SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für aetiological

aetiological

Age Graded Theory/ Turning Points (Sampson and Laub)

[also known as: Age-Graded Life-Course Theory of Crime, Age-Graded Development Theory, Theorie der Turning Points]

Robert J. Sampson’s and John H. Laub’s Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points describe the change in the crime load of individuals as a function of biographical events. For this purpose, they use the so-called ‘Turning Points’, which can either strengthen, weaken or interrupt criminal behaviour.

Main Proponents

Robert J. Sampson und John H. Laub

Theory

With the Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points, Sampson and Laub presented in 1993 one of the most outstanding developmental and life course theories (Schneider, 2007, p. 7). The theory states that criminality in a person’s life course does not necessarily have to be constant, but that biographical turning points can be associated with a discontinuity as well as the (re)initiation of criminal behavior. Turning points are to be understood as “abrupt – radical turnarounds or changes in life history that seperate the past from the future” (Sampson & Laub, 1996, p. 351), such as marriage, parenthood, taking up permanent employment, entering military service, etc.

For their theory, the authors used data from a previous study by the married couple Sheldon and Eleonore Glueck (see: Glueck & Glueck). They compared the personal histories of five hundred juvenile male delinquents who were in a reform school with the personal histories of five hundred nondeviant juveniles in a control group as early as the 1940s to 1950s. In their longitudinal study, the couple investigated the delinquency of adolescents and young men at the ages of 14, 25, and 32.

Sampson and Laub continued the longitudinal study by re-evaluating the already collected and evaluated data using new statistical methods, collecting data from criminal files on 475 delinquents and visiting still living test persons (who are now about 70 years old) and questioning them about their delinquency after the age of 32. The study design thus offers a unique opportunity to investigate the delinquency in the life course of individuals over an almost complete life span. Based on the interviews conducted and documented behavior in the past, Sampson and Laub can assign the subjects to three different categories:

  • Persisters: Persons who continued their criminal career into adulthood
  • Desisters: People who have ended their criminal career
  • Zigzag criminal career: Persons for whom the criminal career had no continuity and was applied from time to time.

From this they conclude that deviant behavior in the life course is characterized by both continuity and change.
The reason why crime occurs is weak social relationships, which are expressed in a low level of “social capital”. The nature and strength of social bonds varies more or less over the life course, and so social capital varies as well. Particular importance is attributed here to informal ties such as friendships, neighborhoods and marriages.

The main focus of this theory of crime is on the so-called turning points that are connected with the establishment or termination of social ties. Marriage, military service, and/or employment strengthen the level of social bonds and are accompanied by a greater degree of social control. The establishment of meaningful social bonds is accompanied by a change in everyday life routines. New informal obligations and increased social control have a positive effect on the development of non-deviant behavior.

However, a biographical turning point can also mark the beginning of an increase in delinquency: the loss of an employment relationship or the termination of a partnership, etc. reduces the level of informal commitments and social control. An increase in deviant/criminal behavior can be the result.

According to this, it is the same underlying social factors and the strength of the associated bonds that – depending on their characteristics – are responsible both for a delinquent life style and for a termination of a criminal career. Or as Sampson and Laub write themselves: “explanations of desistance from crime and persistent offending are two sides of the same coin” (2005: 171).

 

 

Turning Points (Wendepunkte) markieren ein biographisches Ereignis und dessen Einfluss auf die Kriminalitätsbelastung
A “Turning Point” marks a decisive biographical change that coincides with the discontinuation or (re)beginning of a criminal career.

 

Turning Points lönnen sowohl für eine Abnahme als auch Zunahme der Kriminalitätsbelastung verantwortlich sein
Turning Points can both mark the transition from a deviant lifestyle to a norm-compliant lifestyle and also indicate a turnaround to a deviant lifestyle.

 

Schaubild zur Turning Point/ Age Graded Theory
Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 244f.; here cited according to: Siegel, 2011, p. 234. Click on the image for a larger view.

 

Criminal policy implications

Sampson and Laub stand with their theory for a rehabilitating criminal law. In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime or Moffit’s Two-Path-Theory, Sampson and Laub emphasize that delinquency in people’s lives can be characterized by continuity AND change. The transition to delinquency or the end of a delinquent lifestyle cannot be tied to specific points in time or time spans in the life course, but is possible at any time.
Thus, a life free of crime and punishment can be paved for everyone, even for serious offenders, through the right, meaningful social bonds.

