SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für control

control

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

Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite)

Shaming describes any form of reaction to deviant behaviour that causes shame in the deviant. Braithwaite assumes two different forms of shaming. Disintegrative shaming has a stigmatizing effect and excludes a person from the community. It thus provides for the emergence of secondary deviance and is thus related to the labelling approaches on a theoretical level. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, involves not only disapproval of deviance but also signs of forgiveness and a willingness to reintegrate the offender into the community.

Main Proponent

John Braithwaite

Theory

Based on the labeling approach, control theories and theories of social disorganization, Braithwaite distinguishing between two forms of shaming to explain the different ways in which penalties work. Braithwaite understands shaming as “all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming” (Braithwaite, 1989: 100).

According to Braithwaite there are two forms of shaming:

The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. These gestures of reacceptance will vary from a simple smile expressing forgiveness and love to quite formal cere-monies to decertify the offender as deviant. Disintegrative shaming (stigmatization), in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)

Disintegrative Shaming

Disintegratives Shaming: the British priest Titus Oates at the pillory

In disintegrative shaming, the focus is not only on the actual act committed, but on the person as a whole. The shamed person is degraded in his/her entire person. The stigmatisation that goes along with this has an effect on the social interactions of the ashamed person. For example, access to the labour market is denied and other measures are taken that contribute to social marginalisation. As a consequence, the ashamed person is now denied the opportunity to participate in mainstream culture. This ultimately leads to the formation of subcultural structures in which those so excluded join together.

Integrative Shaming

The negative consequences of punishment, however, are not inevitable. In reintegrative shaming, the act of shame is combined with an offer of reintegration into the community. Braithwaite assumes that this reintegrating shame is particularly promising when people from the perpetrator’s social environment are involved.

It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.

(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)

How and why does shaming work?

Braithwaite (1989: 81 ff.) lists the following points that explain the effectiveness of shaming:

  1. Deterrence works more for fear of shame than for fear of punishment.
  2. Shame also functions as an instrument of negative general prevention, since other members of society who experience the shame of a perpetrator would be deterred by this experience from committing crimes themselves.
  3. Both the special and general preventive effect of shame has the strongest effect on socially integrated members of society.
  4. A stigmatising form of punishment, on the other hand, weakens social control and strengthens the cohesion of stigmatised offenders.
  5. Shame is a social process that illustrates the harmfulness of certain actions. The effect of shame is more effective than that of deterrent punishment.
  6. Reintegrative shaming has a greater positive effect than stigmatizing shaming. The repentance of the perpetrator and the forgiveness of the community would strengthen criminal law through the symbolic power of community-wide consciousness building.
  7. Shame is a participatory form of social control in which citizens – in contrast to formal sanctioning – are participating in the events and become both instruments and goals of social control.
  8. The cultural process of the formation of shame and repentance leads to pangs of conscience. This guilty conscience is the most effective punishment for committing crimes.
  9. Feelings of shame have a double function: they are both the social process that strengthens the conscience and the most important support that must be used if the conscience does not contribute to conformity. The fear of formal sanctioning is also an inhibition threshold, but not so effective.
  10. Gossip about perpetrators and their crimes has an important function. Gossip promotes the development of a conscience and morality even outside the social circles in which the perpetrators operate.
  11. Another important function is public shaming, which replaces private shaming when children and adolescents escape the sphere of influence of family and school. It would therefore be up to the courts to provide for public humiliation of the perpetrators of crimes committed primarily by adults (e.g. environmental crimes).
  12. Public shaming generalises familiar principles into unknown or new contexts and integrates new categories of misconduct into existing moral concepts. Public shaming could, for example, “transform” the loss of a human life into a war crime or massacre.
  13. Cultures with a strong emphasis on reintegrative shaming create a smoother transition between socialisation practices in the family and socialisation in wider society. Within the family, social control shifts from external to internal control as the child grows older. In punishment-oriented cultures, this process is reversed. However, internal control is the more effective form of crime control – which is why families are the more effective control agents than police forces.
  14. Shaming that is excessively confrontational complicates the social reintegration of the ashamed. Even without becoming targets of direct humiliation, members of society may be aware when they become the subject of gossip. Here, special gestures of acceptance are needed to promote reintegration.
  15. The effectiveness of feelings of shame is often increased by the fact that shame is directed not only against the individual perpetrator but also against his family or – in cases of white-collar crime – against the company. Within these collective relationships, the individual is exposed both to humiliation by society and to strengthening informal control by the family/company. A negative and defiant attitude of the individual towards his critics and thus a stronger identification with the deviant role would also aggravate the consequences of the shame for the family or the company, which is why this would encourage the individual in the acceptance of the shame.

In a complex diagram Braithwaite summarizes the effects of reintegrative shaming as well as stigmatization (click to enlarge). This illustrates the hybrid character of the theory that makes use of other crime theories. In the upper left corner there is a reference to control theories. To the right, the reference to theories of social disorganization is illustrated. In the lower right half of the picture, Braithwaite sketches the consequences of criminalization from the perspective of labelling approaches (also with reference to anomie and subculture theories). In contrast, in the lower left half of the diagram, Braithwaite presents the consequences (or consequences without consequences) of a re-integrating embarrassment.

