internalization of norms. The
internalization of norms is the socialization, communication and relationship that parents have
between their children. Children then take these communication skills with them in effort to
socialize with other conforming children. “If the child is alienated from the parent, he will not
Social Control and Self-Control 4
learn or will have no feeling for moral rules, he will not develop an adequate conscience or
superego” (Hirschi, 1969). If the parent(s) are successful in imbedding the internalization of
norms in their children then they will be under direct and indirect control of the parents.
Wiatrowski et al., (1981) surmises that the children with these internalizations of norms will
bring it with them into the school environment, which should bring a positive effect to other
children.
Direct control is the control over the children by the parents when the children are under
supervision of the parents. Because of the direct supervision of the parent, the children are less
likely to be involved in delinquent acts. The more time the child spends in the presence of the
parent, the more direct control. Direct control can only be effective if the child is expecting to be
detected in the delinquent acts (Nye, 1958).
Indirect control is very well defined in the question, “what will my parents think?” The
indirect control is when the parents know where their children are and know what they are doing.
Parents are not willing to let their children go to certain places where they know their children
will get into trouble. Hirschi (1969) also calls indirect supervision, “virtual supervision.”
Indirect control expects the child not to be less delinquent because his activities are restricted by
his parents, but because he shares his activities with his parents. Indirect control can only fully
be applied when there is an affectionate relationship between the child and parent(s) (Nye, 1985).
Hirschi (2002) also concludes that the size of the family will also be a variable of predicting
delinquency. The larger the family and the more children the parents have, the less likely the
parents will have time to supervise all of the children. These children will spend more time with
other children and will have more of an opportunity to be involved in delinquency. In this aspect
there will be less direct and indirect control over the child.
Social Control and Self-Control 5
In Hirschi’s (1969) Causes of Delinquency the discussion of broken homes and working
mothers are also on topic. Hirschi disposes of the myths that broken homes and working
mothers are a cause of delinquency. Hirschi concluded that a boy who is strongly attached to his
mother is no more inclined to be delinquent regardless of his feelings towards his parents (1969).
Also, the correlation between delinquency and a mother’s employment is insignificant. The only
setback that Hirschi views of working mothers is the direct control. If both parents work, then
the direct supervision will be less than that of a two parent family where there is a stay-at-home
parent.
Hirschi (1969) reaffirms his research by stating that the closer the child’s relation with his
parents then the more he associates and is attached to them; the stronger the attachment the
stronger the conformity to society and legal norms. Hirschi also discusses attachment to
unconventional parents. Hirschi suggests that some attachment to parents can also cause a child
to be delinquent. These parents have more of a neutral stance on delinquency. Hirschi views this
conduciveness to be a lower-class problem, primarily brought on and supported by the lower-
class father (Hirschi, 1969). Although, in Hirschi’s 1969 study in Causes of Delinquency, he
finds that class is not a variable when predicting or measuring delinquency. Even before
Hirschi’s 1969 study, Sykes & Matza (1957) suggest, “There is a strong likelihood that the
family of the delinquent will agree with respectable society that delinquency is wrong, even
though the family may be engaged in a variety of illegal activities” (p. 665).
The more a child does not care about what his parents think, the less (indirect) control the
parents have over the child. Hirschi holds that child rearing is the premise of delinquent
behavior. Contrary to popular belief under Hirschi’s social control, the class system holds no
viable variable in delinquency. This does not include crime rates. Lower class delinquents are
Social Control and Self-Control 6
much more likely to be arrested than the middle-class or upper-class delinquent. The
socialization of the children is another important part. If the child has a hard time
communicating to his parents, peers, teachers, or friends their bonds to them will be weakened.
How much supervision and how quick and accurate the parent can recognize and correct the
delinquent act help the child avoid future delinquency. It is the strength of the bond between the
child and his parents that play a major part in the future delinquency of the child.
Self-Control
Hirschi and Gottfredson propose that their self-control theory is a general theory of crime that
was surmised to explain all times of crimes at all times (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Taylor
(2001) describes self-control as an individual-level theory that is indiscriminately of age. Self-
control theory also remains consistent among the same person over time as well (Taylor, 2001).
This assumption differs from Hirschi’s original stance that delinquency imbeds itself around the
age between six and eight. Under the self-control theory, criminal acts supply instant
gratification of pleasure and wants (Hirschi, 1990). Self-control theory also asserts that most
criminal acts provide easy or simplistic pleasures of desires. Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990)
provides examples of this: “sex without courtship, money without work, and revenge without
court delays” (p. 89). These criminal acts are usually quite risky and dangerous. They rarely
have long term advantages. These criminal acts often require very little planning or skill and
would fall under routine or opportunity theory. The majorities of these crimes also provide
discomfort or anguish for the victim.