Critical appreciation & relevance

Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded or Turning Points Theory is still the most influential theory in the field of Developmental Criminology. No other study offers a comparable insight into delinquency over the almost complete life span of individuals.

The focus on biographical turning points and their influence on the intensity of social control shows strong parallels to control theories, but also a close relationship to the labelling approach. For example, the authors point out that the future chances of young people are reduced by the experience of imprisonment: “the connection between official childhood misbehavior and adult outcomes may be accounted for in part by the structural disadvantages and diminished life chances accorded institutionalized and stigmatized youth. (Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 137).

The emphasis on changeable delinquent careers (Zigzag criminals) and persons who end their criminal careers at an advanced age (Desisters) contradicts other developmental theories that paint a more deterministic picture of career criminals (see, for example, Moffit’s Two-Path Theory).

Criticism of the age-graded theory is based on the lack of an explanation of why some people change their behavior as a result of the turning points, while for others biographical incisions have no influence on the development of delinquency. Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors and qualities characterize stable social bonds. Finally, the study is based on a sample of purely male subjects. Therefore, no statements can be made here about female delinquency or the influence of biographical turning points. Therefore, the theory cannot claim to be universally valid.

Factors such as a steady job or a partnership are generally regarded as important supporting factors that are taken into account, for example, when assessing the probability of recidivism of offenders. For example, an employment that implies a daily routine as well as social control plays a major role after release from prison. Furthermore, before release, increased emphasis is placed on continuous contact with family and partners, as these ideally serve as supporting factors.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making : pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1996). Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, Circa 1940-1965. American Sociological Review, 61(3), pp. 347-367.
  • Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives : delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In: Farrington, D. P. (Hrsg.) Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending. New Brunswick: Transaction, pp. 165–181.

Secondary Literature

  • Schneider, H. J. (2007). Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie. [Band 1: Grundlagen der Kriminologie]. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
  • Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The Core (4. Aufl.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Further Information

Video

Interview with John Laub and Robert Sampson — The Stockholm Prize in Criminology

John Laub, Director, Director, National Institute of Justice
Robert Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University
NIJ Conference 2011
June 20-22

 

Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub received the 2011 Stockholm Price in Criminology for their work on Age Graded Theory. In the statement of the jury it says:

Jury Motivation
The authors of the longest life-course study of criminal behavior ever conducted, Laub and Sampson discovered that even very active criminals can stop committing crimes for good after key “turning points” in their lives. In their sample of 500 male offenders born in the 1920s, these turning points included marriage, military service, employment, and other ways of cutting off their social ties to their offending peer group.
These findings have had broad influence in criminology world-wide. They have also influenced the policy debate about criminal justice and sentencing policy, especially concerning the potential for rehabilitation. Their work has influenced other scholars to search for means by which offenders can be assisted to break their links to other offenders, such as by moving to new communities.

Source: http://www.criminologyprize.com

Rational Choice Theory

Criminology’s application of the Rational Choice Theory sees crime as the result of individual rational consideration of the expected benefits and costs of criminal activity.

Main Proponents

Gary S. Becker, Derek Cornish, Ronald Clarke, u.a.

Theory

The thesis of ‘Rational Choice’ is an economic, general theory of action. In general, this economic as well as social science approach states that all action is conditioned by goals, desires and needs as well as by the human attempt to realize these goals to the greatest possible extent. Thus, the greater the personal benefit and the lower the personal cost of an action, the more likely it is to be committed.

Since Rational Choice Theory is a general theory of action, benefits and costs are not limited to financial or other economic factors, but may also imply psychological or social benefits and costs. The pros and cons of an action are calculated and a decision is made for or against the action.

In criminology, this model of ‘rational choice’, which is generally based on action theory but is also implied in the classical school, was used to explain the phenomenon of crime or deviation. Accordingly, the probability of a delinquent act increases if the benefits of such an act outweigh the costs – for example, if the loot is estimated to be greater than the danger of being caught.

According to Cornish and Clarke, a distinction must also be made between general and situational decisions on criminal behaviour. People can thus be prepared in principle to commit crimes due to a high personal benefit expectation, but are still subject to situational factors (police presence, size of the loot, location of the possible crime) prior to the concrete action, among which they must again actively decide for the actual criminal act.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Since the theory of rational choice is based on the assumption of individual benefit maximisation, the task of criminal policy is to reward conformal behaviour in such a way and at the same time punish criminal behaviour in such a way that the former becomes more rational for the individual. Society, the state and its criminal law must therefore be conceived in such a manner that it is more benefit-maximizing, i.e. more rational for the individual, to prefer conformist action to criminal action.

