Self-Control Theory vs. Differential Association Theory

Introduction: Defining Deviance

The term "deviance" is a difficult one to assess objectively. Its implications concern an act, pattern of behavior, or psychology that reflects a clear and significant divergence from sociological norms. However, this is a definition inherently riddled with philosophical problems. It is unclear exactly how such divergences are defined, and who is entitled to define them. Yet it is also typically evident that in cases where criminal behavior, violence, or extreme depravity has occurred, some degree of deviance may be easily identified. This denotes that while there is cause to define deviance as a way of understanding divergences that reflect a direct danger to society or civil order, it has often been done at the expense of those whose personal lifestyle decisions harmlessly diverge from societal norms, or at the expense of those who exist in subcultures where allegedly deviant behaviors have become the norm.

In a sense, both of these dimensions apply to discussions with three subjects who described pertinent "misadventures of their youth" for the benefit of this research. In the discussions that followed, the three respondents prompted consideration of the way that both developmental and social learning models may apply to the deviant behaviors sometimes inherent to youth.

Theoretical Frameworks: Two Models of Criminal Behavior

Before proceeding to an assessment of the respondents' various misadventures, it is appropriate to identify the theoretical constructs that best help evaluate their accounts. Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of self-control is invoked to represent the developmental approach, while Sutherland's Differential Association Theory is invoked to represent the social learning approach.

Sutherland's differential association theory argues that "criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication" (Mork, 2006, p. 1). This is to say that in a broader system where corruption or otherwise deviant behavior is epidemic, those involved in criminal or deviant activities have been drawn into such roles through their exposure to others of a similar orientation. This suggests both that criminal behavior is learned rather than inborn, and that those who engage in it may view such behavior as ultimately yielding desirable results. The theory proceeds from the premise that for most criminals, there is a process of decision-making that concerns either favorable or unfavorable interpretation of the law. Where one is particularly immersed in a culture in which this interpretation is predominantly negative, one will be inclined to diverge from legal parameters.

By contrast, the low self-control theory, a strand of the General Theory of Crime, relates criminal behavior to the definitive nature of crime and the individual characteristics of criminals. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the General Theory of Crime "grants the basic thrust of the classical and of the positivist traditions, where the former focuses on the criminal act, or crime, and the latter on the properties of the act, or criminal" (p. 3). This integration of characteristics produces the view that expressive impulses concerning individual traits of criminality are primary in the consent to criminal behavior. Wright (2008) relates this particularly to the condition of self-control as it develops during an individual's youth: "Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) low self-control theory . . . holds that children develop levels of self-control by about ages seven or eight, and these levels remain relatively stable the rest of their lives. Children with low levels of self-control end up being more prone to crime, and their criminal propensity continues into later life" (p. 1). In contrast to Sutherland's model, this approach allows for a total absence of rationality in explaining an individual's action choices — pointing to Gottfredson and Hirschi's sweeping argument that irrationality weighs heavily in our understanding of "crime," "criminals," and deviant behavior.

With these two frameworks established, consideration now turns to the three respondents addressed during the research process. Each was asked to describe a behavior in which he or she participated as a youth that might be viewed as deviant or divergent from social norms. Two of these behaviors proved easily explicable within the context of one of the two theoretical models described above; a third would prove less immediately apparent.

Low Self-Control Theory and Shoplifting

One respondent recalled with mild embarrassment a time when he was caught shoplifting a candy bar. He was seven years old and was in a convenience store with his mother. He asked her to buy him a Snickers bar and she refused, explaining that she did not have the money for it at that moment. When she turned her back, he grabbed the Snickers bar and stuffed it into his pocket. He looked around nervously but did not think anyone had seen him. As they approached the register, a clerk approached the boy and sternly asked whether he had anything he wanted to confess. The boy was immediately overcome with guilt and turned over the candy bar. His mother was furious, apologized to the clerk, and grounded him from playing for a week.

This experience clearly reflects Gottfredson and Hirschi's low self-control theory. The respondent was at a developmental stage at which his impulse control failed him. He did not think of the consequences; in that moment, he was driven only by the desire for the candy bar. Naturally, this proved to be a tremendous learning experience. The respondent reported during the interview that he never stole anything again, remaining highly conscious of consequences thereafter. This indicates that his developmental experiences taught him the self-control that eventually solidifies — around consideration of the consequences of one's actions — in non-criminal adults. As research on adolescent self-regulation consistently shows, the capacity for impulse control matures significantly between early childhood and adolescence, and early corrective experiences can play a meaningful role in that development.

Conclusion

The three case studies presented here illustrate the complementary strengths of Gottfredson and Hirschi's Low Self-Control Theory and Sutherland's Differential Association Theory. Impulsive, isolated acts — such as a seven-year-old taking a candy bar — are most clearly explained by developmental deficits in self-control. Socially normalized rule-breaking — such as climbing a school rooftop because peer culture demands it — is better accounted for by differential association. The third case demonstrates that these frameworks need not be mutually exclusive; a single deviant act can be shaped simultaneously by social learning and by immature impulse regulation. Together, the two models offer a richer account of youthful deviance than either can provide alone.

References

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.

Mork, B. (2006). Differential Association Theory. University of Minnesota, Duluth.

Wright, B. (2008). Gottfredson and Hirschi's Low Self-Control Theory; or why kids feed lizards to crocodiles. Everyday Sociology.