SELF-CONTROL THEORY VS. SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY OF CRIME

ABSTRACT

This article explores the fundamental differences between the Self-Control Theory and the Social Control Theory of crime, shedding light on the contrasting perspectives they offer in understanding criminal behaviour and societal responses. Self-control theory emphasizes individual traits such as impulsivity and low self-control as primary predictors of criminal involvement, suggesting that individuals with weaker self-control are more prone to engaging in delinquent activities. In contrast, Social Control Theory focuses on the influence of external social bonds, such as attachment to family and commitment to conventional activities, in deterring individuals from deviant behaviour. The article delves into the origins and development of these theories, tracing their historical roots and examining how they have evolved in response to changing social contexts. Furthermore, it explores the implications of these theories for crime prevention and intervention, highlighting the importance of early intervention, targeted interventions, and community-based approaches. By synthesizing insights from both theories, this article offers a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of criminal behaviour and underscores the importance of addressing both individual vulnerabilities and societal influences in designing effective strategies for crime prevention and intervention.

Keywords

Self-Control Theory, Social Control Theory, Crime Prevention, Individual Traits, Societal Influences

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the root causes of criminal behaviour has been a longstanding concern in criminology, leading to the development of various theoretical frameworks aimed at explaining why individuals engage in deviant acts. Among these frameworks, two prominent theories stand out: Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory. These theories offer contrasting perspectives on the factors influencing criminal behaviour, focusing on different aspects of human nature, social relationships, and societal structures.

Self-control theory, pioneered by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990[1], posits that the ability to refrain from engaging in criminal behaviour is primarily determined by one’s level of self-control. According to this theory, individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in criminal activities due to their impulsive nature and lack of long-term planning. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self-control is established early in life through effective parenting practices characterized by monitoring, recognizing deviant behaviour, and consistent punishment. Furthermore, they contend that self-control remains relatively stable over time and across various life circumstances, exerting a consistent influence on an individual’s propensity for criminality. In contrast, Social Control Theory, rooted in the works of classical theorists such as Emile Durkheim, focuses on the role of social bonds and external constraints in deterring individuals from committing crimes.[2] According to this perspective, strong attachments to conventional social institutions, such as family, school, work, and community, serve as protective factors against delinquency. Social Control Theory emphasizes the importance of socialization processes that instil a sense of morality, responsibility, and adherence to societal norms. Individuals who feel connected to these social networks are less likely to engage in deviant behaviour due to the fear of social disapproval and the potential consequences of their actions.

While both theories address the issue of crime prevention, they offer distinct explanations and implications for understanding and addressing criminal behaviour. Self-control theory emphasizes individual agency and internal factors, highlighting the significance of personal characteristics such as impulsivity and self-discipline. In contrast, Social Control Theory underscores the role of external influences and societal structures in shaping behaviour, emphasizing the importance of social bonds, community ties, and adherence to social norms. Despite their differences, these theories have contributed significantly to our understanding of crime and delinquency. Self-control theory has been supported by empirical research demonstrating the predictive power of self-control in explaining criminal behaviour across various populations and contexts. On the other hand, Social Control Theory has highlighted the importance of socialization processes and the role of social institutions in preventing crime.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to critically analyze and compare two prominent criminological theories, namely Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory, regarding their conceptual frameworks, historical origins, theoretical underpinnings, and practical implications in understanding and addressing criminal behaviour. By examining the key differences and similarities between these theories, this article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how individual characteristics and societal influences contribute to the aetiology of crime. Furthermore, the article seeks to explore the implications of these theories for crime prevention strategies and policy interventions, thereby offering insights into effective approaches for addressing and reducing criminal behaviour in society.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORIES

The origins and development of Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory are intertwined with the evolution of criminological thought and the quest to understand the root causes of criminal behaviour. While both theories emerged within the broader framework of criminology, they represent distinct approaches to explaining why individuals engage in deviant or criminal acts. By examining their historical roots, theoretical foundations, and key contributors, we can gain insight into how these theories have evolved and their enduring impact on the field of criminology.