In concrete terms, this means, firstly, that incentives for legal behaviour must be created. Secondly, access to criminal activity must be blocked in order to limit the decision-making situation from the outset to conforming alternatives. Thirdly, the rational choice theory calls for a deterrent criminal law.

It is thus closely linked to deterrence theories and – due to its close relationship to the Routine Activity Approach – to the concept of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

In the case of a theory that deals with the rationality of human beings, the first thing that certainly catches the eye is the lack of explanatory power for emotional, affective and impulsive actions. The classical “manslaughter” can hardly be justified with “rational choice”.

However, the theory of rational choice seems to make sense above all in the field of white-collar crime, since it is able to present the cost-benefit calculations carried out in managerial and executive circles in favour of deviant actions as the origin of criminal machinations.

However, the rational choice theory in its basic conception does not manage to explain crime beyond economic motives, because there is obviously much more than money for which (delinquent) action is worthwhile.

This is what a cost-benefit analysis of crime might look like (see: Becker, 1968: 201)

The subsequent attempt to expand the concept of utility to include non-financial, social and psychological aspects seems meaningful at first glance, but ultimately ends in a theoretical conception without any explanatory content. If one assumes that things are useful for one person that may be useless or even costly for the other, the decisive question that arises in the search for causes of action is what costs and benefits are actually for whom. It now suddenly seems much more important to examine the situational, personal and socialisation conditions responsible for these inconsistent definitions of costs and benefits.  Furthermore, it seems questionable whether the explanation of social interrelations and dynamics can at all be done justice by complex mathematical formulas. An equation like the one in the adjacent graph may be mathematically correct, but it is questionable whether the diversity of social action can ever be broken down in this way.

A rational cost-benefit calculation remains meaningless as long as it is not clear what is calculated at all or as long as one assumes that each individual calculates completely different benefit and cost factors. It should also be noted that rational choice theory makes no attempt to integrate social norms into its approach. However, these may also be responsible for the far-reaching differences in individual cost and benefit calculations. In short, the extended version of the theory of rational choice does not provide an explanation of crime, but merely describes a mechanism whose elements, however, cannot be firmly determined.

Furthermore, it must be criticized that the ‘rational choice’ approach only considers the presence of a rationally motivated perpetrator. The opportunity to commit a crime, for example the necessary presence of a victim, is not mentioned in this approach. At this point, the Routine Activity Approach can be referred to.

Literature

Theory of differential opportunity (Cloward & Ohlin)

The theory of differential opportunities combines learning, subculture, anomie and social disorganization theories and expands them to include the recognition that for criminal behaviour there must also be access to illegitimate means.

Main proponent

Richard A. Cloward und Lloyd E. Ohlin

Theorie

Cloward & Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunities represents a link between learning, subculture, anomie and social desorganisation theories.

On the one hand, the approach is based on Sutherland, starting from the assumption that criminal motives, techniques and rationalizations are learned through criminal associations. On the other hand, Cloward and Ohlin share with Merton and Cohen the notion that deviant behaviour is a consequence of the stratum-specific pressure to adapt, or more precisely of blocked access to legitimate means, and that this adaptation (according to Cohen) typically takes place collectively through interaction processes in groups.

Cloward and Ohlin see the answer, which is why not all persons suffering from adaptation problems become criminals, in the fact that access to illegitimate means can also be blocked for criminal action – the opportunities differentiate. For example, drug trafficking is more difficult to access in some parts of the city than in others. A person who intends to become a drug dealer not only requires drug suppliers, but also a customer base and a street corner where he can sell his drugs. Access to these means, however, is not open to everyone. It requires relationships with experienced people who are willing to share their knowledge and professional network.

The opportunity to break into cars also depends on the social situation of the environment, the car owner and the presence of possible accomplices. Socially disorganized neighbourhoods thus, according to Shaw and McKay’s theory, offer more access to criminal behaviour than others.

However, the theory of differential opportunities can also be applied within subcultural structures. So it seems obvious that delinquent gangs can only commit crimes if they have the means to do so.

At both the macro-social and subcultural levels, after Cloward and Ohlin, it can now happen that an individual has neither legitimate nor illegitimate means at his disposal. Since in such a case neither the legitimate nor illegitimate means are available to an individual, the authors speak of double failures.

According to Cloward and Ohlin, members of subcultures in such a dilemma react with random violence and intensified territorial expansion.