Under self-control theory Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) hold that the people committing the
crimes are self-centered and insensitive to the harm he brings to his victims, although he is not
regularly antisocial or mean. Hirschi (1995) also states that the certain individuals, usually a few
Social Control and Self-Control 7
who commit frequently, who commit these criminal acts under self-control theory tend to do so
over a long duration of time. Gottfredson & Hirschi state that in previous research by West and
Farrington’s study of family and delinquency that less than five percent of the families in their
study accounted for nearly half of all the criminal convictions (1990). Hirschi (2002) suggests
that self-control imbeds itself in the individual early in life.
One cause that could bring on low self-control is the moral problems of the family (Hirschi,
1995). Causes of family moral problems can vary from a parent quitting a job, an unexpected
pregnancy, divorce, vandalism, and/or theft. With the parents not having a direct supervision of
the child, the parents will not be able to recognize the behavior or low-self control, the criminal
acts that produce immediate gratification, and be able to correct it.
“Much parental action is in fact geared toward suppression of impulsive behavior, toward
making the child consider the long-range consequences of acts”…”Indeed, much parental
behavior is directed toward teaching the child about the rights and feelings of others and
of how these rights and feelings ought to constrain the child’s behavior” (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990, p. 96-97).
Teaching children long-range consequences and rewards is a very viable concept to child-
rearing. This will reinforce the concept that hard work pays off. Along with long-range
consequences, the feelings of others are very important. Teaching children how to respect other
and others’ property is very important for self-control. The children will learn that sharing and
communication with others is very self-sustaining.
In Gottfredson & Hirschi’s (1990) research of self-control, they found in Glueck and
Glueck’s research in 1950 stated that families with these problems were lacking is discipline,
supervision, and affection, the parents in these families usually had a criminal record as well.
Social Control and Self-Control 8
Some parents with this criminal background neglect to socialize their child, although, these
families did not encourage criminal behavior and were just as disappointed with crime as parents
with no criminal backgrounds. Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) also discuss the topic of divorced
parents who remarry. Gottfredson & Hirschi reaffirm in that stepparents are especially unlikely
to have feelings of affection toward their stepchildren. They are most often likely to be involved
in child abuse situations. In Gottfredson & Hirschi’s (1990) A General Theory of Crime they
explain other causes of family incorporating low self-control. The causes are as follows: (1) the
parents might not care about the delinquent behavior, (2) the parents may not have the time or
energy to directly supervise or monitor the child’s behavior, (3) the parents might not see
anything wrong with the deviant behavior, (4) and the parents not know or have the means to
punish the child properly for their actions. Hirschi called this “defective upbringing.”
Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) suggest way in fixing this problem; (1) parents must use direct and
indirect supervision of the child, (2) be able to distinguish deviant behavior when presented, (3)
and be able to deter such behavior. Gottfredson & Hirschi do an excellent job of explaining
ways self-control can cause delinquency and how parents can avoid this dilemma.
Just as in Hirschi’s social control theory, Gottfredson & Hirschi produce the same findings
involving family size. The greater the size of the family, less time the parents have direct
supervision over the children. This puts a strain on the parent’s resource of time and energy
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The punishments put forth by the parents will also not be
satisfactory for deterring the child from the delinquent act.
“The major ‘cause’ of low self-control thus appears to be ineffective child-rearing”
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 97). In Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory, they build
upon what Hirschi accounted in his social control theory. That is that attachment to family will
Social Control and Self-Control 9
build the (bond) self-control needed for the child to avoid delinquency. Gottfredson & Hirschi
rely on the supervising, recognizing, and punishing system much like from Hirschi’s social
control theory. These implications along with the socialization of the child are required for the
child to have a good self-control. If the child can not effectively communicate with his parents,
peers, teachers, or friends, then the child will be much more susceptible to have low self-control
and will be at a higher risk of delinquency.
Relationship between Social Control and Self-Control
“The connection between social control and self-control could not be more direct than in the
case of parental supervision of the child” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 99). The supervision
of the child will ultimately prevent delinquent acts. Hirschi, along with Gottfredson, realize and
make the connection between social control and self-control. For purposes of this paper and in
other papers, social control and self-control are remarkably similar. Both of these two theories,
social control and self-control set on the premise that the primary element to delinquency lie with
the relationship to the parent or parents. Taylor (2001) finds that authors such as Brownfield,
Sorenson, and Pestello can obviously see the contingency between self-control and social control
with an emphasis put on the family in producing conformity.