Self-Control Theory:

The roots of Self-Control Theory can be traced back to the classical school of criminology and the works of influential thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria’s seminal work, “On Crimes and Punishments” (1764)[3], laid the groundwork for rational choice theory and emphasized the importance of individual free will and rational decision-making in criminal behaviour. Bentham further elaborated on these ideas in his utilitarian philosophy, which posited that individuals weigh the costs and benefits of their actions before engaging in criminal behaviour. In the early 20th century, the concept of self-control gained prominence in psychological theories of personality and behaviour. Psychologists such as Walter Mischel and Julian Rotter explored the role of self-control in shaping human behaviour and its implications for understanding deviant conduct. Mischel’s famous “Marshmallow Test” demonstrated the link between self-control in childhood and various life outcomes, including academic achievement and criminal behaviour. The modern formulation of Self-Control Theory is largely attributed to the work of Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi. In their influential book “A General Theory of Crime” (1990), Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed that low self-control, characterized by impulsivity, risk-taking, and a lack of long-term planning, is the primary cause of criminal behaviour. They argued that individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in a range of criminal activities, from petty theft to violent crime, due to their inability to delay gratification and consider the consequences of their actions.

Social Control Theory:

Social Control Theory has its roots in the sociological tradition, particularly the works of Émile Durkheim and his theory of anomie. Durkheim’s seminal work “The Division of Labor in Society” (1893)[4] introduced the concept of anomie, or normlessness, which occurs when individuals experience a breakdown in social norms and values. Durkheim argued that anomie leads to higher rates of deviant behaviour as individuals no longer feel bound by societal expectations. The development of Social Control Theory was further advanced by scholars such as Travis Hirschi, Ivan Nye, and Albert Reiss. Hirschi’s “Social Bond Theory,” outlined in his influential book “Causes of Delinquency” (1969)[5], proposed that strong social bonds, including attachment to family, commitment to conventional activities, involvement in prosocial networks, and belief in societal norms, act as protective factors against delinquency. Hirschi argued that individuals who lack these social bonds are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour due to their weakened ties to society. Nye expanded on Hirschi’s work by introducing the concept of “internal” and “external” control, which refers to the mechanisms through which individuals regulate their behaviour through internalized norms and external social influences. Reiss further developed Social Control Theory by examining the role of social institutions, such as schools, churches, and workplaces, in shaping individuals’ behaviour and preventing delinquency. Over time, Social Control Theory has evolved to incorporate insights from other disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and criminology. Contemporary researchers continue to explore the complex interplay between social bonds, societal influences, and individual characteristics in shaping criminal behaviour, contributing to the ongoing development of Social Control Theory.

In summary, the origins and development of Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory are rooted in the rich intellectual history of criminology, psychology, and sociology. While Self-Control Theory focuses on individual traits and the role of self-control in criminal behaviour, Social Control Theory emphasizes the importance of social bonds, societal influences, and institutional factors in preventing delinquency. Both theories have evolved, incorporating insights from various disciplines and contributing to our understanding of the complex nature of criminal behaviour.

DIFFERENCES OF THE THEORY

The differences between these theories can be examined from the perspective of their underlying assumptions, explanatory mechanisms, and scope of application:

Conceptualization of Causality:

Self-Control Theory:

Self-control theory posits a direct causal relationship between individual characteristics, specifically low self-control, and criminal behaviour. According to this perspective, individuals with low self-control are inherently predisposed to engage in deviant acts due to their impulsivity, risk-taking propensity, and inability to defer gratification. This theory conceptualizes criminal behaviour as a consequence of stable, trait-like individual differences in self-control, which manifest across various life domains and situations.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory adopts a more nuanced understanding of causality, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between individual-level factors and social processes in shaping behaviour. This theory recognizes the reciprocal relationship between social bonds, institutions, and individual behaviour, suggesting that social context mediates the impact of individual characteristics on criminal involvement. Social Control Theory conceptualizes criminal behaviour as a product of both internal (e.g., individual traits) and external (e.g., social relationships) factors, highlighting the complex interplay between individual agency and social influence.