Altogether it can be said that Cloward and Ohlin aim more at the crime opportunity and less at the motivation for the crime. Crime is only possible if society, certain neighbourhoods, or delinquent subcultures provide illegitimate means. A certain kinship cannot be ignored with routine activity approach where, for example, the presence of an alarm system prevents the opportunity to commit a crime.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Just like the theory itself, the political demands and conclusions are a mixture of different approaches.

According to the theory of differential opportunities, rehabilitation is achievable by learning to conform to behaviour, good social policy, moral education, the resolution of problematic neighbourhoods, but also, to a certain extent, deterrence and situational crime prevention.

Above all, Cloward and Ohlin demand more education and improvement of the economic conditions for the US underclass in order to enable cultural and financial success for all members of society. This includes the establishment of social and political structures within vulnerable or socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Cloward’s and Ohlin’s theory shares some strengths as well as some weaknesses of their related theories, which, however, are partly resolved by their combination.

What remains in any case is the criticism that not every offence needs specific opportunities or certain illegitimate means to be executed. Pure violence or kleptomaniac behaviour is obviously always and everywhere possible. The basic assumption of Cloward and Ohlin that criminal acts are in principle always reactions to status and adaptation problems is and remains debatable. Merton, Cohen and others have already been accused of this narrow view.

Nevertheless, the theory of differential opportunities succeeds in making clear the illegitimate means necessary for most crimes. This underlines situational elements in the criminological discussion on the one hand, and on the other hand plays with the idea of whether everyone would not end up acting criminally if they had the necessary access to it.

Literature

  • Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press..

Further information

Social learning theory (Akers)

The theory of social learning states that criminal behaviour is learned when the positive consequences of deviant behaviour are more powerful than the positive consequences of normative behaviour (operant conditioning).

Main proponent

Ronald L. Akers und Robert L. Burgess

Theory

Referring to Sutherland’s theory of differential associations, Aker’s theory of social learning poses the question of how criminal behaviour is learned.

The answer to this question is, on the one hand, the consideration of the Bandura principle of social learning, but above all the assumption that criminal behaviour is learned through the principle of operant conditioning.

Accordingly, the learning of criminal behaviour is dependent on whether it is differentially amplified – i.e. whether a deviant behaviour is positively stimulated or negatively stimulated – or whether it is punished or conformal behaviour is amplified more than criminal behaviour.

The decisive factors are therefore above all what reinforcing consequences are available for deviant behaviour, how effective they are, how intensively and frequently they occur, and how likely it is that they actually follow the behaviour shown.

Aker’s theory was therefore referred to in its first publication (together with Burgess) as the theory of differential amplification. The name change, however, makes it clear that Aker later considered the principle of model learning in addition to the concept of operant conditioning. Accordingly, the observation of the actions of others and their consequences can also lead to a strengthening of one’s own behaviour: The reward of an observing person for their behaviour has a strengthening effect in that the observed behaviour is now carried out by the person.

Thus, a direct social interaction process (in contrast to Sutherland’s theory) is not absolutely necessary here, since non-social situations (e.g. via the media) can also have an amplifying effect. However, Akers agrees with Sutherland in so far as criminal behaviour shown for the first time (whether it is subsequently intensified or not) mostly arises through contact with a criminal environment.

In summary, it can be said that Aker’s theory of social learning takes Sutherland’s basic idea as its starting point, expands it to include the idea of social learning, and finally explains the process of learning criminal behaviour through the principle of operant conditioning.

In this way, despite some similarities, it differs fundamentally from Sutherland’s theory of differential association: contact with criminal persons is not the cause of crime, but the reinforcement/reward of deviant behaviour.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Aker’s theory of social learning initially implies the same criminal policy implications as the theory of differential associations, but there are two crucial aspects that behavioural therapy attempts to address through concepts such as the token economy:

First, criminal actions must have such negative consequences that they outweigh the positive consequences. Conversely, conforming actions must be rewarded in such a way that their negative consequences recede into the background. Criminal policy must therefore prevent both the reinforcement of criminal behaviour and the punishment of compliant behaviour as well as support the punishment of criminal behaviour and the rewarding of compliant behaviour. A political kinship with rational choice theory cannot be overlooked here.

Secondly, the influence of the mass media on individual behaviour must be taken into account. Theories such as Akers’ thus lay the theoretical foundations for the ongoing discussions about the effects of violent ego-shooter games or violent movies.