Both of these theories suggest that the delinquent is searching for present-oriented rewards
and immediate gratification. The delinquent does not think or contemplate about the long-range
consequences. Both Hirschi’s (1969) social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s (1990) self-
control theory both place the origin of the delinquency in the child-rearing practices. Both
theories emphasize the practice of parents monitoring their children, recognizing the
delinquency, and correcting or punishing the problem. Socialization is another key factor in both
Social Control and Self-Control 10
theories. If the child has a hard time or is unable to communicate with his parents or anyone
else, then the child will be more susceptible to delinquency.
The differences of social control and self-control theories are harder to indicate. A big
difference is that the theory changes from bonds to self-control. Self-control is built upon social
control. Taylor (2001) indicates that low self-control is manifested in the inability to create
strong social, long lasting relationship. Although, Taylor also points out that Nagin and
Paternoster suggest that strong social bonds have no influence on offending or delinquency, but
the weak social bond is just a manifestation of low self-control (2001). Gottfredson & Hirschi
take a different approach when it comes to age and delinquency from Hirschi’s original control
theory. Taylor points out that the importance of acquiring strong attachments in later years after
adolescents is not involved in self-control theory (2001). From Taylor’s (2001) view, it seems
that the major shift from Hirschi’s social control theory to Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control
theory is the issue of age.
Critiques and Limitations
Social Control
Hirschi’s social control theory attacks the attachment bond of child and parent and the
parent’s child-rearing practices, but does not put enough emphasis on delinquent peers. There is
not enough importance put on peers. For the over sized family, friends of the children become
very important. The child’s friends are socializing the child. If his friends are socializing him to
be delinquent, he is now much more susceptible of being delinquent. Hirschi (1969) also states
that there is no one proportion of American family society that is neutral to crime. In Tilson,
McBride, Lipkus, and Catalano’s (2004) study on parent-child relations in predicting smoking
come to the conclusion that even the parents who were smokers were disappointed in their
Social Control and Self-Control 11
children when the parents found out that they were smokers. Tilson et al’s., (2004) study also
shows that the attachment of the child to the parent showed no deterrent to the child against
smoking.
The motivation of Hirschi’s social control theory also comes into question. Only Hirschi’s
social control theory asks, why doesn’t one become delinquent? Many criminologists, such as
Howard Becker, want to know why they do it (Hirschi, 1969). I think Hirschi’s assumption that
all humans are all animals came across the wrong way with some criminologist. Hirschi social
control theory, along with other control theories, deemphasizes motivation (1969). Hirschi calls
the desires and passions of man to be natural and not sinful (1969). All humans are animals, so
the desire for revenge, theft, and quick pleasure is not a motivation, but merely a weak bond to
family and society. In this situation, another type of “motivation,” other than weak bonds, would
be more of a situational motivation. This correlates to routine theory, opportunity theory, and
Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization theory. There is a momentary drift from
conformity brought about by an irregular chance to commit the delinquent act.
In Meier’s (1982) analysis of the concept of social control evaluates the definition of the
theory. If deviance is the product of weakened bonds and failed social control, then the theory
runs the risk of explaining the deviance by the definition (absence of social control) (Meier,
1982). The theory could become tautological. Along with Meier considering the theory
tautological, he holds that the theory becomes too broad (1982). Gibbs & Erickson give the
example that the custom of wearing wedding bands could become conducive to marital fidelity
(as quoted in Meier, 1982). With social control and self-control being so similar in the area of
attachment to parents, we should expect to see the same type of critiques and limitations for self-
control as we did for social control.
Social Control and Self-Control 12
Self-Control
Much like social control, self-control focuses on the socialization in early childhood. Once
after a certain stage in the child’s life, six to eight years of age, the strengthening or weakening
of the individual’s self-control stops. Also, Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993)
impose that the self-control theory is unideminsional and is the primary, if not the only, cause of
the delinquency. This “unideminsional” trait causes concerns for measuring self-control.
Grasmick et al., (1993) suggest that this simplistic view is not feasible in the criminal career
perspective and state that it should be quite complex.
The complexities of this theory also coincide with the motivation. Just as in social control,
self-control is based on an opportunity theory as, perhaps the primary cause of criminal behavior
(Grasmick et al., 1993). In Grasmick et al’s., research, they conclude that Gottfredson & Hirschi
do not put enough emphasis on the opportunity theory and to much emphasis on the low self-
control. Grasmick et al’s., data show that the opportunity for the delinquency outweighs the low
self-control in predicting crime (1993). The motivation is also deemphasized in self-control, just
as in social control. The motivation of crime is in not equivalent among all people.
Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) conclude that age is a primary variable in self-control; “…the
age effect has similarly important consequences for the design and interpretation of research.
Since the causes of crime do not vary by age, the causes of crime may be studied at any age”
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 254). Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory suggests that
once you’ve reached the age of about eight years old, the level of self-control, concerning crime,
that the individual posses will be moderately stable for the remainder of his life. Other studies
have seen differently, primarily life course perspective.
Social Control and Self-Control 13
Gottfredson & Hirschi expected self-control to explain crime at all ages along with all crimes
at all times. Longshore, Chang, Hsieh, and Messina (2004) tested self-control theory and their
findings were quite consistent with Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory with the
exception of drug use. Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control has had much difficult in explaining
drug usage (including underage smoking) (Grasmick et al., 1993; Tilson et al., 2003; Longshore
et al., 2004). This could be because of the fact that Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control act is
better at explaining minor crimes over serious crimes. It could also be that drug usage is a
greater variable in opportunity theory.
Hirschi’s social control theory and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory have similar
problems. Both of the theories have a prevalent problem in the motivation in that there is no real
motivation. Numerous researchers have found the opportunity is the greatest motivational means
of delinquency. Drug usage (including underage smoking) also plagues the critiques of both
social control and self-control theory. Researchers seem to agree on that it is because of the
opportunity of the act. Along with drug usage, age seems to be another problem. Social control
and self-control theory both suggest that the individuals bond or level of self-control will remain
stable throughout the individual’s life. These theories do not take into account other institutional
bonds in later life. It seems that both theories are based in the same ideas and generally have a
good grip on minor and less serious crimes.
Policy Implications
Considering many of the critiques and limitations of Hirschi’s social control theory and
Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control were the same, many of the policy implications are also the
same. I believe Hirschi would want a parent to be a full-time parent without a job. Having a
full-time parent would mean that there would much a higher rate of direct supervision. Along
Social Control and Self-Control 14
with having a full-time parent, Hirschi would suggest that both of the parents take some sort of
parenting class. These classes would teach the parents on how to effectively monitor their
child’s behavior, as well as teaching the parents how to socialize their kids. Parents would be
instructed to increase shared family activities. Family game night, eating dinner together, and
helping the children with homework would be examples of increased shared activities. The
increase of the parents being in the child’s life seems to be the ultimate trend in policy
implications for Hirschi’s social control theory.
Akers & Sellers (2004) state that the best known and most thorough program predicated
exclusively on both social control and self-control theory is the Social Development Model. In
the social development model strengthening attachments and commitment with positive
reinforcement, modeling and learning prosocial attitudes and skills in the school and family
(Akers & Sellers, 2004). The aim of this program is to develop strong bonds between family and
school with the child in avoiding early adolescent delinquency.
Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) suggest that harsher punishments and penalties for early
delinquents will have a significant effect on the likelihood of the criminal behavior. If the
delinquent becomes delinquent into adult hood, then the deterrent of imprisonment becomes
obsolete. Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) also state that obtaining the “chronic offenders” early in
the career and separating them from the rest of society will drastically reduce the crime rate. The
“chronic offenders” as stated in Gottfredson & Hirschi’s 1990 study are defined by Wolfgang,
Figlio, and Sellin’s 1972 study of delinquents, which states they are the 6 percent of the
delinquents who commit most of the crimes. Gottfredson & Hirschi suggest that the best
rehabilitation scheme for low self-control would be to teach the offender a higher level of self-
control (1990). Although, Gottfredson & Hirschi do realize that this rehabilitation scheme would
Social Control and Self-Control 15
have to be completed in early childhood development. Taylor states that the attempt to
rehabilitate and reform adult offenders, under self-control theory, becomes pointless (2001). This
rehabilitation concept would be more of a proactive then reactive implication, therefore, to call it
rehabilitation would almost sound absurd. Gottfredson & Hirschi realize that the most effective
way that this proactive concept should be carried out is through the parents (1990). The parents
carrying out the proactive concept returns to Hirschi’s original suggestion of parents taking
classes in learning how to monitor, supervise, and effectively punish their child’s delinquent
behavior.
Life Course
Travis Hirschi is very prominent in the criminological world. Both of his major theories,
social control and self-control, have been meet with much acceptance and stable empirical
validity. If Travis Hirschi’s theories were not so popular then he probably would not be the most
quoted criminologist of the twentieth century (Hirschi, 2002). Laub (2003) states that Hirschi’s
Causes of Delinquency was an important turning point in criminological history and was
important for the development for life course perspective theory.
