Abstract
PurposeWe question the commonly assumed view of a fixed causal ordering between self‐control, delinquency, and sanctions and test the hypothesis that experiencing sanctions may reduce levels of self‐control, thereby increasing the risk of future delinquent behaviour. As a subsidiary goal, we argue for a parsimonious view of self‐control that is limited to its key components, risk‐taking, and impulsivity.MethodsWe use three waves of data from the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood into Adulthood (z‐proso), an ongoing prospective longitudinal study of Swiss urban youth (N = 1,197), and include police contacts and school sanctions as predictors of delinquency. We test our hypothesis using path analysis and control for a series of potential confounders, including prior levels of self‐control and earlier delinquency.ResultsIn line with our hypothesis, the results indicate that sanctioning reduces levels of self‐control, net of prior levels of self‐control, and earlier delinquency and that self‐control mediates the relation between sanctioning and subsequent delinquency.ConclusionsWe conclude that the relation between self‐control and crime may be bi‐ rather than unidirectional with sanctions reducing levels of self‐control, which in turn contributes to criminal behaviour. Implications for theory are discussed.
Highlights
Instead of a composite construct consisting of a series of distinctive elements (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993), we argue for a restrictive view revolving around its two core components, impulsivity and risk-seeking, which best align with its definition and are the construct’s main drivers of delinquent behaviour
We argue that the main drivers of this relation are the two subelements of self-control that align with its definition, that is, impulsivity and risk-seeking, and which are reflective of a short-term mindset
Uninterrupted lines depict relations that are significant at p < .05. †p < .10; *p < .05; and **p
Summary
Self-control and the general theory of crime According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), individuals low in self-control tend to place little weight on the, generally long term, consequences of their criminal actions and to overvalue the, mostly immediate, benefits. This tendency is argued to underlie all types of crime and to be established during childhood. Monitoring and consistent disciplining are the key parental actions instilling self-control, and after the formative early childhood years, neither parenting nor other social factors have any significant influence on it. Prior to expounding on why sanctions are likely to affect levels of self-control, we first make the case for a narrow(er) view of self-control
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