Temporal Dimension:

Self-Control Theory: Self-Control Theory emphasizes the stability and continuity of individual characteristics, particularly self-control, over time. According to this perspective, low self-control is established early in life, often during childhood, and remains relatively stable throughout the lifespan. Individuals with low self-control are viewed as having a persistent propensity for criminal behaviour, with limited opportunities for change or intervention. This theory suggests that the developmental origins of self-control contribute to its long-term predictive power for criminal involvement.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory acknowledges the dynamic nature of social bonds and relationships over the life course. This theory recognizes that social ties, such as attachment to family, involvement in community activities, and peer associations, may fluctuate in strength and salience across different developmental stages. Social Control Theory posits that changes in a social context, life transitions, and environmental influences can impact individuals’ susceptibility to delinquent behaviour. Unlike Self-Control Theory, which emphasizes the stability of individual traits, Social Control Theory highlights the malleability and context-dependence of social bonds in shaping behaviour.

Emphasis on Socialization:

Self-Control Theory:

Self-control theory underscores the role of early socialization experiences, particularly parenting practices and family dynamics, in shaping individual differences in self-control and susceptibility to criminal behaviour. According to this perspective, inadequate parental supervision, inconsistent discipline, and lack of emotional support during childhood contribute to the development of low self-control and subsequent involvement in delinquency. Self-control theory emphasizes the importance of interventions targeting parenting skills, family processes, and early childhood education to prevent the onset of criminal behaviour.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory extends its focus beyond familial influences to encompass broader socialization processes within the community, school, and peer networks. This theory emphasizes the role of social institutions, norms, and collective values in instilling conformity and inhibiting deviant behaviour. Social Control Theory highlights the significance of school engagement, extracurricular activities, and positive peer relationships in fostering prosocial attitudes and behaviours among youth. Unlike Self-Control Theory, which prioritizes familial factors, Social Control Theory emphasizes the multifaceted nature of socialization and the collective reinforcement of societal norms.

Focus on Individual vs. Social Factors:

Self-Control Theory:

Self-control theory predominantly focuses on individual-level factors, particularly personality traits such as self-control, impulsivity, and risk-taking propensity. This theory emphasizes the internal characteristics and dispositions of individuals as primary determinants of criminal behaviour. Self-control theory posits that individuals with low self-control are more prone to engage in criminal activities regardless of their social context, highlighting the centrality of individual differences in explaining deviant behaviour.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory shifts the focus towards external social factors, such as social bonds, institutions, and norms, in shaping behaviour. This theory highlights the role of social relationships, community structures, and institutional mechanisms in regulating and constraining individuals’ actions. Social Control Theory suggests that strong social bonds, attachment to conventional others, and adherence to societal norms act as protective factors against criminal involvement, underscoring the significance of social context in influencing behaviour.

Mechanisms of Control:

Self-Control Theory:

Self-control theory proposes that individuals with low self-control are less capable of regulating their impulses, delaying gratification, and considering long-term consequences, predisposing them to engage in criminal behaviour. This theory emphasizes the role of self-regulatory processes, cognitive abilities, and executive functions in mediating the relationship between self-control and criminality. Self-control theory suggests that interventions aimed at enhancing self-control skills, impulse control, and decision-making abilities may reduce individuals’ propensity for criminal behaviour.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory emphasizes the role of external mechanisms of social control, such as social bonds, informal social control, and formal institutions, in deterring individuals from engaging in criminal acts. This theory posits that strong attachments to family, school, work, and community, coupled with the fear of social disapproval and legal sanctions, discourage individuals from violating societal norms. Social Control Theory suggests that interventions targeting the strengthening of social bonds, community cohesion, and law enforcement efforts may contribute to crime prevention and control.