What remains decisive, however, is the fact that according to Burgess and Akers, the mere observation of a behaviour does not lead to its imitation (as argued by Gabriel Tarde). Rather, the behaviour and its positive consequences must be observed.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Akers succeeds in theoretically integrating the processes and mechanisms of social learning that were missing in Sutherland’s concept of differential association theory, but even he cannot resolve the fundamental objections to the approach of learning theory (partially tautologous, individually different ability to learn, non-consideration of affect crimes).

Thus, the theoretical advancement through the consideration of the principles of social learning and operant conditioning is to be appreciated. However, Akers also fails in his attempt to present a pure learning theory as a general theory of crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Burgess, Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. In: Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1977). Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Belmont, CA.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern Uniniversity Press.

Further information

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Sellers, Christine (2004): Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th. ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bandura, Albert (1963). Social learning and personal development. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Bandura, Albert (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Beirne, Piers (1987). Between classicism and positivism: crime and penalty in the writing of Gabriel Tarde. In: Criminology, 25(4), 785-819.

Video

Differential association theory (Sutherland)

In his differential association theory Edwin Sutherland proposes that criminal behaviour is learned. A person will be delinquent if there are prior attitudes that favour violations of the law, as opposed to attitudes that negatively evaluate violations of the law.

Main proponent

Edwin H. Sutherland

Theory

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association assumes that criminal behavior is learned through contact with individuals who are themselves criminal.

It is therefore also called the “theory of differential contacts”. The term “association”, however, refines this idea by the realization that it is not sufficient to merely contact criminal persons, but that during these contacts the criminal definitions and attitudes must also be successfully conveyed.

The basic thesis here is that criminal behaviour is learned when more attitudes are learned that favour violations of the law than those that negatively evaluate violations of the law. Conversely, learning criminal attitudes, motives and definitions becomes all the more likely the more contact there is with people and groups who violate the law and the less contact there is with people and groups who live according to the rules.

In simple terms, one could say that contact with criminals leads to one’s own criminal behaviour by learning the corresponding behaviour in a model manner. This becomes even more likey when there is fewer contact to non-criminals.

 

Schaubild: Theorie der differentiellen Kontakte nach Sutherland

Sutherland’s theory of differential contacts (see diagram) is based on nine theses which summarize the theory of differential association:

  1. Criminal behaviour has been learned.
  2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a communication process.
  3. The learning processes take place primarily in small and intimate groups (and thus less through (mass) media, for example).
  4. The learning of criminal behaviour includes the learning of techniques to commit a crime as well as specific motives, rationalisations and attitudes that favour criminal behaviour.
  5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned by defining laws positively or negatively.
  6. A person becomes delinquent as a result of the predominance of attitudes that favour the violation over those that take a negative view of the violation.
  7. Differential contacts vary according to frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
  8. The process of learning criminal behaviour includes all the mechanisms involved in any other learning process.
  9. Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by them. Non-criminal behaviour can also infer from exactly the same values and needs (e.g. sexual urges).

Implication for criminal policy

Sutherland’s theory of differential association stands for a rehabilitative ideal. Since criminal attitudes and activities can be learnt, these can be logically deduced and re-learned, or compliant behaviour, attitudes and rationalisation can be achieved in the first place.

In the sense of the ultimately decisive imbalance in theory between associated attitudes that favour violations of the law and attitudes that evaluate violations of the law negatively, it must therefore be the goal of justice and society to surround criminals with non-criminals or to dissolve social spaces in which predominantly people with deviant motives and patterns of action live.

Furthermore, criminal law must build on the ideal of rehabilitating offenders.

Critical appreciation & relevance

In the past, Sutherland was often accused of theoretical gaps in his concept, for which other theories or theoretical extensions were developed.

Thus Sutherland himself drew attention to the different needs and preferences of learning individuals, who significantly contribute to deciding whether deviant actions and attitudes are accepted or not.

Glaser pointed out, however, that it is not the number of people with deviant attitudes that is decisive for learning crime, but rather the degree of identification with one or a few people.

Cloward & Ohlin pointed out that access to illegitimate means or exclusion from legitimate means is a decisive factor.

Akers (and also Eysenck) extended Sutherland’s theory to include a detailed analysis of the learning processes taking place (conditioning, social learning/ observing a model, etc.).
Despite this, Sutherland’s crime-related learning theory has to struggle with the accusation of partial tautology, since the existence of delinquency must already exist for it to be passed on at all.

Furthermore, the theory of differential associations does not take into account instinctive and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the fact that the cognitive abilities of different individuals can also be varying.

