Control Theories



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 (Elements of the social bond

Involvement are all related to each other)

Belief

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

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download