Scope of Application:

Self-Control Theory:

Self-control theory is primarily focused on explaining individual differences in criminal behaviour, particularly in terms of low self-control as a stable personality trait. This theory has been widely applied in criminological research to understand various forms of criminality, including violent crimes, property offences, substance abuse, and white-collar crimes. Self-control theory has also been extended to explain other behavioural outcomes beyond crime, such as academic achievement, health behaviours, and interpersonal relationships.

Social Control Theory:

In contrast, Social Control Theory has a broader scope of application, encompassing not only criminal behaviour but also broader aspects of social order, conformity, and societal stability. This theory is concerned with understanding the mechanisms by which social institutions, norms, and collective values regulate and maintain social order. Social Control Theory has been applied in diverse fields, including sociology, psychology, education, public health, and criminology, to explore the role of social processes in shaping human behaviour and societal outcomes.

By exploring these additional differences between Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory, we can deepen our understanding of the distinct theoretical perspectives, empirical implications, and practical applications of each theory in the study of crime and delinquency.

APPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS

The application and implications of the Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory of crime are significant in various domains, including criminology, sociology, psychology, and policy-making. Understanding these theories’ applications and implications can provide insights into crime prevention strategies, intervention programs, and policy development aimed at reducing criminal behaviour and promoting social order.

Criminology Research: Both theories have been extensively studied and applied in criminology research to understand the factors influencing criminal behaviour. Criminologists use these theories to explain why individuals engage in criminal activities and how social factors, individual characteristics, and environmental influences contribute to crime rates. Research based on these theories helps identify risk factors for criminal behaviour and informs the development of targeted interventions and prevention strategies.
Crime Prevention Programs: Insights from Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory have been used to design and implement crime prevention programs and interventions. These programs often focus on enhancing individuals’ self-control skills, strengthening social bonds, and promoting prosocial behaviours to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement. By addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour identified by these theories, such programs aim to prevent crime and promote community safety.
Policy Development: Policymakers and legislators utilize findings from research on these theories to inform policy development and implementation related to crime prevention, law enforcement, and criminal justice reform. Policies aimed at reducing crime rates often incorporate strategies derived from Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory, such as promoting social cohesion, investing in community resources, and providing support for at-risk individuals and families.
Psychological Interventions: Psychologists and mental health professionals apply principles from these theories in therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing antisocial behaviour and promoting adaptive coping strategies. Cognitive-behavioural interventions, mindfulness-based practices, and social skills training programs often incorporate elements of self-control enhancement and social bonding to address underlying psychological factors contributing to criminal behaviour.
Educational Strategies: Educators and school administrators integrate concepts from these theories into educational strategies aimed at promoting positive behaviour and reducing delinquency among students. School-based programs focusing on character development, social-emotional learning, and positive youth development often incorporate elements of self-control training, peer mentoring, and community involvement to foster a supportive school environment conducive to prosocial behaviour.
Community Development Initiatives: Community organizations and grassroots initiatives utilize insights from Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory to develop community-based interventions aimed at addressing social disorganization, promoting social cohesion, and reducing crime within neighbourhoods. These initiatives often involve community mobilization efforts, neighbourhood watch programs, and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement and social service agencies to address underlying social factors contributing to crime.
Public Policy and Advocacy: Advocacy groups and policymakers advocate for policies and initiatives informed by Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory to address systemic issues contributing to crime and social disorder. Efforts to promote economic opportunity, access to education and healthcare, and social equity are often grounded in the principles of these theories, aiming to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and promote social justice.