Sutherland’s thesis also assumes a purely behaviorist view: The human being reacts automatically and reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not sufficiently considered here, yet Sutherland’s theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-biologistic theory. According to Sutherland, the consideration of social processes in the search for the causes of crime has only really taken its course and has certainly long since become predominant in criminological research alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime can be learned has turned the previously very perpetrator-oriented perspective into a sociological and socio-psychological one.

Literature

  • Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. Auflage von 1966, mit Donald R. Cressey, Philadelphia.

Control Balance Theory (Tittle)

According to the Control Balance Theory, both the probability of deviant behavior occurring and the characteristic form of deviation are determined by the relationship between the control that a person is exposed to and the control that he exercises himself.

Main proponent

Charles R. Tittle

Theory

The Control Balance Theory has its starting point in the observation that other control theories only consider forms of control that affect an individual from the outside. Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes that every human being is not only passively exposed to control, but also actively exercises control over others. The relationship between actively exercised and self-experienced control is important here. Tittle describes this relationship as a ‘control ratio’. This “control ratio” can be either balanced or unbalanced. For Tittle, the type of imbalance affects the specific expression of the deviance it causes. It distinguishes between three states:

  1. If the experienced and the exercised control are in balance, “Control Balance” exists. In this state, deviant behavior is unlikely.
  2. If someone exercises more control than he or she experiences, there is a control surplus. In this state, individuals tend to engage in autonomous forms of crime. This refers to acts of a more indirect nature. There are few direct confrontations with the victim.
  3. If an individual experiences more control than he or she exercises, there is a control deficit. Repressive forms of deviance occur. These are characterized by direct confrontations with the victim.

Tittle assumes that every person strives for the greatest possible degree of autonomy – in other words, wishes to influence the relationship of control in his favour. An imbalance in the control ratio therefore creates a predisposition to deviant behaviour. If there is a control deficit, an attempt is made to compensate this by deviant behaviour. If, on the other hand, there is a control surplus, there is the temptation to extend it even further.

However, a predisposition to deviant behaviour alone is not sufficient for this behaviour to occur.

Two prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the predisposition to become a motivation for deviance:

  1. An individual must perceive the control deficit or control surplus and recognize that his own control ratio can be influenced by a certain deviant behavior. The deviant behaviour must therefore be regarded as suitable to reduce the deficit or to further increase the surplus.
  2. The individual must experience a negative emotion, especially humiliation. This is perceived as provocation, which in turn justifies deviance.

Deviant behaviour occurs when a motivated individual has an opportunity to act and constraints can be overcome. Such inhibitions can be moral convictions, self-control or fear of punishment.

Tittle links very specific forms of crime to different levels of control ratio, as shown in the table below.

Control-deficit
(Repression)		 Control-Balance Control-surplus
(Autonomy)
strong medium small small medium strong
Forms of deviance „submission“Sexual submission, as a form of oppression of others „defiance“Disobedience to authorities, strikes „predation“e.g. theft, assaults, rape none

conformity

 „exploitation“e.g. targeted influence on politicians, contract killings, price agreements „plunder“e.g. environmental pollution by oil companies, arbitrary taxation of dependents „decadence“torture for sexual satisfaction, sadistic humiliation of others

Tittle integrates several other theories into his Control Balance theory. In particular, he borrowed from Agnew’s General Strain-Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.

Critical appreciation & relevance

A big advantage, but at the same time a weak point of the Control Balance theory is its complexity. Unlike most other theories, it is able to explain many different forms of crime. One of the reasons for this is that it integrates other theories and thus provides a framework in which the different factors of effect can be seen in relation to each other.

One problem with Control Balance Theory is that its complexity makes it very difficult to evaluate. Tittles focus on autonomy as a driving motivation of people can also be criticized. He does not take into account that people also have other drives and needs.

Implication for criminal policy

According to Tittle, (social) control only has an inhibitory effect on deviant behaviour if it finds a healthy mediocrity. On the one hand, social structures should be strived for in which social control and self-control can be developed in the sense of Hirschi’s Bond Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. This would mean that the classical institutions (e.g. family, school) must be promoted to the extent that they can effectively exercise control over the individual. On the other hand, the theory also implies that this control must be limited. Oppression and steep hierarchies, which distribute power very unequally, should therefore be avoided.

According to the Control Balance Theory it is therefore not enough to address only certain target groups. It must be possible to shape the reality of people’s lives in such a way that as few control deficits and control surpluses as possible arise.

Literature

Primary literature

  • Charles Tittle (1995): Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press.

Secondary literature