Social Control Theory key figures Flashcards
Where did social control ideas originate?
Edward Ross - ‘Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order’
Idea that the more complete/perfect social order is, the more social control is created.
Reiss, 1951 - cause of deviance
‘a relative absence of internalized norms and rules ‘
Reiss, 1951 - study
Court records of 1,100 young men on probation
Found that weak ego and superego controls (low levels of self-control) led to higher breaches of probation [note emphasis on psychological controls – Freudian influence]
Juveniles in particular as having low self-control
Family as main source of social control
Reiss - main source of social control
Family
perhaps due to focus on juveniles?
Reiss, 1951 - critiques
Did not question validity of the psychological reports he used
Did not use confirmatory statements alongside reports
Toby, 1957
Stakes in conformity - those with high stakes in conformity (e.g. performing well at school) were less likely to commit crime
Emphasis on external controls - school, family, peer group
Toby, 1957 - gang socialisation
“the uncommitted adolescent is a candidate for gang socialization.”
Nye, 1958
Systemic version of control theory; operationalised (measured) control mechanisms and related these to self-reports.
Focus on family as source of control (affectionate bonds)
4 modes of social control within family - direct, internal, indirect, needs satisfation
Nye, 1958 - study
Interviewed 780 young people from Washington
Nye, 1958 - study critiques
Did not ask urban areas
Did not ask about crime specifically - data based on extrapolations which may be inaccurate
Nye, 1958 - four modes of family social control
Direct Internal (conscience/superego) Indirect (identification) Needs satisfaction 'affectionate bonds'
Reckless, 1961
Containment theory
Concerned with problems due to increased specialisation of labour (like Durkheim) - tried to find out why most people do NOT commit crime.
Internal and external protectors against crime/pulls towards crime
Self-concept as a protector
Reckless, 1961 - Causes and Inhibitors of crime
Causes: societal pressures; social pulls; internal pushes (bio-psychological instinct - inherent nature pushes towards crime)
Inhibitors:
Inner containment - positive self-concept, goal-orientation, ability to tolerate frustration, norm retention
Outer containment - supervision, discipline
Reckless, 1961 - critique
Systematisation of variables into discrete categories has been seen as vague and arbitrary
Later research has not found strong correlation between inner containment and crime
Matza and Sykes, 1964
Drift theory - deviants are not committed to any deviant lifestyle
Techniques of neutralisation - neutralise social controls which usually control criminal behaviour
What are the 5 techniques of neutralisation? (Matza and Sykes, 1964)
Denial of victim Denial of responsibility Denial of injury Appeal to higher loyalties Condemnation of condemners
What is a critique of drift (Matza and Sykes)?
Focuses on youth crime
Hirschi (1969)
Social bond theory
Adopted Toby’s stakes in conformity - stresses rationality of the decision to commit crime.
4 elements to social bond - attachment, involvement, belief, commitment
What were the 4 social bonds (Hirschi 1969)?
Attachment - ties to others
Involvement - time spent in conventional activity
Belief - strength of commitment to rules/regulations
Commitment - investment in goals and aspirations
How did Hirschi test his social bond theory (1969)?
Self-report questionnaire to 3,500 San Franscisco high school boys aged 12-17
Questions related to family, friends, school, police records, and 6 types of delinquency
Found little social class/ethnicity impact; strong family attachments caused lower deviance; low investment in education = higher deviance; attachment as most important control mechanism
What are some criticisms of Hirschi’s study (1969)?
Self-report questionnaires: unreliable?
6 types of deviancy - categorising may be arbitrary, systematisation is subjective
Low deviancy levels in his sample cohort - unrepresentative/ungeneralisable
Chicken and egg problem of low social control/deviancy origins - which causes which
Cannot explain origins of deviancy
Cannot explain why people engage in different types of deviant behaviour
Later evidence has suggested strong bonds do not necessarily insulate from crime
Gottfriedson and Hirschi (1990)
Self-Control Theory
Internalised social control as most important factor determining criminal behaviour
Propensity to crime affected by parenting, appear in early life, have a sustained impact
Bad parenting causes low self-control and short term goal-orientation, leading to crime
Crime is based on immediate gratification, selfish and pleasure=seeking behaviour, spontaneous and incompatible with lifestyles based on commitment
Low self control + criminal opportunity = crime
Tittle (1995)
Control-balance theory
Deviance is a misbalance between control recieved and control exerted
6 Forms of Deviance
Repressive deviance caused by control deficit: predation, defiance, submission
Autonomous deivance caused by control surplus: exploitation, plunder, decadence (w/c and corporate crime included here)
When control ratios reach a balanced point, deviance becomes less likely.
What are some critiques of Tittle’s theory?
Positive: differentiation of controls leads to differentiation between types of offending; notes that too much control can be an issue (leading to less repressive policy responses?)
Negative: subjective categories, hard to measure control
Gibbs (1989)
Three parties theory
Moves to a meso-level focus
Social control requires three parties - one or more individuals manipulate behaviour of another by or through a third party (an actual person, or societal constructions e.g. norms/expectations)
Presence of this third person differentiates social control from external behaviour control/interpersonal interactions/orders
Also highlights whose interest the social control is in
Critiques of general Control Theory
May lead to oppressive/repressive policy responses
Ignores power/structural issues
Ignores moral basis of crime
Ignores how crime is defined - accepts OCS definitions
Too generalised - does not explain why crime takes the form it does
Suggests that crime would remain stable throughout life; does not explain why crime peaks at youth
Is more effective in explaining why people conform than why they deviate