In summary, the application and implications of Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory extend across various domains, including research, policy development, intervention programming, and community initiatives. By understanding the underlying mechanisms and factors influencing criminal behaviour, stakeholders can develop more effective strategies to prevent crime, promote social order, and enhance community well-being.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the comparison between Self-Control Theory and Social Control Theory provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics underlying criminal behaviour and societal responses to it. While both theories offer explanations for why individuals conform to social norms and laws, they differ in their emphasis on internal versus external factors influencing behaviour. Self-control theory highlights the role of individual traits such as impulsivity, risk-taking, and low self-control in predisposing individuals to engage in criminal activities. This theory suggests that individuals with weaker self-control are more susceptible to temptation and less capable of inhibiting impulsive behaviours, leading to an increased likelihood of criminal involvement. On the other hand, Social Control Theory focuses on the influence of external social bonds, such as attachment to family, commitment to conventional activities, involvement in social networks, and adherence to societal norms, in deterring individuals from engaging in delinquent behaviour. This theory posits that strong social bond act as protective factors against criminality by providing individuals with a stake in conformity and a sense of belonging to prosocial institutions. Despite their differences, both theories have important implications for understanding and addressing crime. Self-control theory underscores the importance of early intervention and targeted interventions aimed at enhancing self-control skills and reducing risk factors associated with criminal behaviour. Social Control Theory highlights the significance of social support, community cohesion, and investment in positive social institutions as protective factors against crime. By integrating insights from both theories, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can develop comprehensive approaches to crime prevention and intervention that address both individual vulnerabilities and societal influences. Ultimately, a holistic understanding of criminal behaviour requires consideration of both internal and external factors, highlighting the interconnectedness of individual psychology and social context in shaping human behaviour and societal outcomes.

REFERENCES

Britt, C.L. (2015) ‘Control theories and crime’, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 834–839. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.45047-6. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780080970868450476
Bernard, T.J. (2024) Travis Hirschi, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Travis-Hirschi#ref940767 (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Deepshikha (2021) Social Control theory vs self-control theory, Legal Bites. Available at: https://www.legalbites.in/social-control-theory-vs-self-control-theory/#:~:text=Whilst%20social%20control%20theory%20was,inability%20of%20an%20individual%20or (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Gottfredson, M. (2017) Self-control theory and crime, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/criminology/criminology/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-252 (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Kempf-Leonard, K. and Morris, N.A. (2012) ‘Social Control theory’, Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0091.
Mcleod, S. (2023) Self-control theory of crime, Simply Psychology. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-control-theory-of-crime.html (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Self-control theory of crime – criminology theories – researched (2023) Criminal Justice. Available at: https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology-theories/self-control-theory/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Social Control Theory – criminology theories – researched (2023) Criminal Justice. Available at: https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology-theories/social-control-theory/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
Sun, F. (2023) Social Control Theory of crime, Simply Psychology. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-control-theory.html (Accessed: 29 January 2024).
‘Chapter 3’ (no date) in The Classical School of Criminological Thought. Sage Publications. Available at: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/87094_Chapter_3_The_Classical_School_of_Criminological_Thought.pdf (Accessed: 2024).
‘Chapter 4’ (no date) in The Classical School of Criminological Thought. Sage Publications. Available at: https://in.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/76592_book_item_76592.pdf (Accessed: 2023).

[1] Self-control theory of crime – criminology theories – iresearchnet (2023) Criminal Justice. Available at: https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology-theories/self-control-theory/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).

[2] Social Control Theory – criminology theories – iresearchnet (2023) Criminal Justice. Available at: https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology-theories/social-control-theory/ (Accessed: 29 January 2024).

[3] ‘Chapter 3’ (no date) in The Classical School of Criminological Thought. Sage Publications. Available at: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/87094_Chapter_3_The_Classical_School_of_Criminological_Thought.pdf (Accessed: 2024).

[4] ‘Chapter 4’ (no date) in The Classical School of Criminological Thought. Sage Publications. Available at: https://in.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/76592_book_item_76592.pdf (Accessed: 2023).

[5] Bernard, T.J. (2024) Travis Hirschi, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Travis-Hirschi#ref940767 (Accessed: 29 January 2024).

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.