Social Control and Self-Control Theories of Crime and Deviance

L. Edward Wells, L.Edward Wells, Joseph H. Rankin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9780754629443
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351548496
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: Social Sciences

Control theories have dominated criminological theory and research since the 1969 publication of Hirschi's seminal work on the social bond. Social control and self-control theorists are unique in suggesting that patterns in criminal behaviors are better explained by variations in social constraints rather than by individual motivational impulses, thus indicating that their main concerns are the explication and clarification of the techniques, processes, and institutions of informal social control. The four major sections of this volume focus on: the similarities and differences among the major contributors to the early developmental stage of social control theory; the central importance of parents, peers, and schools in the creation of informal control mechanisms and their link to crime and delinquency; the theoretical underpinnings of self-control theory, including empirical tests and criticisms; and theoretical integrations of social control and self-control theories with various motivational theories of crime and delinquency.

Part I
Early Developments in Social Control Theory

[1]

Delinquency as the Failure of Personal and Social Controls*

ALBERT J. REISS, JR.

University of Chicago

DELINQUENCY may de defined as the behavior consequent to the failure of personal and social controls to produce behavior in conformity with the norms of the social system to which legal penalties are attached. Personal control may be defined as the ability of the individual to refrain from meeting needs in ways which conflict with the norms and rules of the community. Social control may be defined as the ability of social groups or institutions to make norms or rules effective.

Delinquency results when there is a relative absence of internalized norms and rules governing behavior in conformity with the norms of the social system to which legal penalties are attached, a breakdown in previously established controls, and/or a relative absence of or conflict in social rules or techniques for enforcing such behavior in the social groups or institutions of which the person is a member. Hence delinquency may be seen as a functional consequence of the type of relationship established among the personal and social controls.¹ While for a particular person the relative weakness of personal or social controls may account in large part for the delinquent behavior, for most cases the relative weakness of personal and social controls should account for the delinquent behavior. Similarly, when we consider the problem of delinquent recidivism, i.e., continuation in delinquent behavior, we would expect that personal and social controls are less effective in governing the behavior of delinquent recidivists than non-recidivists.

The purpose of the present paper is to isolate a set of personal and social controls which are associated with delinquent recidivism and to evaluate them as prognostic of recidivism. The evaluation of the predictors is undertaken in terms of the theory of prediction.²

The Predictors and the Criterion. The data collected for this study consist of the materials in the official juvenile court records of 1,110 white male juvenile delinquent probationers between the ages of 11 and 17. These delinquents were placed on probation by the judges of the Cook County Juvenile Court between March 4, 1943 and October 31, 1944. From the data in the first 736 case folders, items were selected which are measures of personal controls, social control in primary groups, and social control by community and institutions. Factor items were then isolated as predictors in terms of the theory of prediction and a prediction device constructed. Finally, predictions were validated by predicting for a follow-up sample of 374 cases.

A major consideration in prediction studies is the character of the event predicted. The criterion predicted in this research is official action. It is a dichotomous classification of success or failure on probation of delinquents from the Cook County Juvenile Court. In effect, most probationers (92%) classified as failures commit a delinquent offense while under probationary supervision. Eighty-seven per cent of these offenses consist of adult felonies. Since over ninety per cent of the delinquents who violate probationary supervision commit offenses, it seems logical to conclude the behavior of the delinquent determines official action. In terms of the theory of delinquent recidivism, then, our assumptions are twofold: (1) a delinquent’s behavior on probation determines action by official authority³ and (2) the observed association between predictors and criterion is valid in the sense that it is prognostic of delinquent recidivism.⁴

CONTROL IN PRIMARY GROUPS

Primary groups are the basic institutions for the development of personal controls and the exercise of social control over the child. These groups exercise social control over the non-delinquent child by providing non-de-linquent social roles and by employing techniques which make non-delinquent norms and rules effective. Concomitantly, the non-delinquent child develops contra delinquent personal controls in primary groups. Delinquency and delinquent recidivism may be viewed as a consequence of the failure of primary groups to provide the child with appropriate non-delinquent social roles and to exercise social control over the child so these roles are accepted or submitted to in accord with needs.

Meeting the Needs of the Child. An important part of family control is the ability of the family to meet the needs of its members. An aspect of this is the ability of the family to provide for member needs through the purchase of material goods and services. In Table 1, we observe there is a low but statistically significant association between income or economic status of family and outcome on probation. The child of the economically dependent family, however, constitutes a significantly poorer probation risk than the child of a family with earned income.

The economically dependent family is one where the impaired financial ability may often result in objective deprivations to members. Economic deprivation may lead to subjective feelings of insecurity about the possibility of future needs being met and therefore weaken personal controls. Further, the disapproval of a society which fails to provide for one’s needs is of less concern when a person’s position is one of economic dependence upon the society than one of relative independence. Finally, dependent economic status often results in diminished parental authority over family members. Loss of parental authority (particularly that of the father) is greatest over the adolescent members of the family.⁵ Since economic dependency pendency appears to have marked disintegrative effects upon family unity and control and the child’s acceptance of social control, adolescents from these families could be expected to meet their needs more often through delinquent activity than members of families who are not similarly deprived.

Dissemination of Norms and Rules. The child develops appropriate personal controls and the family exercises contra delinquent social control over the child’s behavior when the family milieu is structured so that the child identifies with family members who represent roles of conformity with non-de-linquent norms and accepts the norms and rules embodied in these roles. Such families are a social-psychological unity oriented toward the establishment and maintenance of non-delinquent behavior for its members.

Studies of recidivism in delinquent populations show that delinquents from families where there is a formal break in the structural unity tend to be recidivists more often than delinquents where parents are living together. Our observations on marital status of parents in Table 1 are in accord with these conclusions. Absence of a formal break in the structural unity of the family does not necessarily mean, however, that the social-psychological unity of the family is intact. Such considerations necessitate an examination of the nature of the formal break vis-à-vis the social psychological unity of the family. Table 1 shows that delinquents from homes where the psychological unity is impaired (as measured by the character of the marital relationships between parents at time of delinquency) are significantly more often recidivists than delinquents from homes where the psychological unity is relatively intact.⁶ A comparison of the data with those on formal break in the structural unity of the family suggest that delinquents from homes where the psychological unity is impaired but parents remain together are more often failures on probation than delinquents from homes where an open breach occurs.⁷

A major factor in the development of personal controls is the moral ideal which parents represent and the techniques they use to control the child’s behavior. If the child is to develop adequate non-delinquent controls, parents must represent social roles congruent with the non-delinquent norms and rules of society and control must be exercised so the child will accept these social definitions. The child will generally not accept non-delinquent norms and rules (even though represented by parental models) when parents over-control or under-control the child’s behavior, e.g., when parents punish the child severely, neglect or abandon the child or are extremely lax or indulgent. Data on parental moral ideals and techniques of control over the child’s behavior in Table 1 show that delinquents from families with unfavorable moral ideals and/or techniques of control are more often recidivists than delinquents from families with favorable moral ideals and/or techniques of control.⁸ We also observe that children from families where a parent is absent but favorable moral ideals and/or techniques of control prevail are less often failures on probation than children from families where unfavorable moral ideals and/or techniques of control prevail.

It is generally agreed that children develop and maintain personal controls less readily when raised in a milieu other than the family of procreation. Children who spend part of their childhood in a children’s institution are observed to be less able to control their own behavior and accept the control of other social institutions than the family child of the same age. While f...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Series Preface
• Introduction
• Part I Early Developments In Social Control Theory
• Part II Sources Of Social Control
• Part III Self-Control theory
• Part IV Theory Integration
• Name Index