Schaubild: Zusammenfassung der Theorie des reintegrative shaming (eigene Darstellung nach: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Figure: Summary of the theory of reintegrative shaming (based on: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)

Implications for Criminal Policy

Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as an answer to just deserts philosophy, i.e. a criminal policy that is primarily oriented towards the retaliatory character of punishment and negative general prevention. At the beginning of the 1970s, a change in criminal policy in the USA (but also in other countries) had to be taken into account. A rehabilitative ideal in which the reintegration of the offender into society has top priority is increasingly receding into the background. It is replaced by the just desert paradigm (“Everyone gets what he deserves”), which can be understood as a kind of retaliation. According to this doctrine, punishment should be adapted and standardized to the seriousness of the crime, measured by the damage inflicted and the seriousness of the offender’s guilt. So-called “sentencing commissions” have developed guidelines for criminal judges for many US states, whose discretion in the sentencing of criminals has been severely restricted (cf. Sebba, 2014).

Braithwaite’s Restorative Justice approach is to be understood as a clear criticism of this development and as his draft of a Restorative Justice approach.

Literature

  • Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press. [Volltext]
  • Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer Reference, S.  3481-3490.

Further Information

  • Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1), 1-15.

Video/ Podcast

A summary of the various theories on which Restorative Justice is based can be found here: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_10VE_Braithwaite2.pdf

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

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

Social bonds theory (Hirschi)

Hirschi assumes in his social bonds theory that humans have a natural tendency to delinquency. The interesting question for him is what prevents people from violating norms. According to Hirschi, conformity is generated by social control. Hirschi distinguishes four different forms of social bonds and their influence on social control: attachment, commitment, involvement and belief.

Main proponent

Travis Hirschi

Theory

Hirschi’s social bonds theory is based on the basic assumption that humans naturally tend towards delinquency. The interesting question for him is what prevents people from deviating from norms. Hirschi assumes that the stronger the degree of social control and the denser the network of social bonds are, the more likely people are to behave in accordance with standards.

Hirschi explicitly refers his theory (but not only) to adolescent delinquents and thus contradicts the assumption that delinquent adolescents exert a decisive influence on their peers of the same age (see on this: Sutherland’s theory of differential associations).

By “social bonds” Hirschi understands elements of social cohesion (bonds). These include attachment to the family, commitment to socially accepted norms and institutions, involvement in activities and belief that these things are important.

Attachment

Attachment describes the strength of the bonds and relationships that exist with an individual’s social environment. The relationship with parents is particularly important, but other institutions and actors such as school or friends also play a role. The attachment to the circle of friends can also prevent deviance, but only as long as the circle of friends does not represent deviant norms.

Commitment

Commitment describes the level of dedication invested in conventional standards and goals. Hirschi assumes that someone who has already invested resources, time and energy in achieving compliant goals has more to lose through deviant behaviour than someone who has invested little devotion in pursuing socially accepted goals. For example, a student who has invested a lot of time to achieve good grades has more to lose through expulsion than a lazy student who has less importance for grades.

Involvement

By involvement Hirschi means that someone who is intensively involved in conventional activities has less time and opportunity to engage in deviant behavior. Structured, socially accepted activities such as school, work or raising children also strengthen the self-discipline needed to resist the impulses of deviant behaviour.

Belief

Hirschi sees belief as the fourth factor in social bonding. This refers to the belief in and validity of the values and norms of the mainstream society. The more these values and norms have been internalized, the more difficult it becomes to violate them. When the meaning of norms is questioned, the intrinsic motivation to obey them also decreases.

Implication for criminal policy

see: General Theory of Crime

Critical appreciation & relevance

One can criticize Hirschi’s control theory for the fact that the motivation to behave deviantly is simply assumed. Individual reasons for deviant behavior are ignored. Hirschi’s four variables are not easily applicable to all forms of crime. White Collar Crime can be seen as an example. People who commit this form of crime are usually well integrated into society and have strong bonds, at least at the levels of involvement and commitment.

Empirically, the Social Bonds theory has been extensively studied. The results differ for the different variables:

  • Strong correlations can generally be found between attachment and commitment and compliant behaviour
  • There tends to be a connection between belief and conforming behaviour. However, deviance in this case could be better explained by learning theories: Does a person deviate because his belief in conventional values is weak, or does he deviate because he has learned new values? (see also: Subculture Theory according to Cohen)
  • The relationship between involvement and deviance is unclear and inconsistent results have been found in various studies. Involvement correlates partly positively, partly negatively with deviance.
  • Involvement with delinquent peers correlates strongly with deviance, independent of other variables. This form of social control, which is exercised by deviant groups and thus promotes deviance, is ignored by Hirschi.

Finally, Hirschi himself strongly criticized his theory and in 1990, together with his colleague Gottfredson, he refined it into the “General Theory of Crime”.

Literature

Primary literature

  • Hirschi, Travis (1969): Causes of delinquency. 3. print. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.

Secondary literature

Further Information