Travis Hirschi’s theories have contributed greatly to life course perspective. The first
principle of life course is that individuals are embedded and shaped by historical times and
places they experience of their life (Laub, 2003). This principle seems to be the biggest
difference of life course and Hirschi’s social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control
theory. Taylor states that this principle is essential in distinguishing life course and social and
self-control theory (2001). Hirschi’s social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control hold
that after adolescence, the individual is not swayed by later experiences of life. Life course
Social Control and Self-Control 16
perspective sees otherwise and Laub (2003) suggests this by exemplifying the child of the great
depression and how that altered their relations with their family and peer groups.
The third principle is that lives are lived interdependently and social and historical influences
are expressed through the network of shared relationships (Laub, 2003). This principle reflects
the importance of family attachments over generations of life. This principle holds a strong
relation with Hirschi’s social control theory with attachment to parents.
The fourth principle deals with decision making. It states that individuals form their own life
path through choices and actions they take within social circumstances. This is another principle
that differs from Hirschi’s social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory. Life
course perspective places a great deal of importance on the individual’s choices of the
opportunities that he is faced with. In Hirschi’s and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s theory doesn’t place
enough importance on this concept.
It seems that the biggest subject that life course perspective differs from social control and
self-control is the importance of age. In life course perspective, delinquent and criminal adults
have the ability to change because of certain institutions placed in his life, certain opportunities
or chances available and taken, and certain people he meets and his attachment he holds to them.
Hirschi’s social control theory and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory both state that
once adolescences is reached, the strength of attachment (bond) and the level of self-control will
remain stable with no fluctuations through his life. Both life course and social control along with
self-control do a good job in defending their stance on age.
A minor difference of between the conceptual theories is the topic of opportunity. Laub
argues that the choices made by the individual will greatly shape how the life course of the
certain individual. This concept also ties in with routine activity theory/opportunity theory just
Social Control and Self-Control 17
as Hirschi’s social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control. Life course perspective puts
much more emphasis on this concept compared to the Hirschi and Gottfredson. In Hirschi’s
social control and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control the choices and opportunities are
devalued. It is not because of certain choices that an individual makes that makes him delinquent
or criminal, other it is because of the attachment or bond that the individual has with his family
or society. Likewise, it is because the certain individual has a low self-control that the individual
becomes delinquent or criminal. Perhaps it is because the individual has weak bonds to his
family or it is because the individual has low self-control that the individual chooses the
delinquent act; or perhaps, because of the weak bonds or low self-control that the individual is
faced with delinquent opportunities.
It is apparent that Travis Hirschi, regardless of the theory, has been one of, if not the most,
prominent theorist in the last 25 years (Laub, 2003). Travis Hirschi has changed the way many
criminologist and students, me being one of them, think about crime and delinquency. The
question of “why does one conform to society’s norms?” holds great value in criminology today.
It has helped shape the way we create new theories and hopefully will get a better hold on how
the criminal justice system imposes policy implications. The history of criminology has much to
thank for Hirschi and his associates. After much reading and research I believe that Hirschi’s
social control theory and Gottfredson & Hirschi’s self-control theory are two of the most
important theories in criminology today. Why else would Travis Hirschi be the most quoted
criminological theorist of the twentieth century?
Social Control and Self-Control 18
References
Akers, R., & Seller, C. (2004). Criminological theories. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing
Company.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursik Jr, R., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical
implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 30(1) 5-29.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Hirschi, T. (1995). The Family. In James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Crime. (pp. 121-
140). San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Hirschi, T. (2002). The craft of criminology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Laub, J. (2004). The life course of criminology in the united states: the american society of
criminology 2003 presidential address. Criminology, 42 (1), 1-26.
Meier, R. (1982). Perspective of the concept of social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 8,
35-55.
Nye, F. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York: Wiley.
Reiss, A. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American
Sociological Review, 16(2), 196-207.
Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American
Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.
Social Control and Self-Control 19
Taylor, C. (2001). The relationship between social and self-control: tracing Hirschi’s
criminological career. Theoretical Criminology, 5(3), 369-388.
Tilson, E., McBride, C., Lipkus, I., & Catalano, R. (2004). Testing the interaction between
parent-child relationship factors and parent smoking to predict youth smoking. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 35, 182-189.
Wiatrowski, M., Griswold, D., & Roberts, M. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 46 (5), 525-541.