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”

Compare to Strain or Social Learning Theory Sutherland: All crime is learned, not invented Strain: Crime result of frustration/anger

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 Deterrence Answer: Fear of Formal Punishment

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

Pushes and Pulls• poverty, anger,delinquent subculture

Outer Containment•parents/school •supervision

DELINQUENCY OUT HERE !!!!!!

Inner (Good self concept)Containment

Enter Travis Hirschi

Social Bond Theory

The “BOOK”

Causes of Delinquency (1969) Was an attack on other theories (strain and social

learning) 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” to society emphasizes Indirect Control Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less

important because delinquency occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence).

Elements of the “bond” 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 Relationships among delinquents as “cold and

brittle” Akers: Bonding to delinquent persons

increases delinquency Who’s right? AKERS

Gerald Patterson

Psychologist Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) 1982 “Coercion Theory” 1992 “Social- Interactional Approach” Very Applied: Work with families with young,

antisocial boys.

Patterson’s Social-Interactional Model

•Family Structure•SES•Difficult Infant•High Crime Neighborhood•Divorce/Stress•UnskilledGrandparents

Parental Efficacy•Monitor•Recognize•Discipline•R+

•Problem Solving

(pro)/antisocialbehavior

Social (in)competence

ContextFamily Management

Outcomes

Later in the Theory

Antisocial Child Affects the Environment Peer Rejection Poor Academic Performance Parental Rejection

This leads to further problems Deviant Peer Group School Failure Delinquency

Is Patterson a “control” theorist, or a “social learning” theorist? Social Learning

Oregon social learning center Emphasizes “reinforcement” of prosocial behavior Later in theory emphasizes “delinquent peers” Parents learn “parenting skills” from their parents

Control Theorist “Direct control” Assumption about children?