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. Some parents
 Social Control and Self-Control 8

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.