Skip to main content
Log in

Informal Controls and the Explanation of Propensity to Offend: A Test in Two Urban Samples

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Propensity to offend is an important and stable predictor of offending. A person’s propensity is often thought of as a multidimensional trait consisting of morality and low self-control. The aim of this paper is to explain individual differences in propensity to offend as one single construct and two of its dimensions, namely morality and low self-control. It is well established that low levels of morality and low self-control increase the risk of offending. However, there is less empirical research that focuses on the main predictors of morality and self-control. Therefore the main research question for this study is to explain to what extent parental attachment, parental control and the school social bond have a direct effect on one’s propensity to offend (low morality or delinquency tolerance and low self-control). The data are drawn from two different samples of young adolescents in Antwerp, Belgium (N = 2,486), and Halmstad, Sweden (N = 1,003). The results show that parental control, parental attachment and the school social bond have direct effects on individual differences in propensity to offend, regardless of individual background variables. The results are highly equivalent in both samples. The similarity of the results across two independent samples suggests that the findings are stable. Implications for further studies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. For a good overview see: Arneklev et al. 1993; Cochran et al. 1994; Evans et al. 1997; Gibbs and Giever 1995; Paternoster and Brame 1998; Pratt and Cullen 2000; Brownfield and Sorenson 1999; Gibbs et al. 2003; Grasmick et al. 1993; Piquero and Rosay 1998; Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Ribeaud and Eisner 2006; Sorenson and Brownfield 1995; Turner and Piquero 2002; Vazsonyi et al. 2001; Wood et al. 1993.

  2. Thus, we recognize that differences between groups such as age-groups, boys and girls, … exist. It is even possible to explain observed differences between such groups but therefore one should not interpret these relationships as causally dependent.

  3. These students are approximately aged 12 to 14.

  4. The independent direct effect of parental attachment is rather small (i.e. below 0.10) and not substantial, although it is statistically significant. A critical test of direct and indirect effects using structural equation modelling confirms the idea that the effect of parental attachment is by and large indirect and especially indirect through its effect on the school social bond and parental control.

  5. Differences in sample size are probably the main reason why these effects still are significant in Antwerp, while they are too low to have a substantive effect.

References

  • Agnew, R. (2003). The interactive effects of social control variables on delinquency. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Control theories of crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory, vol. 12. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akers, R. (1998). Social Structure and Social Learning. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

  • Akers, R. (1991). Self-Control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arneklev, B., Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., & Bursik, R. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, H. (1991). Explaining crime and analogous acts, or the unrestrained will grab at pleasure wherever they can. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, M. L., & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokland, A. (2005). Crime over the life span: trajectories of criminal behavior in Dutch offenders. Doctorate thesis. Leiden: NSCR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. M. (1999). SelfcControl and juvenile delinquency: theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, C., McQuillan, J., & Berdahl, T. (2005). Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: a comparison of boys′ and girls′ models. Social Science Research, 34, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, J., Wood, P., & Arneklev, B. (1994). Is the religiosity-delinquency relationship spurious? A test of arousal and social control theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 92–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., & Vila, B. (1996). Self-control and social control: an exposition of the Gottfredson-Hirschi/Sampson-Laub debate. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 5, 125–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, B., & Vowell, P. (1999). Testing control theory and differential association: a reanalysis of the Richmond youth project data. Criminology, 37, 815–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Declerck, N., & Pauwels, L. (2010). Individu, omgeving en de verklaring van jeugdcrimineel gedrag. Een toets in twee stedelijke settings. Antwerpen: Maklu.

  • Evans, T., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Dunaway, R., & Benson, M. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: a critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: an empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J., Giever, D., & Higgins, G. (2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursik, R., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, F. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (1998). The structural similarity of processes generating criminal and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 36, 633–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, L. (2007). Buurtinvloeden en jeugdcriminaliteit. Een toets van de Sociale Desorganisatietheorie. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, L., & Svensson, R. (2009). Individual differences in adolescent life style risk by gender and ethnic background: a test in two urban samples. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A., & Rosay, A. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al’.s self-control scale: a comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders′ decision making: toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, G., & Yeager, P. (1996). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: challenging the reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology, 34, 357–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. (1951). Delinquency as a failure of personal and social control. American Sociological Review, 16, 196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2006). The ‘drug-crime link’ from a self-control perspective: an empirical test in a Swiss youth sample. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 33–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., & Bartush, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, A. M., & Brownfield, D. (1995). Adolescent drug use and a general theory of crime: an analysis of a theoretical integration. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, R. (2004). Shame as a consequence of the parent-child relationship: a study of gender differences in juvenile delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 477–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, R., & Pauwels, L. (2008). Is a risky lifestyle always “risky”? The interaction between individual propensity and lifestyle risk in adolescent offending: a test in two urban samples. Crime and Delinquency. OnlineFirst, published on September 24, 2008, doi:10.1177/0011128708324290.

  • Tittle, C. (1991). A general theory of crime: a book review. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1609–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48, 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., & Piquero, A. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazsonyi, A., Pickering, L., Junger, M., & Hessing, D. (2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: a four nation comparative study of self-control and prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 91–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O. (2004). Crime as alternative: towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In J. McCord (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: institutions and intentions in the study of crime. Advances in criminological theory, Volume 13 (pp. 1–37). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O. H. (2005). The social origins of pathways in crime. Towards a developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its changes. In D. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 14 (pp. 211–246). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O. H. (2006). Individuals, settings and acts of crime. Situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In P.-O. Wikström & R. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: context, mechanisms and development (pp. 61–107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O. (2007). In search of causes and explanations of crime. In R. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (2nd ed., pp. 117–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O., & Butterworth, D. (2006). Adolescent crime: individual differences and lifestyles. Collumpton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O., & Sampson, R. (2003). Social mechanisms of community influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In B. Lahey, T. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), The causes of conduct disorder and serious juvenile delinquency (pp. 118–148). New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P.-O., & Treiber, K. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation: beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. European Journal of Criminology, 4(2), 237–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, P. B., Pfefferbaum, B., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Risk-taking and self-control: social psychological correlates of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieven Pauwels.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 5 Measures employed in the two samples

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pauwels, L., Svensson, R. Informal Controls and the Explanation of Propensity to Offend: A Test in Two Urban Samples. Eur J Crim Policy Res 16, 15–27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-009-9115-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-009-9115-x

Keywords

Navigation